Full Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, JOSEPH M. BORJA, in his official capacity as Director of Land Management, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and GUAM WATERWORKS AUTHORITY, a Guam Public Corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. CORE TECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, YOUNEX ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. Supreme Court Case No.: CVA24-007 Superior Court Case No.: CV1198-18 OPINION Cite as: 2026 Guam 11 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and submitted on August 28, 2025 Hagåtña, Guam Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 2 of 82 Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Appearing for Defendant-Appellee Thomas P. Keeler, Esq. Core Tech International Corporation: Stephen M. Durden, Esq. Vanessa L. Williams Cruz, Esq. (argued) George R. Kolb, Esq. (argued) Darlene R. Balagot, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Williams Cruz Law 134 W. Soledad Ave. Ada’s Plaza Center Hagåtña, GU 96910 204 Hesler Pl., Ste. 203B Hagåtña, GU 96910 Appearing for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant: James Stake, Esq. Vincent Edward Leon Guerrero, Esq. Law Office of James L.G. Stake, LLC Law Office of Vincent Edward Leon Guerrero 186 Lizama St. P.O. Box 12457 Barrigada, GU 96913 Tamuning, GU 96931 Theresa G. Rojas, Esq. Guam Waterworks Authority Gloria B. Nelson Public Bldg. 688 Rte. 15 Mangilao, GU 96913 Rodney J. Jacob, Esq. (argued) Genevieve P. Rapadas, Esq. E. Christian Calvo, Esq. Calvo Jacob & Pangelinan LLP 259 Martyr St., Ste. 100 Hagåtña, GU 96910 Appearing for Amicus Curiae I Maga’hågan Guåhan: Leslie A. Travis, Esq. Jeffrey A. Moots, Esq. Office of the Governor of Guam Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor’s Complex Adelup, GU 96910 Appearing for Amicus Curiae I Mina’trentai Ocho Na Liheslaturan Guåhan: Peter C. Perez, Esq. Law Office of Peter C. Perez DNA Bldg. 238 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 802 Hagåtña, GU 96910 Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 3 of 82 Appearing for Amicus Curiae Public Utilities Commission of Guam: Frederick J. Horecky, Esq. Law Office of Frederick J. Horecky 643 Chalan San Antonio, Ste. 102b Tamuning, GU 96913 Appearing for Amicus Curiae The Center for Water Security and Cooperation: Minakshi V. Hemlani, Esq. Law Offices of Minakshi V. Hemlani 285 Farenholt Ave., Ste. C-312 Tamuning, GU 96913 Luke Wilson, Esq. The Center for Water Security and Cooperation 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 4 of 82 BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.1 TORRES, C.J.: [1] This case involves a dispute between the Government of Guam (“GovGuam”), Guam Waterworks Authority (“GWA”), and Core Tech International Corporation (“Core Tech”) over title to the land (“Plant Property”) underlying the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Plant” or “NDWWTP”). This court granted GWA’s petition for interlocutory review of the trial court’s decision denying GWA’s second motion for summary judgment and granting Core Tech’s motion for summary judgment.2 The summary judgment motions concerned GWA’s claim to quiet title against Core Tech and Core Tech’s counterclaims for inverse condemnation and declaratory relief. [2] The trial court found that the Plant Property is part of a 250-acre tract in Dededo taken by the United States from Core Tech’s predecessor in interest. Over time, the area has been identified by various names: “As Dededo” and “As Ukkudu” during the pre-war and Naval eras; “Andersen Air Force Base Communications Annex No. 1 (Wettengel Receiver)” during the height of post- war military use; and later by survey-based identifiers such as “Lot 5039 and the unsurveyed remaining portions of Estates 1540 and 2531,” “Lot AL-002,” and “Subdivision of Lot 10184.” These designations sometimes referred solely to the Plant Property and at other times encompassed adjacent parcels. For much of the 20th century, this area was part of what the Air Force called 1 The signatures in this opinion reflect the titles of the Justices at the time this matter was argued and submitted. 2 GWA’s petition for interlocutory review also sought review of the trial court’s denial of reconsideration of its summary judgment decision. Because we reverse in part and affirm in part the trial court’s summary judgment decision, we need not address reconsideration. Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 5 of 82 “Andersen Communications Annex No. 1” (also called “AJKD” or “AJKO”), which comprised over 865 acres taken from ancestral landowners. [3] The Plant was built while AJKD was owned by the United States. The trial court found that in 1997, GovGuam transferred all of its present and future interests in the Plant and Plant Property to GWA, subject to a clause requiring GWA to timely survey and map the property. In 2002, the United States returned AJKD to GovGuam, at which point the trial court concluded that title to the Plant Property vested automatically in GWA by operation of law. That same year, GovGuam quitclaimed AJKD to the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission (“GALC”) under the statutory scheme for returning land to ancestral owners. [4] In 2006, GALC quitclaimed Lot AL-002 to Core Tech’s predecessor in interest. The trial court determined this quitclaim deed did not convey title to the Plant Property but transferred any future interest in it. The trial court found that because GWA failed to complete the required survey and map of the property before 2009, title to the Plant Property automatically reverted to GovGuam. After applying the after-acquired title doctrine, the trial court concluded that title to the Plant Property passed by operation of law first from GovGuam to GALC, and then from GALC to Core Tech’s predecessor in interest. On this basis, the trial court denied GWA’s motion for summary judgment and granted Core Tech’s. [5] When we granted GWA’s petition for interlocutory appeal, we emphasized the narrow scope of review: “GWA’s petition is granted on the narrow issue it presented: ‘Did the Superior Court err in finding Core Tech holds title to the Plant property as a matter of law?’” Order at 10 (Jan. 10, 2025) (footnote omitted). We resolve this appeal on the unique facts of this case: as a matter of law, title to the Plant Property was never conveyed to Core Tech’s predecessors in interest. Several considerations support our conclusion. Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 6 of 82 [6] As an initial matter, on summary judgment, Core Tech did not dispute that the 1997 Grant Deed purported to grant a fee estate in the Plant Property to GWA. Core Tech cannot now raise for the first time on appeal the argument that the 1997 Grant Deed did not include the Plant Property because it “only transfer[ed] severed out portions from specific lots enumerated within the deed.” See Core Tech’s Br. at 15 (June 27, 2025) (emphasis omitted). Additionally, the language of the 1997 Grant Deed applicable to the Plant Property is unambiguous. The Plant Property was included in the 1997 Grant Deed, and the real estate requirement survey and map condition did not apply to it. Furthermore, the after-acquired title doctrine applies only to the 1997 Grant Deed, vesting title in GWA by operation of law as of 2002. Finally, Core Tech’s arguments about the Land Registration Act are misplaced. [7] GWA is entitled to judgment on its claim to quiet its title to the Plant Property as a matter of law. The trial court’s decision denying GWA’s motion for summary judgment on its quiet title claim is reversed. We also vacate the trial court’s decision on Core Tech’s claim for declaratory relief on GWA’s quiet title claim. However, there are issues of material fact and law that preclude summary judgment on Core Tech’s inverse condemnation claims. Thus, we affirm the decision to deny summary judgment on Core Tech’s inverse condemnation claims on alternative grounds. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background [8] This case arises out of disputes over ownership, use, and alleged takings involving real property in Dededo, identified by GALC as “Lot AL-002” and by Core Tech as “Lot 10184 and its subdivisions.” See Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 1 at 1–10 (Pet. Cancel & Amend Cert. Title (Dec. 17, 2018)); RA, tab 172 at 2 (Dec. & Order, Nov. 30, 2021). The history of Lot AL-002 is Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 7 of 82 intertwined with federal condemnation, federal-to-local land transfers, easements for public utilities, and private ownership transfers. 1. Historical federal condemnation, transfers, and easements [9] On March 30, 1950, the Naval Government of Guam condemned a large swath of land in Dededo, including the site of the present-day Plant. RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl., Apr. 2, 2021), Ex. A at 1–4 (Civ. No. 10-50, Judgment on Decl. Taking, Inst. No. 20991, Mar. 30, 1950). Jose Martinez Torres—who claimed ownership of several hundred acres condemned in Dededo, including the Plant Property—died on May 9, 1950, and his estate (“Torres Estate”) entered probate shortly thereafter. Island/Super. Ct. Case No. PR0220-50 (Pet. Probate Will at 1, June 16, 1950);3 see also Gov’t of Guam v. Gutierrez ex rel. Est. of Torres, 2015 Guam 8 ¶ 20 (discussing Torres Estate’s ownership claims). With judicial approval, the Torres Estate compromised its condemnation claims with the United States, relinquishing any interest in the condemned lands in Dededo. See generally PR0220-50 (Pets. Compromise, filed between Mar. 20, 1950, and Nov. 2, 1953). “A Judgment on Declaration of Taking covering the subject land was recorded with the government as Doc. No. 20991 on August 4, 1950.” RA, tab 172 at 4 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. A (Judgment on Decl. Taking)). [10] Under the Organic Act of 1950, Congress required that all U.S.-owned property used by the Naval Government for civil administration be transferred to GovGuam within 90 days of August 1, 1950. See 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421f(a) (1950). Any other U.S. property in Guam not reserved by the President in that timeframe was likewise placed under GovGuam’s control to be 3 “Although outside the record of this appeal, we can properly take judicial notice” of documents filed in earlier cases dealing with the land in this case. See Cho v. Alupang Beach Club, Inc., 2025 Guam 3 ¶ 4 n.1 (quoting People v. Tedtaotao, 2023 Guam 21 ¶ 2 n.1). “In our discretion, and without request, we take judicial notice of this and certain other court records under Guam Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2)–(c), as they are ‘capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” Id. We take judicial notice of documents filed in related cases “not for the truth of the matters asserted,” but to establish “the fact of their existence.” See id. Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 8 of 82 managed for the public benefit, with legislative authority vested in the Guam Legislature (“Legislature”), subject to federal law. See 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421f(b). “On October 30, 1950, President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 10178, which indicated that the Naval Government of Guam quitclaimed certain land to the United States, including the land at issue in this case.” RA, tab 172 at 4 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. A (Judgment on Decl. Taking)). Thus, any interest the Torres Estate (or any other person) had in the Dededo property was condemned in favor of the Naval Government, and the Naval Government then quitclaimed any of its interest to the United States. The United States registered title to the area it turned into the Andersen Communications Annex, including the Plant Property, and was issued Certificate of Title No. 5682. See RA, tab 283 (Borja Decl., Nov. 30, 2023), Ex. 1 (Cert. Title No. 5682). [11] In 1980, the United States granted GovGuam an easement over AJKD for the construction, operation, and maintenance of sewer and utility facilities (“1980 Easement”) and executed a General Purpose Lease for a wastewater treatment plant and sewer lines (“1980 Lease”). See RA, tab 172 at 5 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. E (Grant of Easement, Inst. No. 312261 (May 23, 1980)), Ex. F (Gen. Purpose Lease, Inst. No. 312262 (May 23, 1980))). The lease was for 25 years, ending on February 9, 2005, with an option for another 25 years. See id. (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. F (Gen. Purpose Lease)). [12] As part of this agreement, a survey was conducted to identify the real estate requirements of GWA’s predecessor agency, Public Utility Agency of Guam (“PUAG”), for the Plant. See RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. E (Grant of Easement). The survey maps indicate that the United States granted an easement for the wastewater treatment plant on “Parcel 4,” which was 594,383.8 square feet, and “Parcel 3,” which was 6,460.902 square feet. Id. This totals 600,844.702 square feet, or Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 9 of 82 approximately 13.8 acres. Id., Ex. F at 1 (Gen. Purpose Lease). The 1980 Lease and 1980 Easement were recorded with the Department of Land Management (“DLM”) on May 23, 1980. RA, tab 249 at 2 (Bordallo Decl., Feb. 14, 2023), Ex. 1–3. 2. Return of excess federal lands [13] In 1994, Congress passed the Guam Excess Lands Act, requiring certain U.S.-owned land be returned to GovGuam for “public benefit use.” Guam Excess Lands Act, Pub. L. No. 103–339, 108 Stat. 3116 (Oct. 6, 1994). To implement the Guam Excess Lands Act, the Guam Legislature enacted Public Law 22-145, transferring specific parcels to the CHamoru Land Trust Commission for administration, with priority given to original landowners and their heirs, while reserving certain land for direct public use. See Guam Pub. L. 22-145 (Dec. 29, 1994). [14] In 1997, Public Law 23-141 further refined the process, focusing on the direct return of land to individual original owners or heirs and providing for private development of returned lands, subject to conditions. See Guam P.L. 23-141 (Jan. 2, 1997). “In 1999, the Guam legislature passed the Guam Ancestral Lands Act (‘GALA’), which recognized that the powers granted to Guam’s agencies by previous legislation had proven inadequate to implement remedies for the ancestral landowners.” Crawford v. Antonio B. Won Pat Int’l Airport Auth., 917 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Guam P.L. 25-45:1 (June 9, 1999)). The Guam Ancestral Lands Act: affirms and formally recognizes the ‘Ancestral Property Right’; establishes an administrative process for the exercise of that right; and creates the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission and authorizes the [GALC] to administer the provisions of this Chapter in order that original landowners, their heirs and their descendants may expeditiously exercise all their fundamental civil rights in the property they own. The exercise of ‘ancestral property right’ claims shall be applicable to lands already declared excess by the Federal government and shall also be applicable to all future declaration of excess lands either by the United States Government or by the government of Guam. 21 GCA § 80102(c) (2005). Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 10 of 82 3. The 1997 Grant Deed [15] In 1996, the Legislature passed Public Law 23-119, which abolished PUAG and established GWA. Guam P.L. 23-119 (July 31, 1996); Legis. Amicus Br. at 7 (May 7, 2025). As part of this legislation, a new chapter was added to Title 12 of the Guam Code Annotated (“GCA”), including section 14110(a), which mandated that GWA would assume in writing from GovGuam and PUAG “all real property under the Agency’s administration.” Guam P.L. 23-119:1; 12 GCA § 14110(a) (2005). A new section 14116 was also added, which provided that “[n]otwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act, specific legislative statutory approval shall be required prior to sale, transfer or lease of any real property assets or lands of the Guam Waterworks Authority. Nothing herein shall be construed as such approval. . . .” 12 GCA § 14116 (2005). [16] On July 23, 1997, GovGuam executed a Grant Deed (“1997 Grant Deed”) conveying all of its and PUAG’s property interests in surface water and groundwater utilities to GWA, including its interests in the 1980 Easement and 1980 Lease discussed above. RA, tab 172 at 6 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. G (Grant Deed, Inst. No. 567559 (July 23, 1997))). The 1997 Grant Deed begins with a declaration of policy: “that all surface waters and ground waters are public assets and that first priority for utilization of any waters shall be for the use or resale of the Guam Waterworks Authority.” RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. G at 1 (Grant Deed). The deed also cited several other provisions of law. See id. at 1–2.4 [17] The 1997 Grant Deed then uses the following unambiguous language: [T]he Government of Guam . . . does hereby grant, transfer, assign, and convey to the Guam Waterworks Authority . . . in fee simple absolute, the real property interests for only that area required by the Grantee, the severance of which (“real 4 The 1997 Grant Deed cites: 10 GCA §§ 45102, 46101 et seq., 47102, 52101, 53012; 12 GCA § 14115; 21 GCA §§ 1202, 9202–03; and Public Laws 20-06, 22-18, 22-28, 22-47, 22-145, 23-23, 23-119, and 23-145. Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 131 (Clark Decl., Apr. 2, 2021), Ex. G at 1–2, 37 (Grant Deed, Inst. No. 567559 (July 23, 1997)). Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 11 of 82 estate requirement map(s)”) shall be pursuant to the covenants expressed herein for the lots identified below: Id. at 2 (emphases added). The deed then lists 205 “lots,” one of which—Deed Entry 195—is identified as: 195. Easement, Northern District Sewage Treatment Plant, Harmon, USAF Grant of Easement, as shown in Map/Instrument Drawing Numbers 312261 and 312262, License Number N6274280RP00019, 336 Civil Engineering Squadron, Real Property Section, AAFB Guam. Id. at 32. These Instrument Drawing Numbers correspond to the 1980 Lease and 1980 Easement recorded with DLM. See RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. E (Grant of Easement); id., Ex. F (Gen. Purpose Lease). [18] The 1997 Grant Deed then states these 205 identified lots are granted, transferred, assigned, and conveyed with all associated improvements, easements, water and sewer rights-of-way, buildings, facilities, fixtures, appurtenances, and “all the estate, rights, title, interest, property, claim and demand of” GovGuam to GWA “forever.” Id., Ex. G at 34–37 (Grant Deed). It also transferred reversionary interests, remainders, and all claims in law or equity, in perpetuity, subject to the laws of Guam. Id. at 34–37. The deed then grants a fee simple absolute in all water-related easements: Additionally, Grantor [GovGuam] does also grant, transfer, convey, and assign to Grantee [GWA], its successors, and assigns, all the estate, rights, title, interest, powers, property, claim and demand of Grantor, its successors and assigns, in the following property and interests, to hold the same in fee simple absolute forever, subject to the laws of the Territory of Guam: Easements. All known and identified public rights-of-ways and public easements of access, ingress, egress, maintenance, and repair, in and over the Territory of Guam, surface or subsurface, used or unused, together with all land connecting and running with any water or sewer systems, surface or subsurface, wherever situated. Said public rights-of-ways and public easements shall run with the land and the dominant estates thereof, and shall bind and inure to Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 12 of 82 the benefit of the Grantee, its successors, and assigns in fee simple absolute forever. Id. at 35. Directly following this language are grants of water resources and public lands in fee simple absolute, which are subject to the same grant clause quoted above: Water Resources. All . . . water or sewer resources . . . with any leases, options, improvements, buildings, facilities, easements, or rights-of-ways thereon, and any rights of reservation, intending said rights, powers and interests to be superior above all others, to bind and inure to the benefit of the Grantee [GWA], its successors, and assigns in fee simple absolute forever. . . . Public Lands. All government lands reserved for the future use of the government of Guam, wherever situated . . . to bind and inure to the benefit of the Grantee, its successors, and assigns in fee simple absolute forever. Id. at 35–36. [19] The 1997 Grant Deed also contains the following clause: All parties to [the 1997 Grant Deed] agree that the “real estate requirement survey map(s)” will be completed within five years from the date of the filing of this Grant Deed, unless an extension is granted by the Director of [DLM] and the Governor of Guam. All lots for which the “real estate requirement map(s)” has not been completed shall revert automatically to the Government of Guam. Id. at 37–38. The deed further provides that: Grantee [GWA] expressly reserves the exclusive right to determine its real estate requirements, both existing and future, subject only to the approval of [DLM] and the Governor of Guam. However, it is specifically covenanted by Grantor [GovGuam] that Grantee’s [GWA’s] determination of its real estate requirements will be respected and deferred to, and that said approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld. Id. [20] The 1997 Grant Deed incorporates by reference GWA Board of Directors Resolution No. 97-13, which explains that some properties conveyed under Public Law 23-119 included unsurveyed, undivided, and unregistered portions previously reserved for other public agencies, and that it was in the public interest for these properties to be surveyed, divided, and registered. Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 13 of 82 See id. at 37, GWA Res. No. 97-13 (July 9, 1997). The 1997 Grant Deed records GWA’s agreement, in cooperation with DLM, to bear the effort and cost of surveying and dividing such properties, with any portions reserved for other agencies to be severed and transferred to them under Guam law. See id. 4. GWA is given an extension until 2009 to complete the required surveys [21] In 2001, DLM sent the Governor of Guam a letter stating that GWA had requested an extension until 2009 of its deadline to complete surveys of parcels conveyed under the 1997 Grant Deed. See RA, tab 249 (Bordallo Decl.), Ex. 4 at 1 (Letter, Nov. 23, 2001). DLM recommended approval, and the Acting Governor granted the extension, but the approval was never recorded. See id.; RA, tab 264 at 14–15 (Dec. & Order, Aug. 14, 2023) (citing RA, tab 249 (Bordallo Decl.), Ex. 4 at 1 (Letter)). 5. The 2002 Quitclaim Deed from the United States [22] On July 26, 2002, the United States executed a Quitclaim Deed (“2002 U.S. Quitclaim Deed”) conveying 856.21 acres in Dededo, including the Plant Property, to GovGuam for public benefit use, subject to reservations for existing easements and utilities. RA, tab 172 at 6–7 (Dec. & Order). This acreage—AJKD—was conveyed subject to “ALL covenants, reservations, easements, leases, restrictions, and rights recorded or unrecorded, for . . . sewer and water [mains] and lines [and] public utilities . . . and to any facts which a physical inspection or accurate survey of the Property may disclose.” RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. H at 1 (Quitclaim Deed, Inst. No. 660299 (July 26, 2002)). 6. The 2002 GovGuam Quitclaim Deed [23] On August 29, 2002, GovGuam quitclaimed AJKD to GALC, imposing the same public benefit use restrictions and subjecting it to existing easements. See RA, tab 172 at 8 (Dec. & Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 14 of 82 Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. J (Quitclaim Deed, Inst. No. 661951 (Aug. 29, 2002))). The instrument (“2002 GovGuam Quitclaim Deed”) states that “the Government of Guam . . . for ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) plus other good and valuable consideration . . . does hereby grant, transfer, assign, and convey to the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission . . . the real property interests for the parcel identified below . . . also known as Andersen Communications Annex No. 1 (AJKD).” RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. J at 2 (Quitclaim Deed). [24] The 2002 GovGuam Quitclaim Deed provides a carveout for lands not returned if they are required for another public benefit use, such as wastewater: [I]t is the duty of the Government of Guam and the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission to return ancestral lands recovered from surplus public lands and otherwise provide just compensation to extinguish ancestral land claims where original lands have not been declared surplus if so claimed by qualified claimants. To this end, Public Law 25-45 provides for a land (claims) recovery process, land bank and establishes that first priority for utilization of ancestral lands shall be ancestral claimants except to the extent said lands are required for another public benefit use such as for water, wastewater, electricity service, or public right-of- ways. Id. at 1–2 (emphases added). The grant clause referenced above also incorporates by reference “Guam Public Laws 22-145, 23-23, 23-141, and 25-45.” Id. at 2. [25] Despite being labeled a “quitclaim deed,” the instrument also contains a clause which states: “All of the provisions, conveyances, grants, and descriptions contained in the Grant Deed are distinct and severable . . . .” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). 7. GWA purports to extend the 1980 Lease in 2004 [26] Despite the United States quitclaiming AJKD to GovGuam in 2002, two years later, GWA sought to renew the 1980 Lease with the Air Force. RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. K at 1 (Letter, Oct. 1, 2004). In apparent response to Air Force correspondence “regarding the renewal of the Real Estate Instrument Number N6274280RP00020 [the 1980 Lease] which expires February 09, Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 15 of 82 2005,” GWA’s General Manager wrote: “The Guam Waterworks Authority would like to renew the above license for an additional twenty five (25) years [sic] period from the date the license are [sic] executed.” Id. 8. Lot AL-002 is returned to the Torres Estate [27] On October 26, 2006, GALC executed a Quitclaim Deed (“2006 GALC Quitclaim Deed”) conveying three lots, including Lot AL-002 (approximately 252.23 acres), to the estate of ancestral landowner Jose Martinez Torres. See RA, tab 172 at 8 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. L (Quitclaim Deed, Inst. No. 744340 (Oct. 17, 2006))). A portion of Lot AL-002 contains the Plant. Id. 9. The Torres Estate sells Lot AL-002 [28] The Torres Estate had AL-002 appraised, and that appraisal explicitly excluded 55,820 square meters occupied by the Plant: “The subject property is identified as Lot No. AL-002 and includes the Northern Sewer Link and Wastewater Treatment Plant and a portion of the Building No. 50 site, both of which land areas were considered unusable for valuation analysis herein.” PR0220-50, Decl. re Appraisal at 4 (Aug. 6, 2007). The appraised value—excluding the Plant Property—was $12.8 million, or $13.47 per square meter. Id. at 7. The probate court approved a contract of sale for $21,435,330.00 to Kil Koo Yoon, PR0220-50, Order at 2 (Aug. 31, 2007), which amounted to $21 per square meter for all 1,020,730 square meters of AL-002. The probate court relied on the appraised value to determine the transaction was in the best interest of the Torres Estate. Id. at 1. The contract contained a stipulation that the final purchase price was “subject to verification by a final survey to be conducted by Buyer. The final determination of the square meters will be the final sale price.” PR0220-50, Return of Sale & Pet. (Contract of Sale of Realty at 1–2, June 19, 2007). Filings in the probate court reveal that “the final survey revealed a land Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 16 of 82 area of 909,963 square meters. This resulted in final purchase price of $19,109,223.” PR0220- 50, Am. Acct. at 2 (Feb. 18, 2022). [29] After the probate court approved the sale, the Torres Estate executed a warranty deed to Yoon for Lot AL-002. RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl., Mar. 31, 2021), Ex. 7 (Warranty Deed, Inst. No. 761426 (Sep. 13, 2007)). Yoon recorded a subdivision survey map in November 2008 (“Castro Map”), renaming Lot AL-002 as “Lot 10184” and its subdivisions. RA, tab 32 (GWA Pet. Quiet Title, Apr. 17, 2019), Ex. D (Subdivision Survey Map, Land Mgmt. No. 109FY2008, Inst. No. 782273 (Nov. 18, 2008)). The Castro Map noted that subdivision Lot 10184-7 corresponded to the Plant Property and was marked as “NOT RETURNED TO LANDOWNER.”5 Id. It appears that the Castro Map survey determined the final purchase price of Lot AL-002. See PR0220-50, Am. Acct. at 2. 10. The dispute with GovGuam over Lot AL-002 [30] “On July 24, 2009, Gov. Guam filed a Complaint to Quiet Title against Yoon for his adverse claims and the purported acquisition of Lot AL-002 from the Torres Estate.” RA, tab 264 at 15 (Dec. & Order). The court in that case “dismissed Gov. Guam’s claims in part because Gov. Guam admitted that Yoon was a bona fide purchaser of Lot AL-002.” Id. [31] In January 2010, Yoon conveyed Lot 10184, as subdivided by the Castro Map, to Younex Enterprises Corporation (“Younex”). RA, tab 172 at 9 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 8 (Warranty Deed, Inst. No. 801378 (Jan. 26, 2010))). The transfer was accomplished by a warranty deed that Yoon signed as grantor (in his personal capacity) and grantee (as the authorized representative of Younex). RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 8 at 13 (Warranty 5 GWA maintains that Lot 10184-7 is smaller than Parcel 4, the main easement granted by the United States to build the Plant. Younex’s certificate of title indicates Lot 10184-7 is 39,184 square meters, while the instruments recorded in 1980 indicate Parcel 4 consists of 594,383 square feet (approximately 55,220 square meters). Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 17 of 82 Deed). Lot 10184-7 includes “Sewer Treatment Plant” in its description and incorporates by reference the Castro Map. Id. at 4. Younex mortgaged the property to Military Mutual Aid Association to secure a $1 million debt. RA, tab 172 at 9 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. P (Notice Sale Under Mortg., Inst. No. 877367 (Apr. 17, 2015))). [32] Certificates of title issued by DLM in February 2010 and December 2014 reflect Younex as the fee simple owner of the subdivided lots, including Lot 10184-7, although Lot 10184-7 was noted as “Subject to Sewer Treatment Plant.” See id. at 10; RA, tab 264 at 10 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 9 (Certs. Title, Feb. 22, 2010), Ex. 10 (Certs. Title, Dec. 11, 2014)). [33] Between 2014 and 2015, the mortgage was assigned multiple times, ultimately to Core Tech. See RA, tab 264 at 10 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 11 (Mortg.’s Deed, Inst. No. 872575 (May 4, 2015)); RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. Q (Warranty Deed, Inst. No. 872575 (Dec. 11, 2014)); id., Ex. T (Assignment Mortg. & Loan Doc., Inst. No. 877277 (Apr. 16, 2015)); id., Ex. P (Notice Sale Under Mortg.)). Younex defaulted on the mortgage. Following Younex’s default, Core Tech foreclosed and acquired title via credit bid of $178,186,301 on May 4, 2015. See RA, tab 172 at 10–11 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. P (Notice Sale Under Mortg.); RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 11 (Mortgagee’s Deed)). That same day, “Core Tech filed a Mortgagee’s Deed, which stated that ‘the Mortgagee . . . hereby TRANSFERS, SELLS, and, CONVEYS to . . . [Core Tech], all right, title, and interests of . . . [Younex] (the Mortgagor), and all the right, title, and interest of any party who has or may have an interest or claim in the Property . . . which is subject to the Mortgage.” Id. at 11 (quoting RA, tab 120 (Williams Decl.), Ex. 11 (Mortgagee’s Deed)). Several months before the foreclosure and sale, Younex executed a warranty deed to HL Corporation, Inc. at Core Tech’s direction. See RA, tab Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 18 of 82 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. Q (Warranty Deed, Inst. No. 872575); id., Ex. R at 1–4 (Dep. Ho Eun, Oct. 28, 2020). This deed removed the “Sewer Treatment Plant” language from the description of Lot 10184-7 and provided that “[a]ny comments by the surveyor on ownership or transfer of the properties as may be shown on maps 782273 and 801070 should and shall be ignored.” RA, tab 131 (Clark Decl.), Ex. Q at 2 (Warranty Deed, Inst. No. 872575, Ex. A at 8 (Legal Descriptions, Dec. 11, 2014)). 11. GWA completes a retracement survey of the Plant Property and requests another extension from the Governor [34] On February 26, 2016, GWA recorded a retracement survey for Parcels 3 and 4 by Instrument No. 889242. RA, tab 264 at 16 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 244 (Jacob Decl., Feb. 13, 2023), Ex. A (Ownership & Encumbrance Rep., Aug. 31, 2018)). On June 13, 2017, GWA recorded a “land registration survey map, Instrument No. 908387,” which “indicates Lots Nos. 10193 and 10194 are formerly Parcel 3 and 4.” Id. (citing RA, tab 32 (GWA Pet. Quiet Title), Ex. E (Land Regis. Survey Map Lots 10193 and 10194, June 13, 2017)). [35] “On July 28, 2017, a time extension for the deadline to complete real estate requirement survey maps under the 1997 Grant Deed and an assignment was recorded as Instrument No. 910396.” Id. at 15 (citing RA, tab 249 (Bordallo Decl.), Ex. 4 (Letter), Ex. 5 (Time Extension, July 28, 2017), Ex. 6 (Time Extension, Jan. 8, 2020)). “The time to complete the real estate requirement survey maps was extended [by the Governor] until June 1, 2027.” Id. (citing RA, tab 249 (Bordallo Decl.), Ex. 5 at 1 (Time Extension)). 12. Encroachment dispute [36] In March 2019, after this lawsuit had been filed by GovGuam, GWA began excavating a portion of Lot 10184 and removed Core Tech’s fence between Lots 10184-6 and 10184-7. RA, tab 172 at 11 (Dec. & Order) (citing RA, tab 146 ¶ 4 (Bathan Decl., May 3, 2021)). Core Tech Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 19 of 82 alleged that it was not until after GWA moved to intervene in this case, around April 2019, that it discovered GWA’s alleged encroachment on Lot 10184-6. Id. (citing RA, tab 146 ¶ 5 (Bathan Decl.)). B. Procedural Background 1. The pleadings [37] This case began as a land registration proceeding to correct allegedly erroneous certificates of title and subsequently expanded to encompass quiet title, inverse condemnation, and declaratory relief claims. In 2018, GovGuam and Michael J. Borja, in his official capacity as Director of DLM, filed a petition in the Superior Court under 21 GCA § 29195 to “amend, cancel and rescind all existing Certificates of Title that pertain to Lot 10184, Dededo.” RA, tab 1 at 10 (Pet. Cancel & Amend Cert. Title). The petition named Core Tech and Younex as defendants. Id. at 1. The petition alleged that certificates of title had been erroneously issued to Younex which failed to show certain “interests, easements, rights of way and other restrictions.” Id. at 7. The petition alleged that the certificates failed to reflect: 1. The 1980 Lease between GovGuam and the United States for the Plant Property; 2. GovGuam’s 1980 Easement on the Plant Property; 3. The 1997 Grant Deed transferring the Plant Property to GWA; 4. The 2002 U.S. Quitclaim Deed to GovGuam; 5. The presence of the Plant; 6. The restriction on return of land in Public Law 22-145; 7. The 2002 GovGuam Quitclaim Deed to GALC, with its reservations; and 8. Several pre-existing easements and roadways. Id. at 7–8. The petition also alleged certificates of title were erroneously issued to Younex for Lots 10184-2 (Certificate of Title No. 133787) and 10184-8 (Certificate of Title No. 133790), and Gov’t of Guam v. Core Tech Int’l Corp., 2026 Guam 11, Opinion Page 20 of 82 a portion of Lot 10184-6 (Certificate of Title No. 124992), which it claimed were owned by GWA. Id. at 9. [38] Core Tech answered but initially raised no counterclaims against GovGuam. See RA, tab 8 at 1–6 (Answer Pet. Cancel & Amend Cert. Title, Jan. 23, 2019). [39] GWA successfully moved to intervene. See RA, tab 25 (Mot. Intervene & Mem. Supp., Mar. 25, 2019); RA, tab 28 (Order Grant’g Mot. Intervene, Mar. 28, 2019). GWA then filed a petition to quiet title, alleging it was the owner in fee simple absolute of Lot Nos. 10193 and 10194.6 RA, tab 32 at 1-2 (GWA Pet. Quiet Title). The petition asserted that Lots 10193 and 10194 corresponded to Parcels 3 and 4, respectively, in the easement granted from the United States. See id. at 3–4. The petition also alleged the 2002 GovGuam Quit