In re Estate of Ogumoro

In re Estate of Ogumoro, 4 N.M.I. 124 (1994) In re the Estate of Jose Ogumoro, Deceased. Appeal No. 93-007 Civil Action No. 91-0078 June 13, 1994 Argued and Subm itted June 24, 1993 Counsel for appellants, estate co-adm inistrators Daniel R. Ogum oro and Felicidad T. Ogum oro: Jeanne H. Rayphand & Theodore R. M itchell, Saipan. Counsel for appellees Sita O. Phillip and other heirs of Nicolas L. Ogum oro: Reynaldo O. Yana, Saipan. BEFORE: DELA CRUZ, Chief Justice, and VILLAGOM EZ and ATALIG, Justices. DELA CRUZ, Chief Justice: In this appeal, the co-administrators of the estate of Jose Ogum oro (“estate” or “appellants”) contend that a title determination issued in 1952 in the nam es of “the heirs of Nicolas Ogum oro represented by Luis Ogum oro as land trustee” should be set aside. W e are asked to decide whether a certain parcel of land that was originally owned by Jose Ogum oro (“Jose”), a male of Carolinian descent, is Carolinian family land subject to Carolinian custom ary law on land succession. The trial court ruled that by virtue of the 1952 title determ ination, the heirs of Nicolas Ogum oro alone own the property. It found the title determ ination to be adequately supported by the record. The estate administrators disagree. They contend that the land is Carolinian family land and, therefore, that all of Jose’s heirs, who include Nicolas’s heirs, have an ownership interest in the property, with the oldest female heir as customary land trustee. [1] W e have jurisdiction over this appeal. 1 CM C § 3102(a). Although we find that the land is not Carolinian fam ily land, we hold that the land belongs to Jose’s estate. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order and rem and for distribution of the subject land in a manner consistent with this opinion. I Jose died sometim e before 1912. At the tim e of his death he owned land identified as Tracts 1833 and 1855 in Garapan, Saipan (“Lots 1833 and 1855" or “Garapan land”). He was survived by three sons: Nicolas, the eldest, Pedro, and Luis, the youngest. Luis, Jose’s last surviving son, died in 1965. Only he and Nicolas had surviving children. Pedro died without children. In 1952, Determination of Ownership 392 (“TD 392"), encom passing Lots 1833 and 1855, was issued by the Trust Territory Land Title Office in the nam e of “the heirs of Nicolas Ogum oro represented by Luis Ogum oro as land trustee.” In 1954, Luis, as land trustee, executed “Agreem ent to Exchange Lands No. 442,” agreeing to exchange the Garapan land for public land situated at Talofofo, Saipan (“the Talofofo land”), the land at issue here. In M ay 1985 the Northern M ariana Islands Land Com m ission (“Land Com m ission” or “Com m ission”), the Comm onwealth agency responsible for land registration, issued separate determ inations of ownership for the three parcels making up the Talofofo land.1 Titles to these parcels were issued in the name of “the heirs of Nicolas Ogum oro represented by Luis Ogum oro as land trustee.” Earlier, on or before February 5, 1985, the Land Com m ission held a form al hearing “concerning Exchange Agreem ent No. 442.” 2 See Exhibits K, L and M in Appellant’s Excerpts of Record [“ER”]. The Land Com m ission did not re-exam ine the question of ownership, as no adverse claim was made with regard to the Talofofo land. ER at 72, 77 and 82. It only exam ined whether the exchange agreement was “satisfactory for m aking a determ ination of ownership.” Id. at 71, 76 and 81. At the hearing, Daniel Ogum oro (“Daniel”) appeared and noted that the ow ners of the subject land were m istakenly identified as being the “[h]eirs of Nicolas.” Id. at 78. He inform ed the Land Com m ission that the subject land was “([p]rewar [p]roperty) owned by Jose Ogum oro, deceased” and requested am endm ents to the ownership determ inations to show that all of Jose’s heirs owned the subject land. Id. at 73. The Com m ission ignored Daniel’s request to correct TD 392. The record below shows that the Com m ission’s M ay 1985 ow nership determinations relied on TD 392, issued 32 years earlier. 3 Id., Exhibits K, L, and M . After the Land Com m ission issued its ownership determ inations, Sita Ogum oro Phillip (“Sita,” the appellee and representative of Nicolas’s heirs in this action, and his only surviving child), Daniel (co-adm inistrator of Jose’s estate and Luis’s only son) and Hainrick Ogum oro (Nicolas’s grandson) jointly wrote a letter to the Com m ission on January 29, 1986, requesting that the Com m ission determinations of ownership be am ended to state that “the [h]eirs of Jose Ogum oro, deceased” were the owners of the Talofofo property.4 ER at 94. Again, the Com m ission ignored this request. The record shows that after the Land Com m ission determ inations of ownership for the Talofofo land were issued, the parties agreed that the determ inations were in error. Specifically, Daniel and Sita wrote the previously- noted letter to the Com m ission. This letter shows that the parties in this action agreed that all of Jose’s heirs owned the Talofofo land received in exchange for Lots 1833 and 1855. There was, thus, no appeal taken from the Com m ission’s ownership determ inations. The present dispute arose when Jose’s estate was probated. The estate adm inistrators included the Talofofo land in the inventory of estate assets and in their petition for final distribution. Nicolas’s heirs objected. Contrary to their earlier position, they contended that the Talofofo land belonged exclusively to Nicolas’s heirs. They claim ed that Nicolas “inherited” the Garapan land from Jose. The trial court declined to set aside the supporting title determ inations. It ruled that the Talofofo land belonged solely to Nicolas’s heirs. The court decided that TD 392 was a final adjudication, supported by Trust Territory land records. It also stated that the appellants’ failure to bring an action to quiet title pursuant to 2 CM C § 4249 within 120 days of the issuance of the Land Com m ission determinations of ownership barred their claim under the principles of administrative res judicata. In its ruling, the court primarily relied on three docum ents allegedly supporting TD 392. The first document was Pedro’s “Statement of Death or Disappearance of Owner or Lessee,” dated January 28, 1945. ER Exhibit B. In it, Pedro stated that Nicolas died at Camp Susupe in 1944 and that Nicolas “inherited” Lots 1833 and 1855 from Jose in 1912. Pedro also listed Nicolas’s “living relatives” as “Pedro,” “Luis” and Nicolas’s three children. The court interpreted the statem ents m ade in this docum ent to be adm issions by Pedro that Nicolas owned the land individually. The second docum ent was Pedro’s “Report of Property Owner,” dated February 14, 1948. ER Exhibit C. In this docum ent, Pedro identified him self as the “present owner” of the land. The court interpreted the docum ent 1 The Talofofo land consists of Lots EA-422 (1 of 3), EA-422 (2 of 3) and EA-422 (3 of 3). 2 The record is confusing as to the date of this hearing. Three “Summary of Hearing” documents note that it took place on May 27, 1982. Appellant’s Excerpts of Record [“ER”] at 72, 77 and 82. Yet, each of the three summary of hearing documents were dated February 5, 1985, by the chairman of the land registration team. Id. at 73, 78, and 83. 3 The summary of hearing documents note that an “Application for Registration of Land Parcel” was also part of the record considered by the Land Commission. This document was not made part of the trial court’s record or the record on appeal. ER, supra note 2, Exhibits K, L and M . 4 The signature that appears on the January 29, 1986, letter is “Sita Ogumoro.” The appellee, Sita Ogumoro Phillip, does not dispute that this is her signature.  In re Estate of Ogumoro, 4 N.M.I. 124 (1994) as contradicting Pedro’s earlier statem ent and found that “the reliability of the statem ent that Pedro owned the property is thus dubious.” In re Estate of Ogumoro, Civ. No. 91-0078 (N.M .I. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 1993) (Opinion and Order at 8). The third docum ent was an undated, handwritten statem ent by Luis apparently made after Pedro’s death. In this docum ent, Luis related that the land was “own[ed] by Luis Ogum oro” and Nicolas’s children and that the “above land has been inherited from [our] Father Jose Ogum oro in 1910.” ER Exhibit D. The trial court concluded from this statem ent that “Luis not only failed to assert any claim of co-ownership that he had in the land but also admitted that the children of his brother owned the land.” Ogumoro, supra, Opinion and Order at 8. The court reasoned that because the three documents supported TD 392, it could not be set aside. Based on our analysis, however, we find the record patently inadequate to support Nicolas’s sole ownership of the land. II The estate raises three interrelated issues for our review. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in excluding the Talofofo land from the inventory of the estate’s assets on the ground that Nicolas owned the land individually.5 To reach this issue we m ust first determ ine whether the trial court erred in failing to set aside TD 392. W e will then review the court’s order regarding the 1985 Land Com m ission ownership determinations, which were based on TD 392. Since this issue involves the application of adm inistrative res judicata principles, our review is de novo. In re Estate of Kaipat, 3 N.M .I. 494, 497 (1993); Pangelinan v. Tudela, 3 N.M .I. 233, 237 (1992). III The estate contends that TD 392 and the Land Com m ission ownership determ inations based thereon should be set aside because the records supporting those adm inistrative adjudications are patently inadequate. W e agree. Generally, the doctrine of adm inistrative res judicata bars an action which has been the subject of a final adm inistrative decision. W e have recognized a narrow exception to this general rule. An adm inistrative adjudication such as a land title determ ination may be set aside only if “it was (1) void when issued, or (2) the record is patently inadequate to support the agency’s decision, or if according the ruling res judicata effect would (3) contravene an overriding public policy or (4) result in a manifest injustice.” In re Estate of Dela Cruz, 2 N.M .I. 1, 11 (1991). Here we are confronted not only with the adm inistrative res judicata effect of TD 392 but also with the adm inistrative res judicata effect of the Land Com m ission’s subsequent determinations of ownership, which were not tim ely appealed. See 2 CM C § 4249. The trial court ruled that the failure to tim ely appeal the Land Com m ission determinations of ownership rendered them final. Our adm inistrative res judicata analysis in Dela Cruz related to the finality of land title adm inistrative determinations prom ulgated pursuant to Office of the High Com m issioner, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Trust Territory Land M anagem ent Regulation No. 1 (effective June 29, 1953). Our application of the doctrine of adm inistrative res judicata to land title determinations and the exceptions listed above are applicable to this case because, as we will discuss below, the Land Comm ission ownership determ inations rested on TD 392, an erroneous title determ ination. 5 The other issues raised are (1) “whether the record pertaining to Title Determination No. 392, dated October 2, 1952, is patently inadequate to support a decision that the land was the property of Nicolas Ogumoro individually” and (2) “whether Talofofo Property Number 442 is Carolinian family land inherited from Jose Ogumoro and held by the customary trustee for the use of all of the lineal heirs of Jose Ogumoro.” Brief of Appellants at 1.  W e acknowledged in Dela Cruz the im portance of according res judicata effect to adm inistrative adjudications. Dela Cruz, 2 N.M .I. at 11 n.7. W e stated, however, that adm inistrative decisions are not judicial decisions, and that the policy of according res judicata effect to adm inistrative rulings which appear final must be tempered with “fairness and equity.” Id. “N either collateral estoppel nor res judicata is rigidly applied. Both rules are qualified or rejected when their application would contravene an overriding public policy or result in a m anifest injustice.” Id. at 12 n.7. To accord res judicata effect to the Land Com m ission’s ownership determinations would clearly result in m anifest injustice. The Com m ission based its determinations on TD 392, which was issued without basis. In addition, the conduct of Nicolas’s heirs appears to have caused Luis’s heirs to refrain from seeking judicial review of the Land Comm ission title determ inations within the requisite 120-day period. After issuance of the Com m ission ownership determ inations, Daniel and Sita wrote a letter to the Com m ission requesting that the determinations be am ended. Although the letter was written more than 120 days after the Com m ission ow nership determinations were issued, the letter shows that no dispute existed between the parties, i.e. all agreed that the Talofofo land belonged to Jose’s heirs. The parties thus sought to correct what they considered to be the Land Comm ission’s error. Their written request followed Daniel’s oral request at the hearing to am end the determinations to show that all of Jose’s heirs owned the Talofofo land. The Com m ission made specific note of this oral request in its summ ary of the hearing, yet it failed to act to correct the error. Because the Land Com mission relied on TD 392 as the basis for its determ inations of ownership, and because TD 392 was not supported in the record that was before the Trust Territory Land Title Office in 1952, we hold that the trial court erred in not setting aside TD 392. Based on the following analysis of the record, we find that the documents upon which TD 392 rests do not support the conclusion that Lots 1833 and 1855 passed, after Jose’s death, solely to his son Nicolas. The land rem ains part of the estate’s assets. W e shall, therefore, not accord res judicata effect to TD 392, nor shall we accord res judicata effect to the Land Com m ission determinations of ownership based thereon. 6 A. The Ownership Character of the Talofofo Land The estate asserts that the Talofofo land is “Carolinian fam ily land.” It argues that, upon Jose’s death: (1) Nicolas autom atically becam e the custom ary trustee of the original land in Garapan, and rem ained so until his death in 1944; (2) thereafter Pedro, the next oldest child, becam e the custom ary trustee until his death in 1948; and (3) Luis, the youngest child, then succeeded Pedro as custom ary trustee because he had becom e Jose’s sole living child. Brief of Appellants at 10-13. The appellees, on the other hand, contend that Nicolas “inherited the lots from Jose.” Appellees Brief at 2. They argue that the land is not Carolinian fam ily land. Id. at 9. However, they acknowledge that “it is not clear whether Nicolas got the lots by inter[]vivos transfer, will, or by intestate succession.” Id. at 2. Prelim inarily, then, we need to examine whether the Garapan land, which was exchanged for the Talofofo land, is Carolinian fam ily land. If it is not, we need to determ ine whether Jose transferred the Garapan to Nicolas individually. “C arolinian land tenure is matrilineal” and “descends by the minimeal lineage, i.e., mother to daughter.” In re Estate of Rangamar, 4 N.M .I. 72, 76 (1993). “Carolinian family land” means land owned by a Carolinian fam ily subject to the traditional Carolinian custom of matrilineal land ownership. Likened to a corporate group, the matrilineal lineage “own[s] and control[s]” the land. Id. In other words, Carolinian males were traditionally precluded from owning land. However, during the Germ an adm inistration of the northern M ariana Islands (1899- 1914), Carolinian men received title to and owned hom estead land, which was recorded in their individual nam es. Id. Japanese adm inistrators continued the German system of registering both individually and matrilineally-held Carolinian lands. Id. 7 6 Ownership of the Talofofo land remained the same as the ownership of Lots 1833 and 1855. See In re Estate of Dela Cruz, 2 N.M.I. at 13. 7 Although this practice of placing land title in the name of a Carolinian man is inconsistent with the Carolinian matrilineal system, it has continued to the present day and may have effected a change in the Carolinian land tenure system.  In re Estate of Ogumoro, 4 N.M.I. 124 (1994) Jose died sometim e between 1907 and 1912, during the Germ an adm inistration. The appellants do not dispute that Jose owned the Garapan land individually. Such ownership was contrary to the m atrilineal system of land ownership. The appellants argue, however, that after Jose’s death, the land somehow assumed the character of Carolinian fam ily land, i.e., matrilineally-held land. W e reject this argum ent because after Jose’s death his surviving children were all m ales, precluding any possibility of the land’s ownership being transformed in character from individual male ow nership to matrilineal ownership. M oreover, Jose him self, because of his gender, could not have owned Carolinian fam ily land, just as he could not have been part of a matrilineal group. Therefore, we conclude that, as a matter of law, the land at issue was not Carolinian family land but land owned individually by Jose. B. The Validity of TD 392 Except for TD 392, the appellees do not establish how Nicolas individually becam e sole owner of the Garapan land. There is no evidence that Jose had a will or conveyed the land to Nicolas alone. Further, the parties did not present evidence of any Carolinian custom regarding succession of individually-held lands by m ales of Carolinian descent. In short, the record does not support the determ ination that Nicolas owned the land individually. Pedro’s 1945 statem ent that his brother Nicolas “own[ed]” the land should be read in context with his other docum ented statem ents. See, e.g., ER Exhibit B. In his 1948 statem ent made after Nicolas’s death, Pedro claim ed ownership of the land in his nam e. ER Exhibit C. Later, after Pedro died, Luis claim ed the land for him self and Nicolas’s children. Luis, together with Nicolas’s children, were Jose’s only surviving heirs. Luis thus believed he was entitled, at least in part, to Jose’s estate. Luis’s undated statem ent states that both Luis and Nicolas’s children “own[ed]” the land. ER Exhibit D. Luis also stated: “The above land has been inherited from [our] Father Jose Ogum oro in 1910.” Id. This statem ent was not an adm ission by Luis that Nicolas owned the land individually, or that Luis relinquished his interest in the land. TD 392 rested prim arily on three documents: Pedro’s 1945 and 1948 statements and Luis’s undated statem ent made after Pedro’s death. The Trust Territory Land Title Office had these three statem ents before it when it issued TD 392. It nonetheless decided to issue the title determ ination in the nam e of the “heirs of Nicolas,” but with Luis as land trustee. Viewing these three docum ents together, we hold that TD 392 erroneously determined Nicolas’s heirs to be the owners of Lots 1833 and 1855. The statem ents furnished to the Trust Territory Land Title Office before issuance of TD 392 support ownership of the land by the estate. A pattern em erges from these docum ents. After the war, Pedro stated that Nicolas had inherited the land from Jose. Thereafter, Pedro, as Jose’s oldest living heir, claimed the land in his nam e. After Pedro died, Luis claim ed that the land belonged to him (Luis) and Nicolas’s children. Because we conclude that (1) the Garapan land is not Carolinian fam ily land, (2) there is no probative evidence that Nicolas inherited the land in his nam e alone, and (3) Pedro’s and Luis’s statements do not support sole ow nership by Nicolas, we hold that the record in support of TD 392 is patently inadequate to support ownership solely by Nicolas and his lineal heirs. TD 392 must be corrected; to hold otherwise would, on this record, result in manifest injustice to Luis’s heirs. The Talofofo land received in exchange for the Garapan land thus belongs to Jose’s estate, not just to the lineal descendants of Jose’s son Nicolas. IV In view of the above analysis we VACATE the trial court’s decision upholding TD 392 and the Land Com m ission determ inations of ownership for Lots EA-422 (1 of 3), EA-422 (2 of 3) and EA-422 (3 of 3). W e REM AND the m atter and direct the trial court to (1) include the Talofofo land in the inventory of assets belonging to Jose’s estate, and (2) conduct further proceedings regarding the distribution of the Talofofo land and distribute it pursuant to any mutual agreement of the parties or pursuant to any known Carolinian custom on land descent that is applicable. In the absence of any such custom , the Talofofo land shall be distributed in accordance with the com m on law relating to intestate succession.