In re Land Registration for Lot No. 361, Inarajan, Guam

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: June 12, 2012
• Docket: LR0011-78, PR0187-51, PR0002-76
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 IN THE MATTER OF ) ) LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING 4 LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS ) NO. LROOll-78 5 FOR LOT NO. 361, INARAJAN, GUAM ) ) 6 ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE ) PROBATE CASE NO. PR0187-51 7 ) 8 OF ) ) 9 ) GREGORIO C. PEREZ ) 10 Deceased. ) 11 )

12 ) PROBATE CASE NO. PROOO2-76 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ) 13 OF ) 14 ) GREGORIO F. PEREZ and ) DECISION AND ORDER 15 ) ROSARIO E. PEREZ 16 ) Deceased. ) 17 )

19 INTRODUCTION 20 This matter came before the Honorable Katherine A. Maraman on a motion to amen 21 land registration decree, filed by the administrators of the Estate of Gregorio F. Perez an 22 Rosario E. Perez on September 14,2010. Oral arguments and evidence were heard on Februar 23 3 and 17, 2011. Attorney Thomas L. Roberts represented the Estate of Gregorio F. Perez an 24 Rosario E. Perez, Attorneys Vincent T. Perez and Peter F. Perez appeared on behalf of the Estat 25 of Gregorio C. Perez, and Assistant Attorney General William C. Bischoff represented th 26 Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, testimony, and th Government. 27 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order. 28 III

Page 1 of7 BACKGROUND 2 The heirs of the Estate of Gregorio C. Perez and the Estate of Gregorio F. Perez an 3 Rosario E. Perez (hereinafter "the Perez Estates") intend to partition Lot No. 361, Inarajan, als 4 known as "Matala", in Probate Case Nos. PR0187-51 and PR0002-76. The Matala property wa 5 first described in 1893 by the Office of the Registry of Lands as bounded by the sea to the east 6 (Amended Opposition, Exhibit "1", 2, Jan. 11, 2011.) When the property was sold to Gregori 7 C. Perez and his son Gregorio F. Perez in 1917, it was again described as, "bounded ... on th 8 East by the sea." (Declaration of Earl J. Garrido, Exhibit '" 1", Jan. 19,2011.) 9 On May 5, 1978, the Estate of Gregorio F. Perez petitioned the Court to register th IO Matala property with the boundary description, "East: Pacific Ocean." (Petition for Registratio II of Title, 3, May 5,1978.) The eastern boundary was not challenged by any adjoining landowne 12 or interested party, including the Government, who participated in the proceedings to assert J3 prescriptive easement in the Route 4 roadway. (Objection, June 26, 1978; Stipulation an 14 Withdrawal of Objection, Nov. 5, 1981.) 15 On September 18, 1987, the Court entered a decree to register land title for the Pere 16 Estates with the following description, 17 Lot No. 361, Matala, Municipality of Inarajan, Guam, Containing an area of 2,255,864 more or less square meters, as shown on Drawing No. 867-2B, 18 prepared by Thomas T. Anderson, R.L.S. No. 42, dated 1119177 and approved by 19 the Territorial Surveyor on the 6th day of May, 1977, and recorded at the Department of Land Management under Document No. 288415-A, a copy of said 20 map is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 21 (Decree Establishing Title, 2, Sept. 18, 1987.) Thereafter, the Perez Estates sold some Matal 22 land on the western boundary to third parties and commissioned a retracement survey in 2010 i 23 order to partition the remaining land. (Declaration ofNestorio C. Ignacio, Sept. 14,2010.) 24 The preliminary retracement survey, completed on July 30, 2010, demonstrated that th 25 January 19, 1977 survey established an imprecise eastern boundary that excluded significan 26 coastal land areas and erroneously included land located under the sea. Id. The retracemen 27 survey also measured the correct sea boundary and revealed that the 1977 survey exclude 28

Page 2 of7 109,811 square meters of coastal land and erroneously included 2,863 square meters 0 2 underwater land. Id. at Exhibit "3". 3 On the basis of the retracement survey, the Perez Estates filed the present motion t 4 amend land registration decree on September 14, 2010. The Government filed objections that a 5 amendment is time barred and that it should be denied because the 1977 survey and 198 6 registration judgment previously granted too much government land to the Perez Estates. 7 On February 3 and 17, 2011, the Court held evidentiary hearings where surveyor Thoma 8 T. Anderson testified that the inaccuracy of his 1977 survey was a mistake because the surve

9 was intended to bound Matala on the east by the sea. (Record Log at 3:37, Feb 17, 2011.) IO Government did not contest the accuracy of the July 30, 2010 retracement survey. II DISCUSSION 12 I. Government Objection 13 As a preliminary matter, the Court shall address the Government's argument tha 14 amendment should be denied because the 1987 registration judgment gave too much governmen 15 land to the Perez Estates. Pursuant to Government of Guam v. Cruz, 869 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 16 1989), the parties cannot relitigate a boundary dispute during further registration proceeding 17 under 21 GCA § 29195. In Cruz, the Ninth Circuit found that the Government of Guam, "wa 18 given notice [of the first registration]. .. filed an appearance, and had a full opportunity to revie 19 the maps and object if necessary." Cruz, 869 F.2d at 1327-1328. On this basis, the principles 0 20 res judicata and controlling California decisional law prohibited a challenge to the registere 21 boundaries after the allotted time for appeal or new trial, even if the first registration decisio 22 was wrong. Id. 23 In this case, the Government appeared and filed an objection to the first registration 0 24 the basis of the Route 4 roadway. (Objection, June 26, 1978; Stipulation and Withdrawal 0 25 Objection, Nov. 5, 1981.) After notice and a full opportunity to review the survey map, n 26 interested party objected to the eastern sea boundary, including the Government. The allotte 27 time for an appeal or new trial has lapsed since 1987. Pursuant to Cruz and principles of re 28 judicata, the eastern sea boundary that was established in the first registration decree cannot b

Page 3 of7 relitigated. For this reason, the Government's argument that it should not lose its alleged interes 2 in the eastern sea boundary of Matala to the Perez Estates is without merit and shall not defea 3 amendment. 4 II. Motion to Amend Original Registration Decree 5 Guam law provides that a landowner may petition the court, "at any time ... upo 6 any ... reasonable ground ... [to] show cause why [an] omission or mistake or change or alteratio 7 should not be corrected or made," to a certificate oftitle to registered land. 21 GCA § 29195. I 8 these circumstances, a court may, "grant any ... relief upon such terms ... as it may conside 9 proper." fd. However, "the provisions of [Section 29195] shall not give the court the authorit IO to open the original decree of registration." fd. II In this case, the Perez Estates move the Court to amend an original decree of Ian 12 registration because it was based upon an incorrect survey. The Perez Estates rely upon 21 GC I3 § 29195 to amend the decree, but the Court does not have the authority to open the origina 14 decree of registration pursuant to the express language of the statute. For this reason, it appear 15 that the Court cannot grant relief via Section 29195, and further inquiry is appropriate. 16 The Land Title Registration Law, codified at 21 GCA Chapter 29, was originally adopte 17 from California's system ofland title registration in 1933. fn re Application a/Leon, 2001 Gua 18 22 1 12 n. 6. For this reason, California case law before 1933 is controlling in the interpretatio 19 of Title 21 GCA Chapter 29 and case law after 1933 is persuasive. Cruz, 869 F.2d at 132 20 (citing Roberto v. Aguon, 519 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1975)). 21 In 1933, California registered land according to the Torrens Land Act (hereinafter "th 22 Torrens Act"), which is a, "system of judicial registration of titles intended to simplify, quicke 23 and cheapen the transfer of real estate and to render titles safe and indefeasible." Pelowski v. 24 Taitano, 2000 Guam 34 1 30 (quoting Pioneer Abstract & Title Guaranty Co. v. Feraud, 91 25 Cal.App. 278, 285, 267 P. 134, 137 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) (citations omitted)). A Torren 26 registration is effective to quiet title and to protect initial registrants and subsequent bona fid 27 purchasers from attacks upon the title. fd. at 1130-34. In this manner, the basic, "purpose ofth 28 Torrens system of land registration is to determine any and all adverse claims against th

Page 4 of7 unregistered land." Application ofAguon, Civil Nos. 92-00011A, 92-00027A, 1993 WL 128362 2 at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. 1993) (citing Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Griset, 208 P. 673 (Cal. 3 1922)). 4 In this case, the Perez Estates seek to amend their own title in order to correct a mistak 5 in the initial registration. The first registration was supposed to bound Matala as, "East: Pacifi 6 Ocean", and the first surveyor testified that his 1977 survey was inaccurate in measuring wha 7 should have been an eastern sea border. The proposed amendment is based upon a mor 8 accurate retracement survey of the sea boundary. The ocean boundary does not threaten the titl 9 of adjacent landowners, registrants or other bona fide purchasers. The Perez Estates do not see 10 to register previously unregistered land, and there are no adverse claims to Matala's sea border. II Furthermore, the Government cannot assert an interest in the sea border after it failed to do s 12 during its participation in the original registration proceedings. See discussion supra. For thes I3 reasons, the proposed amendment does not violate the basic purpose of the registration law and i 11 may be granted. However, the Court must address its authority to grant such an amendment. 15 III. Mistakes in Title Registration 16 Under California's Torrens Act, a land registration judgment is final and cannot be se 17 aside for a mistake except within one (1) year of registration. Cooper v. Buxton, 186 Cal. 330 18 331-333, 199 P. 6 (1921). The former Torrens Act also provided for an "assurance fund" t 19 compensate, "persons who have been unjustly deprived of their property by the decree." Id. a 20 333. The assurance fund was created because, 21 The [Torrens] act itself seems to recognize that in spite of all its provisions for the 22 protection of a registered owner in the security of his title he may, through the operation of the act or through fraud or other fault on the part of others, be 23 deprived of all or a part of his interest in the land, and this without fault upon his 24 part.

25 Gill v. Johnson, 21 Cal.App.2d 649, 654, 69 P.2d 1016 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1937). In 1933 26 Guam adopted the one (1) year statute of limitation to correct a mistake in land registration but i 27 did not adopt the assurance fund provision. See 21 GCA §§ 29146,29197. 28

Page 5 of7 In this case, the original land surveyor testified that his 1977 survey was mistaken, bu 2 the registration judgment cannot be set aside for a mistake more than twenty (20) years later. Se 3 21 GCA § 29146; Cooper, 186 Cal. at 333. By this operation of Guam law, the Perez Estate 4 may lose an interest in Matala's coastal lands without compensation due to the fault of th 5 mistaken land surveyor. This is an especially inequitable result where no party asserted a 6 adverse interest to the sea boundary or the "East: Pacific Ocean" description in the firs 7 registration proceeding. A new petition to register the excluded land is inconsistent with the firs 8 petition to register Matala as bounded "East: Pacific Ocean". Most importantly, a new petitio 9 which must characterize the missing coastal land as previously unregistered may unjustly expos 10 Matala to the Government's newfound claims to the sea boundary. For these reasons, the Cou 11 is averse to the application of21 GCA § 29146 and Cooper, 186 Cal. at 333 in the circumstance

12 of this case. l3 IV. Other Torrens Jurisdictions 14 Other state jurisdictions employ the Torrens registration system with generall 15 comparable statutes and principles. The Court may look to these jurisdictions for additiona 16 guidance. See e.g. People v. Tennessen, 2010 Guam 12 ~ 11; People v. Songeni, 2010 Guam 2

17 ~~ 20-21.

18 When Minnesota courts faced, "an increasingly wide range of problems," with Torren 19 land registration decrees, they allowed subsequent registration proceedings to address issues tha 20 would otherwise be barred by the finality of the decree. In re Metro Siding, Inc., 624 N.W.2 2] 303, 307-308 (Minn. App. 2001). The Minnesota Legislature recognized this judicial trend an 22 amended the Torrens law to specifically allow alterations and adjudications, includin 23 amendment, to certificates of title after proper notice is given. Id. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 24 508.71 (2002), a land registration judgment may be amended without offense to the origina 25 decree after interested parties are notified that ownership will be at issue in subsequen 26 proceedings. !d. at 308-310. 27 The practice of amendment after proper notice may be an appropriate solution in this cas 28 where the original decree may not be opened. Compare Minn. Stat. § 508.71 with 21 GCA

Page 6 of7 29195. Proper notice to interested parties and the opportunity to raise adverse claims shall giv 2 the Court the assurance that title to the amended boundary is quieted and indefeasibly vested i 3 the true owner. Amendment may then be granted because the basic Torrens principles of du 4 process and the protection of registrants and bona fide purchasers are satisfied. An amendmen 5 may be the only way to protect the first registrant in this case where the Registration Law doe 6 not provide compensation for loss due to error in the survey of an undisputed boundary. 7 Most importantly, an amendment does not appear to harm any title interest in this cas 8 because the interested parties did not object to the Matala sea boundary in the first registratio 9 proceeding, and they likely cannot do so today. See Cruz, 869 F.2d at 1327-1328. However, th 10 Court shall require proper notice to all interested parties as a condition of amendment in order t 11 uphold the aforementioned principles of the Land Title Registration Law. 12 III 13 III 14 III 15 CONCLUSION 16 Based upon the foregoing, the Court shall grant amendment with the retracement surve 17 on the condition of proper notice. The movants are hereby ORDERED to give notice of th 18 amended registration pursuant to 21 GCA § 29112. An amended decree of registration may b 19 entered in the absence of a meritorious objection. See Cruz, 869 F.2d 1326. 20 til (1j''}~)f?~ 21 SO ORDERED this./.z!.- day o~y, 2012. 22

24 ONORABLE KATHERINE A. MARAMAN Judge, Superior Court of Guam 25

Page 7 of7