Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Rekewis v Ngirasewei [1964] TTLawRp 15; 2 TTR 536 (5 February 1964)

2 TTR 536

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

PALAU DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 269

REKEWIS and NGIRAKESAU

Plaintiffs

v

NGIRASEWEI

Defendant

February 5, 1964

Action to determine ownership of land in Ngaraard Municipality which was listed in Japanese survey of 1938-1941 as party's individual land by agreement of clan leaders and which was subsequently cleared and planted by that party. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that where clan acquiesced in land becoming individual land of party, presumption arising from listing in survey report is controlling.

1. Palau Land Law-Clan Ownership

Regardless of whether Palauan clan or one of groups within it formerly owned land, or whether it was abandoned by former owners, development of land by individual member gives him strong claim to it in any division of land clan might make.

2. Palau Land Law-Japanese Survey-Presumptions

Where Palauan clan acquiesced in listing of land in Japanese survey as member's individual land, \presumption arising from survey report is controlling.

FURBER, Chief Justice

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Ongolakel Clan is composed of two groups which are not actually related to each other by blood; the plaintiffs Rekewis and Ngirakesau are members of one of these groups and the defendant Ngirasewei is a member of the other.

2. The members of both of these groups left the matter of the listing of the land in question in the official Japanese land survey of about 1938 to 1941 to Belesam and Bachal, each of whom was the head of one of these two groups at the time.

3. Belesam and Bachal talked the matter of the listing of this land over with the Palauan appointed by the survey authorities to consider such matters and agreed that it should be listed as the defendant Ngirasewei's individual land; all three of them then reported to the Japanese official in charge of such matters that the land might be so listed without any dispute.

4. It came to the attention of the Japanese land office in Ngarhelong that there might be some question about the listing, or listings, of land in the name of the defendant Ngirasewei; an investigation was therefore made and it was determined that the listing, or listings were all right.

5. The plaintiffs have failed to sustain the burden of showing that the listing of the land in question in the report of the Japanese land survey referred to above was wrong.

OPINION