In re The Estate of Manglona
Date Filed2023-12-16
Docket2023-SCC-0003-CIV
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
E-FILED
CNMI SUPREME COURT
E-filed: Dec 16 2023 12:26PM
Clerk Review: Dec 16 2023 12:27PM
Filing ID: 71640409
Case No.: 2023-SCC-0003-CIV
NoraV Borja
IN THE
Supreme Court
OF THE
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
IN RE THE ESTATE OF BERNADITA A. MANGLONA,
Deceased.
Supreme Court No. 2023-SCC-0003-CIV
SLIP OPINION
Cite as: 2023 MP 13
Decided December 16, 2023
JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE MARIA TERESA B. CENZON
JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE ELYZE M. IRIARTE
JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE BENJAMIN C. SISON, JR.
Superior Court Civil Action No. 13-0195-CV
Judge Pro Tempore David A. Wiseman
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Appellants, the Co-Trustees for the PB Manglona Family Trust
(âAppellantsâ), appeal the order of the underlying Probate Court finding that the
doctrine of res judicata precluded Appellants from raising a survivorship claim
over three parcels of real property located in Rota. Appellees, the Co-
Administrators of the Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona (âAppelleesâ), contend
that because the survivorship claim was not raised in a quiet title action between
these same parties, and which was reduced to a final judgment, the subsequent
assertion of the claim in Probate Court should be barred.
¶2 For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the Probate Courtâs Order
Granting Co-Administratorsâ Motion for Reconsideration. Further, we G RANT
Appelleesâ Request for Judicial Notice.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. General Background.
¶3 This appeal is the latest in the extensive and contentious litigation
surrounding the estate of Bernadita A. Manglona (âBernaditaâ) who died
intestate on May 30, 2009. Probate of Bernaditaâs estate did not commence until
approximately four years later in 2013, when Thomas A. Manglona and Priscilla
M. Torres were appointed co-administrators of Bernaditaâs estate.
¶4 Bernadita was married to Prudencio T. Manglona (âPTMâ), who passed
away on or about June 3, 2014.
¶5 The present dispute involves three pieces of real property located in Rota:
(1) Lot No. 3496; (2) Lot No. 551 R01; and (3) Lot No. 3144 (TD 397)
(collectively the âRota Propertiesâ), that have yet to be distributed.
¶6 The Rota Properties initially passed to PTM after Bernadita died. Prior to
PTMâs passing, he conveyed the Rota Properties, among other assets, into his
trust, the PB Manglona Family Trust (hereinafter the âPTM Trustâ).
B. Probate of the Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona (Case No. 13-0195).
¶7 Most of the assets in Bernaditaâs Estate were distributed via the probate
proceedings that commenced in 2013 (the âProbate Caseâ). These other assets
are irrelevant to the present issue before this Court.
¶8 As to the Rota Properties, the underlying Probate Court determined on
March 3, 2015, that, as to ownership, Bernaditaâs Estate retained a 50% interest
in the Rota Properties, with the other 50% retained by the PTM Trust. Appelleeâs
Appx. 058-059.
¶9 However, in the same order, the Court suggested that the Appellants file a
quiet title action to âfurther resolveâ the dispute as to whether the Rota Properties
constituted ancestral or marital property, and âto determine this issue or to settle
the dispute amongst the heirs.â Id. at 059.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
C. The 2015 Quiet Title Case (Case No. 15-0082).
¶ 10 On March 9, 2015, Appellants initiated a quiet title action relative to the
Rota Properties in the case of Co-trustees for PB Manglona Family Trust v. Co-
administrators of the Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona, Civ. No. 15-0082 (NMI
Super. Ct.) (hereinafter the âQuiet Title Caseâ). Appellants contend that they
were directed to file the quiet title action by the Probate Court.
¶ 11 In the initial nine-paragraph Complaint,1 Appellants sought to have the
Rota Properties declared to be ancestral properties, thus giving the PTM Trust
full ownership over the Rota Properties. Appellants sought no other relief.
¶ 12 Appellees then filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted
in part on a technical issue. As a result, Appellants filed an Amended Verified
Complaint to Quiet Title in which one (1) count was set forth, seeking, again, to
quiet title to the Rota Properties on the grounds that they constituted ancestral
property.
¶ 13 Appellants then filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied
by the Superior Court. A second motion for summary judgment was then filed
by Appellants, which was also denied. No arguments relative to a survivorship
interest were raised in these motions.
¶ 14 The matter proceeded to a bench trial on March 2, 2017, wherein the Court
determined that the Rota Properties were marital property and not ancestral lands
pursuant to 8 CMC § 2902.
¶ 15 Appellants appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed by the
NMI Supreme Court in Co-Trustees For PB Manglona Family Trust v. Co-
Administrators of Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona, 2018 MP 3.
¶ 16 In the record before this Court, there is no indication that Appellants ever
raised the issue, or presented an argument, that the Rota Properties should pass
through a survivorship interest in the Quiet Title Case.
D. Post-Quiet Title Case Probate of the Estate of Bernadita.
¶ 17 With the issue of the characterization of the Rota Properties now resolved
in the Quiet Title Case, the theater of the dispute returned to the probate of
Bernaditaâs estate in probate court. By December 2017, the Rota Properties were
ready for distribution.
¶ 18 Appellants objected to the distribution of 50% of the Rota Properties,
arguing, for the first time, that by virtue of being the surviving spouse of
Bernadita, PTM inherited a one-half interest in all of her properties. As a result,
they argued, the PTM Trust itself, standing in PTMâs shoes, owned 75% of the
Rota Properties with Bernaditaâs Estate owning the remaining 25%.
1
The initial Complaint filed on March 9, 2015 was PB Manglona Family Trust v. In re
the Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona, et al., Case No. 15-0043-CV.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
¶ 19 Appellants calculate the 75% interest by adding the 50% interest of PTM
to the 50% survivorship interest they claim of the 50% owned by Bernaditaâs
Estate.
¶ 20 On December 14, 2018, Appellants again objected to the distribution of
one-half of the Rota Properties, reiterating their claim to a 75% interest in the
Rota Properties based on PTMâs survivorship interest. Appellants contended that
neither the passage of time nor waiver could bar their request for a survivorship
interest. This argument was raised again in Appellantsâ December 27, 2018,
objections. In response, Appellees argued that the doctrine of res judicata barred
the survivorship claim because it was never raised in the Quiet Title Case.
¶ 21 In its August 1, 2022 Opinion, the Probate Court initially determined that
res judicata did not preclude Appellants from raising their survivorship claim.2
The Court reasoned that this was because the survivorship claim was âin essence
a probate issueâ that would ânot neatly fit into the adversarial quiet title action.â
Further, the Court reasoned that the survivorship issue âdid not form a singular
transaction,â such that Appellants were not re-litigating the same claim.
¶ 22 Appellees filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Probate
Court erred in determining that res judicata did not preclude Appellantsâ
survivorship claims. Appelleeâs Appx. At 086. Upon further consideration, the
Probate Court reversed its decision and found that the doctrine of res judicata did
in fact preclude Appellantsâ claims of a survivorship interest. It concluded that
in initially finding that the issue of survivorship was not relevant in the Quiet
Title Case, the Court erred, and that the issue should have been raised. Appelleeâs
Appx. at 096.
¶ 23 Appellants then filed the instant appeal.
II. JURISDICTION
¶ 24 This Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of the
Commonwealth Superior Court. NMI Const. art IV § 3. This Courtâs jurisdiction
is undisputed.
2
Appellant and Appellee failed to include a copy of the Opinion in any of their
submissions. Appellant failed to file an Appendix to the briefs as mandated under Rule
30 of the Supreme Court Rules. As a result, portions of the record to which the
Appellant referred were not included for the Courtâs review. Consequently, pursuant to
Rule 30(f), the Court has proceeded with the appendix filed by Appellee and takes
judicial notice of other portions of the record not submitted by Appellant. See, Judicial
Notice, supra.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 25 Res judicata is an issue of law and is reviewed de novo. Piteg v. Piteg,
2000 MP 3 ¶ I (internal citations omitted).3
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Purposes of Quiet Title Actions and Probate.
¶ 26 At the heart of this case is the issue of whether Appellants should have
raised arguments regarding their claim of a survivorship interest in the Quite Title
Case. Therefore, to begin, it is important to differentiate between quiet title
actions and probate, and to examine the purposes, functions, and limitations of
each.
¶ 27 CNMI courts have recognized a quiet title action as:
[A] proceeding to establish the plaintiffâs title to land by bringing
into court an adverse claimant and there compelling [the adverse
claimant] either to establish his [or her] claim or be forever after
estopped from asserting it.
Songao v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 4
NMI 186, 4 n. 15 (1994).4
¶ 28 Further, an action to quiet title âlies against those who, at the time it is
instituted, are the present claimants to the land under the instrument which
creates the cloud.â Fusco v. Matsumoto, 2011 MP 17¶ 21. Its purpose is to determine âthe rights and interest in land as between plaintiffs and defendants.â Holcomb v. Morris,457 So. 2d. 973, 976
(1984); see also Sommer v. Misty Valley, LLC,511 P.3d 833
, 840 (Id. 2021) (âThe cause of action for quiet title accrues where another person claims an interest in property âadverse toâ another.â). ¶ 29 By contrast, probate âidentifies heirs and distributes what interest the decedent had in the property but does not determine ownership in cases where title is contested.â Del Rosario v. Camacho,2001 MP 3
¶ 51. Additionally, while a decree of distribution is âconclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees, or devisees insofar as they claim in such capacities, the decree does not determine the validity of the deceasedâs interest in the property; it merely determines the succession or testamentary disposition of such title as the decedent may have had.âId.
¶ 30 Issues of survivorship are appropriately raised in quiet title actions. Quiet
title actions routinely resolve matters involving rights of survivorship and
3
This case has no page numbers or paragraph numbers from which to cite. ⶠIâ therefore
references the first paragraph raised in the issue section of the opinion.
4
This case does not have page or paragraph numbers. The page citation therefore refers
to the page of the PDF on cnmilaw.org.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
disputes as to ownership of real property. For example, In re Estate of Rios, 2008
MP 5 ¶ 5, was a case in which a probate matter was reopened and proceeded
concurrently with a quiet title action over ownership interests in certain real
property belonging to the estate. Other jurisdictions follow a similar practice. See
Cahill v. United States, 810 S.E.2d 480(Ga. 2018); Isom v. Bledsoe,488 So. 2d. 1356
(1986) (revâd on other grounds); Hruby v. Wayman,298 N.W. 639
(Iowa
1941); Lynch v. Frost, 727 P.2d 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
B. Res Judicata.
¶ 31 Res judicata refers to two concepts related to preclusion. Issue preclusion,
also referred to as collateral estoppel, ârefers to the effect of a judgment in
foreclosing relitigation of a matter that has been already litigated and decided.â
Del Rosario, 2001 MP 3¶ 62. Claim preclusion ârefers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing litigation of a matter that has not been litigated, because it should have been raised in an earlier suit.âId.
(citing Simmons-Harris v. Zelman,54 F. Supp. 2d 725, 730
(N.D. Ohio 1999)). The present case involves the latter concept. ¶ 32 Where a âvalid and final judgment is rendered on a claim, res judicata will bar subsequent litigation on the original claim.â In re Estate of Camacho, 4 NMI 22, 4 (1993).5 The res judicata effect of a prior judgment depends on the scope of the prior cause of action or claim.Id.
Res judicata will not only bar matters which were previously litigated, but also those matters which should have been litigated. Id.; see also Piteg,2000 MP 3
¶ 10. ¶ 33 The process of determining the claim or cause of action that may be subject to preclusion is âthus aimed at defining the matters that both might and should have been advanced in the first litigation.â Santos v. Santos, 3 NMI 39, 49 (1992). Under res judicata, âa final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.âId.
(quoting Allen v. McCurry,449 U.S. 90, 101
(1980)).
¶ 34 The Santos Court summarized the doctrine of res judicata as the following:
The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has
entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the
parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound ânot only
as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or
defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter
which might have been offered for that purpose.â Cromwell v.
County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1876). The judgment puts an end
to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into
5
This case does not have page or paragraph numbers. The page citation therefore refers
to the page of the PDF on cnmilaw.org.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever, absent
fraud or some other factor invalidating the judgment.
Santos, 3 NMI at 48-49 (quoting Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333
U.S. 591, 597(1948)). ¶ 35 Our Courts have adopted the âtransactional analysisâ approach in determining how a âclaimâ is defined in the context of res judicata. Taman v. Marianas Public Land Corp., 4 NMI 287, 4 (1995).6 Under this framework, âa plaintiffâs claim will be barred where it is included in âall rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.ââId.
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 4). A âtransactionâ connotes a ânatural grouping or common nucleus of operative facts.â Id. ¶ 36 Thus, ââ[a]ll claims arising out of one transaction or factual situation are treated as being part of a single cause of action, and they are required to be litigated together.ââ Id. (quoting Brye v. Brakebush,32 F.3d 1179, 1183
(7th Cir. 1994)). Claims arising out of the same factual situation or transaction are considered the same. Id. at 4. ¶ 37 When determining whether issues in two cases constitute the same âtransaction,â we adopt a âpragmatic approachâ by considering âwhether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation, [and] whether they form a convenient trial unit.â Etherton v. Serv. First Logistics, Inc.,807 Fed. Appx. 469
, 471 (6th Cir. 2020). ¶ 38 Res judicata âârelieve[s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.ââ Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Cabrera,1999 MP 2 ¶15
(quoting Allen v. McCurry,449 U.S. 90, 94
(1980)). âIndividuals are entitled to their day in court, but they are not entitled to have several tries in court on their claim.âId.
(citing Sablan v. Iginoef, 1 NMI 190 (1990)). ¶ 39 Res judicata âapplies with special force to quiet title actions.â Roselle v. Heirs & Devisees of Grover,789 P.2d 526, 529
(Id. Ct. App. 1990). Further:
The parties in a quiet title action rightfully expect conflicting
claims of ownership to be resolved. The very purpose of a quiet
title action is to establish the security of title. Nothing could more
profoundly disturb the security of title than for two judges, in
separate actions involving the same parties, to enter contradictory
decrees purporting to âquietâ title in the same property.
Id.
6
This case does not have page or paragraph numbers. The page citation therefore refers
to the page of the PDF on cnmilaw.org.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13¶ 40 Here, the Partiesâ dispute is over their respective ownership interests in the Rota Properties. Because this is a dispute over ownership interests, the Quiet Title Case was the appropriate forum for the Parties to bring forth their claims to the Rota Properties and to resolve the issues surrounding their ârights and interestsâ fully and finally. Indeed, the very purpose of a quiet title action is to determine a partyâs ârights and interestsâ in real property over those of an adverse party. Holcomb,457 So. 2d. at 976
. Probate, by contrast, does not determine ownership and is limited to identifying heirs and distributing property. Del Rosario,2001 MP 3
¶ 51.
¶ 41 Appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the Quiet Title Case, chose to focus
the issue in that case narrowly on whether the Rota Properties constituted
ancestral or marital land in both their initial and amended complaints. As the
plaintiffs, Appellants had every opportunity to raise any and all arguments,
claims, or causes of action relative to the Rota Properties, but did not to do so.
Appellants also filed two motions for summary judgment which similarly limited
the issues to those raised in the complaint and did not address any purported
survivorship interest.
¶ 42 Our jurisprudence has explicitly recognized the importance of finality in
actions to quiet title. As the Songao Court noted, the failure by an adverse party
to assert a claim in a quiet title action would âforeverâ estop the party from later
asserting it. Songao, 4 NMI at 4 n. 15. Inherent in this notion is the requirement
that any and all claims relative to a property be raised in a quiet title action so
that a final and binding decision can be made.
¶ 43 The issue of the survivorship interest arose from the same common
nucleus of operative facts as those alleged in the Quiet Title Case, namely the
death of Bernadita and the distribution of, and interests in, the Rota Properties.
The same material facts apply in the determination of whether the Rota Properties
constituted marital or ancestral land, as they do to the issue of the survivorship
interest. The issue of the survivorship interest was also part of the series of
transactions from which the cause of action arose. This is because the
survivorship interest was directly related to the characterization of the Rota
Properties as marital land. It necessarily follows that if the Rota Properties were
not ancestral land, a claim for a survivorship interest could apply. This possibility
was known, or should have been known, to the parties at the outset of the Quiet
Title Case.
¶ 44 The parties in the Quiet Title Case were the same as the disputing parties
in the Probate Case. The Quiet Title Case was fully litigated with opportunities
to raise multiple claims and theories, discovery was completed, and extensive
motions were filed. The matter was also litigated to a full and final judgment in
which it was found that the Rota Properties constituted marital land. The
preclusive effect of res judicata would therefore apply to all matters that were,
and should have, been brought in the Quiet Title Case.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13¶ 45 Additionally, the transactional approach encompasses not just a âtransaction,â but also âall or any partâ of the transaction or âseries of connected transactions.â Taman, 4. NMI at 4. The survivorship claim is directly connected to the issue of ownership, as well as to the characterization of the Rota Properties as marital. The facts underlying both the marital or ancestral property issue, as well as that of the survivorship claim were the same, involved the same properties, the same parties, the same interests, and can and should have been addressed together. They overall created a âconvenient trial unitâ in which all issues surrounding the Rota Properties could, and should, have been addressed at once to achieve a final resolution to all ownership issues. ¶ 46 Estate of Hanson involved facts similar to the present case.126 Cal. App. 2d 71
(1954). In Hanson, a surviving spouse originally brought his claim against his late wifeâs estate in a quiet title action to determine whether an ownership interest in certain real property vested in him. After the surviving spouseâs death, a probate matter was commenced to determine how his estate should be distributed. Among the heirs bringing a claim were heirs of the late wife, claiming that by virtue of certain portions of the estate constituting community property, they were entitled to a distribution under Californiaâs probate code.Id. at 72
. ¶ 47 The California Court of Appeals found that res judicata applied to bar the claim of the wifeâs heirs. Because the heirs of the late wife were represented in the original quiet title action by virtue of the estateâs administratrixâs participation in the quiet title action, the Court concluded that the quiet title decree âis res judicata against those were heirs of the wifeâŠthat that decree is binding against [the wifeâs] estate and heirs and constitutes as against such heirs a conclusive determination that the two pieces of property were the separate property of [the husband].âId. at 76
. ¶ 48 The Argus case cited by the underlying Court is also persuasive and illustrative of how res judicata applies in a context similar to the present case. Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth.,109 P.3d 604
(Colo. 2005). Argus involved two separate suits relating to claimed ownership interests in certain real property in Colorado. Among the issues in the first suit was whether a particular provision of a contract between the parties was enforceable regarding the land in dispute. The first Argus court found that the provision was void as violating the rule against perpetuities and was therefore unenforceable.Id.
at 606- 07. As a result, a second suit was filed in which new claims were raised seeking, among other relief, reformation of the contract, pursuant to statute, because the rule against perpetuities rendered its provisions void.Id.
¶ 49 The Colorado Supreme Court held that res judicata barred the petitionerâs claim.Id. at 606-07
. The Court reasoned that res judicata applied because the issue in the second case involved the same parcel of land, with the same agreement at issue, the same parties (through a successor-in-interest), and that the prior quiet title action resolved the matter with a final judgment.Id. at 608
.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13The very nature of a quiet title action made it âincumbent upon all parties to raise any claims, issues or defenses that may affect the courtâs adjudication of rights in the subject property as all rights are to be determined in a single action.âId.
The theory of reformation of the contract was also an âalternative theoryâ that
should have been asserted in the first action. Id. at 609. The Court summarized
its holding as follows:
Because [the parties] sought quiet title in Argus I, it was
incumbent upon each party to raise any claims, issues and
defenses it may have had that would affect the adjudication of
rights in the parcel. As such, not only could Britton have raised its
statutory reformation claim as affecting its rights in the parcel, but
Britton should have raised the claim because the claim directly
involved the adjudication of its rights in the parcel as part of the
quiet title claim.
Id.
¶ 50 The same reasoning in both Hanson and Argus applies to the present
action. Where Appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a quiet title action, it was incumbent
upon them to raise any and all claims, even as alternative theories, that would
have affected the adjudication of rights in the Rota Properties. The survivorship
claim, as a claim of ownership over the Rota Properties, was a claim that should
have been raised in the Quiet Title Case because it directly affected the ownership
rights of the parties to that action.
¶ 51 Other jurisdictions have ruled similarly on the preclusive effect a final
judgment in a quiet title action has over subsequent actions involving claims that
were, or should have been, raised in the quiet title action. See Harrison v. Loyd,
87 Ark. App. 356, 367-68(2004) (The Arkansas Appellate Court determined res judicata barred the appellantâs quiet title claim because he was a statutory heir to his father who had previously litigated the case decades earlier.); Bissell v. College Dev. Co.,87 Ark. App. 356, 367-68
(2004) (Res judicata barred the appellantâs quiet title claim because he was a statutory heir to his father who had previously litigated the case decades earlier.); Remilliard v. Authier,20 S.D. 290
(1905) (âWhenever, in an action for possession of realty, the question of title is put in issue by the pleadings, the judgment prima facie constitutes an estoppel to the assertion of any title which exists in the losing party at the time of the former suit.â). ¶ 52 The fact that the Probate Court directed the parties to litigate the dispute over their rights and interests in the Rota Properties in a separate quiet title action is also indicative that the Quiet Title Case was intended to be a full and final resolution to all issues surrounding ownership of the Rota Properties. ¶ 53 Finally, raising the issue of ownership of the Rota Properties in the Probate Case was inappropriate because probate courts â[do] not determine ownership in cases where title is contested.â Del Rosario,2001 MP 3
¶ 51. Appellants concede
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
in their briefs that their survivorship claim is a claim of ownership in the Rota
Properties. See Appellantsâ Reply Br. at 5 (âTrust, which is privy to PTM in this
matter is not barred from asserting its survivorship ownership of an additional
25% interest in the disputed properties.â) (Emphasis added).
¶ 54 Thus, by virtue of the issue of a survivorship interest being fundamentally
a question of ownership, a quiet title action was the appropriate forum to raise
such a claim so that any and all issues surrounding the ownership of the Rota
Properties could be addressed at once.
i. Ripeness of the Survivorship Claim.
¶ 55 Appellants contend that the issue of survivorship was not, and could not
have been, raised in the Quiet Title Case because it was not ripe. They argue that
the ownership issue of the Rota Properties had to be resolved first before the
survivorship claim could be raised.
¶ 56 A claim is not ripe for adjudication âif it rests upon contingent future
events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.â Marine
Revitalization Corp. v. Depât of Land & Natural Res., 2011 MP 2¶ 8. The doctrine of res judicata applies to claims that were âripe at the time of the prior judgment.â Feminist Womenâs Health Ctr. v. Codispoti,63 F.3d 863
, 866 (9th
Cir. 1995).
¶ 57 It is undisputed that the survivorship claim vested immediately upon
Bernaditaâs death. Appellantsâ Br. at 6-7; Appellantsâ Reply Br. at 3-4 (âPTMâs
survivorship rightsâŠwere perfected on the date of [Bernaditaâs] death in May of
2009â).
¶ 58 Appellants filed the Quiet Title Case to resolve the dispute over ownership
of the Rota Properties, and, specifically, whether they constituted ancestral or
marital properties. Because the survivorship interest, which is a type of
ownership interest, vested immediately upon the death of Bernadita, the issue of
the applicability of a survivorship interest was ripe for adjudication at the time
of the Quiet Title Caseâs filing. The issue had been ripe, and the purported
survivorship interest vested, from the time of Bernaditaâs death. As a result, when
the Quiet Title Case was filed to resolve the question of ownership of the Rota
Properties, it was an appropriate issue that could have, and should have, been
raised.
¶ 59 Nothing prevented Appellants from, at minimum, raising the survivorship
interest as an alternative theory of relief. Rule 8(a)(3) of the CNMI Rules of Civil
Procedure explicitly allows for alternative types of relief to be included in the
demand for relief sought. Because the survivorship interested vested immediately
upon death, an alternative theory involving Appellantsâ survivorship interest was
ripe at the time the Quiet Title Case was filed but was not raised.
¶ 60 Nor was the bringing of a survivorship claim contingent upon the finding
that the Rota Properties were marital property. Such a piecemeal approach to
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13litigation is disfavored and goes against the very purposes of the res judicata doctrine, which are to promote judicial efficiency and prevent the filing of multiple lawsuits. See Dodd v. Hood River County,136 F.3d 1219, 1225
(1998). ¶ 61 The doctrine of res judicata encompasses not just claims that were brought, but also those that âcould have been raised in that action.â Santos, 3 NMI at 48- 49. Parties and their privies are bound not just as to every matter which was âoffered and received,â but also to âany other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.âId.
Evidence that the survivorship interest
applied and had vested was readily available to Appellants and ripe at the time
of filing of the Quiet Title Case, but was never brought forth. The finality of the
judgment of the Quiet Title Case therefore should not be upset as a result.
ii. The Onus to Raise Legal Claims.
¶ 62 Appellants further argue that the survivorship interest cannot be
extinguished by court order or otherwise. They allege that the âplain meaningâ
of 8 CMC § 2913 evidences the Legislatureâs intent that as long as a surviving
spouse outlives the decedent by 120 hours, the mere failure to recognize the
survivorship interest does not somehow waive or negate this right.
¶ 63 In applying res judicata to bar the survivorship interest claim, a court
would not be âextinguishingâ any right to which a party is entitled. Rather, the
doctrine of res judicata mandates that a party raise arguments that would affect
the adjudication of its rights or be forever barred from raising them again.
Songao, 4 NMI at 4 n. 15. It is therefore incumbent upon the respective parties
to raise appropriate theories or claims at the appropriate time and venue, or risk
being precluded from raising them in the future.
¶ 64 Argus again is illustrative on this point. In Argus, the petitioner argued that
in light of the first courtâs finding that the petitionerâs interest in certain real
property was void as violative of the rule against perpetuities, § 15-11-1106(2)
of the Colorado Probate Code mandated a reformation of a contract pertaining to
real property. Argus, 109 P.3d at 609. However, the Colorado Supreme Court held that this issue could not be raised as it was barred by res judicata since it was an alternative theory that could have, and should have, been raised in the previous action.Id.
¶ 65 The Colorado Supreme Courtâs holding applied despite the existence of
statutory authority that would have led to a different result had it been raised at
the appropriate time and forum. This is no different than the present case.
Though Appellants correctly cite to authority that would likely establish a
survivorship interest that vested immediately upon Bernaditaâs death, it was
never raised until after the Quiet Title Case had already reached a final judgment.
As in Argus, the fact that statutory authority exists conferring a right to a party
does not absolve that party of the responsibility to appropriately raise their claim
or be barred from doing so by the res judicata doctrine.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13¶ 66 To find otherwise would undercut the very purpose of the res judicata doctrine and open the door to unnecessary and excessive litigation as parties raise new issues and arguments subsequent to the finality of previous judgments. ¶ 67 Further, the notion that a right applies automatically without a party having to even raise it undermines the very purpose of a quiet title action, especially when, as admitted by Appellantâs counsel during oral argument, that parties âknewâ of the survivorship issue when the Quiet Title Case was first filed. The purpose of a quiet title action is to determine âthe rights and interest in land as between plaintiffs and defendants.â Holcomb v. Morris,457 So. 2d. 973, 976
(1984); see also Sommer v. Misty Valley, LLC,511 P.3d 833
, 840 (Id. 2021)
(âThe cause of action for quiet title accrues where another person claims an
interest in property âadverse toâ another.â).
¶ 68 If a party was not required to claim an interest in property due to it simply
being automatic by virtue of a statute or some other law, the rights and interests
in that land could not be fully and finally resolved. As the Songao court noted,
in a quiet title action, the adverse claimant must establish their claim or be
âforever estopped from asserting it.â Songao v. Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, 4 NMI 186, 4 n. 15 (1994).
¶ 69 As the US Supreme Court has noted in Henderson v. United States, a party
must still assert a right in a timely manner, or face forfeiture of that right:
[N]o procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that
a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited
in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make
timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction
to determine it.
568 U.S. 266, 271 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
¶ 70 The law:
casts upon the party the duty of looking after his legal rights and
of calling the judgeâs attention to any infringement of them. If any
other rule were to obtain, the party would in most cases be careful
to be silent as to his objections until it would be too late to obviate
them, and the result would be that few judgments would stand the
test of an appeal.
City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC, 180 Cal. Rptr.
3d 726, 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
¶ 71 A party therefore cannot remain silent on a claim only to later assert that
the claim was valid by operation of law automatically. The full claim must be
made or that party will be âforever estoppedâ from asserting it.
¶ 72 This interpretation also serves a practical purpose. Allowing a party to
bring claims that they believe, correctly or incorrectly, to have applied to real
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
estate automatically on a later date, after the complete and final adjudication of
the matter in a prior venue, would allow for the very type of piecemeal and
fragmented litigation that the res judicata doctrine seeks to avoid. Further, it
could also potentially open the door for claim after claim to be raised if all a party
must do is to allege that their claim applies automatically by operation of law.
C. Judicial Notice.
¶ 73 Appellees filed a Request for Judicial Notice (hereinafter âRJNâ) pursuant
to Rule 27(a) of the NMI Supreme Court rules and Rule 201 of the NMI Rules
of Evidence.
¶ 74 The RJN consisted of ten exhibits relating to the underlying action, the
Quiet Title Case, and other separate actions involving the same parties. All ten
(10) exhibits are pleadings or court orders.
¶ 75 Appellants did not file a response to the RJN, thus do not seem to oppose
it. Still, a court is not required to grant every unopposed motion and may deny
an unopposed motion if the relief requested has no basis in law. In re Kingman,
2023 MP 6¶ 10 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 76 Rule 201(b) of the NMI Rules of Evidence provides that a court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the Commonwealth or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. ¶ 77 For the Court to take judicial notice, the fact must be free of âreasonable disputeâ because it is either âgenerally knownâ or âcapable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.â In re Disciplinary Proceedings of Reynaldo O. Yana and Antonio M. Atalig,2014 MP 1
¶ 15 (quoting NMI R. EVID. 201(b)). ¶ 78 Further, â[w]e may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, Lee v. City of Los Angeles,250 F.3d 668, 689
(9th Cir. 2001), including documents on file in federal or state courts. See Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,285 F.3d 801
, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002).â Harris v. Cty. of Orange,682 F.3d 1126, 1132
(9th Cir. 2012).
¶ 79 The exhibits proposed by Appellees herein fall within the standard of
judicial notice set forth in Rule 201(b) as they constitute pleadings and orders
that are directly relevant to the issues before this Court. They are matters of
public record and, as evidenced by Appellantsâ lack of objection to them, are not
being disputed.
V. CONCLUSION
¶ 80 For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT Appelleesâ Request for Judicial
Notice and AFFIRM the Probate Courtâs Order Granting Appelleesâ Motion for
Reconsideration. We, therefore, REMAND this matter to the Probate Court for
further actions and proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion.
In re the Estate of Manglona, 2023 MP 13
SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2023.
/s/
MARIA TERESA B. CENZON
Justice Pro Tempore
/s/
ELYZE M. IRIARTE
Justice Pro Tempore
/s/
BENJAMIN C. SISON
Justice Pro Tempore
COUNSEL
Pamela Brown, Counsel for Co-Trustees for the PB Manglona Family Trust, Petitioner-
Appellant.
Co-Administrators of the Estate of Bernadita A. Manglona, Pro Se, Respondent-
Appellee.
NOTICE
This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication
in the permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any
event of discrepancies between this slip opinion and the opinion certified for publication,
the certified opinion controls. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the
Clerk of the Supreme Court, P.O. Box 502165 Saipan, MP 96950, phone (670) 236â9715,
fax (670) 236â9702, eâmail Supreme.Court@NMIJudiciary.gov.
E-FILED
CNMI SUPREME COURT
E-filed: Dec 16 2023 01:48PM
Clerk Review: Dec 16 2023 01:49PM
Filing ID: 71640438
Case No.: 2023-SCC-0003-CIV
Judy Aldan
IN THE
Supreme Court
OF THE
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
IN RE THE ESTATE OF BERNADITA A. MANGLONA,
Deceased.
Supreme Court No. 2023-SCC-0003-CIV
Superior Court No. 13-0195-CV
JUDGMENT
Appellants, Co-Trustees for the PB Manglona Family Trust, appeal the Order
Granting Appelleeâs Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed in the
accompanying opinion, the Court AFFIRMS the order and REMANDS the matter for further
actions not inconsistent with the opinion.
ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2023.
/s/
JUDY T. ALDAN
Clerk of the Supreme Court