Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong and Associate Justices Kathleen Salii and Lourdes Materne in a six pages opinion order affirmed the land court’s ruling that the area in Ngerkesoaol in Hamlet known as Nanden is owned by the Koror State Public Land Authority and not by the Tmetbab clan.
Nanden is comprised of Toichi Daicho lots 422 and 423 and was a filled land created by the Japanese government.The Japanese government acquired possession of Nanden around 1940 and constructed a power plant there.After the allies defeated Japan in World War II, Nanden came under the control of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and was eventually conveyed to the Public Lands Authority.The land court held a hearing to determine ownership of Nanden in 2007. The land court dismissed the claims of Ngermellong clan, Tmetbab clan and Lalii Markub saying none of them presented credible evidence that the Toichi Daicho listing in favor of Masaichi Kochi was incorrect or that Koichi had obtained lots 422 and 423 in a wrongful manner.The land court determined that “because none of them could prove that they were the owners of the Nanden immediately prior to its acquisition by the Japanese government, appellee (Koror State Public Lands Authority) should retain ownership of the land.”Tmetbab clan filed an appeal and argued that the land court erred when it ruled in favor of the Public Lands Authority.The Tmetbab clan argued that the land court applied the legal doctrines prohibited by §1304 (b) (2).However the Supreme Court in affirming the land court’s determination said that they find the Tmetbab clan’s arguments unpersuasive.The Supreme Court said the Tmetbab clan failed to prove that it owned Nanden prior to the land’s acquisition by the Japanese government.The Justices said the land court’s decision had nothing to do with the prohibited legal doctrines and everything to do with the clan’s failure to meet its burden of proof.The Justices said the clan is not entitled to Nanden because its best evidence of ownership was allegedly lost due to the passage of time.“We find that the land court made no errors of law and that its factual findings are not clearly erroneous,”the Justices said in their order.
