Dispute over 1.4 hectares of land is resolved

The Superior Court has issued a ruling that resolved the ownership issue of an additional 1.4 hectares of land on Saipan that a person purchased over 20 years ago.

In a written decision issued Tuesday, Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama determined that Annie DGL. Gillespie is the owner of the property in question.

Lizama said the deed that Gillespie received from Simion Camacho’s children entitled her to the whole parcel because her claim of title is superior.

“Even if the metes and bounds are different in the documents, on the face of the two maps there is no difference and no testimony to contradict that Jose Camacho (decedent) intended to grant all of his land to [his son] Simion Camacho,” the judge pointed out.

According to court documents, the case concerns a plot of land known as TD 702. In 1953, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands gave Jose Camacho a determination of ownership for TD 702 land.

Jose Camacho held title to this land until 1973 when he deeded his interest in the property to his son, Simion Camacho.

In both the original determination of ownership as well as the deed of gift to Simion Camacho, the land was described as being 2.7 hectares, “more or less subject to survey.”

A survey was done of the land in 1972 and approved in 1974 that determined that the size of the land was, in fact, 4.1 hectares. In the survey, the land was designated as Lot No. 008 B 08.

In 1980, Simion Camacho conveyed Lot No. 008 B 08 (containing 4.1 hectares) to his children in a deed of gift. In 1982, the CNMI canceled the original certificate of title in the name of Jose Camacho, and issued a new one in the names of Simion Camacho’s children for the land.

In 1987, Simion Camacho’s children transferred all their interest in the property to Gillespie.

Now plaintiff Francisco C. Camacho, as administrator of the estate of Jose Celis Camacho, is seeking to quiet title on the additional 1.4 hectares that was unaccounted for in the original description of the land. Plaintiff and the heirs of the estate, contested that the additional 1.4 hectares should go to the estate.

Gillespie, through counsel Stephen Nutting, believes her claim to the land is stronger and that the 1.4 hectares belongs to her.

In his decision, Lizama said when the parties allege title from a common source, as in this case Gillespie and the heirs allege title from Jose Camacho, then the court may render judgment as to whose claim is superior.

To prove one’s title is superior, Lizama said, each party must “prove his or her own claim to the property in question.”

The heirs of the estate assert that when Jose Camacho deeded Simion Camacho T.D. 702, the total sum of land that was granted was the 2.7 hectares described in the determination of ownership document.

Plaintiffs, through counsel Brien S. Nicholas, contended that because Jose Camacho was aware that the size of the land was actually 4.1 hectares at the time he gave it to Simion Camacho, in using the T.D. 702 description to convey land to Simion he was specifically giving him only 2.7 hectares.

The plaintiffs asserted that had Jose Camacho wanted to grant Simion all 4.1 hectares of the property then he would have used different language evincing an intent to convey all 4.1 hectares of the land.

Because he did not, plaintiffs argue that the 1.4 excess hectares belong to the heirs of the estate rather than Gillespie.

Gillespie asserted that because there is no evidence of any intent to reserve the 1.4 hectares of property, then it is rightfully hers as she purchased and received Simion Camacho’s children’s interest which (according to the certificate of title) amounted to 4.1 hectares.

In his decision, Lizama said plaintiff’s claim must be denied for lack of sufficient evidence to prove superiority of title.

Lizama said T.D. 702 and Lot No. 008 B 08 are of the same property.

He said he cumulatively reviewed the maps presented at trial and must concluded that T.D. 702 and Lot. No. 008 B 08 are the same piece of property.

Lizama said that from the language used in the deed that Jose Camacho gave to Simion Camacho, the court believes Jose’s intention as to convey all the property he believes was his.

“He [Jose Camacho] did not use any language of reservation to keep the property to himself,” the judge noted.