In the Matter of: Certificate of Title No. 134390. Lot No. 3417-1-3NEW-R1, Sinajana, Guam and Certificate of Title No. 134391. Lot No. 3417-1-4, Sinajana, Guam Government of Guam, through the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, Mr. Leevin T. Camacho, Attorney General v. Genedine Perez Quitugua, Respondent/Real-Party-In-Interest-Appellant
2021 Guam 19
Guam2021Background
- In 2002 Juanita Quitugua executed two deeds of gift reserving life estates: one granting Lot 3417-1-3NEW-R1 to Marissa and Genedine as tenants in common; the other granting Lot 3417-1-4 to Raymond and Eddie Jr. as tenants in common. Certificates of title were not issued to those co-owners.
- In 2013 Juanita executed a deed conveying all her interest in both lots to her daughter Genedine. The Government’s Abstracts indicated the 2002 deeds created co-tenancies; the certificates of title nonetheless listed Genedine as sole owner.
- In 2017 the Government (through the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the Department of Land Management) petitioned under 21 GCA § 29195 to correct the two certificates to reflect the tenants in common created by the 2002 deeds. Only Genedine was summoned to the proceeding.
- Genedine moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (improper petitioner and failure to join necessary parties) and other pleading defects; the Government filed a countermotion for summary judgment and submitted certified copies of the 2002 deeds.
- The trial court denied dismissal, considered the certified 2002 deeds and Genedine’s sworn declaration (her sole opposing evidence), and granted the Government’s countermotion: concluding Genedine failed to raise a material fact dispute and that Juanita’s 2013 deed could not convey more than the life estate she possessed.
- The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed: the Attorney General may represent the registrar to bring a § 29195 petition; statutory defects were not jurisdictional; the estates of Raymond and Eddie Jr. were not required to be joined under GRCP 19 in these circumstances; and summary judgment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government/AG is an appropriate petitioner under 21 GCA § 29195 | The AG/Government was not the statutorily authorized petitioner; petition defective | AG may represent Department of Land Management (the registrar) and bring § 29195 petition | AG may represent registrar; Government was appropriate petitioner |
| Whether failure to meet § 29195 formalities deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Petition defects (lack of specific explanation; improper summons) deprived court of jurisdiction | § 29195 contains no jurisdictional prerequisites; Superior Court has jurisdiction under Land Title Registration Law | Statutory noncompliance did not divest subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the estates of Raymond and Eddie Jr. were necessary parties under GRCP 19 | Estates were indispensable and must be joined; failure to join deprived court of jurisdiction | Genedine was sole registered owner on the certificates and was properly summoned; absent parties could be omitted under § 29195 | Estates were not necessary under Rule 19 given the statute and facts; omission was not jurisdictional |
| Whether summary judgment was improperly granted because Government’s evidence was inadmissible and Genedine’s declaration was sole evidence | Only Genedine’s sworn declaration was before the court; other documents were not properly authenticated | Government submitted certified public-record copies of the 2002 deeds admissible under GRE 902; Genedine produced no probative evidence to create a fact issue | Deeds were properly authenticated; Genedine failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968) (Rule 19 joinder principles and discretion)
- Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Martin, 466 F.2d 593 (7th Cir. 1972) (Rule 19(a)(1) focuses on relief among present parties)
- United States ex rel. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 34 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 1994) (purpose of Rule 19(a)(2)(i) is to protect absent parties’ legitimate interests)
- Pioneer Abstract & Title Guar. Co. v. Feraud, 267 P. 134 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) (Torrens system aims to make certificates of title conclusively show the state of title)