THANKS for the interesting article on Pedro Manglona Atalig’s 27-year-old probate case. And my sympathy to Mrs. Nelida Atalig and her children. I am a non-NMD surviving spouse and have shared Mrs. Atalig’s empathy for the last 17 years.
The published information concerning the Atalig probate case is a falsehood under the CNMI Constitution, Article XII, Sections 1, 2, and 3. Because of the lessons taught by my pro se experience in Judge Camacho’s court, I find it disturbing that he continually denies the immunity property rights of an non-NMD surviving spouse to own land within the Northern Mariana Islands by transfer to a spouse by inheritance (transfer of title to property from the deceased owner to the surviving spouse under statute C.M.C 2411).
Mr. and Mrs. Atalig owned the Atalig estate, technically, under the CNMI Marital Property Act because Mrs. Atalig was immune from Article XII. Section 2. Acquisition.
Demand that a transfer to a spouse by inheritance is not an acquisition but a conveyance of property title. Conveyance of property is the transfer of ownership or interest in real property from one person to another by a document, such as a deed, lease, or mortgage. In other words, the non-NMD spouse can inherit via estate title transfer from the decedent spouse to the surviving spouse but cannot buy land.
I believe my claim is pursuant to Santiago C. Tudela CV Nos. 86-0884, with issue (estate granted to the daughter) (Appeal Nos. 92-010 & 92-011 invalidated the daughter’s order) and 86-0884P, without issue (quashed issue and granted the estate to the non-NMD surviving spouse) and Tudela Caselaw 2009 MP 9 resultant from final Superior Court decision with final Supreme Court Appellate and Affirmation of Tudela’s case with issue (No. 86-0884) and without issue (No. 86-0884P).
Judge Camacho denied all court pleadings of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Statutory Customary Law and evidence that my father’s place of birth was Saipan.
The Atalig probate case is stare decisis to Caselaw 2009 MP 9. Stare decisis: In the United States and England, the common law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.
So, for 17 years, the recently demised Mrs. Atalig was denied her rights to convey the deceased spouse’s estate to the surviving spouse under CNMI Constitution Article XII, Sections 1, 2, and 3.
The late Justice Pedro Manglona Atalig wrote the opinion (Appeal Nos. 92-010 & 92-011) that NMD spouses and non-NMD spouses are equal under Article XII of the Constitution. Justice Pedro Manglona Atalig fathered, and the Supreme Court affirmed Tudela Caselaw 2009 MP 9 (Tudela CV No. 86-0884P dated June 16, 1993). The Supreme Court demands that “Article XII provides that ‘[t]he acquisition of permanent and long-term interests in real property within the Commonwealth shall be restricted to persons of [NMI] descent.” N.M.I. Const. art. XII, §1 (as amended 1985). An “acquisition” “includes the acquisition by sale, lease, gift, inheritance or other means.” Id. § 2. However, this term does not include “[a] transfer to a spouse by inheritance…if the owner dies without issue or with an issue not eligible to own land in the [NMI].” Id. Section three provides that “[t]he term permanent and long-term interests in real property used in Section 1 includes freehold interests and leasehold interests of more than 55 years including renewal rights.” Second, Eight C.M.C. §§ 2601 and 2902 provide, respectively, that: (1) “[t]he surviving spouse of a decedent who was domiciled in the [NMI] is entitled to the primary family home and lot”; and (2) under Chamorro intestacy succession “[t]he surviving spouse obtains a life estate with the issue obtaining a vested remainder in fee simple by representation.”
