Robert S. Unpingco v. Antolin Derry, 2021 Guam 1

Plaintiff Robert S. Unpingco is the Torrens‑registered owner of Lot 1072-2-A-2 (certificate of title showing no encumbrances); he registered in 1978 and returned to the property in 2016.
Defendant Antolin Derry built a wall and fence in 1994 that encroached ~33 sq ft onto Unpingco’s registered land.
A neighbor notified Unpingco of the encroachment in 2017; Department of Public Works issued a Notice of Violation to Derry in 2018.
Unpingco sued (Dec. 5, 2018) for trespass, injunctive relief (removal of encroachment), and damages—over 24 years after construction.
Trial court denied Unpingco’s partial summary judgment and granted Derry’s cross‑motion, holding the suit was time‑barred by the 3‑year trespass statute (7 GCA § 11305(b)).
The Supreme Court of Guam reversed, holding the trespass statute does not bar actions on Torrens‑registered land and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 3‑year statute of limitations for trespass (7 GCA § 11305(b)) bars Unpingco’s suit on Torrens‑registered land	§11305(b) should not apply to Torrens‑registered land; Torrens indefeasibility protects registered owners from unregistered encumbrances and statutes of limitation for trespass	§11305(b) bars trespass claims after three years from the act of trespass; Derry’s encroachment occurred in 1994 so claim is time‑barred	The trespass statute is inapplicable to Torrens‑registered land; summary judgment was reversed and case remanded for further proceedings
Whether factual issues (ongoing trespass/ discovery rule/ fraud) preclude summary judgment	There are genuine disputes (ongoing intrusion, discovery tolling, fraud) needing factfinder resolution	Trial court relied on statute of limitations and found no genuine dispute on timeliness	Court did not decide these merits issues; they were unnecessary to resolution and the case was remanded for further proceedings

Pioneer Abstract & Title Guar. Co. v. Feraud, 267 P. 134 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) (describing Torrens certificate as conclusive evidence of title)
Kincaid v. Yount, 459 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983) (Torrens register as absolute proof of indefeasible title)
Peters v. Archambault, 278 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1972) (encroachment undermines purpose of land registration acts)
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 9 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. 1943) (doctrine on boundary by practical location/acquiescence)
State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Beale, 227 N.E.2d 924 (Mass. 1967) (restitution for claims against registration decrees procured by fraud)