7 TTR 538

ESUROI CLAN By RDIALUL EBERDONG, 
Plaintiff

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, and
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF AIRAI MUNICIPALITY, 
Defendants,

and

KESOL CLAN By JONATHAN NGIRMEKUR, 
Intervenor‑Appellant,

and

JOHANNES POLLOI By ANTHONY POLLOI, 
Intervenor Civil

Appeal No. 146
Appellate Division of the High Court
Palau District

June 8, 1977

Appeal from finding that appellant had no interest in certain land. The Appellate Division of the High Court, Williams, Associate Justice, held that the finding was supported by the evidence.
Appeal and Error—Findings and Conclusions—Tests
Trial court's findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.
Counsel for Appellant: J. ROMAN BEDOR, Micronesian Legal Services Corporation
Counsel for Appellee:	CARLOS SALII, Assistant Attorney General for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

BROWN, Associate Justice, WILLIAMS, Associate Justice and PEREZ, Special Justice

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in Palau Civil Action No. 6-74.
The original action was instituted by the plaintiff Esuroi Clan, claiming ownership of a large parcel of land in the Palau District. The defendants Trust Territory Government and Airai Municipality contest Plaintiff's claim and allege ownership of said land.
After the issues were joined between Plaintiff and Defendants, the Kesol Clan intervened, claiming ownership in the area somewhat similar to that claimed by Plaintiff although not as large.
Another intervenor, Johannes Polloi, filed a claim for a portion of the land in question.
Each of the parties were found to own certain portions of the total area in dispute but this appeal only involves that portion of the judgment awarding a certain portion of the lands in question to the defendants Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Airai Municipality.
Intervenor Kesol Clan timely filed an apppeal from the Court's decision finding that the Kesol Clan had no interest in the land north of the "K" line.
Plaintiff Esuroi Clan also appealed from the judgment but said appeal was not timely filed and Plaintiff did not otherwise participate in the proceedings on appeal.
The trial court rejected the appellant's claim of ownership to the land north of the "K" line. Appellant contends that the trial court's judgment rested on the grounds of laches and the statute of limitations. While the Court's decision against the plaintiff and the other intervenors may have been based upon laches or the statute of limitations, it is readily apparent from a review of the judgment that these grounds were not the basis of the Court's decision against Appellant. After consideration of the evidence, the trial court merely found that Appellant had no interest in the lands in question, thus in effect ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support Appellant's claim.
This Court has repeatedly held that the findings of the trial court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Helgenberger v. Trust Territory, 4 TTR 530 (App. Div. 1969) 6 TTC § 355(2). The function of the appellate court in reviewing evidence is clearly set forth in Arriola v. Arriola, 4 TTR 486 (App. Div. 1969), and we have reviewed the record and find the trial court could properly conclude that Appellants have no interest in the property north of the "K" line.
Although Appellant has raised other allegations of error by the trial court, discussion of these issues herein is not necessary in view of our ruling on the sufficiency of the facts. Therefore, judgment of the trial court is affirmed.