Litulumar v Teregeyo [1983] TTLawRp 11; 8 TTR 352 (31 March 1983)

8 TTR 352

FAUSTINA OSOMAI LITULUMAR, Appellant

v.

DOLORES SOMORANG TEREGEYO, Appellee

Civil Appeal No. 229

Appellate Division of the High Court

Mariana Islands District

March 31, 1983

Appeal from trial court determination of ownership in land dispute. The Appellate Division of the High Court, per curiam, held that since courts of Trust Territory are not precluded from making determinations as to the rightful recipients of Claim Commission awards, trial court erred in not considering the effect of an Amended Determination of Ownership issued by Land Title Officer, and therefore case was remanded to trial court.

1. Appeal and Error-Findings and Conclusions-Clearly Erroneous

Decision of trial court in a land ownership dispute will not be set aside on appeal unless there is clear and manifest error.

2. Administrative Law-Land Title Determination-Appeal

In light of Ngikleb v. Ngirakelbid, 8 T.T.R. 11 (App. Div. 1979), holding that courts of Trust Territory are not precluded from making determinations as to the rightful recipients of Claim Commission awards, trial court erred in not considering the effect of an Amended Determination of Ownership issued by Land Title Officer, in determining the rightful recipient of a Land Commission award.

3. Appeal and Error-Findings and Conclusions-Determination

Argument that trial court in land ownership dispute failed to make any finding as to ownership of the land was without merit, where the court in its judgment denied to plaintiff the relief sought in the prayer, which was sufficient to determine any and all issues concerning the relief sought in the complaint.

Counsel for Appellant:	MICHAEL A. WHITE, ESQ., P.O.
		Box 222 CHRB, Saipan, CM 96950
Counsel for Appellee:	ARRIOLA & CUSHNIE, P.O. Box
		949, Saipan, CM 96950

Before BURNETT, Chief Justice, NAKAMURA, Associate Justice, and GIANOTTI, Associate Justice

PER CURIAM

This appeal arose from a question of ownership of certain real property located on the island of Saipan, more particularly described as Lot 1836, I Liyan. Other portions of real property are discussed in the trial court's decision; however, of primary interest in this appeal is the parcel known as Lot 1836.