SUPERIOR Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho denied a motion to strike the DNA test result of Sarah Kapileo, whose claim as an heir was contested.
In a 15-page order, the judge said the probate court has jurisdiction and authority to order DNA testing to determine heirs.
In the estate of Francisco Omar Kapileo, a legal dispute arose regarding Sarah Kapileo’s status as an heir.
During a hearing on the administratrix’s petition to appoint an administrator and for letters of administration on Dec. 2, 2021, attorney Stephen Nutting, on behalf of the administratrix, asked the court to order a DNA test to be done for Sarah.
The DNA test was conducted on March 23, 2022, using the DNA of Vicente (sibling of decedent) and Sarah.
The result, which came back on March 31, 2022, stated that it “was 1,000 times more likely that the alleged uncle [Vicente] is unrelated to the child [Sarah] as opposed to related.”
On July 20, 2023, at an evidentiary hearing, the administratrix, Vivian Omar Kapileo, testified that she believed that decedent Francisco could not have biological children.
Sarah, through attorney Joseph Horey, said that being a minor at the time, she could not provide valid consent to the DNA test, and she also doubted whether her mother was properly informed before giving consent for the test.
Sarah said the individual who signed up as guardian at the testing facility was neither her mother nor a legal guardian.
Background
On Feb. 23, 2000, Francisco Omar Kapileo (decedent) and Rungthip Sartklong were married.
Francisco was a Northern Marianas Descent Carolinian man while Rungthip is a Thai woman.
On Aug. 24, 2004, Sarah was born.
Sometime in 2011, Rungthip left Saipan and moved to Guam. Francisco stayed on Saipan.
Sometime in 2015, Rungthip came to Saipan and took Sarah with her to Guam.
Sometime in 2017, Rungthip filed for divorce on Guam. Francisco never entered an appearance in the Guam divorce action.
On Dec. 13, 2017, the Guam Superior Court issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce by default and final decree of divorce in Kapileo v. Kapileo, DM0416-17 in which the Guam Superior Court awarded Rungthip with Francisco’s house, Lot No. 011 G 1038, in Kagman, Saipan.
Francisco died on Aug. 14, 2021.
On Oct. 29, 2021, a probate action was filed in the CNMI Superior Court.
On March 23, 2022, a DNA test was taken pursuant to the court’s order granting a petition to appoint an administrator and for letters of administration. One of Francisco’s siblings, Vicente Omar Kapileo, submitted his DNA along with Sarah’s DNA to test Sarah’s biological relationship to Francisco.
Sarah was 17 years old at the time of the DNA test. Sarah was accompanied by an adult, Marla Salik. At the testing clinic, Marla Salik signed as a guardian on the form given. Salik had not been appointed as Sarah’s guardian.
On March 31, 2022, the result of the DNA test confirmed that it “was 1,000 times more likely that the alleged uncle [Vicente] is unrelated to the child [Sarah] as opposed to related.”
On Dec. 19, 2022, Rungthip transferred her interest in Lot No. 011 G 1038 to Sarah through a quitclaim deed.
On May 17, 2023, Sarah filed a motion to dismiss or distribute, saying that Lot No. 011 G 1038 is not part of Francisco’s estate.
On June 30, 2023, the administratrix filed an opposition to the motion for dismissal or for final distribution and counter motion to dismiss the heirship claim of Sarah Kapileo, and to amend the petition to identify the heirs of the decedent’s estate.
In effect, the administratrix objected to Sarah as an heir because Sarah was not the biological daughter of Francisco.
Necessary and proper
In his order, Judge Camacho said, “Notwithstanding the privacy concerns, the Court finds it necessary and proper to determine Sarah’s status as an heir.”
The judge noted that Sarah inserted herself into the probate action by asserting ownership of Lot No. 011 G 1038.
“Thus, Sarah also has an interest in determining her status as an heir to inherit Lot No. 011 G 1038. Given the significant legal importance for the Court to establish heirs as outlined in the Probate Code and the need for a DNA test result to fulfill this obligation, there was sufficient justification for the Court to order a DNA test. Therefore, the Court has the jurisdiction and authority to order the DNA test,” the judge added.
