{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}
{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\ls2\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid14446362 header;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext18 \styrsid14446362 footer;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3
\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3
\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList1;}\listid1}{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3
\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers
\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0
\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0
\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname AutoList2;}\listid2}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount8{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1
\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel
\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}
{\listoverride\listid2\listoverridecount8{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel
\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext
\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel
\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel
\levelnfc3\levelnfcn3\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls2}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2309790\rsid5006136\rsid8993288\rsid9508377\rsid10504247\rsid14446362}
{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr8\min2}{\version5}{\edmins4}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3048}{\nofchars17379}
{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws20387}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot2309790 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2309790 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2309790 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2309790 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2309790 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2309790\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \fi-7920\li7920\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin7920\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid2309790 Shorehaven Corp. v Taitano,}{\fs20\insrsid2309790  Opinion           \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab         Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid2309790 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8993288 8}}}{
\fs20\insrsid2309790  of 13
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8993288 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1435\shptop2025\shpright10795\shpbottom2044\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypage\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypage\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1435\dpy2025\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{
\fs20\insrsid2309790 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2309790 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 SHOREHAVEN CORPORATION, ROSARIO CARPIO,
\par RHODORA C. CARPIO, AND JOEL J. CARPIO}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Plaintiffs-Appellants}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 vs.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 JOSE MATEO TAITANO
\par }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Supreme Court Case No. CVA97-054
\par Superior Court Case No. CV0054-91
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 OPINION}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Filed: July 11, 2001}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Cite as: 2001 Guam 16}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Submitted on the briefs on September 9, 1998
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid5006136 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5006136 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5006136 {\ul\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Representing the Plaintiffs-Appellants:}{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Daniel R. Del Priore, Esq.
\par Del Priore & Associates, P.C.
\par Suite 507, G.C.I.C. Building
\par 414 West Soledad Avenue
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \cell }{\ul\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Representing the Defendant-Appellee:
\par }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Harold F. Parker, Esq., Director
\par Public Defender Service Corporation
\par 200 Judicial Center Annex
\par 110 West O}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Brien Drive
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5006136 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 BEFORE: JOHN A. MANGLONA, Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2309790 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 The
 full-time Justices, including the Chief Justice, disqualified themselves from hearing this matter.  Justice Manglona, as the senior member of the panel, was designated as the Acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
; RICHARD H. BENSON, Designated Justice}{\cs15\super\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2309790 
\chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2309790  Justice Benson heard oral arguments in this case but recused himself from deciding the matter prior to issuance of this opinion and, therefore, did not join in it. }{\insrsid2309790 
\par }}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 ; and FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Designated Justice.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 PER CURIAM:}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [1]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The owner of the subject land, Jose Taitano (hereinafter }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jose}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
), objects to the validity of the contract alleging he did not sign the power of attorney which allowed his brother Pedro Taitano (hereinafter }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Pedro}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
) to execute the contract as alleged by Shorehaven Corporation (hereinafter }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Shorehaven}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 ).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The issue presented is whether the land sale contract is valid, and more particularly whether, as a matter of law, Jose overcame the presumption of validity of the contract in which the signature of Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s attorney in fact was acknowledged before a notary public.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 We hold that Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s uncorroborated testimony, that he had not signed the power of attorney, is insufficient to overcome the presumption.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The decision of the trial court is reversed.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 I.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [2]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Shorehaven, under the supervision of its president Johnny Carpio (hereinafter }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Carpio}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
), was in the midst of purchasing land in Sinajana from Pedro when it was discovered that the desired property was landlocked.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Pedro informed Shorehaven that the property
 initially had a right of way on the adjoining land and that both pieces of property could be bought together as soon as title to the property was finally probated to his brother Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The parties agreed to purchase this combined land for the price of eight ($8.00) dollars per square meter on February 3, 1985.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [3]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab On October 25, 1985, Shorehaven}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s attorney created a contract between the parties in which Pedro signed for himself and, with the alleged power of attorney, for Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 That same day, the parties approached Vincente Chiong (hereinafter }
{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Chiong}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 ), a notary public for Guam, to certify their contract.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Chiong viewed a document, notarized in California in 1985, givi
ng Pedro power of attorney from Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 He then notarized the contract between Shorehaven and Pedro.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The parties recorded this contract with the Department of Land Management on April 7, 1986.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Carpio paid Pedro five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) as an earnest money deposit for the transaction.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [4]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab From February to October 1985, Carpio alleges that Pedro made several attempts to receive a new power of attorney from his brother who was living in Oregon at the time.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jose testified that he returned, unsigned, a blank power of attorney that Pedro had sent him for his signature.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Jose also testified that Pedro informed him that he intended to sell the property to Shorehaven and that he had already received a payment for the agreement.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Displeased, Jose said he wo
uld work on selling the land directly.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
When Jose returned to Guam, he found a buyer who was willing to pay thirty-five ($35.00) dollars per square foot, approximately four times more money than would be received under the Shorehaven-Pedro deal.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Transcript, vol.--, pp. 28-29 (Trial, June 11, 1996).
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [5]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab The land in controversy had been in probate since 1948.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
By May 17, 1990, ownership of the property had been confirmed in Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The Agreement to Purchase Property between Shorehaven and Pedro
 provided that the sale was to be closed by sixty (60) days after the confirmation of ownership.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 When Shorehaven learned of the confirmation in Jose, it pushed for consummation of the purchase.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Both Jose and Pedro refused to go through with the sale.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Thus, Shorehaven filed a suit for specific performance on January 22, 1991.}{\insrsid5006136  }
{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Pedro is now deceased and is no longer part of the litigation.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2309790 \chftn }{\insrsid2309790  }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 Nevertheless, he filed an answer to the Shorehaven}{\fs20\insrsid14446362 '}{\fs20\insrsid2309790 
s Complaint.  Pedro claimed that Shorehaven}{\fs20\insrsid14446362 '}{\fs20\insrsid2309790 s purchase price was too low.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid2309790 Shorehaven Corp. v. Taitano, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 
CV0054-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 19, 1991) (Answer from Pedro Taitano).  However, Pedro neither denied making the agreements in 1985, nor receiving a power of attorney from Jose.  Jose, on the other hand, denied ever h
aving given power of attorney to his deceased brother. }}}{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [6]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab On June 11, 1996, the trial court heard the case.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 It issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 29, 1997.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 It stated that the defendant had to overcome two presumptions: (1) the 
presumption of regularity and validity attached to documents duly acknowledged and notarized by a notary public; and (2) the presumption that where the signature of a grantor is placed upon an instrument by another, absent clear and convincing evidence to
 the contrary, the grantor adopts the signature as his own.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The trial court noted that Jose returned an unsigned power of attorney to Pedro in 1985, and found that Jose overcame both presumptions.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [7]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab In contrast, the trial court opined that Shorehaven did not prove its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
It questioned the validity of a power of attorney coming from California when Jose last visited that state in 1979.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 It remained skeptical that none of the parties had a copy of the
 power of attorney, even though at least four people said that they had seen it back in 1985.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The trial court also frowned upon the fact that neither Carpio nor Chiong could remember some of the specifics of the power of attorney, such as the Californian who notarized it or the county in which it was notarized.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Consequently, the trial court ruled in favor of Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Shorehaven timely filed a notice of appeal in accordance to Rule 4(a) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure.

\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 II.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [8]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  3107(a) and }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  3108(a) (1994).}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The question of whether a party may successfully challenge the validity and execution of a contract that had been acknowledged by a notary public is a question of law.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
We review questions of law }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 de novo.}{\i\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Guam Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Island Equip. Co., }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 1998 Guam 7, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  4; }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Camacho v. Camacho, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 1997 Guam 5, }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  24.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 A.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls1\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5006136 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Evidentiary Effect of Lost Documents.}{\b\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [9]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
 1002 (1994) requires that the original document or recording must be presented to the court if a party wants its contents to be brought into evidence.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 This provision, commonly known as the }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 best evidence rule,}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  seems to have served as a foundation upon which the lower court came to its decision, despite not citing the rule explicitly.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2309790 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 
The lower court opined, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2309790 With at least four copies of t
his purported power of attorney floating around, none of which can be produced, it makes it difficult for this Court to believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it truly exists.}{\fs20\insrsid2309790 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2309790   }{\i\fs20\insrsid2309790 Shorehaven Corp. v. Taitano, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 CV0054-91 (Super. Ct. Guam July 29, 1997) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law).}}}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 However, lawmakers created exceptions to the rule.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The exception most relevant to this case states:}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Admissibility Other Evidence of Contents.}{\b\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The original is not
 required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or}{\insrsid5006136  photograph is admissible if -}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 (1) }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Originals lost of destroyed.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  1004(1) (1994).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 This exception persuades this court to disagree with the tacit belief of the lower court.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Shorehaven presented enough evidence to circumvent the demands of the best evidence rule.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [10]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Federal case law illustrates the expansive basis of this evidentiary exception.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2309790 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 Federal case law is persuasive in this matter because Guam}{
\fs20\insrsid14446362 '}{\fs20\insrsid2309790 s evidentiary rules are identical to the Federal Rules of Evidence.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid2309790 See People v. Salas, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 2000 Guam 2, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2309790  14; }{\i\fs20\insrsid2309790 People v. Santos, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 1999 Guam 1, }{\fs20\insrsid2309790 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2309790  17.}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of a writing if the terms of Rule 1004(1) are satisfied.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 See United States v. Ross}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 , 33 F.3d 1507, 1513 (11 th Cir. 1994).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [T]he Rules of Evidence do not establish a hierarchy of secondary evidence; anything that tends to demonstrate the writing}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s contents may constitute secondary evidence.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 United States v. McGaughey, }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 977 F.2d 1067, 1072 (7th Cir. 1993); }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 see also United Cable Television of Jeffco, Inc. v. Montgomery LC, Inc., }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 942 P.2d 1230, 1234 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).}
{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Oral testimony may serve as secondary evidence to missing written or recorded items.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Klein v. Frank, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
534 F.2d 1104, 1107-08 (5th Cir. 1976) (allowing plaintiff}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s wife to testify to the contents of a missing letter).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Oral testimony and other secondary evidence is especially admissible if multiple parties acknowledge that the best evidence existed at some point.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 See, e.g., Wiley v. United States, }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 257 F.2d 900, 909 (8th Cir. 1958).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 A party must allege bad faith immediately and emphatically if they want secondary evidence excluded.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 See, e.g., United States v. Harney, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 306 F.2d 523, 533-34 (1st Cir. 1962).}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [11]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab The record shows that Shorehaven has met each requirement of Rule 1004(1).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
It is undisputed that the original power of attorney is lost and there is no showing that the document was destroyed in bad faith.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jose himself does not allege or prove that any party has destroyed the
 1985 power of attorney document or is unconscionably hiding that document.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Therefore, Chiong}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s testimony about viewing the 1985 power of attorney and the new contract that he notarized after seeing the 1985 document function as an adequate replacement to the missing best evidence.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The fact that Pedro, Chiong, and Shorehaven acknowledged that the document existed when they were contracting and that Jose knew of these procedures counteracts the evidentiary effect of the lost power of attorney.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Consequently, our view that Chiong}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s testimony and his notarized document as an acceptable substitution for the lost 1985 power of attorney influences our conclusions on the two presumptions to be discussed.
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 B. \tab Validity and Regularity of Notarized Documents}{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 .}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [12]\tab }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Documents acknowledged by a notary public are presumed regular and valid.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The trial court asserted that when four parties have seen a document but no one can produce it and few details can be recalled from it, then such a notarized document cannot be deemed regular and valid.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
However, in our consideration of this presumption, we have looked at the notarized documents of Chiong and we hold that this document, certified in Guam, must be considered regular and valid for the aforementioned real property transaction.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [13]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Shorehaven refers to several Guam laws indicating the authority of Chiong}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s notarization.}{\insrsid5006136 
 }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
 33301 (1994) empowers notaries to perform certain acts, such as producing acknowledgments and certifications.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Title 21 GCA }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  33102(c) (1994) states that proof of acknowledgment may be made before a notary public.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In addition, 21 GCA}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  33119 (199
4) demands that a notary public must have at least some information about the names, whereabouts, and desires of each party involved in document before authenticating that document.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [14]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Case law reveals that contracts not precisely authenticated by a notary public, but followed nonetheless, may still be held enforceable.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jones v. Minton}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 ,}{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
141 So.2d 564 (Miss. 1962), parties disputed a deed that was signed twenty years earlier by their forebears.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The appellants in that case argued that the contract could not be valid because one of the signers was illiterate and the document did not contain the markings she usually placed upon contracts.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  at 565.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Nevertheless, the court}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 disfavored
 this claim because two witnesses attested to the contract and because no other evidence was presented to suggest the contract was a forgery.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The court declared, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 There is a presumption against bad motive, 
dishonesty and fraud, and fraud is not a thing to be taken lightly charged and most emphatically not a thing to be lightly established. . . .The certificate of acknowledgment to the deed in question imports verity and presumptively states the truth.}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [15]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab In }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Butler v. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
41 F.3d 285 (7th Cir.1994), a widower admitted that he signed a contract allowing his deceased wife}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s death benefits to be passed along to her daughter.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 However, he claimed that the document should be invalid because he did not sign it in front of the notary public who later authenticated it.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  at 293.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The court disagreed.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 It proclaimed, }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 A notary public}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s cer
tificate of acknowledgment, regular on its face, carries a strong presumption of validity.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  at 294 (citation omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [16]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab In the instant case, Chiong declared that he saw a document from Jose giving attorney-in-fact status to Pedro.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Shorehaven Corp. v. Taitano, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 CV0054-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Apr. 11, 1991) (Affidavit of Vincente P. Chiong).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In his affidavit, Chiong stated: }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 I . . . personally viewed t
he original Power of Attorney done by Jose M. Taitano in favor of Pedro M. Taitano, and authorizing Pedro M. Taitano to act as Attorney in Fact for Jose M. Taitano to execute . . . the [A]greement to Purchase Property . . . .}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Chiong further stated that he would not have notarized the Agreement to Purchase Property that one party signed in the name of another without seeing if the signer had permission to do so, in other words, without determining whether Pe
dro was authorized to sign as Attorney in Fact for Jose.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Shorehaven Corp. v. Taitano, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 CV0054-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1993) (Deposition of Vincente P. Chiong).}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In his deposition testimony, Chiong emphasized that he viewed a }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 special power of attorney with regard to the authority that Jose Taitano gave to Pedro about the sale of property which was described in th[e] Agreement to Purchase.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 .}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The Agreement to Pur
chase Property executed by Shorehaven and Pedro, and notarized by Chiong, was then submitted to the}{\insrsid5006136  Department of Land Management.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [17]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Given Guam}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s laws on notaries public and relevant case law, we hold that a document that has been notarized by an impar
tial Guam Notary Public and submitted to a Guam agency creates a high standard for any third party who wants to challenge the agreement at a much later date.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The disappearance of the original power of attorney does not negate the land sale agreement which Chiong authenticated.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Notarized documents are presumed to be regular and valid.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Accordingly, the Agreement to Purchase Property executed by Pedro acting as Attorney in Fact for Jose, as acknowledged by a notary public in the agreement itself, is binding on Jose}{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
 as a matter of law.
\par }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par {\listtext\pard\plain\s16 \b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 C.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720\faauto\ls2\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5006136 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Clear and Convincing Evidence.
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [18]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab The trial court stated that Jose must provide clear and convincing evidence that he did not adopt his brother}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s transactions.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 As with the first presumption, both the t
rial court as well as this court agree about the wording and existence of the second prong, but disagree as to its application and consequences.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
According to the trial court, by not signing the power of attorney that Pedro had mailed to him and by seeking another buyer for the property, Jose showed convincing evidence that he did not obligate himself to follow that contract.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Based on the discussion below, this court holds the opposite position.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [19]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jones v. Minton}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  provides the rule that the evidence to o
vercome the presumption of veracity or of documents duly acknowledged by a notary must be }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
clear, strong, and convincing.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jones, }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 141 So.2d at 565 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Clear and convincing evidence must be of}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 extraordinary persuasiveness.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 State v. Gjerde, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 935 P.2d 1224, 1226 (Or. Ct. App. 1997) (citation omitted); }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 State v. Sea, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
904 P.2d 182, 184 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In re Chiovero, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 570 A.2d 57, 60 (Pa. 1990).}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [20]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab Cases that examine questionable documentation from notaries public firmly uphold this high burden.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The plaintiffs in }{
\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In Re Piazza,}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  181 B.R. 19 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), claimed that their signatures on a contract had been forged, yet they followed the contract for thirty-eight (38) months.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The court stressed that oral testimony of the interested parties alone would not suffice to rebut the presumption.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 22.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 It ruled that the plaintiff did not provide a handwriting expert}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s testimony or offer any other evidence which would encourage a reversal in their favor.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 In }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Meltzer v. Meltzer}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 ,}{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 662 So.2d 58 
(La. Ct. App. 1996), a woman on the verge of her third divorce argued that her antenuptial agreement was not valid because she did not sign it in front of witnesses.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The court refused to favor her claim because she had no clear proof of her contention.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 61-62.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [21]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab In the instant case, Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s self-serving testimony is the only evidence that he offers to rebut this strong presumption.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s statements are simply not enough to meet the clear and convincing evidence burden.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Regardless of whether 
Jose signed a power of attorney in California for his brother Pedro, he knew that Pedro had made an agreement to sell the land based upon the supposed power of attorney.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Transcript, vol.--, p. 21 (Trial, June 11, 1996).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Pedro told Jose that he had been paid $5,000.00 for the transaction.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Transcript, vol.--, p. 26 (Trial, June 11, 1996).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 As a matter of law, Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s testimony is insufficient to contradict an acknowledged document authorized by a notary public.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [22]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab As mentioned before, there is a strong presumption against fraud or bad motive in these cases.}{\b\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 See Jones,}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  141 So.2d at 565.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 A corollary to this holding is that the claims of self-interested parties will be met with a certain degree of skepticism.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 For example, in }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Son Fong Lum, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 a 
mother who wanted to sell real property to a bank sued her son and daughter-in-law in order to have the title returned to her.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Son Fong Lum v. Antonelli, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
476 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div.1984).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 She argued, that though her husband}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s signature was genuine, 
the mark used for her signature was a forgery.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 922.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The trial court found that the notary public negligently assumed her signature was real, instead of investigating the truth of such an assumption.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 923.}{
\i\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The trial court agreed, but the appellate court reversed.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The court ruled that the presumption of validity was not overcome when five witness, including the notary public, testified to the contract}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s authenticity and when the veracity of the husband}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s signature was not in dispute.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 924.}{
\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Additionally, the court held that if the plaintiff could not read the contract, then she was at fault for not having it read to her.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 925.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The court emphasized that }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 a certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses. . . .}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id. }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 at 923; }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 see also Meltzer,}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  662 So.2d at 62.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [23]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab We detect no fraud in the validation of the documents notarized in Guam.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
When questioned, Chiong mentioned that he had never met either Jose or Pedro before notarizing the document.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Shorehaven Corp. v. Taitano, }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
CV0054-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1993) (Deposition of Vincente P. Chiong).}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Chiong was able to recollect at least some of the details of the Californian power of attorney he reviewed before validating documents in 1985.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Id.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Therefore, this court has not seen any evidence to suggest that Chiong had any stake in this litigation and would find fraud or error on his part unlikely.}{\insrsid2309790 
\par }{\insrsid5006136\charrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [24]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab On the contrary, this court finds that Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s argument fails for the same reason as the plaintiff}{
\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s in }{\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Son Fong Lum.}{\i\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
The testimony of one interested party cannot overcome the truth assumed from a document validated by a notary public.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Jose}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
s new agreement to sell the property at thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per square meter with a third party suggests that his actions in court reflect a pecuniary motivation, rather than legal.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
Additionally, Jose admitted that he would be willing to sell the property to Shorehaven for a higher price.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Transcript, vol.--, pp. 33-34 (Trial, Jun. 11, 1996).}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 The appellee}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s desires are just as questionable as the production and loss of the Californian power of attorney.}{\insrsid5006136  }{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Consequently, his testimony cannot meet the certainty and unambiguous barrier that the clear and convincing standard demands.
\par }{\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [25]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab As a result, we find that Shorehaven prove
d its case by a preponderance of the evidence because Jose Taitano did not produce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumptions that notarized documents are regular and valid.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 III.}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\b\insrsid5006136 
\par }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 [26]}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 \tab In conclusion, we hold that Jose failed to rebut either of the presumptions that}{\b\i\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 
the trial court described.}{\insrsid5006136  }{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 Therefore, we }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 REVERSE}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  the trial court}{\insrsid14446362\charrsid5006136 '}{
\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 s holdings and }{\b\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 REMAND}{\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136  the matter to the trial court for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid5006136 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5006136 {\insrsid2309790\charrsid5006136 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab FRANCES TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD
\par Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab Designated Justice}{\insrsid5006136 
\par }}