Supreme Court of Palau

[ 4] rst find that the Trial rial Division erred in finding the existence of a new, localized custom surrounding the development of tilding at issue. Customary law must be found based on four requirements: “(1) the cuse custom is engaged voluntarily; (2) the custom is practiced uniformly; (3) the custom is followed as law; and (4) the custom has been practiced for a sufficient period of time to be deemed binding.” Beouch v. Sasao, 20 ROP 41, 48 (App. Div. 2013). The existence of customary law is reviewed de novo. Id. at 50.
[ 5] Here, tial Division conc conclusorily referenced the Beouch test once in its decision when it said, “In essence, because this Court finds clear and convincing evidence that this building community center, the Cour Court finds that Ngermid has created a new (and localized) customary law under Beouch v. Sasao, 20 ROP 41 (2013).” Decision at 6. However, the Trial Division did not engage of any discussion of its analysis of the Beouch requirements. Indeed, the Trial Division’s decision fails to clearly identify or describe the allegedly new custom. Instead, the analysis preceding this conclusion all centered on evidence that demonstrated, in the Trial Division’s opinion, that the building was funded with public money and intended to be used as a community center. Id. at 4-5. In short, the Trial Division did not sufficiently support its determination that Ngermid created new customary law.
[ 6] Neveess, we affirm the Tthe Trial Division’s ultimate resolution because the finding of new customary law was unnecessary to ire determination on remand. We need not adopt a trial court’s reasoning in order to r to affirm its judgment. See, e.g., Ochedaruchei Clan v. Thomas, 2020 Palau 11 12. Simply put, we find support for the Trial Division’s determination that neither of the parties sufficiently demonstrated an entitlement to legally control access to the building. Hwe review issues of law de novo and findings of fact for clor clear error. E.g., Sugiyama v. Han, 2020 Palau 16 15.
[ 7] Ii thepellate briefs, tfs, the parties attack the Trial Division’s determination from various angles. They complain that all of the parties agree that the bai belongs to the Ngerbachesis chiefs and that the Trial Division simply needs to determine which of the two parties are the rightful chiefs. By not declaring an owner for the bai, one party complains that the Trial Division has created a vacuum in which the bai is left without management and maintenance. The other party complains that the Trial Division failed to support its determination that the building is a community center because no witnesses testified as to the specific agreements underlying the building’s construction.
[ 8] The parties neglect a e mple premise that underlies our adversarial system. Here, the Trial Division was not tasked with determining who, out of all ntities in the world, controls the building. The Trial Division was tasked with adjudicatiicating a dispute between the parties before it. Each party claimed a right to control the building and an entitlement to exclude the other party from the building. The Trial Division simply found that neither party had sufficiently proven its claim and accordingly did not award control of the building to either party. If there was a lack of credible evidence to support a determination of who controls the building, the responsibility for that lies with the parties rather than with the Trial Division.
[ 9] In its decision, the Trial Division specifically acknowledged that determining who controls the building would not be appropriate “because the nece parties are not before the Court.” Decision at 6. The Trial Division did not fail fail to carry out its judicial duty; rather, it was the parties who failed to sufficiently prove their claims.

Conclusion

[ 10]b>AFFIRM the Trial Dial Division’s determination that neither party sufficiently demonstrated a legal right to control the building. As explained above, our decision does not rely o Trial Division’s sees seemingly unsupported finding of a new customary law.

^[1] Both parties waived oral argument. This appeal is submitted on the briefs in accordance with ROP R. App. P. 34(a).