Govt cleared on alleged illegal taking of land

The Superior Court has ruled that the CNMI government did not commit an illegal taking of 14,500 square meters of land on Saipan, as claimed by an estate.

Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama said that, while the government’s handling of the issuance of the certificate of title to the land may have been negligent, he cannot find that it constituted a taking.

Lizama made the determination in granting the government’s motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim by the estate of Jose Camacho.

The judge also found that there are unresolved questions concerning the origin of Jose Celis Camacho’s deed, the inclusion of the property in the original probate, Simion Camacho’s knowledge of the property’s size, and notice received by other heirs.

Lizama noted the unresolved questions in denying a motion to dismiss filed by defendants LB Guam Opportunity LLC and Annie Deleon Guerrero Waki.

Lizama treated the motions as a request for partial summary judgment.

The Jose Camacho estate filed the lawsuit seeking “just compensation” from the government over the alleged taking of its land.

The estate, through its administrator Francisco O. Camacho, also sued Simion O. Camacho, LB Guam, and Waki, to clear the title of the subject land.

The estate asked the court to declare that it is entitled to “just compensation” for the fair market value of the land, including interest.

Court records show that in 1953, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands issued Jose Camacho a determination of ownership entitled T.D. 702, declaring him the owner of lots 557, 560, and 567.

T.D. 702 described the property as containing “2.7 hectares, more or less, subject to survey.”

In 1973, Jose Camcho granted the property to his son, Simion Camacho.

In 1974, the Division of Land and Surveys approved a map showing that the property contained 4.1 hectares.

Jose Camacho died in 1977.

In February 1980, Simion Camacho filed a petition for the appointment of an administrator in Jose Camacho’s probate.

In May 1980, the Commonwealth issued a “certificate of title” to the now-deceased Jose Camacho for all 4.1 acres.

In September 2005, Francisco Camacho, one of Simion’s three brothers, moved to re-open the Jose Camacho probate, to appoint himself as the new administrator.

In 2005, the estate brought an action to quiet title.

Both the Commonwealth and LB Guam asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. Waki joined with LB Guam Opportunity LLC’s motion.

In his order, Lizama said the issuance of the certificate of title to the children of Simion Camacho for 4.1 hectares did not constitute a taking.

Lizama said the estate claimed that when the government cancelled plaintiff’s title and issued a new certificate in the name of Simion Camacho’s children, the Commonwealth committed an illegal taking.

The government argued that plaintiff failed to meet the requisites for a takings claim.

Lizama noted that in order to be compensated for the alleged taking, the estate had to show that the government acquired ownership or took control of the land; and that the taking was done for a public purpose.

“The court found that the issuance of a certificate of title satisfied neither of these requisites,” the judge pointed out.

The government, through assistant attorney general Kristin D. St. Peter, also argued that the estate lacks standing on the grounds that it already conveyed all the rights it had in the property to Simion Camacho.

Defendants asserted that the estate failed to raise its claim within the statute of limitations—either through the 20-year limitation on land claims or the former 120-day limit on appeals of determinations of ownership.

Lizama said that, in the Commonwealth, there is no time period in which heirs must probate a decedent’s estate.

If it is discovered that some portion of an estate was not probated, their heirs may, within a reasonable time after the discovery, move to reopen the probate, he said.

In this case, Lizama said, only 2.7 hectares of the property were included as an asset in Simion Camacho’s petition for appointment of administrator.

“The additional 1.4 hectares were never mentioned at all. The mere passage of time does not preclude the heirs from reopening the probate to adjudicate the ownership of the 1.4 hectares,” he said.

Lizama said the court takes judicial notice of the Camacho family’s Carolinian and Chamorro heritage.

Under Carolinian custom, title to land is vested in the oldest daughter as a trustee, although the land is shared by all siblings as family property, he explained.

In the Camacho family, there being no daughters, it is possible that Jose Camacho deeded the land to Simion Camacho as trustee, Lizama said.

Under such a scenario, he said, the remaining siblings may have been unaware of the administration and actual nature of the property.

“It is also possible that land was divided at some point pursuant to a partida, a fact that may not have been considered in the original probate matter,” Lizama said.

Given these possibilities, he said, defendants have not set forth sufficient evidence to defeat plaintiff’s claim for untimeliness.

As to the land size issue, Lizama said, the complaint alleged that Jose Camacho never conveyed the 1.4 hectares in dispute to anyone, much less to Simion Camacho.

Defendants countered that the property descriptions in both the determination of ownership and the deed Jose granted to Simion Camacho are identical. This may suggest that Jose Camacho intended to transfer all the interest he had to Simion Camacho, Lizama said.

Also in need of further analysis is the manner in which Jose Camacho originally acquired the property, and how the property was described in that deed, the judge said.

“Finally, it remains unknown why, if the property was later determined to contain 4.1 hectares, no amendment was made as to the determination of ownership,” he said.

On the acquisition issue, Lizama said, it is unclear whether the heirs to the estate were aware of the 1987 sale of the property to Waki.

It is also unclear whether the property (or any portion of it) is currently being occupied by Waki, the title holder; LG Guam, the lessee; heirs to the estate; or no one at all, he said.