Associate Justices Kathleen M. Salii, Lourdes F. Materne and Justice Alexandra F. Foster at the same time dismissed the appeal of Albertang Rengiil, the Debkar clan and Toshiwa Kyota.
The justices affirmed the Land Court’s ruling that the contested land belongs to the Airai State Public Lands Authority and Jonathan Koshiba.The Land Court issued a first determination on April 26, 2000 and awarded lot 166-11139C-1 to Koshiba and the rest of the land to ASPLA.The claimants filed an appeal which the appellate division remanded to the Land Court.On Jan. 15, 2008, the court determined that lot 166-11139C-1 belongs to Koshiba, lots 166-11144C and 166-11144C-1 belong to the Debkar clan; a part of lot 166-11144 belongs to Iyechar Lineage; and the rest belongs to ASPLA.Rengiil, who filed a claim for lots 166-11144C and 166-1114C, challenged the ruling and argued that the court erred in awarding these lands to the Debkar clan.The clan, for its part, contested the court’s determination that the lands became public during the Japanese administration of Palau.The clan argued that it has always owned the lands which were merely leased or used by the Japanese.Kyota challenged the court’s determination of ownership in favor of Koshiba.He filed a claim for lots 166-11139C and 166-11139C1, saying he is the bona fide purchaser of these lots.He said he purchased the land from the Debkar clan in 1978.According to the appellate division, however, there is sufficient evidence to support the Land Court’s conclusion that the land in question was public.In dismissing the appeal of Rengiil, the justices said the Land Court erred in determining that she was silent about monumenting any other lands, but this error is harmless.“That misstatement does not undermine the reasoning or validity of the Land Court’s statement,” the justices said.In dismissing the appeal of Kyota, the justices said the claim cannot succeed because the property was public land when it was sold to Kyota.Regarding the Debkar clan’s argument, the justices said the evidence presented such as receipts for rent payments does not establish ownership.
