Ilisari v Taroliman [1974] TTLawRp 45; 7 TTR 71 (22 July 1974)

7 TTR 71

CARMEN CHAEO ILISARI, Plaintiff

v.

GUILLERMO M. TAROLIMAN, Defendant

Civil Action No. 1061

Trial Division of the High Court

Mariana Islands District

July 22, 1974

Action to quiet title. The Trial Division of the High Court, Turner, Associate Justice, held that homestead land may be conveyed after the homestead permit has matured, even if a contract to sell has been made prior to maturation of the permit.

1. Homesteads-Restriction Against Alienation

Where, after defendant obtained homestead permit but before the permit matured, he agreed to sell the land to plaintiff, and after defendant received his deed and certificate of compliance with the homestead laws he delivered the deed to plaintiff with the statement that plaintiff keep the deed as proof that the "land is yours", and plaintiff had paid the contract price prior to delivery of the deed, there was a valid oral sale executed at the time of the delivery of the deed to plaintiff and Land Commission was obliged to issue plaintiff a certificate of title.

2. Real Property-Transfers Generally-Statute of Frauds

Trust Territory law does not require a transfer of land to be in writing, and there is no statute of frauds.

3. Real Property-Deeds-Government Deeds

A government deed is conclusive upon the courts and the government when collaterally attacked.

4. Equity-Benefits From One's Own Wrong

A party may not take advantage of his own wrong.

Assessor:	IGNACIO V. BENAVENTE, District Court Presiding Judge
Interpreter:	HEDWIG HOFSCHNEIDER
Reporter:	MARIANA SANTOS
Counsel for Plaintiff:	JOSE A. TENORIO
Counsel for Defendant:	Micronesian Legal Services, by GIDEON DOONE and SAMUEL WITHERS III

TURNER, Associate Justice

This was an action to quiet title to a house lot in Oleai Village, Saipan, described as Lot No.1, Block 14, containing 540 square meters as shown on APWO Drawing No. 11581. Plaintiff sought judgment confirming an oral sale. Defendant denied any effective agreement to sell the land, but that the agreement concerned the sale of the house on the land. The house that defendant claimed he sold to plaintiff was destroyed by typhoon Jean in 1968 and a replacement was built by the government. Defendant's defense to plaintiff's claim that there was a sale of the land was that an agreement to sell the land was unenforceable as against public policy because the agreement involved "unmatured" homestead land.

Plaintiff filed her claim in 1970 for the land with the Land Registration Team in accordance with 67 TTC 107. The registration team, without adjudicating plaintiff's claim or referring the claim to the Land Commission for possible reference to this court, all as provided in 57 TTC 108, told plaintiff to obtain a deed from defendant for the land. When the defendant refused to give a deed this action was brought on October 6, 1972.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1) Defendant obtained a homestead permit for the land in question from the Saipan Naval government on June 2, 1958. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.)

2) Plaintiff, with defendant's consent, moved into the house the same year.

3) At plaintiff's request, defendant agreed in 1958 to sell the property to plaintiff.

4) Plaintiff began making irregular payments in money, goods, and discharge of defendant's debts until 1962 when final payment was made. The agreed sale price was $250. The evidence is not clear how much was actually paid to defendant, except that defendant sent his nephew and his nephew's wife to repay plaintiff $300.00 in 1972. Plaintiff refused to accept the money. This was after plaintiff had filed claim to the land with the Land Registration team and had asked defendant for a quitclaim deed in accordance with the instructions of the registration team at a 1971 hearing on plaintiff's claim.

5) Defendant received his certificate of compliance with the homestead laws and regulations, October 20, 1961. (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

6) Deed from the government to the defendant was executed, January 15, 1962, and was recorded with the Clerk of Courts, April 9, 1962. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.)

7) Defendant delivered the deed to plaintiff as evidence of her ownership of land. Defendant had previously given plaintiff the 1958 homestead permit.

8) Defendant, since 1962 when he delivered his homestead deed to plaintiff, has not asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises, nor has he claimed the property until this suit was brought.

OPINION

It is clear there are serious questions of law which can only be answered from the determination of the facts. Although the evidence is vague and unsatisfactory in many respects, it is sufficient, nevertheless, for the court to be persuaded as to the propriety of the foregoing findings.

[1] Plaintiff claims an oral agreement to sell the property in question was executed in 1962 after delivery of the government deed to the defendant. The delivery of that deed to the plaintiff by the defendant, together with defendant's statement to plaintiff to keep the deed as proof the "land is yours" is persuasive evidence of the sale of the land by defendant to plaintiff after title had passed from the government. Plaintiff testified she received the government deed after she made her last payment to defendant. This is convincing evidence of an oral transfer of land.

[2] "The law in the Trust Territory does not require a transfer of land to be in writing and there is no statute of frauds." Lekeok v. llengelang and Tellames, Palau Civil Action No. 516, entered June 21, 1974. Rememang v. Belau, 3 T.T.R. 552, Trust Territory v. Konou, et al., Marshall Islands Civil Action No. 21-73, entered June 17, 1974, Kaminanga v. Sylvester, 5 T.T.R. 312.