Govendo orders distribution of 2 Rota lands on probate since 1991

Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo has ordered the distribution of two land properties in Rota that has been the subject of probate proceedings since 1991.

Govendo issued the distribution of Juan M. Mendiola’s estate after finding that the objectors have failed to prove that the deceased (Juan Mendiola) conducted a partida.

A partida occurs when the father calls the entire family together and outlines the division of property among his children.

Govendo said each of the five direct decedents of Juan M. Mendiola shall receive an equal portion of both the Gaonan property and the Mananana property.

Govendo said both properties shall be divided in accordance with the drawing of lots according to the court’s order of June 24, 2005.

The judge said the probate shall remain open until the estate is compensated for the taking of real property for the widening of the road.

“Any payment received for the taking of the real property by the government to widen the road shall first be used to pay attorney’s fees before being further distributed,” he said.

Govendo said all attorneys shall submit a detailed billing of the fees and costs for his approval.

According to court records, Juan M. Mendiola, died in the 1930s while living on Rota during the Japanese occupation.

Juan M. Mendiola was married three times and all of his wives predeceased him. He had six children who survived him. These were Pio A. Mendiola, Santiago A. Mendiola, Felix A. Mendiola, Francisco Q. Mendiola, Rosalita M. Manglona, and Maria M. Borja.

The six children who survived him were all deceased at the time of the hearing.

The assets of Juan M. Mendiola’s estate are real property located on Rota.

One lot referred to by the heirs as the Mananana property contains 108,549 square meters (10 hectors).

A Title Determination of Ownership issued in 1958 determined that the heirs of Juan M. Mendiola, represented by Santiago A. Mendiola, owned 40 hectors of land commonly referred to by the heirs as the Agusan property.

In January 1994, the Marianas Public Land Corp. and the estate of Juan M. Mendiola executed a deed of exchange in which the 40 hectors of Agusan property was exchanged for approximately 40 hectors of Gaonan property.

The 40 hectors of Gaonan property are comprised of parcels of land such as the 322,310 square meters and a 72,497 square meters.

The Gaonan property is entirely owned in fee simply by the Juan M. Mendiola estate.

The CNMI has taken 15,408 square meters of land from two parcels of lands, including from the 322,310 square meters of lot, through eminent domain condemnation rights.

The taking of the real property was made without compensation being given to either the estate or to any of the heirs of Juan M. Mendiola.

Lots were drawn and the subdivided property was distributed through that drawing of lots to each of the five heirs.

Subsequent to the subdivision of the property and the drawing of lots, attorney Reynaldo O. Yana, made an appearance in this case in June 2006 on behalf of the heirs of Francisco Q. Mendiola.

The heirs of Francisco A. Mendiola claim that the decedent gave the Gaonan property consisting of 40 hectors to his four boys—Pio A. Mendiola, Santiago A. Mendiola, Felix A. Mendiola, and Francisco Q. Mendiola.

Felix A. Mendiola died without any heirs.

The heirs of Francisco Q. Mendiola further claimed that the decedent gave his two daughters, Maria Q. Mendiola and Rosalia A. Mendiola, property that had a combined area of six hectors.

The heirs of Francisco Q. Mendiola claimed that decedent distributed this property by a partida in the 1930s.

In his decision issued on Friday, Govendo said the objectors claim that Juan M. Mendiola took his children to the Gaonan property and divided it amongst them. However, Govendo noted, at the time that this event is claimed to have occurred, Juan M. Mendiola was not in possession of the Gaonan property; it had been seized by the Japanese.

The objectors, the judge pointed out, failed to bring forth adequate evidence to support his claim that a partida occurred.

The objectors supply two pieces of evidence. The first is a letter written in 1987 by Francisco Mendiola that recounts his recollection of the event, when he would have been only 5 years old.

The second is a land commission writing dated Aug. 25, 1958, which was purportedly written by Santiago Mendiola.

“Neither of these documents is substantial enough to support the objectors’ claim that a partida took place,” Govendo said.

The letter written in 1987, the judge said, is not sufficiently persuasive value.

“The letter is clearly hearsay, but that is not the problem.

Hearsay is admissible to prove the decedent’s intent in regards to a partida,” he said.

The letter’s problem, Govendo said, is that is represents the memories of an event experienced by a 5-year-old juvenile 50 years before it was recorded.

“The great passage of time between that experience and the writing of the letter, coupled with reliability issues of an event witnessed by a 5-year-old, strips this letter of any credibility,” he said.

The land commission document. Govendo said, is of some persuasive value.

He said it represents an account by a witness to the supposed partida who was recording the event on a land document.

“However, this solitary document alone cannot support the claim of a partida that would result in the heirs of two of Juan M. Mendiola’s children being denied their possible inheritance,” Govendo said.

Without further corroborating evidence, the judge added, the land commission document is just not enough evidence to support the objectors’s claim of a partida.

“The Court cannot find that a partida took place based solely upon the decades old memory of an event that took place when the witness was a very young child and a half-century-old hand written document,” he said.