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

  Download original PDF

Liwinrak v Jiwirak T [1958] TTLawRp 11; 1 TTR 394 (31 March 1958)

TRIAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT

MARSHALL ISLANDS DISTRICT

Civil Action No. 82

LIWINRAK
Plaintiff

v

JIWIRAK T
Defendant

March 31, 1958

Action to determine iroij lablab rights in certain wato on Ine Island, Arno Atoll. The Trial Division of the High Court, Associate Justice Philip R. Toomin, held that where one claiming to succeed as iroij lablab was never recognized as such by interested parties, and there is reasonable uncertainty as to rightful successor, no valid claim to the succession is effectively made, and claimant's action in going upon the land in question was unjustified and constituted trespass, against which equity will grant relief.

1. Marshalls Custom-"Iroij Lablab"--Succession

Where former judgment named party as temporary iroij lablab and recognized possibility of others having equal or better right to that title, party named is entitled to act as iroij lablab only until such time as there was clear decision as to proper person to exercise those powers.

2. Marshalls Custom-"Iroij Lablab"-Succession

Under Marshallese custom, where there is such reasonable uncertainty as to rightful successor to deceased iroij lablab so as to make substantial numbers of owners or interested persons hesitate before declaring their recognition, no valid claim to succession can be effectively made unless and until persons having rights in such lands recognize successor in such a fashion as to evince unmistakable choice.

3. Marshalls Custom-"Iroij Lablab"-Recognition

Under Marshallese custom, where there is no proper recognition of party as iroij lablab at any time by parties having alab interest in wato, party's action in going upon land to harvest and remove copra therefrom was without legal ground, was unjustified, and amounts to trespass against which equity will relieve.

TOOMIN, Associate Justice

A. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Since 1956 plaintiff Liwinrak's mother Klene has been the alab in possession of Mwinmwidre wato on Ine Island in Arno Atoll. Klene had been living on and working this wato for many years during the lifetime of her mother Limoren, the former alab who died in 1956. Limoren was the older sister of Enej, who was acting alab on her behalf, and both of them were living on and working this land as far back as 1915. There has been no iroij erik on this wato, at least as far back as the time of Liwaito, who died in 1932 and who was the leroij lablab over, and was receiving the iroij lablab share of production from said wato at the time of her death.

2. No iroij lablab share of production from said wato had been paid by any of the alab on said land, or anyone on their respective behalves, after 1932. Upon the ground that he was the rightful successor to Liwaito as iroij lablab, the defendant Jiwirak entered on said land in 1957, without making demand or claim, and harvested and removed 500 pounds of copra therefrom.

3. There has never been any recognition by either Klene, the present alab, or by Limoren, the prior alab, or anyone acting on their respective behalves, of defend-ant Jiwirak as iroij lablab of said wato.

B. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

[1] 1. Defendant Jiwirak claims to be the true successor to Liwaito, the former iroij lablab over the subject wato. From the genealogical chart of the family of Liwaito heretofore received in evidence in Lainlij v. Lojoun, 1 TTR 113, and from other evidence received in that case on behalf of defendant Jiwirak, it appeared that he was among the class of persons having the necessary relationship to Liwaito, which would entitle them and him to recognition as iroij lablab in succession to her, with respect to the numerous wato over which she was admittedly enjoying iroij lablab rights at the time of her death. Because of the possibility of others having an equal or better right, the court in Lainlij, supra, decreed that Jiwirak was entitled to act as iroij lablab over the properties involved in that case, until such time, if any, as there should be some other clear establishment of the proper person to exercise the powers of the former Leroij Liwaito.

[2] The theory of the court in temporarily, at least confirming Jiwirak in his claim to the succession, was that there had been recognition of his claims by the plaintiff in that case, and that by virtue of plaintiffs such conduct (in that case) he was precluded from later "turning his back" and joining the opposition. It was therefore upon the basis of acceptance and recognition that the Lainlij decision was based, and not upon an automatic ac cession bottomed upon birth and blood. This court therefore holds that where, as here, there is such reasonable uncertainty as to the rightful successor, or whether there is any successor at all, as to make substantial numbers of owners or interested parties hesitate before declaring their recognition, no valid claim to the succession can be effectively made with respect to any lands, unless and until the persons having rights in such lands have recognized the claimant, either by appropriate words or con duct, in such fashion as to evince an unmistakable choice. To hold otherwise would impose an onerous burden on innocent persons which the law should be chary to sanction.

[3] 2. There is no question but that Jiwirak entered upon plaintiffs land and harvested and removed copra therefrom. The court has found as a fact that there was no recognition of defendant as iroij lablab at any time by the parties having the alab's interest in said wato. It must necessarily follow from such finding and the conclusions reached in the preceding numbered paragraph, that Jiwirak's action in going upon the land above described was without legal ground, was unjustified, and. amounts to a trespass against which equity will relieve. While it is claimed that this action was based on an alleged proof of recognition: through. the will of one Enoj, who was at most only acting as alab for the benefit of the alab Limoren, no adequate proof was offered of the execution of the said will, no copy was introduced, nor was there any satisfactory evidence that the alab Limoren had sanctioned or con-firmed such alleged action of Enoj.

Whether the will, if it had been proved and shown to be authorized, would have been adequate to establish the claim of recognition, without proof of its approval by the members of the alab's family in possession and working the: land, is not being passed on by this court, though made an issue in the case, in view of the holding that there was no adequate proof of the alleged will.

3. From the conclusions reached hereinabove, it follows that defendant Jiwirak has no right to come upon the land Mwinmwidre, harvest copra thereon and remove the same or any of the products therefrom, and that his doing so is without legal ground and amounts to a trespass. It also follows that he is not entitled to evict Klene and plaintiff from said wato for failure to recognize him as iroij lablab over said wato.

C. JUDGMENT

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:-

1. That the defendant Jiwirak account to plaintiff Liwinrak, on behalf of her mother Klene, for the value of 500 pounds of copra removed by him in 1957 without legal authority from the premises described above, and to pay said amount to said plaintiff, on behalf of her mother, within ten (10) days from the date of. this order.

That the defendant Jiwirak T. be and he is hereby permanently restrained, prohibited, and enjoined from going upon Mwinmwidre wato on Ine Island, Arno Atoll, from interfering in any way with the possession and quiet enjoyment thereof by plaintiff and her mother Klene, or any persons in privity with them, from harvesting any part of the products grown on said premises, and from removing any of such products from said premises.

3. This order shall not affect any rights of way there may be over the land in question.

4. No costs are assessed against either party.