Tagoilelagi v. Sitala

2 Am. Samoa 3d 230
CourtHigh Court of American Samoa
DecidedSeptember 21, 1998
DocketMT No. 01-96
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Am. Samoa 3d 230 (Tagoilelagi v. Sitala) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of American Samoa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tagoilelagi v. Sitala, 2 Am. Samoa 3d 230 (amsamoa 1998).

Opinions

OPINION AND ORDER

Trial for the registration of the matai title “Tagoilelagi” began on July 9 and concluded on July 13, 1998. Prior to trial, counterclaimant Fa'sefulu Togia'i withdrew his candidacy. Counterclaimants Tofau Palaie Gaoteote, Aloali'i Tapu Tagaloa, and Lotomau Peau withdrew their candidacies at the beginning of the trial. The trial thus proceeded with claimant Fagaoali'i Laloulu Tagoilelagi (“Fagaoali'i”) and counterclaimant Ulimasao Sítala Sítala, Jr. (“Ulimasao”) as the two remaining candidates for the title.

[232]*232Discussion

A. Eligibility ■’

As an initial matter, Fagaoali'i questions whether Ulimasao meets the one-year residency requirement for registration eligibility set forth in A.S.C.A. § 1.0404(a). Section 1.0404 (a) provides that, with certain exceptions inapplicable in this instance, “no one is eligible to claim or object to the succession to a matai title unless he has resided in American Samoa for one calendar year immediately preceding the date of objection.”

Ulimasao filed his counterclaim to the title “Tagoilelagi” with the Territorial Registrar in September 1994. Before then, he resided outside of American Samoa for substantial periods of time, as further detailed in the selection criteria discussed below. However, he returned to reside permanently in American Samoa in June 1993, more than one year earlier. Thus, we conclude that Ulimasao meets the one-year residency requirement of section 1.0404(a).

B. Selection Criteria

The court’s evaluation of the four criteria set foxth in A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c) is decisive in awarding matai titles in contested registration actions. We discuss the criteria in the order of their priority.

1. Best Hereditary Right (A.S.C.A. § 1.0409(c)(1))

Presently, two factions exist in the Tagoilelagi family, each having different histories with respect to the original and subsequent titleholders and family clans. The two contestants do agree, however, that “Tagomailelagi” was the original spelling of the title.1 Fagaoali'i considers Tagomailelagi Tagaloalagi to be the first titleholder. Ulimasao names Tagomailelagi Uitualagi as the first titleholder.

Both candidates do recognize Tagomailelagi Uitualagi to be Tagaloalagi’s son. They materially differ, however, on the origin of the Tagoilelagi title, placing particular importance on the first titleholder’s birthplace. According to Fagaoali'i’s legend, Tagaloalagi, a heavenly chief, married Sina of Vatia. Tagaloalagi bestowed the title “Tagomailelagi” upon their son Tagaloalagi, who was bom in Vatia. Under Ulimasao’s legend, Tagaloalagi was the issue of an immortal being and came from Manu'a to marry Sina of Vatia. He then bestowed [233]*233the title “Tagomailelagi” upon their son Uitaulagi, who was bom in Vatia. Except for one titleholder, Tagomailelagi Vaiga, each candidate also presents a completely different list of the titleholders after Tagomailelagi Uitaulagi until the last three Tagoilelagi titleholders, Solomona or Leota, Taua, and Elia.

Because the candidates disagree over the identities of the original titleholder and most of the subsequent titleholders, we follow the traditional rule for determining the best hereditary right by examining each candidate’s closest relationship to a previous titleholder. See Misaalefua v. Hudson, 1 A.S.R.3d 23, 25 (Appellate Div. 1997). Fagaoali'i is the son of the last titleholder, Tagoilelagi Elia, and thus, by this method, has 50% Tagoilelagi blood. Ulimasao is five generations removed from Tagomailelagi Meleisea (who is not recognized as a titleholder by Fagaoali'i) and thus has 1/32 or 3.125% Tagoilelagi blood. This substantial difference in the two candidates’ blood connections to the title emphasizes the Tecent dominance of Fagaoali'i’s side of the family in the selection of the titleholders.2

We do note, however, that according to their respective pedigrees, Fagaoali'i is nine generations removed from the candidates’ common ancestral titleholder, Tagomailelagi Uitaulagi, and 10 generations from Fagaoali'i’s original titleholder, Tagomailelagi Tagaloalagi, while Ulimasao is 10 generations removed from their common ancestral and his original titleholder and 11 generations after Fagaoali'i’s original titleholder. If we disregard the candidates’ substantial disagreement over the identities and order of the previous titleholders for discussion purposes and apply the more equitable Sotoa rule of tracing blood lines back to the original or a common ancestral titleholder, In re Matai Title “Sotoa”, 2 A.S.R.2d 15 (Land & Title Div. 1984), the candidates’ hereditary rights to the title “Tagoilelagi” are much closer to each other, only a generation apart.

However, under either the traditional rule or the Sotoa rule, Fagaoali'i prevails over Ulimasao with the better hereditary right to the title.

2. Wish of the Majority or Plurality of the Family’s Customary Clans (A S C A § 1 0409(e)(7))

Following the custom of identifying family clans by the names of the original titleholder’s children, Fagaoali'i recognizes two clans, Uitualagi [234]*234and Silaulelei, Tagomailelagi Tagaloalagi’s son and daughter. The daughter did not have children. Thus, he claims that the Uitualagi clan is the Tagoilelagi family’s only “living” clan. Ulimasao uses the same tradition. However, even though Tagomailelagi Uitaulagi had five children, he names only four clans, Falemalama (son), Sulufaiga (son), Sina (daughter), and Sa'a (son). Ulimasao disregards the fifth child, Tuiasosopo (son), because there is no family record of his descendants or their participation as a clan in the affairs of the Tagoilelagi family.

Since Fagaoali'i and Ulimasao acknowledge Tagomailelagi Uitualagi as a common ancestor, we believe that both candidates essentially recognize the same persons as the present descendants of the Tagoilelagi family’s traditional clans. Thus, regardless of the candidates’ differences in the number and names of the clans, based on distinct family traditions, it matters little in this case whether the present family members descend from, or are identified with, Fagaoali'i’s single clan or one of Ulimasao’s four clans.

The results of the family meetings which were held to deliberate on and select the successor to the Tagoilelagi title are far more important to the clan wish issue than the number and names of the clans.

The family clan or clans first met in February 1994. Ulimasao and another tulafale (or “talking chief’) of the family were nominated. The discussions were peaceful and harmonious in accordance with Samoan customs. Although Ulimasao appeared to have more support, the selection was postponed until a later time. The second meeting was held in May 1994.. Again, the same persons were nominated. After the discussions, Ulimasao was still the apparent favorite for the title, but the family clan or clans decided that yet another meeting would be held in an effort to achieve a trae consensus.

Fagaoali'i nominated Ulimasao’s competitor and was not himself nominated during the first two meetings. However, on July 20, 1994, he filed his claim for the title “Tagoilelagi” with the Territorial Registrar. His action prompted the five original counterclaimants to oppose Fagaoali'i’s claim and seek the title.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Am. Samoa 3d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tagoilelagi-v-sitala-amsamoa-1998.