Government is entitled to injunction restraining defendants from erecting building on land between sea and Pago Pago highway since this is government land. Luce v. Pila, 3 A.S.R. 127.

Village malae is public land for use of entire village and cannot be claimed as individual or communal land. Lefao v. Malepeai, 4 A.S.R. 111.

Fact Governor advised alleged owner not to build fale on land is evidence of government’s claim of ownership. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

Fales constructed illegally on government property may be property of person building them, and if they are destroyed by Marines, War Damage Claim Commission may recognize claims on destroyed fales without recognizing any claim to land. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

Decision of trial court in awarding land to Government is not against interest of Samoan people since property held by Government is for use and benefit of all people of Samoa. Mageo v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 874.

Freehold land is all those lands included in court grants prior to 1900. A.S.C.A. § 37.0201(b). Vaivao v. Craddick, 14 A.S.R.2d 108.

Action to recover littoral rights taken by the government ninety years ago is barred by the doctrine of laches and by a statute which bars causes of action to recover real property if not brought within twenty years after they accrue. A.S.C.A. § 43.0120(6). Vaivao v. Craddick, 14 A.S.R.2d 108.

American Samoa’s “coastal zone management area” is defined as including the entire island of Tutuila, along with all the other islands and all coastal waters and submerged lands for a distance of three nautical miles seaward. A.S.A.C. § 26.0207. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

American Samoa’s submerged and tidal lands, which are those permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters, belong to the territorial government. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

A person cannot convert public land into his own private property by unilaterally and artificially changing its character, nor can he acquire title by offering for registration property legally incapable of private ownership. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

A person who does not own the land for which a land-use permit was denied has no standing to raise the question as to whether special enabling legislation was necessary to allow the Governor to promulgate the coastal zone management regulations affecting the rights of private property owners. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

The executive branch has the statutory authority to preserve and administer government lands. Solomona v. Governor of American Samoa, 17 A.S.R.2d 186.

§1(2) Cession

At time of cession of Samoa to United States, public property passed to United States Government and not Government of Samoa. Mulu v. Taliutafa, 3 A.S.R. 82.

When Kingdom of Tuimanua came to an end and sovereignty of King passed to United States, pursuant to principles of international law, property owned by King in his capacity as King became, as result of cession, property of United States Government. Mulu v. Taliutafa, 3 A.S.R. 82.

Court has held that land owned by king in capacity as king became property of United States when island was ceded to United States. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

The court is bound by statute and treaty to recognize freehold grants made by the Land Commission of Samoa, which operated in Apia under the supervision of the then-Supreme Court of Samoa, prior to the United States-established government. Willis v. Fai`ivae, 17 A.S.R.2d 38.

§1(3) Eminent Domain

SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 7(4) – TAKINGS AND JUST COMPENSATION

Where Government condemned land to seaward side of highway, highway marks boundary of Government land. Teo v. Totoa, 2 A.S.R. 243.

Land taken for public highway and earth taken in repairing public highway are for public use and benefit, and taking of land in American Samoa for purpose of securing rock therefrom for use in highway construction and repair is taking for public purposes and when such taking is for just compensation, it does not violate due process of law. Government v. Soliai, 2 A.S.R. 600.

Where there is full hearing on question of value and qualified witnesses testify, court will uphold determination of Board of Arbitrators as to just compensation for condemnation of property. Government v. Soliai, 2 A.S.R. 600.

Government condemned and paid for use of land between highway and Pago Pago Bay by regulation in 1900, and such condemnation vested title in government. Luce v. Pila, 3 A.S.R. 127.

Due Process does not require actual notice to person actually present on condemned land, but only notice reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of pendency of action and afford them opportunity to be heard. Government v. Isumu, 4 A.S.R. 141.

Generally, collateral attack on condemnation judgment is only allowed if judgment is alleged to be void and not merely technically defective. Government v. Isumu, 4 A.S.R. 141.

Abandonment of condemned land requires both intent to abandon and act effecting abandonment—mere non-use or misuse of properly condemned land does not create abandonment. Government v. Isumu, 4 A.S.R. 141.

While person can lawfully erect building on his own land, he cannot erect building on land of government without permission, and ordinance forbidding erection of structure on seaward side of public highway indicates land was taken by government at time public highway was condemned. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

Navy commander condemned lands for public highway by issuance of an ordinance in 1900. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

Finding by trial court that Government owned land condemned and appropriated for public use by ordinance was not erroneous. Mageo v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 874.

Where ordinance states land is condemned, land is condemned and appropriated as of date of publication of ordinance. Mageo v. Government, 4 A.S.R. 874.

Where a statute states that the government appropriated a uniform fifteen feet inland from shore for public uses, since such a taking is not overbroad because public uses include utility poles and seawalls as well as roads, the statute should not be narrowly construed to entitle government only to land underlying road since to do so would interfere with government’s power of eminent domain as well as ignore the clear language of the statute. Vaivao v. Craddick, 14 A.S.R.2d 108.

Subject to several exceptions, filled-in and submerged coastal lands were transferred for the United States Government to ASG, to be administered in trust for the territory’s people. 48 U.S.C. § 1705(a). Anderson v. Vaivao, 21 A.S.R.2d 95.

An action challenging ordinances condemning land for the coastal road was barred by laches when the plaintiff did not file suit until 90 years after the ordinances were enacted. A.S.C.A. § 37.2050. Anderson v. Vaivao, 21 A.S.R.2d 95.

A.S.C.A. § 37.2001(b) does not have retrospective effect. American Samoa Gov’t v. Meredith, 28 A.S.R.2d 10.

The plain language of A.S.C.A. § 37.2001(b) restricts it from applying to a condemnation proceeding that occurred before its passage into law. American Samoa Gov’t v. Meredith, 28 A.S.R.2d 92.

A.S.C.A. § 37.2001(b), which requires the government to return condemned land if not used for its stated purpose within five years after condemnation, does not have retrospective effect. American Samoa Gov’t v. Estate of Fuimaono Tuinanau, 28 A.S.R.2d 187.

§1(4) Leases

Fact lease to Church of private land also included Government land does not deprive Government of its property. Teo v. Totoa, 2 A.S.R. 243.

Fact Government considered paying rents to private person for warehouse on government land does not transfer title to private person. Lago v. Mageo, 4 A.S.R. 287.

While Government can complain if house of pastor is not within dimension required by statute, private party cannot if house is built within land given for this purpose. C.A.S. 17.0106. Muasau v. Pita, 4 A.S.R. 337.

Territorial statute providing for a “legislative veto” of leases of government land did not violate American Samoa Constitution. A.S.C.A. § 37.2030; Rev. Const’n of Am. Samoa art. II §§ 9 & 10. Tuika Tuika v. Governor of American Samoa, 4 A.S.R.2d 85.

A lease between the American Samoa Government and a private party must be in accordance with certain statutory requirements. American Samoa Gov’t v. South Pacific Island Airsystems, Inc., 28 A.S.R.2d 74.

Any renewal or extension of a lease for a term 10 years or more requires Fono approval. A.S.C.A. § 37.2030. American Samoa Gov’t v. South Pacific Island Airsystems, Inc., 28 A.S.R.2d 74.

In light of its constitutional authority to “protect the lands,” the Legislature has a legitimate interest in the oversight and regulation of any land development projects by non-Samoans. This interest is legitimately furthered by requiring that detailed plans be submitted and approved by the Governor before a lease arrangement can go forward. Craddick Dev. Inc. v. Craddick, 28 A.S.R.2d 117.

To become valid, a lease of native land must be approved by the Governor. A.S.C.A. § 37.0221(a). Before the Governor approves any document affecting title to land, it must be reviewed by the Land Commission for recommendations. A.S.C.A. § 37.0203(a). Moetoto v. Tauileva, 28 A.S.R.2d 144.

The Legislature of American Samoa must by statute be given the opportunity to disapprove any lease of the ASG’s land for a period of 10 years or longer. A.S.C.A. § 37.2030. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

The Legislature has 30 days after it receives a lease of ASG land for a period of 10 years or longer to adopt a disapproval resolution under § 37.2030. Any lease subject to legislative review becomes effective only after this 30-day period passes without negative action. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

For the purposes of A.S.C.A. § 37.2030, the formal distinction between a lease “extension,” which continue an existing lease, and a lease “renewal,” which create an entirely new lease is irrelevant when a lessee has unilateral power to continue the leasehold. Unilateral options can give a lessee complete and exclusive control over the use of land, whether they are “extensions” or “renewals,” for prolonged periods without legislative review, something that § 37.2030 is designed to prevent. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

Where, in addition to entry into possession under an invalid lease, rent is paid and accepted under the lease, a periodic tenancy is created. By the payment and acceptance of such rent, the parties have given further indication of their intention to be bound by the invalid lease, and the periodic tenancy provides a measure of security of their expectations. A periodic tenancy was terminable at the will of either the lessor or the lessee with one month’s notice. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

Even if lease options are not explicitly mentioned in A.S.C.A. § 37.2030, the legislature’s mandatory review of leases of government land which go beyond 10 years include leases established for nine years with successive unilateral options for additional nine year terms. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 183.

§ 2 Communal Lands

§2(1) Public Policy

Court favors distribution of land equally among matais rather than having large tracts of land owned by individual Samoans. Satele v. Afoa, 1 A.S.R. 467.

Court recognizes Samoan custom that lands occupied by matai are held for benefit of family and that war damage claim brought by matai on lands is for benefit of family. Leasiolagi v. Fao, 2 A.S.R. 451.

It has been uninterrupted policy of Untied States Government since beginning of administration to protect Samoan communal lands for benefit of Samoans. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Constitution of 1960 shall not be construed to limit power of Government to provide for general welfare of people, including power of Governor to approve leases regarding the alienation of lands. (Const., Art. V, Sec. 8) Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Law dealing with alienation of communal or native lands in American Samoa is constitutional and law requiring approval of Governor on recommendation of Land Commission for alienation of leases of lands is constitutional and was in effect at time of execution of lease agreement in dispute. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Diminution of family land base by parceling out communal lands to individuals is not keeping with Samoan custom of retention of land in family for support and maintenance of family under control of family head. Aumoeualogo v. Mamoe, 4 A.S.R. 742.

There is a strong presumption that land in American Samoa is communal rather than individual property. Leota v. Faumuina, 4 A.S.R.2d 11.

Where a matai title has been registered as such for over eighty years, its holder is listed as a matai of the village in a forty-year-old document signed by various other matai of the village, and the leading matai of the village testifies that the holder of the title in question is regarded as a matai within the village and sits in the village council, court will conclude that the title is a matai title whose holder can own communal land. Avegalio v. Leatumauga, 9 A.S.R.2d 96.

The only ways communal land can become individual land are by adverse possession for thirty years or by compliance with the statutory procedures for alienation of communal land, including the approval of the Land Commission and the Governor. A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0120, 37.0201 et seq. Ava v. Logoai, 19 A.S.R.2d 75.

Although land use regulations impact activities on land and the manner in which an owner or possessor deals with land, they do not divest title interests within the meaning of Article I, § 3, the Bill of Rights of the American Samoa Revised Constitution of 1967, and therefore, are not subject to the double enactment requirement of Article I, § 3. Congressional Church of Jesus in Samoa v. A.S.G., 31 A.S.R.2d 122.

§2(2) Evidence of Communal Ownership

The best evidence of communal ownership of land is shown by family exercising acts of authority over the land such as clearing, planting, cultivating and building upon the land. Tiumalu v. Mailo, 1 A.S.R. 434.

Where two families have buried their members on same piece of land, court will award that land to them in common and each will have equal right to use land without interference from the other. Samia v. Tapuitea, 1 A.S.R. 552.

Fact persons from another family are buried on land may not be evidence of ownership since they may have married into family possessing land. Salavea L. v. Ilaoa, 2 A.S.R. 15.

Where communal land is offered for registration, registrant has burden of proving he has title to land. Liu v. Fao, 2 A.S.R. 41.

Evidence supports fact that disputed lands were jointly owned by two families at time of cession. Leapaga v. Taumua L., 2 A.S.R. 56.

Evidence sustains that clearing of land from bush and cultivation established ownership of land in family and not in individual, who occupied it with permission of matai. Fiailoa v. Meredith, 2 A.S.R. 129.

Evidence supports finding that disputed land is communal family land, that land as assigned to talking chief for use in accordance with Samoan custom and that objector was given possessory right in land. Faataliga v. Fano, 2 A.S.R. 376.

Evidence supports that land is communally owned by family who first occupied it and claimed ownership. Amituanai v. Sauitufuga, 2 A.S.R. 485

In absence of any satisfactory evidence as to whether person claimed land on behalf of himself or his family, court must be guided by presumption that she claimed it as family land on behalf of her clan. Toomata v. Vea, 2 A.S.R. 564.

Under Samoan custom, matai is buried on family lands, and burial of matai is evidence of ownership. Togia’i v. Aumua, 3 A.S.R. 3.

Deed to Government of portion of land in question, by grantors “for members of their families” is an admission by grantors that land is communal and not individually owned. Ene v. Moega, 3 A.S.R. 451.

Where matai filed war damage claim describing himself as owner in capacity as matai, evidence supports that land, regarding which claim was filed, is communally owned and not individually owned by matai. Muagututia v. Faimalo, 4 A.S.R. 237.

Court finds weight of evidence indicates that applicant as a family member cleared land, occupied it, put in plantations and claimed it as communal family land. Fe’a v. Sisipeni, 4 A.S.R. 320.

Fact objector to registration of family land got coconuts from land is not inconsistent with communal ownership where objector is member of family. Fe’a v Sisipeni, 4 A.S.R. 320.

Where only person from claimant family to live on land is one to whose presence possessors objected on several occasions, family has no evidence to substantiate claim of communal ownership. Soliai v. Apelu, 4 A.S.R. 349.

Greater weight of evidence indicates land was cleared and owned by family as communal land. Tuanaitua v. Paogofie, 4 A.S.R. 375.

Person claiming to have cleared and planted land may have done so as son of mother who is member of family which owns land, rather than as individual owner of land. Tuanaitau v. Paogofie, 4 A.S.R. 375.

Where notice is given to objectors at time of survey of land and they do not object, this is evidence of ownership in family obtaining survey. Mageo v. Fuga, 4 A.S.R. 426.

Where evidence substantiates that lands have been under use, control and cultivation of family for long time, court will order registration as communal land. Mageo v. Fuga, 4 A.S.R. 426.

Land registered as the property of an individual rather than of a communal family does not become communal property merely because relatives of the owner have occupied it in accordance with customs governing communal property. Roberts v. Sesepasara, 7 A.S.R.2d 139.

Defendant’s motion for a new trial, made on the ground that the judgment awarding plaintiff communal land was inconsistent with plaintiff’s original claim of individual land, was denied where plaintiff’s complaint prayed for an adjudication of communal ownership, the evidence showed the land was communal, and defendants were not prejudiced by the court’s conforming of its findings to the evidence. Ava v. Moe, 8 A.S.R.2d 95.

In deciding between competing claims to ownership of communal land the Court must look primarily to facts such as the record of occupation and cultivation, rather than to claims based upon family history. Afualo v. Fanene, Pualioa v. Afualo, 15 A.S.R.2d 48.

In determining whether land is communally or individually owned, the court will consider whether the land has been considered and used as communal or individual land over time. Schuster v. Lutu, 30 A.S.R.2d 51.

§2(3) Role of Matai

SEE SAMOAN CUSTOMS §8(3) – PULE OVER COMMUNAL LAND

§2(4) Rights of Family Members

Cultivation and continued use of lands vest right in family to continue to use lands subject to pule of matai. Levu v. Maluia, 1 A.S.R. 197.

Family who cultivates section of family lands has right to produce thereof so long as they retain possession, but upon abandonment of any section, disposition of that section is in discretion of matai. Levu v. Maluia, 1 A.S.R. 197.

Where two families have buried their members on same piece of land, court will award that land to them in common and each will have an equal right to use land without interference from the other. Samia v. Tapuitea, 1 A.S.R. 552.

Where matai succeeding to control of lands is from another family, this does not divest family which selects him as matai and of which he is member by marriage, of family land, since matai does not have own land but merely holds it for benefit of family. Salavea L. v. Ilaoa, 2 A.S.R. 15.

Rights of family members in land continue after death of matai. Satele v. Faga, 2 A.S.R. 26.

Under Samoan custom, family who used and occupied land had title thereto. Siva v. Asoaua, 2 A.S.R. 113.

Right to use and occupy family lands by family member is governed by codification of laws, which states that laws of United States concerning Samoa and common law of England, which are suitable to conditions of Samoa, shall be applied. Fiailoa v. Meredith, 2 A.S.R. 129.

Permission to use family lands given to family members by matai continues as long as family member lives on and uses land, subject to change by succeeding matai. Fiailoa v. Meredith, 2 A.S.R. 129.

Oral gift of interest in land by matai to family member which is relied upon by construction of fale and plantations on land cannot be terminated by mere whim of matai, but continues as long as donee abides by terms of gift and continues to live on and use land, or until death of present matai, who did not intend to bind successors, but in event of death of matai, occupant shall have reasonable time to remove fale and plantations from land. Fiailoa v. Meredith, 2 A.S.R. 129.

Family members have no right to register title to communal in their individual names. Tapuni v. Satele, 2 A.S.R. 210.

There is not legal obligation for Samoan brothers and sisters to permit their half-European half-sister to occupy lands, but there may be moral obligation. Willis v. Willis, 2 A.S.R. 276.

Member of Samoan clan has right to live on clan lands and cannot be deprived of right by other members of clan. Leasiolagi v. Fao, 2 A.S.R. 451.

Where family members render service to matai and land has been rightfully assigned to them, they have right to continue to use and occupy land in accordance with custom. Ifopo v. Vaiao, 2 A.S.R. 472.

Plantations on communal land and fruit therefrom are property of man who grows them, subject to duty of service to matai. American Samoa v. Iose, 2 A.S.R. 638.

Fact that husband lives on communal land of wife’s family, assigned by wife’s matai, does not make land communal land of husband’s family. Lualemana v. Tago, 3 A.S.R. 43.

Where person enters upon land with consent of matai and with knowledge of family, even though such consent is unlawful, and puts up houses on land, and plants land, ihe has right to retain possession of it for period of time in order to compensate him for improvements thereon. Mauga v. Soliai, 3 A.S.R. 108.

Rights of family member to land assigned to him by former matai are subject to senior right of family to use lands as family burial ground and may be taken for such purpose if family member has first been assigned other land. Tiumalu v. Lio, 3 A.S.R. 176.

Court will issue restraining order preventing family member from constructing house on land which family would rather use for burial ground until such time as new matai is chosen who may determine whether land shall be used for such purpose. Tiumalu v. Lio, 3 A.S.R. 176.

Under Samoan custom, at least majority of family must maintain petition for eviction of person from family lands, and where there is not majority, petition must be dismissed. Fanene Family v. Brown, 3 A.S.R. 260.

Nineteen members of family who petition for eviction of occupant from family lands represent themselves only and not family, where they are small minority of family, cannot show authorization of family to bring suit and there is evidence of opposition to suit by other family members. Fanene Family v. Brown, 3 A.S.R. 260.

Under Samoan custom, matai upon death of member of family, assigns communal land occupied by deceased to another member of family, and there is not inheritance right in family lands in heirs of deceased occupant, nor can other members of family maintain action as tenants in common, which they are not. Fanene Family v. Brown, 3 A.S.R. 260.

Persons who are not members of family have no right to use family lands without permission. Faamuli v. Leiato, 3 A.S.R. 308.

If matai neglects duties, and is not recognized by village or county as matai, branches of family may give valid consent to family member for use of communal land without matai’s approval. Siu v. Maisu, 3 A.S.R. 336.

Possession of communal lands is property right of family subject to assignment by matai, in accordance with Samoan custom, to specific member of family. Taesali v. Samuela, 3 A.S.R. 359.

Death of grantee of communal land does not end right of grantee’s surviving children and their immediate families to occupy land if they continue service to granting matai. Foster v. Fa’amuli, 4 A.S.R. 3.

Land owned communally by extended family may not be registered by single clan of family as clan’s communal land. Magalei v. Siufanua, 4 A.S.R. 101.

If two branches of family have each had houses on disputed communal land for some years, there must be express or implied agreement for division of disputed land as tenants in common. Liufau v. Unutoa, 4 A.S.R. 230.

If two branches of family own disputed communal land as tenants in common, one branch cannot prevent other from erecting guest house on communal land. Liufau v. Unutoa, 4 A.S.R. 230.

In accordance with Samoan custom, matai has pule or jurisdiction over family lands, and where there is no assignment of land to person, than matai is entitled to order restraining such person from constructing house on land and evicting him from land. Masalosalo v. Isumu, 4 A.S.R. 309.

Person married into family cannot complain of order of matai evicting him from land where he has been assigned other land. Masalosalo v. Isumu, 4 A.S.R. 309.

Under Samoan custom, communal family land is owned by Samoan family and each member has right to use portion. Tuanaitau v. Paogofie, 4 A.S.R. 375.

Under Samoan custom, members of family own land in way analogous to cotenants. Tuanaitau v. Paogofie, 4 A.S.R. 375.

Only matai has power to assign occupancy rights in communal land; thus only matai has power to terminate those rights. If matai title is vacant, other family members lack pule to evict family member. Malaga v. Alaga, 4 A.S.R. 735.

When senior matai of a family brought action to evict family members from communal land after they had insulted and threatened him, but family members had formerly rendered service to him for many years and had given their labor and money to build family guest house, court would not order eviction but would order them to show respect for matai and refrain from disrupting peace and harmony of the family and village. Tavai v. Pone, 3 A.S.R.2d 9.

Absent special circumstances, senior matai of a Samoan family must respect the right of family members who have long resided on family land to continue residing on family land. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.

Right of Samoan family member to occupy a particular piece of land is not absolute; senior matai of family may reallocate land within family by providing displaced family members with equivalent land. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.

Right of Samoan family member to use family land for economic purposes is subject to the right of family to contributions in proportion to the value of the fruits of occupancy. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.

Senior matai of Samoan family should not take major steps with regard to family land without prior consultation of family, and particularly of family members directly affected. Talili v. Satele, 4 A.S.R.2d 23.

Judgment that disputed tract was “communal land” of a family that was not a traditional Samoan family with a matai left open the question how family was to exercise rights of ownership under land statutes presuming the existence of a senior matai, since family was prohibited by statute from creating a new matai title. A.S.C.A. §§ 1.0401, 37.1502-03. Willis v. Willis, 4 A.S.R.2d 144.

Claimant family judicially determined to be communal owners of disputed tract could not banish other claimant who had long been assigned use of it without the extensive consultation and just compensation which are an essential part of the relationship between sa’o and members of his family. Tuileata v. Amituana’i, 4 A.S.R.2d 168.

Preliminary injunction restraining defendants from further construction on specified lands until land use and building permit applications are approved by plaintiff was appropriate where (1) the plaintiff objected to the construction only because the defendants had undermined his authority as senior matai by holding themselves out on the permits as owners of the land; (2) plaintiff’s claim was supported by the preponderance of the evidence at the preliminary hearing; and (3) the injunction would not prevent defendants from completing their construction, since plaintiff had given his word that he would approve the permits if they were submitted to him. Sotoa v. Togotogo, 7 A.S.R.2d 93.

A family member’s right to use Samoan communal lands is conditional; the family member must render tautua to the matai in accordance with custom and must use and occupy the lands. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

The concept of tautua (service) varies from family to family and is best defined by the family rather than the court. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

Tautua is an enforceable obligation only against family members who occupy and use communal family lands. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

Family member must plead and prove good faith effort was made to settle disagreements with senior matai and within the family as condition precedent to bringing suit against matai or other family members. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

Family member’s good faith efforts to settle land dispute within the family were questionable where prayer for relief seeks damages in amounts disproportionate to those suffered and where matai’s offer to furnish family lands upon family member’s return to the territory was refused. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

Dower rights do not exist in Samoan communal lands. A.S.C.A. § 40.0106. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

A person who has married into a Samoan family ordinarily has no say with regard to that family’s communal property. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

The rights of individual occupants of land held in trust for the people of Manu’a are no greater than those of others from Manu’a; occupants do not have right or power of appointment to pass their possessory rights to others. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

When an occupant of land held in trust for the people of Manu’a voluntarily departs the land or abandons his possessory rights the land reverts to the trustee and the people of Manu’a. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Defendant’s use of land held in trust for use and benefit of the people of Manu’a exceeded scope of trust where defendant held possessory interests in three buildings which were leased to commercial businesses, and the trustee had power to require defendant to surrender one of the business sites to establish an administrative office for the general use of the Manu’a District. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Under Samoan custom a widow who has had no children by her deceased husband has no right to remain on the communal land of husband’s family unless the family invites her to remain. Tuiteleleapaga v. King, 8 A.S.R.2d 49.

Widow who was entitled to one-third of deceased husband’s interest in individually owned property could not be evicted by husband’s relatives from possession of a small part of such property. A.S.C.A. § 40.0103. Tuiteleleapaga v. King, 8 A.S.R.2d 49.

A widow without children has no right to remain on communal land of her husband’s family after his death. Puailoa v. Estate of Lagafuaina, 11 A.S.R.2d 54.

Under Samoan custom, communal family land is owned by the Samoan family as such and each member of the family has a right to use a portion of the communal land. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.

The right of a family member to use communal land is a proprietary right within the due process clause of the territorial constitution. Rev’d Const. of Am. Samoa I § 2. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.

Where land assigned to family member by previous matai had not been surrendered or abandoned, family member continued to serve the matai, and there was no showing of cause for revocation of the family member’s assignment to land, matai could not revoke the assignment in order to allow use of the land by another person who was not a family member. Lutu v. Taesaliali`i, 11 A.S.R.2d 80.

Family member’s continued right to use and occupy communal land is conditional upon his providing tautua to the matai. Lutu v. Semeatu, 13 A.S.R.2d 88.

In those rare cases when some important family purpose has been held to justify eviction of a family member who has done no wrong from family lands he has been occupying, it is essential that the family member be compensated by the assignment of equivalent lands. I`aulualo v. Siofaga (Mem.), 14 A.S.R.2d 26.

General assurance by matai that family member would be free to build another house on family land was insufficient compensation for proposed eviction of the family member from a finished Western‑style house in which he had long resided. I`aulualo v. Siofaga (Mem.), 14 A.S.R.2d 26.

A family member’s continued right to use and occupy communal land is conditioned upon his providing service to the matai. Alaimalo v. Sivia, 17 A.S.R.2d 25.

Samoan communal land belongs to families rather than individuals, and a judgment against the family is binding on the family despite the succession of matai-title holders through time. Taulaga v. Patea, 17 A.S.R.2d 34.

During the vacancy of the family’s matai title, no one family member or faction has the power to effect a radical transformation of the family’s property without a clear consensus of the entire family. Fagasoaia v. Fanene, 17 A.S.R.2d 91.

The right of a family member to use land owned by a Samoan communal family is a property right protected by the territorial constitution’s due process clause. Rev. Const. Am. Samoa Art. I, § 2. Seventh Day Adventist Church of American Samoa v. Maneafaiga, 23 A.S.R.2d 150.

The right of a family member to use land owned by a Samoan communal family is conditioned on reciprocal obligations towards the sa`o and family, including the obligation to perform tautua (traditional service); and failure to render tautua is grounds for eviction. Seventh Day Adventist Church of American Samoa v. Maneafaiga, 23 A.S.R.2d 150.

A family member may, in certain circumstances, seek judicial review of matai action, and the court will enjoin arbitrary, capricious, or illegal actions or those in which there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the of the matai. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 146.

The unquestioned right of a family member to use communal land is a property right under the due process clause of either the U.S. or Samoan constitutions. A non‑family member, by definition, has no such right. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.

A family member is ordinarily entitled to possess land assigned to him for his lifetime. Pen v. Lavata`i, 25 A.S.R.2d 164.

Even family members cannot insist on using family property without the requisite tautua to the senior matai of the family. Afoa v. Taaifili, 26 A.S.R.2d 49.

Regardless of whether a matai is required to consult his family before he enters a lease, certain circumstances demand that he do so when revoking an assignment of communal land to a family member. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

An assignment of communal land may only be revoked for an overriding family purpose if the family meets, the matai reasonably decides the revocation is for an overriding family purpose, and alternate land or another reasonable arrangement is made. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Family consultation is required when revoking a land assignment to a family member so that the land may be leased to non-family members. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

A matai must arrive at consensus in the traditional Samoan way before revoking an assignment of communal land based on the family purpose doctrine. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

A matai may create an assignment without the prior consent of his family, but may not unilaterally act to revoke an assignment. An assignment of communal land may be revoked only with consensus support of the family. Fanene v. Malauulu, 30 A.S.R.2d 45.

Family members do not waive the right to claim land as individually owned land or as the family’s communal land through adverse possession simply because the senior matai of the family refuses to take appropriate action to defend the family’s claim to the land. However, family members do waive the right to claim an interest in land when they fail to take appropriate action to prosecute or defend the family’s claim to the land according to land registration statutes. Savane v. Lafi, 31 A.S.R.2d 87.

§2(5) Separation-of-Structure Agreement

Person assigned portion of communally owned lands under Samoan custom may enter into separation-of-structure-from-communal-land agreement in order to procure loan for construction of house. Atualevao v. Masaniai, 4 A.S.R. 664.

Where matai enters into separation-of-structure-from-communal-land agreement with member of family, this is clear indication that family member was assigned communal land. Atualevao v. Masaniai, 4 A.S.R. 664.

Where a party to separation-of-structure agreement recorded pursuant to provision of code is one of number of owners and not sole owner, court will not enforce agreement. Meredith v. Aumavae, 4 A.S.R. 680.

Where separation-of-structure agreement recorded pursuant to provision of code contains statement that land is communal and court finds it individually owned, court will not order agreement executed. CAS 12.0204. Meredith v. Aumavae, 4 A.S.R. 680.

A document captioned “Lease” does not thereby become a lease; and can be construed as a separation-of-structure agreement coupled with a conditional chattel mortgage. Paopaoailua v. Betham, 4 A.S.R. 705.

Matai may sign, on behalf of family, separation-of-structure agreement without consulting other members of family first. Paopaoailua v. Betham, 4 A.S.R. 705.

Separation agreement, by which landowner agreed that another person could build a building on her land which would remain legally separate from the land, did not convey to the building owner and his heirs and assigns a perpetual and irrevocable right to build, occupy, and rent out further structures on the land. Roberts v. Sesepasara, 7 A.S.R.2d 139.

Separation agreement, by which landowner allowed another person to build a structure on her individually owned land, may be evidence of the conveyance of some right to remain on the land other than a license revocable at will by the landowner. Roberts v. Sesepasara, 7 A.S.R.2d 139.

Matai’s signature is required on separation agreements by family members to build homes on communal land. A.S.C.A. § 37.1503(a). Utu v. Fuata, 17 A.S.R.2d 104.

Separation agreements by family members to build homes on certain land which were signed by claimant as matai corroborated his claim that he exercised authority (pule) over such land. Utu v. Fuata, 17 A.S.R.2d 104.

Claimant’s assertion that lesser matai in his family habitually signed separation agreements by family members to build homes on communal land was rejected, since it did not explain why his family did not object to such recurring usurpations of his pule. Utu v. Fuata, 17 A.S.R.2d 104.

With respect to land, a separation agreement splits a particular structure from the land on which it is built or is to be built, so that the structure will be the property of the person building it rather than the landowner. A.S.C.A. § 37.1501 et seq. Fagasoaia v. Fanene, 18 A.S.R.2d 72.

A traditional assignment of land from the matai to a family member does not imply permission to build new structures or materially change the character of the property. Fagasoaia v. Fanene, 18 A.S.R.2d 72.

A material failure to accurately describe land or parties is sufficient to render a separation agreement invalid. Leomiti v. Pu’efa, 27 A.S.R.2d 150.

§2(6) Leases

In exercise of police power, Government may see that lease provides adequate and reasonable rental under existing conditions or prohibit the making of the lease unless it provides sufficient rental so as not to make transaction improvident with respect to owner. Haleck v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 380.

Law creating duties of Land Commission to recommend to Governor on leases was passed subsequent to time when lease in dispute was executed but prior to time it was assigned to plaintiff. Haleck v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 380.

Renewal lease may be executed and then presented to Land Commission for its recommendation to the Governor for approval pursuant to law. CAS 1281. Haleck v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 380.

Power of the Governor under law to consider terms and conditions of instruments seeking to alienate land including leases, and to invalidate such transactions until they receive his approval, cannot be questioned. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

In absence of proof to contrary, court will assume that Governor is exercising his discretionary power in approving or disapproving leases within legal limits of his legislative prerogative. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Prior court enforced renewal clause of lease while holding that such renewal was subject to approval by Governor. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Exercise of Governor’s power to approve new lease pursuant to renewal clause is not retroactive law impairing obligation of contract. Const., Art. I, Sec. 13. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Fact former Governor approved lease with renewal clause does not mean that he approved lease through period of renewal. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Fact prior court enforced renewal clause in lease against lessor by specific performance does not deprive Governor of power to approve renegotiated new lease. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Lease approved by Governor in 1938 for 20-year period with 20-year option, can’t be negated by subsequent Governor without evidence of fraud or mistake. Haleck v. Governor, 4 A.S.R. 968.

Lease from 1910 through 1958, being renewed through valid extension clause, does not become, upon exercise of renewal option, new lease subject to Governor’s approval. Haleck v. Governor, 4 A.S.R. 968.

Leasehold interest in communal land did not “merge” into an assignment of communal land, whose terms would have been different and virtually antithetical to those clearly set forth in the lease agreement itself. Hunkin v. Grisard (Mem.), 13 A.S.R.2d 38.

A lease that was not recorded or registered pursuant to the statutory requirements is invalid and ineffectual. American Samoa Gov’t v. South Pacific Island Airsystems, Inc., 28 A.S.R.2d 170.

The mere fact of the Governor’s approving signature does not render a flawed lease impervious to legal challenge any more than it could transform a bill into law without constitutionally proper legislative approval. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

The function of the Land Commission and the Governor in the approval of leases of communal land is to provide a check against improvident leases, which would be harmful to the Samoan land tenure system, not to sit in judgment on land title issues. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

The statute requiring the Governor’s approval on certain land transfers, A.S.C.A. § 37.0221, does not devise a system where the Governor effectively has the right to reallocate property without regard to the preexisting rights of others in that property, and then to have those decisions immune from judicial review. The Governor’s statutory authority to approve a lease between private parties presupposes that the lessee actually has the authority to enter into the lease in the first place. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

An administrative decision does not concern a contested case under A.S.C.A § 4.1040 when a party was not represented at Land Commission hearings and could not contest the lease. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Separation of powers principles do not prevent the judicial branch from voiding a lease approved by the Governor in violation of due process rights. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Customary family consultation in regards to dealing with communal land can continue in a system where the approval of the governor is also required for the leasing of native land. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

§2(7) Conveyance

In order to sell communal land, matai must have consent of the family and the sale must be approved by proper authorities within the Government. Satele v. Afoa, 1 A.S.R. 424.

Matai has no legal right to convey family lands without approval of Governor. Pulu v. Te’o, 2 A.S.R. 201.

Matai is not authorized under Samoan custom to give away family land to person not member of family, and such attempted gift is void. Atofau v. Tuufuli, 2 A.S.R. 414.

Widow of matai or family member cannot sell family lands, and attempt to do so is void. Atofau v. Tuufuli, 2 A.S.R. 414.

Where person pays widow of matai for purchase of land and money is used for benefit of family, such purchase is void since widow may not sell family lands, but clan must, as matter of equity, pay back purchase price. Atofau v. Tuufuli, 2 A.S.R. 414.

Matai is not authorized under Samoan custom to give away family land to person not member of family. Ifopo v. Vaiao, 2 A.S.R. 472.

Where sale of land is invalid, because vendor has no authority to sell family lands, equity demands that vendor return purchase price to vendee before title can be registered in family of vendor. Ifopo v. Vaiao, 2 A.S.R. 472.

Gift of communal land to individual, not approved by Governor, is void and does not pass title to land. Lualemana v. Tago, 3 A.S.R. 43.

Matai cannot convey family lands without consent of family, and therefore attempted conveyance is invalid. Sione v. Tiualii, 3 A.S.R. 66.

Matai does not have authority to give family lands to church without approval of majority of family members. Mulitauaopele v. Paleafei, 3 A.S.R. 93.

Matai cannot deed land to person outside of family without consent of family and approval of Governor. Mauga v. Soliai, 3 A.S.R. 108.

While matai has control over family lands and is trustee of lands for family, he cannot mortgage or deed away land without consent of family, and mere consent of lesser matais does not constitute consent of family. Mauga v. Soliai, 3 A.S.R. 108.

If family is divided into four clans and each clan is assigned portion of communal land, matai of each clan has pule only over his portion and cannot interfere with use of another clan’s portion of communal land. Taesalialii v. Tuloto, 3 A.S.R. 133.

Code prohibited matai from alienating family land without approval of Governor. CAS 1282. Tuileata v. Talivaa, 3 A.S.R. 201.

Matai in control of communal land cannot alienate land without approval of Governor, but can grant oral license to use land. Aumavae v. Tuitele, 3 A.S.R. 342.

Statutes relating to alienation of native lands are proper exercise of police power of Government to protect owners of communal lands from improvident dispositions of their property by lease or otherwise. Haleck v. Tiumalu, 3 A.S.R. 380.

Senior matai who lives outside American Samoa for substantial period, forfeits power over family land to next senior matai, until senior matai returns and resumes duties as high chief. Decisions made during absence are not subject to review by senior matai. Heirs of Sagiao v. Mamae, 4 A.S.R. 64.

Where member of family has been assigned land for bakery by matai, leader of clan of which assignee is member cannot bring action to prevent construction of bakery since sole authority for control over family land rests with matai. Tuimalu v. Scanlan, 4 A.S.R. 194.

Daughter of former title holder has not authority to transfer family land in fee simple to anyone, especially to one not family member, but may give license to live on land. Nua v. Leomiti, 4 A.S.R. 404.

Oral conveyance of land is void where it is not approved in writing by Governor. Fau v. Wilson, 4 A.S.R. 443.

In exercising its police power, the Government of American Samoa may protect Samoan people against improvident transactions such as dispensing of their property for less than it is worth. Haleck v. Lee, 4 A.S.R. 519.

Communal land given in atonement for an offense committed by a family member is presumed to become the communal property of the victim’s family rather than the victim’s individual property. Leota v. Faumuina, 4 A.S.R.2d 11.

Communal land may not become individual property except in accordance with statutory procedures for alienation of communal lands. A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0201 et seq. Faleafine v. Suapilimai, 7 A.S.R.2d 108.

Court should construe and enforce conveyance in accordance with the apparent intent of the conveyor despite technical flaws in the conveyancing documents. Roberts v. Sesepasara, 7 A.S.R.2d 139.

Common law rule against perpetuities is designed to protect the free alienability of land and therefore has no application to Samoan communal property, which are not freely alienable. A.S.C.A. § 37.0204. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Warranty deed creating trust in land conveyed in favor of the people of the islands of Manu’a, naming a matai of Manu’a and the successors to his matai title as trustees, does not violate the rule against perpetuities. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Title to communal lands may pass from one family to another by conveyance or adverse possession. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Estate transferred by one Samoan communal family to another vests immediately in the transferee. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Language in warranty deed conveying land to a matai of the islands of Manu’a and to “his successors or assigns” in trust for the people of Manu’a causes the trusteeship to devolve upon the successive holders of the matai title, not to the personal estate of the matai. Tufele v. Mose, 7 A.S.R.2d 157.

Communal land of Samoan family automatically passes from one generation to another without the necessity of probate. Tuiteleleapaga v. King, 8 A.S.R.2d 49.

In the context of Samoa in 1911, it would have been inconceivable that the term “and his successors or assignees” in a grant of land from one ranking chief to another was intended to give subject possessory rights to the control of an untitled heir of the grantee. Mose v. Tufele, 12 A.S.R.2d 31.

Party permitting one who renders him tautua to occupy certain land has no donative intent to grant title to such land to the permittee. Utu v. Fuata, 17 A.S.R.2d 104.

The Governor and the Land Commission must approve conveyances of communal land. A.S.C.A. §§ 37.0203-37.0204. Magalei v. Atualevao, 19 A.S.R.2d 86.

A registration of title to land as individually-owned land was invalid and so cancelled by the court when that land was assigned for use of defendant and her immediate family but remained communal land, and when such registration was not authorized by a matai having authority over the land. Ava v. Logoai, 22 A.S.R.2d 65.

The custom of “igagato,” a special reward for extraordinary service performed for a Samoan family, may be given to a person who is not related by blood to the family; but a reward of a parcel of communal land for such service is proper only with the entire family’s concurrence. Fanene v. Taaseu, 23 A.S.R.2d 1.

An interest in land is a license and not an “igagato” assignment when permission to use a parcel of land may be terminated by a permanent departure from American Samoa or at will by the sa’o. Fanene v. Taaseu, 23 A.S.R.2d 1.

Unlike its forerunner enacted in 1900, Regulation 5‑1913, when in force, prohibited transfers of Samoan owned land to non‑Samoans, but did not restrict transfers between Samoans. This is essentially the state of the law today, with the added requirement that the Governor must consent to conveyances of communal land. Lua v. Uti, 25 A.S.R.2d 71.

As a matter of due process of law, the Land Commission must hold public hearings on proposed transfers of land, and give reasonable notice to interested parties. Pen v. Lavata`i, 30 A.S.R.2d 10.

Samoan realities of the time are considered in determining whether a deed is an interfamily conveyance. Schuster v. Lutu, 30 A.S.R.2d 51.

Despite language in a deed that contains stock conveyancing language to an individual, the court will interpret the deed as conveying land to a family as communal land if that was the intention of the original parties. Schuster v. Lutu, 30 A.S.R.2d 51.

Although a matai has no inherent legal authority to convey another family’s communal land, the court will enforce a conveyance when ASG, under the former U.S. Navy administration, dealt with a leading matai of a village when acquiring land for public use. Peni v. Lutali, 30 A.S.R.2d 87.

The administrative procedures to validate transfers of title to communal land include: 1) the Land Commission must study the proposed transaction and make recommendations to the Governor about it, A.S.C.A. § 37.0203(a) – (c); 2) next, the Governor must approve the transaction, A.S.C.A. § 37.0204(a); 3) then, and only then, the Territorial Registrar registers the transfer instrument to effect passing of title. A.S.C.A. § 37.0210. Uiliata v. Puailoa, 31 A.S.R.2d 35.

§2(8) Relinquishment of Land

Relinquishment of possession of communal land by voluntary surrender or abandonment causes the land to revert to the matai and family. Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117.

Whether relinquishment of possession has occurred causing revers

REAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY

Get In Touch!

About Us