In re Estate of Dominguez

Opinion

F~ D SUPERIO COURT OF GUAM ZOl8 MAR -I PH if: 23

CLERK QF COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM BY: ~ IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE PROBATE CASE NO. PR0037-17

of FINDINGS OF FACT AND RITA MANffiUSAN DOMINGUEZ, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Deceased,

by

ARMANDO S. DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner.

Following an Objection to Petitioner Armando S. Dominguez's Proposed Petition for

Closing and Final Distribution, the Court heard testimony on November 22, 2017 concerning

whether Decedent Rita M. Dominguez's separate property transmuted to community property. 1

The Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Armando Dominguez seeks final distribution of the estate of his late wife, Rita

Dominguez. In his Petition for Closing and Final Distribution, Dominguez asks that Lot No.5,

Block No. 7, Asan, be distributed to himself as the sole heir. In opposition, Rita Dominguez's

siblings Roque Manibusan, Juan Manibusan and Bemadetta San Nicolas claim that they are also

heirs to Rita Dominguez's estate. The siblings provided a Memorandum Regarding Heirship

1 The Law Offices ofGumataotao & Pole represent Armando Dominguez; Brooks Concepcion Law, P.C. represents Rita Dominguez's siblings. PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 2

claiming that Rita Dominguez has five siblings, all of whom are entitled to a share of Rita

Dominguez's estate.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, the Court hereby finds the following to be

established as fact:

1. On April16, 1974, Armando Dominguez married Rita Maanao Manibusan. Pl. Ex. 2.

They never divorced.

2. Since 1974, Armando Dominguez has resided at 168 West San Carlos Street, Asan,

located on Lot No. 5, Block No.7, Asan ("Lot No.5").

3. The residence is a two-story building.

4. On November 12, 1974, Rita Dominguez's mother, Martina Manibusan, executed a

Quitclaim Deed granting, releasing and forever quitclaiming unto Martina Manibusan

and Rita Dominguez "not as tenants in common but as joint tenants with right of

survivorship" all the right, title and interest in Lot No.5. Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. B (Oct. 25,

20 17). The Quitclaim Deed further states that it was the "intention of all parties that in

the event of the death of either of said Grantees, the entire fee simple title to the real

estate shall vest in the surviving Grantee." !d.

5. According to Armando Dominguez, Martina Manibusan transferred the property to Rita

Dominguez's name to allow the Dominguezes to mortgage the property and construct a

marital residence. Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. A~ 8.

6. In 1978, the Dominguezes obtained an SBA loan to construct a two bedroom one bath

marital residence. Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. A~~ 15, 18. The residence eventually expanded PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 3

with a second floor. The Dominguezes undertook joint and several liability for the loan.

Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. A~ 17.

7. Rita and Armando Dominguez paid the taxes on the property before and after the transfer.

Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. A~~ 7, 19, 21.

8. Martina Manibusan passed away in 1979. Opp'n Obj'n, Ex. A~ 9.

9. On November 10, 1981, the Department of Land Management issued a Certificate of

Title certifying that Rita Dominguez as the owner in fee simple of Lot No.5. Opp'n

Obj'n, Ex. D.

10. On September 23, 1983, the Dominguezes executed a Note secured by a Mortgage on Lot

No.5. Pl. Ex. 3. 2 The Mortgage references both Rita Dominguez and Armando

Dominguez as mortgagors, and recites the covenant that "MORTGAGOR is the owner in

fee simple" of the property. See Submission Documents.

11. The Dominguezes maintained a joint bank account at Citibank, from which mortgage

payments were made. Both spouses contributed funds to the joint account.

12. Rita Dominguez passed away in 2016, with no surviving issue.

13. Rita Dominguez is also survived by siblings, who object to Armando Dominguez's

request to deem the property as community property.

14. Since 2008 or 2009, Roque Manibusan, one of Rita Dominguez's siblings, has lived in

the upstairs unit of the residence, while Armando Dominguez lives downstairs. Roque

Manibusan does not pay rent to Armando Dominguez.

15. While Rita Dominguez was still alive, Armando Dominguez wished to evict Roque

Manibusan. However, Rita Dominguez refused.

2 The Court admits this exhibit in evidence as a government record over the siblings' objection. See Submission Documents (Nov. 28, 20 17) (demonstrating recordation of document).

L PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page4

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Lot No.5

1. Validity of 19 GCA § 6105(b)

Rita Dominguez's estate contains one real property asset, Lot No.5, which she obtained

from her mother via a Quitclaim Deed. Guam law presumes that property acquired by marriage

by either spouse qualifies as community property. 19 GCA § 6105(a). However, the law

contains an exception: "Property or any interest therein acquired during marriage by a woman by

an instrument in writing, in her name alone, or in her name and the name of another person not

her husband, is presumed to be the separate property of the married woman if the instrument in

writing was delivered and accepted prior to July 1, 1980. The date of execution or, in the

absence of a date of execution, the date of acknowledgment, is presumed to be the date upon

which delivery and acceptance occurred." 19 GCA § 6105(b) (emphases added). Because

Martina Manibusan executed the Quitclaim Deed prior to 1980, and conveyed property to her

daughter, this law presumes the conveyed property to be Rita Dominguez's separate property.

Armando Dominguez claims that Lot No.5 transmuted from separate property into

community property. However, before turning to transmutation, the Court must first examine

Armando Dominguez's briefly stated challenge to the constitutionality of section 61 05(b).

Opp'n Obj. at 4-5. According to Armando Dominguez, because section 6105(b) pertains to

women only, it violates the Equal Protection Clause. 3

Generally a law that expressly discriminates on the basis of sex must have an

3 Dominguez raises this challenge although he has not been unjustly punished or persecuted by this law. To clarify, Dominguez has not been blocked from keeping inherited property as separate property because he is not a married woman. See contra Mississippi Univ. v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) (suit brought by adult male denied admission to nursing university because of his sex). Instead, Dominguez seeks to invalidate Section 6105(b) to nullify his deceased wife's separate property interest in Lot No.5.

L PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 5

"exceedingly persuasive justification". Kirchbergv. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455,461 (1981).

However, well-established within equal protection jurisprudence is the concept that "a legislature

may 'provide for the special problems of women"' without offending the Equal Protection

Clause. Michael M. v. Super. Ct ofSonoma Cty., 450 U.S. 464,469 (1981) (citing Weinberger v.

Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 653 (1975)). Such statutory gender classification "reflect[] the fact

that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances." Michael M, 450 U.S. at 469.

A gender-conscious remedial scheme will satisfy equal protection requirements if it directly

protects the interests of the disproportionately burdened gender. Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d

888, 897 (1st Cir. 1993).

The legislative history of section 61 05(b), and its language, demonstrate an exceedingly

persuasive justification for its enactment and continued enforcement. In 1980, the Legislature

passed Public Law No. 15-113 under the express desire to "mak[e] the provision of the

community property law of Guam apply equally to all persons regardless of sex." Public Law

No. 15-113 also referenced Public Law No. 14-28, which expressed the Legislature's support for

equal rights under the law regardless of sex. In spite of its effort to apply community property

laws "equally to all persons regardless of sex," the Legislature preserved, through section

61 05(b ), a woman's right to keep as separate property property acquired: (1) in writing; (2) after

marriage, and (3) prior to 1980.

The question is whether the Legislature's protective carve-out constitutes an exceedingly

persuasive justification. To answer this question, the nation's oppressive history to such rights

must be remembered. Previously a married woman's rights were directly tied to her husband.

"Married women could not bring lawsuits in their own names to protect their financial interests;

they could not act as trustees, estate executors, or legal guardians; and they could not make PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 6

contracts or transfer property unless they did so jointly with their husbands." Joseph A. Ranney,

Anglicans, Merchants, and Feminists: A Comparative Study of the Evolution ofMarried

Women's Rights in Virginia, New York, and Wisconsin, 6 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 493

(2000). 4

Public Law No. 15-113 implicitly recognized those challenges for women, and preserved

women's separate property under narrow circumstances: the married woman had to have been

conveyed the property prior to 1980, and it must be in writing. As a whole, Public Law No.

15-113 strove to equate both spouses' community property rights, but the Legislature found it

necessary to enact section 6105(b) so as not to cause a detriment to women who already had

verified separate property rights. This Court finds that the Legislature's carve-out in section

61 05 (b), despite having a gender classification, in fact served an exceedingly persuasive

justification to protect the property rights of an oppressed class. In other words, Armando

Dominguez's constitutional challenge fails.

2. Transmutation of Lot No. 5

Section 6105(b), however, carries a rebuttable presumption as to the nature of Rita

Dominguez's ownership of Lot No.5. Challenging the presumption, Armando Dominguez

claims that the lot transmuted from separate property to community property. If spouses enter

into contracts concerning their separate property, such contracts are required to "be in writing

and executed and acknowledged or approved in like manner as a grant of land is required to be

executed and acknowledged or approved." 19 GCA § 6112(a). The Legislature enacted section

4 Referencing Norma Basch, In the Eyes of the Law: Women, Marriage, and Property in Nineteenth-Century New York (1982) (discussing the property rights ofwomen) and Richard H. Chused, Married Women's Property Law: 1800-1850, 71 Geo. L.J. 1359 (1983) (tracing the development of women's property rights). PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 7

6112(a) after Rita Dominguez first acquired the lot at issue. Also the Legislature did not

explicitly or implicitly make section 6112 retroactive, 5 meaning that it fails to apply to acts prior

to the enactment of section 6112 on March 20, 1980.

Because section 6112(a) does not retroactively apply here, the Court looks to what

standard must be used to prove a transmutation. The Court finds California caselaw prior to

1985 persuasive. 6 Prior to 1985 in California, an agreement between spouses changing the

character of the property from separate to community need not be executed with any particular

formality. 32 Cal. Jur. 3d Family Law§ 623. A transmutation occurred if there was clear and

convincing evidence that one spouse intended to effect a change in status of their separate

property. Beam v. Bank ofAm., 490 P.2d 257, 266 (Cal. 1971) (en bane); In reMarriage of

Weaver, 273 Cal. Rptr. 696, 701 (Cal. App. 1990). "The agreement may be either express or

implied, and it need not be written." 32 Cal. Jur. 3d Family Law§ 623.

While a transmutation need not occur in writing, California caselaw still required that a

spouse's actions clearly indicate the spouse's intent. The following did not suffice to meet that

showing: using community funds to improve one spouse's separate property; referencing the

home as "our home;" occupation of the property by both spouses; and expending community

funds to pay for taxes, utilities, and insurance. In re Jafeman, 105 Cal. Rptr. 483, 491-93 (Ct.

App. 1973); Beam, 490 P.2d at 266. However, this is the type of evidence Armando Dominguez

offers. Armando Dominguez claims he helped to pay the mortgage on the property; that he used

it and considered it his marital home since the late 1970s; and that he helped pay the taxes on it.

Armando Dominguez also claims that the loan taken out in both spouses' names

demonstrates transmutation, and that at the least he deserves reimbursement for his contribution.

5 See Jenkins v. Montallana, 2007 Guam 12 ~ 13 (retroactive application of statute must be made clear). 6 In 1985, California enacted requirements similar to section 6112(a). PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 8

However, the general rule is that one obtains a reimbursement for using community funds to

improve separate property only if consent was not received from the other spouse. In re

Marriage ofFrick, 226 Cal. Rptr. 766,778-79 (Ct. App. 1986). In this case, Armando

Dominguez willingly provided his earnings, which were community funds, to improve his wife's

separate property. Such action is best described as a gift from Armando Dominguez to his wife,

and not entitled to reimbursement.

Overall, despite Armando Dominguez's contributions to Rita Dominguez's separate

property, the Court does not fmd clear and convincing evidence that Rita Dominguez intended to

effect a change from separate property to community property. Overcoming the evidence

presented by Armando Dominguez are three crucial facts. First, Armando Dominguez never

presented evidence that she made any such affirmative declaration to him or any other person.

Second, in the 37 years since the issuance of the Certificate of Title, Rita Dominguez made no

attempt to amend the Certificate of Title to make clear that her husband should be listed as a

registered owner. Third, Rita Dominguez denied Armando Dominguez's attempts to evict her

brother. In other words, Rita Dominguez remained in sole control of the disposition of the

property.

None of the evidence presented by Armando Dominguez, alone or in combination,

persuades the Court to find that at any time Rita Dominguez intended to transmute the property

she obtained from her mother into her community property with her husband. In other words the

Court does not find clear and convincing evidence of a transmutation.

Having determined that Lot No.5 remains the separate property of Rita Dominguez, it

must be distributed according to the laws of intestacy. If the decedent leaves a surviving spouse,

but no issue, the decedent's separate estate is distributed one-half (Yl) to such surviving spouse PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 9

and one-half (Y2) to the decedent's parents in equal shares; or if either is dead, to the survivor, or

ifboth or dead to their issue and the issue of either ofthem, by right ofrepresentation. 15 GCA

§ 907. Rita Dominguez's siblings request that they receive Y2 interest in her separate property,

split equally among themselves or their survivors. Because Armando Dominguez did not object

to the heirship calculations presented by the Objectors, the Court adopts the Objectors'

calculation of heirship among themselves, and determines that Lot No. 5 must be distributed

one-halfto Armando Dominguez, and one-half among Rita Dominguez's siblings, specifically:

1. 1/10 to Roque Manibusan;

2. 1/10 to Juan Manibusan;

3. 1/10 to Bemadetta San Nicolas;

4. 1110 to Anthony P. Manibusan as sole heir to Antonio M. Manibusan;

5. As to the heirs of Jose M. Manibusan, 1/30th to Cristina A. Manibusan; 1/150th to MariaM. Mesa; 1/150th to Pedro A. Manibusan; 1/150th to Jose A. Manibusan; 1/150th to Joseph A. Manibusan; 1/150th to Bemadita M. Cruz; 1/150th to Edita M. Taimanao; 1/150th to David A. Manibusan; 1/150th to Victor A. Manibusan; 1/150th to Antoinette M. Santos; 1/150th to Martha M. Harris; and 1/150 to Christopher A. Manibusan.

B. Cash in Rita Dominguez's Accounts

Cash also remains in Rita Dominguez's name. "Upon the death of any married person,

one half of the community property belongs to the surviving spouse; the other half is subject to

the testamentary disposition of the decedent, and in the absence thereof goes to the surviving

spouse." 15 GCA § 1001 ( (emphasis added). Since Rita died intestate, the full amount belongs

to her surviving spouse, Armando Dominguez.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER PR0037-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Page 10

Since Lot No. 5 did not transmute from Rita Dominguez to her husband Armando

Dominguez, the Court fmds that the property shall be distributed one-half to Armando

Dominguez and one-half to Rita Dominguez's siblings, as described above.

Given the parties' strained relationship and the number of heirs, the Court recognizes that

the parties may have difficulty assuming joint title to the property. The Court will hold a Status

Hearing on March 21, 2018, at 9:30a.m., at which time the parties may inform the Court of their

agreement to sell the property, if any, or of any intention to buy out the interest of any other

heirs, or whether the Court should direct the sale of the property and distribute the proceeds in

accordance with the Court's findings.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of March 2018.

SERVICE VIA COURT BOX Judge, Superior Court of Guam 1acknOWieclge that a copy.of the original hefeto was p'-d In the court box of: ($UM47:il

.,.;· 1·18 Tl .ff::~f'V\

~~~aiiim