Ei v Inasios [1962] TTLawRp 16; 2 TTR 317 (9 April 1962)

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

TRUK DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 203

EI

Plaintiff

v.

INASIOS

Defendant

April 9, 1962

Action for determination of title to land on Dublon Island. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that although plaintiff had rights in land during German times, his actions since then were inconsistent with land ownership under Trukese custom; since he failed to claim land for so many years, he failed to sustain burden of proof that he had present interest in land.

1. Truk Land Law-Evidence of Ownership

Where complainant had rights in land during German times but his actions since then have been inconsistent with Trukese practice as to land ownership, and he has let matter rest for many years, court may find rights to land belong to another.

2. Real Property-Quiet Title-Laches

If person of full age and sound mind owns land, it is expected that he will assert claim to it in manner clear to anyone openly and peaceably using land.

3. Real Property-Quiet Title-Presumption of Ownership

Long continued peaceful possession and use of land under claim of rights is strong indication of ownership.

4. Trust Territory-Land Law-Limitations

Actions for recovery of land in Trust Territory are subject to limitation of twenty years, except that all causes of action existing on .May 28, 1951, are deemed to have accrued on that date. (T.T.C., Sees. 316, 324)

FURBER, Chief Justice

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof that he has any present interest in the land in question.

2. Neither the plaintiff nor any of his children have shown any sustained interest in this land since German times.

3. The only use which either the plaintiff or any of his children or his own lineage have made of the land since German times has been occasional picking of fruit there and one incident in Japanese times when the plaintiff picked fruit and broke down an adverse sign on the property but did not press his rights in the matter further. Since German times the land has been used by the defendant or those through whom he claims without any use by others sufficient to come to the attention of the defendant or his predecessors in interest except for the one incident in which the plaintiff tore down a sign as set forth above. The land was also replanted by the defendant following World War II, without any protest from the plaintiff until about 1959.

4. The use of the land by the defendant and his predecessors in interest has been openly adverse to the plaintiff's claims at least since early Japanese times.

5. The defendant's father's lineage, at a meeting of the lineage, at least purported to transfer the land in question in 1937 to the defendant.