Lekeok v Ilangelang [1974] TTLawRp 39; 7 TTR 27 (21 June 1974)

7 TTR 27

MARINO LEKEOK, Plaintiff

v.

IRORO ILANGELANG, Defendant

and

GILLIAN T. TELLAMES, Intervenor

Civil Action No. 516

Trial Division of the High Court

Palau District

June 21, 1974

Land title dispute. The Trial Division of the High Court, Hefner, Associate Justice, held that statute, not Paluan custom, governed distribution of land held in fee simple by person who died intestate.

1. Palau Land Law-Clan Ownership-Transfer

Where witness testified that that transfer of title to clan land to him sometime prior to 1934 was confirmed by 1936 trial "held during the Japanese administration, and the Japanese had conducted a survey of the land between 1938 and 1941 and registered the land in the Tochi Daicho in the name of person witness sold the land to in 1936, and the sale, according to an exhibit at current proceeding, was consented to and confirmed by the Japanese administration and the chiefs, the clan's interest in the land was cut off and the sale was valid.

2. Property-Adverse Possession

Although interest in land may be waived by not asserting one's claim to it over a long period of time, defendant could not prevail on her claim to land where she allegedly possessed it from 1948 to 1971, at which time she attempted to build a house on it and plaintiff filed a suit and intervenor intervened, and there were apparently no acts or transactions during that time which put plaintiff and intervenor on notice that they should act.

3. Decedents' Estates-Distribution

Land decedent held in fee simple at time of his death intestate passed according to statute providing for the distribution of the land in such cases, not under Paluan custom.

Assessor:	BENJAMIN N. OITERONG,
		Associate Judge, District Court
Interpreter: Reporter: Counsel for Plaintiff: Counsel for Defendant: Counsel for Intervenor:	AMADOR D. NGIRKELAU SAM K. SASLAW JOHN C. NGIRAKED JONAS OLKERIIL IN PRO SE

HEFNER, Associate Justice

This action concerns land known as Ngedemong and described in the Japanese Tochi Daicho as Lot 80, although in the pleadings and Master's Report it is referred to as Lot 79. Plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence further describe the parcel in question.