{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f41\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f42\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f43\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f45\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f46\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f47\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f48\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f49\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f50\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; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\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 \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid7874968 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid7874968 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid2760069\rsid7760814\rsid7874968\rsid9312730\rsid9380452\rsid9508377}{\*\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\dy13\hr16\min16}{\version4}{\edmins60}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords4197}{\nofchars23923}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws28064}{\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\rsidroot2760069 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid2760069 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2760069 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2760069 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid2760069 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid2760069\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid2760069 Perez v. Gutierrez, }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid2760069 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid9380452 10}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 of 17 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-16\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid9380452 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom16\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\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 fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize16\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 \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\pararsid7760814 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 GLORINA Q. PEREZ, Administratrix, of the \par ESTATE OF AGUEDA G. ROBERTO}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par Plaintiffs-Appellants \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 vs.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 JOSE T. GUTIERREZ, FLORENCE S. GUTIERREZ and \par JOE and FLO}{\b\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 S, INC., a Guam corporation,}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par Defendants-Appellees \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 OPINION}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Filed: May 15, 2001}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid7760814 }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 2001 Guam 9}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Supreme Court Case No. CVA98\_035 \par Superior Court Case No. CV0547-90}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on August 19, 1999 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph123\trleft-123\trftsWidth1\trpaddl123\trpaddr123\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4557\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9237\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid7760814 {\ul\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 : \par F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq. \par Cunliffe & Cook, P.C. \par Suite 200 \par 210 Archbishop Flores Street\tab \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }{\ul\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Appearing for Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 : \par Paul A. Lawlor, Esq. \par Attorney at Law \par Suite 903, PDN Building \par 238 Archbishop Flores Street \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph123\trleft-123\trftsWidth1\trpaddl123\trpaddr123\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4557\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9237\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid7760814 \par }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 BEFORE: RICHARD H. BENSON, Chief Justice (Acting),}{\cs15\super\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid2760069 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 The Chief Justice recused himself from this case and as the next senior panel member, Justice Benson was appointed Acting Chief Justice.}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice,}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 and MARK E. COWAN, Justice }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\insrsid7760814 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 COWAN, J.:}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [1]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab In 1990, Glorina Q. Perez (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ) in her capacity as Administratrix of the Estate of Agueda G. Roberto (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Agueda}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ) filed this action to cancel a deed of gift of real property executed in 1971 by Agueda.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Agueda was, at the time of execution of the deed, and remained until her death in 1982, a judicially declared incompetent person.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The grantee of the deed was her brother and judicially appointed guardian, Jose T. Gutierrez (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Jose}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ).}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Jose}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s wife, Florence (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Florence}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ), was a co-grantee of the deed and both, with another party, were Defendants in this action.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The trial court held that the Complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by the doctrine of laches.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 On appeal Appellant alleges that the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches are not available as defenses in this action.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 We hold that the defense of statute of limitations is available and affirm the trial court}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s decision on that ground. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 I.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [2]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The facts giving rise to this case stretch over a period of nearly forty years and are many and complicated.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Moreover, the facts involve other judicial proceedings.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Agueda was once married to Juan Aguon Roberto (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Juan}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ).}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Juan was, with his sister Dolores, the owner of Lot No. 165, Ylig, Guam.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Juan died intestate in 1961 leaving Agueda as his widow.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In 1968, Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s brother, Jose, successfully petitioned the court to appoint him as her guardian on the basis that she was incompetent.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In 1971, Agueda executed a deed of gift transferring Lot No. 165-2 to Jose and Florence.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s competency was never restored by the court, and Jose remained her guardian until her death in 1982.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In 1989 during the consolidated probate of Juan and Dolores}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 estate, Eulalia Cepeda (}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Eulalia}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ) was found to be Juan}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s daughter from a previous relationship, }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In the Matter of the Estate of Roberto}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , PR006-61 and PR0080-58 (Super. Ct. Guam July 13, 1989) (consolidated probate of Juan and Dolores)(decision on the heirship of Eulalia).}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 It does not appear that Juan had any children other than Eulalia.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In the probate proceedings of Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate, Superior Court of Guam Probate Case No. PR332-89, apparently initiated in 1989, Eulalia nominated and successfully moved the probate court to appoint Glorina as Administratrix of Agueda}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina, in 1990, filed this action.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In 1994, in the consolidated probate of the Estates of Juan and Dolores, the court determined Eulalia in her own right was entitled to a one-fourth share of Lot No. 165, an interest not at issue in this action, and the Estate of Agueda or her successors in interest also entitled to a one-fourth share in Lot No. 165.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 (Super. Court of Guam, Jan. 7. 1994)(Decree of Final Distribution).}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, as noted above, in 1971 Agueda had conveyed Lot No. 165 to Gutierrez.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid2760069 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 Although the reasoning behind this distribution was not detailed in the Court}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 s order of distribution, presumably Eulalia as the sole surviving child, and Ag ueda as the surviving spouse of Juan who died intestate, were each distributed one-half of Juan}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 s separate property, namely his share of Lot No. 165, pursuant to section 221 of the Probate Code of Guam, enacted in 1953 and in effect at the time of the relevant deaths, now codified at Title 15 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 903. The court}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 s order of distribution was consistent with the conclusion that Juan}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{ \fs20\insrsid2760069 s interest in Lot No. 165 was separate property and not community property of himself and Agueda. Further, Eulalia}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 s claim of interest in the Estate of Agueda presumably derives from section 229 of the Probate Code of Guam. Pursuant to that section, in the event Agueda died intestate, and without issue, separate property acquired from Agueda}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{ \fs20\insrsid2760069 s previously deceased husband, Juan, would pass to Juan}{\fs20\insrsid7874968 '}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 s children (Eulalia).}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [3]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab In 1998, trial on the Complaint for Cancellation of Deed of Gift was held before an advisory jury.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The jury found that Agueda was incompetent at the time the deed was executed and that it should be set aside. However, the jury also found that Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. The trial court}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 found that although Agueda was incompetent, the complaint to cancel the deed was barred by the statute of limitations, set forth in Guam Civil Procedure Code }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 328, and the doctrine of laches.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This appeal followed. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 II. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [4]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab This court has jurisdiction on an appeal from a final judgment.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 3107 (1994). \par }{\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [5]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Whether the Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 question of law to be reviewed }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 de novo}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Gayle v. Hemlani}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 2000 Guam 25, }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 22. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 III.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [6]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab We begin by disposing of Gutierrez}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s procedural complaints.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Gutierrez argues that Glorina has failed to comply with Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 on the ordering of transcripts.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 As t he issues presented on appeal are questions of law, we choose to exercise our discretion granted by GRAP 7 and deny Gutierrez}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s request.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Gutierrez also argues that Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(m)}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 was violated by Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s failure to identify where in the record she raised the issues before the trial court now brought forth on appeal.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina responds that the issues were raised in a Motion for Directed Verdict and in her trial brief.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, these documents were not included in the Court}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s Record or in Appellant}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s Excerpts of Record and this court is unable to verify Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s claims hereto.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 With specific regard to the statute of limitations issue, Gutierrez alleges first that he was entitled to a jury on this issue and then that Glorina failed to show that she objected to the jury instruction on this issue in violation of Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 51.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 He argues that this court must presume that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal. \par }{\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [7]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab We hold that the issue of whether a statute of limitations bars an action to cancel a deed signed by an incompetent grantor may be asserted as a defense in such as action, as presented by Glorina in this appeal, is a question of law.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 See In Re Estate of Fincher}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 119 Cal.App.3d 343, 351, 174 Cal.Rptr. 18, 22-23 (Ct. App. 1981).}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The essential facts that underlie the issues of statute of limitations are Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s adjudicated incompetency, the dates of the deed, her death and the filing of this action.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 These are undisputed leaving no factual determinations left for a jury to consider.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Where there is no conflict in the evidence upon which the determination of a question of law rests, the decision is for the court and it should not be submitted to the jury.}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 119 Cal.App.3d at 351, 174 Cal.Rptr. at 23.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This is not to say that all}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 statute of limitations issues should not be tried before a jury.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 It has been held that questions of fact and even mixed questions of law and fact on this issue may be submitted to a jury.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 See Mitchell v. Towne}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 31 Cal.App.2d 259, 262, 87 P.2d 908, 910 (Dist. Ct. }{\insrsid7760814 App. 1939) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [8]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The general issue raised o n appeal is whether, after the death of one who had been judicially declared incompetent who executed a deed during incompetency, the defense of statute of limitations is available to the grantees of the deed in an action brought by the incompetent}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s representative.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 We hold that such a defense is available. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 A.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [9]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Nineteen years passed between Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s execution of the deed and the filing of this Complaint to cancel the deed, and seven years elapsed between Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s death and the filing of this Complaint.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 It is Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s assertion that no statute of limitations bars an action to set aside a deed executed by an incompetent grantor.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina claims that because Agueda was incompetent by judicial declaration at the time the deed was executed, under Guam Civil Code }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 40, it is void and no title passed.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid2760069 \chftn }{\insrsid2760069 }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 This section provides: }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f41\fs20}}}{\b\fs20\insrsid2760069 Powers of persons whose incapacity has been adjudged}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 . After his incapacity has been judicially determined, a person of unsound mind can make no conveyance or other contract, nor delegate any power or waive any right, until his restoration to capacity.}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 Guam Civ. Code }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 40 (1970) (now codified at 19 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 1114).}}}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina argues that sect ion 3412 of the Civil Code permits a wholly void instrument to be cancelled by legal action at any time.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This section provides: }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Cancellation, when ordered}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 . A written instrument, in respect to which there is a r easonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 application,}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 be so adjudged,}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 and ordered to be delivered up}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 or cancelled.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Guam Civ. Code}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 3412 (1970) (now codified at 20 GCA }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 3250).}{ \insrsid2760069 \par }{\insrsid7760814\charrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [10]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Glorina offers no case law to support her specific proposition that a deed, void because of grantor incompetency, is not subject to any statute of limitations.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Her reliance on the case of }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hironymous v. Hiatt}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 52 Cal.App. 727, 199 P. 850 (Dist. Ct. App. 1921), is misplaced.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hironymous}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 court held that section 3412 of the California Civil Code (identical to GCC }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 3412) was not applicable in an action to cancel a written promise to give a gift.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 52 Cal. App. at 736-737, 199 P. at 853-854.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The distinction between the promise of a gift and a deed of gift immediately conveying one}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '} {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s interest in property is critical.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 As the court in }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hironymous}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 stated, a gift is a transfer of property without consideration and a gift of a promissory note payable in the future does not create an enforceable obligation.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id. }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 52 Cal. App. at 735, 199 P. at 853.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In the present case, at issue is a deed of gift of real property.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The deed purported to transfer Agueda}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s interest in the real property immediately to Gutierrez.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This is not the same as a promise to make a gift.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s reliance on the case of }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Duty v. Abex Corp}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 ., 214 Cal.App.3d 742, 263 Cal.Rptr. 13 (Ct. App. 1989), is equally misplaced.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Duty}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 case simply illustrates that lawmakers are free to allow certain legal actions to be brought at any time and makes the observation that the }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hironymous}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 decision, distinguished above, stands for the general proposition that certain proceedings may be brought at any time if the legislature does not specify a statute of limitations for such proceedings.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 214 Cal.App.3d at 749, 263 Cal.Rptr. at 16.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Thus, neither the }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hironymous}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 nor the }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Duty}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 cases involve the specific statute of limitations issue we face in the instant appeal. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [11]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Glorina cites three cases, }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. Alden}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 206 Cal. 592, 275 P. 794 (1929), }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Bryce v. O'Brien}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 5 Cal.2d 615, 55 P.2d 488 (1936), and}{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Montgomery v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 85 Cal.App.2d 559, 193 P.2d 475 (Dist. Ct. App. 1948), to support her contention that an instrument that is void cannot pass good title.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, none of these cases involve the issue of the application of the statute of limitations to an action to cancel a void deed or instrument.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Glorina's contention that no statute of limitation applies to such an action, and that such an action can be brought at any time is countered by the decision of the California Supreme Court in the case of }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Moss v. Moss}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 20 Cal.2d 640, 128 P.2d 526 (1942).}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In that case, the plaintiff sued to cancel a contract that h e entered into with his wife in order to procure a divorce from her, on the ground that such a contract was illegal, void and against public policy.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 20 Cal.2d at 641-642, 128 P.2d at 527.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The defendant raised the defense of statute of limitations, wh ich the plaintiff contended was unavailable in an action to cancel an instrument void as against public policy.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 20 Cal.2d at 644-645, 128 P.2d at 528-529.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The court held the action barred by the statute of limitations. }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 20 Cal.2d at 645, 128 P.2d at 529.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Moss }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 demonstrates that a statute of limitations may bar an action to challenge a void instrument.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The Supreme Court of California's authorities cited in support of its decision show that the holding applies to void instruments whether or not they are in violation of public policy.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [12]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Gutierrez argues that the Complaint is barred by the }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 catch all}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 limitation set forth in section 343 of the Civil Procedur e Code.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This section provides:}{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Actions for relief not hereinbefore provided for}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 An action for relief not hereinbefore provided for must be commenced within four (4) years after the cause of action shall have accrued.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Guam Civ. Proc. Code }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 343 (1970) (current version codified at 7 GCA }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 11312). \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [13]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The Guam Code of Civil Procedure was adopted from California and cases from that state construing the code sections, though not absolutely binding, are of much guidance to this court and are persuasive.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 See Custodio v. Boonprakong}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 1999 Guam 5, }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 11; }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 People v. Quenga}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 1997 Guam 6, n. 4.}{\insrsid2760069 \par }{\insrsid9380452\charrsid7760814 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [14]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab We note at least one California case which supports the proposition that section 343 is applicable in an action to cancel a deed due to a grantor}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s incompetency.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd v. Lancaster}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 56 Cal.App.2d 103, 132 P.2d 214 (Dist. Ct. App. 1942), an action was filed to set aside a deed because of a grantor}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s incompetence.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The deed was executed in October of 1931 and the action to set it aside was filed in August of 1935.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 56 Cal.App.2d at 105, 132 P.2d at 216.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Among other defenses, the grantee challenged the action on the basis that it was barred by the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, the court held t hat the action was filed less than four years after the deed was obtained and was therefore not barred by the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 56 Cal.App.2d at 111, 132 P.2d at 218-219.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 While the }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 court did not mention a specific statute, a later case, }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In re Estate of Pieper}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 224 Cal. App. 2d 670, 689, 37 Cal.Rptr. 46, 59 (Dist. Ct. App. 1964), interpreted }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd}{\i\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 four year limit as referring to section 343.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pieper}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 case involved an action}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 to remove the administrator of an estate and to invalidate a certain deed from the decedent to the administrator based on nondelivery of the deed.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The administrator raised a statute of limitations defense in his answer to the complaint claiming that the action to set aside the deed was barred by sections 336, 337, 338, 339 and 343 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 224 Cal.App.2d at 688, 37 Cal.Rptr. at 59.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pieper}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 court, in reviewing the applicability of the aforementioned sections in a case to invalidate a deed due to nondelivery, noted that section 343 was found in }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 to be applicable in setting aside a deed on the basis of the grantor}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s incompetency.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 224 Cal.App.2d at 689, 37 Cal.Rptr. at 59.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Thus, while }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pieper}{\i\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 actual holding is inapplicable to the case at bar, it does help to clarify }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 . \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [15]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab In contrast to the }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Boyd}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 case, another California decision, }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Wade v. Busby}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 66 Cal.App.2d 700, 152 P.2d 754 (Dist. Ct. App. 1944) suggests that if insanity is properly pled, section 328 or 352 may apply.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 66 Cal.App.2d at 702, 152 P.2d at 755.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Wade}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , the administratrix of the grantor}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate sought to set aside a deed executed by the grantor while incompetent.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Wade}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 court acknowledged that insanity may void disposition of property but refused to find that an allegation of incompetency was equivalent to an allegation of insanity for the tolling of the statute of limitations in either section 328 or 352 of the Califor nia Code of Civil Procedure.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id. }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 66 Cal.App.2d at 702-703, 152 P.2d at 755. \par \par \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [16]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab However, with regard to insanity, this court previously defined the term in the case of }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Custodio v. Boonprakong}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 1999 Guam 5, where we held: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\insrsid9380452 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 that insanity, for the purposes of Guam}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s tolling statute [GCPC }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 352], turns on the determinative issue of whether a person has demonstrated a severe mental impairment that effects [sic] his or her ability to comprehend rights or acts that he would otherwise understand.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Absent this ability to comprehend, the time in which to commence a cause of action is tolled until the disability ends. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Id.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 at }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 15.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Under this broad definition of insanity, legal incompetence, pursuant to the definition in GCC }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 40, is easily encompassed.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 We are compelled to adopt this holding and apply its definition of insanity to Guam Civil Procedure Code }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 328. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [17]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Section 328 provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\b\insrsid9380452 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Certain Disabilities Excluded From Time to Commence Actions}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 . If a person entitled to commence an action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, or to make any entry or defense founded on the title to real property, or to rents or services out of the same is, at the time such title first descends or accrues, either: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 (1) Under the age of majority; or \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\insrsid9380452 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 (2) Insane. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The time, not exceeding twenty (20) years, during which such disability continues is not deemed any portion of the time in this Article limited for the commencement of such action, or the making of such entry or defense, but such action may be commenced o r entry or defense made, within the period of five years after such disability shall cease, or after the death of the person entitled, who shall die under such disability, but such action shall not be commenced, or entry or defense made, after that period. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par Guam Civ. Proc. Code }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 328, amended by P.L. 13-187:36 (now codified at 7 GCA 11215).}{\insrsid7760814 } {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This section tolls the statute of limitations for a maximum of twenty years of disability.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 It provides that an action must b e brought within five years after the disability ceases or after the death of the person entitled. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [18]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Section 352 is similar to section 328 in that it tolls the time for an action to be filed if the person entitled is insane.}{\cs15\super\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid2760069 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 Section 352 provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 If a person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in Chapter III of this Title, be, at the time the cause of action accrued, either: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 (1) A minor; or \par (2) Insane; or \par (3) A married woman, and her husband be a necessary party with her in commencing such action; \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 the time of such disability is not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action. \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid2760069 Guam Civ. Proc. Code }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 352, amended by P.L. 13\_ 187:27 (now codified at 7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid2760069 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f41\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid2760069 11404).}{\fs18\insrsid2760069 \par }}}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, section 352, unlike section 328, contains no provision for the death of the insane person and to that extent is inapplicable to the case at bar. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [19]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab We also note that whereas section 343 is a catchall rule designed to provide a time limit for all other actions not specifically provided for, section 328 specifically applies to actions to recover real property and provides the time limit in cases of inc ompetency by way of insanity or minority, which fits precisely the facts of the instant case.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 If conflicting statutes cannot be reconciled, the specific must prevail over the general.}{\insrsid7760814 } {\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 See Pacific Rock Corp. v. Department of Educ.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 2000 Guam 19, }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}} {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 25-26 (holding that the Guam Procurement Law is a comprehensive statute providing a mandatory scheme of administrative and judicial remedies and prevails over t he Government Claims Act in an action to recover under a contract awarded pursuant to the Procurement Law). \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [20]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Thus, we hold, as did the trial court, that section 328 is applicable in this case to set aside a deed because of a grantor}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s incompetency.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 We now determine whether this action was filed within the statute of limitations set by section 328. \par \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [21]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The following dates and circumstances are not disputed: (1) Agueda was legally incompetent when she executed the deed on June 10, 1971 ; (2) Agueda died on October 29, 1982 while under legal incompetency; and (3) the present action was filed by the administratrix of Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate on June 18, 1990.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Therefore, pursuant to section 328, Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s disability tolled the time limit for filing an action to recover her real property until her death, and any such action should have been filed within five years her death.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This action was filed more than seven years past her death.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 In a normal case, the administrator could have brought the action to cancel the deed at any time before the five years ran and need not have waited for a determination of heirship.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Thus, we must hold that Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s action is barred by the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Such a rule is important, because if, as Glorina urges, t he time to file an action runs from the date of determination of heirship, it could result in uncertainty of land titles for decades after the death of the person entitled and question the reliability of land records, an important goal of recording and la nd registration laws. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [22]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Glorina argues that if a statute of limitations applies, it began to run in1989 when Eulalia was judicially determined to be an heir of Juan.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 To support this argument, Glorina categorizes her action as one to remove a cloud on the title of property distributed to Agueda in the probate of Juan}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate by the 1994 Decree of Distribution.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, Glorina fails to show how the determination that Eulalia was Juan}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s heir bears on Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s right or the time within which to bring this action.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 This action, which Glorina has filed as personal representative of Agueda, could have been filed at any time after Agueda executed the deed.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The action is in effect an action on behalf of Agueda or her successors in interest to set aside the deed.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 As discussed below, the statue of limitations upon an action to cancel the deed was tolled until Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s disability terminated upon her death.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 After Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s death, her personal representative could bring the action to set aside the deed at any time within the applicable state of limitations.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Nothing in section 328 suggests that the statue of limitations is suspended indefinitely until administration of Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate is initiated, or heirship issues determined.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 While Eulalia has been determined to be Juan}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s heir, so far as the record shows, there still has been no determination of heirship to Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate, yet Glorina has properly brought this action to set aside the deed for the benefit of whoever may be determined to be entitled to the distribution of Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s interest in the property, from Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s estate.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Unfortunately the action was brought after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [23]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab We note that in cases of fraud or mistake, section 338 of the Civil Procedure Code provides a three year statute of limitation from the discovery of the fraud or mistake.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 While Glorina alleged fraud in her Complaint, this issue was not addressed in the trial court}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s decision and not brought up on appeal.}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Thus, it plays no part in our consideration of this appeal.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 We must add that this opinion does not condone a guardian getting a deed from his incompetent ward, but nothing in the record shows what happened between Agueda}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s death in 1982 and the filing of the Complaint in 1990 which might have been the basis for a tolling argument or an estoppel to assert the statute of limitations.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Issues of fraud, the date of discovery of the fraud, if any, and of whether the statute of limitations should be tolled or defendants estopped are factual issues which if present below were either not determined, or determined adversely to Glorina}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 and not pursued on this appeal. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 B.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [24]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab In addition to the statute of limitations bar, the trial court held that Glorina}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s claim wa s also barred by the doctrine of laches.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Because we affirm the trial court}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s decision on the statute of limitations ground, we find it unnecessary to address the laches issue. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [25]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab Defendant's cross\_appeal, asking this court, but only if it were to revers e the judgment in favor of defendants below, to hold that the trial court committed error in not dismissing this action for failure to join indispensable parties.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Defendants assert that if this court affirms the trial court, the issue of indispensable parties is moot and need not be addressed.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, neither the conditional nature of their cross\_ appeal, nor their characterization of the issue as moot necessarily disposes of the issue, as the issue of joinder of indispensable parties is one that can be raised at any time, including by an appellate court, which may raise and act upon the issue }{ \i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 sua sponte}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\i\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 See Provident Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 390 U.S. 102, 111, 88 S.Ct. 733, 738-739 (1968);}{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 UOP v. United States}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 99 F.3d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1996);}{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pit River Home and Agric. Coop. Ass}{ \i\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 n v. United States}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 30 F.3d 1088, 1099 (9th Cir. 1994). \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [26]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The asserted indispensable parties are persons that were transferred interests in the property involved in this action by the named defendants.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 It appears from the briefs that Jose and Florence, the original grantees, and named defendants in this action, do not presently retain any ownership interest in the subject property, that a sixty-four percent interest therein is held by the named defendant Joe & Flo's In c., and that the remaining interests are held by certain other}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 individuals.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 These individuals are co\_ tenants, and transferees from defendants of interests in the property at issue. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [27]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab As co\_tenants and assignees holding interests of record in real property, which derive from the deed at issue in this case, they appear to be within the class of persons to be joined if feasible under the provisions of Guam Rule of Civil Procedure\~19(a)(2)\_(i).}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Rule 19 requires joinder of such persons if subject to service of process and if joinder would not deprive the court of jurisdiction.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 There is no indication in the record of inability to join any of these defendants. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [28]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab It is unclear why plaintiff did not join them in the action, in particular as portions of the complaint refer to the transfers to them.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The absence of these parties was not raised by defendants in their answer, or by motion prior to filing their answer as required by Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), nor was any application made for determination of this issue before trial as provided by Rule 12(d).}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The issue of non\_ joinder of these additional parties was instead first raised by the named defendants after trial by jury and entry by the jury of its verdict herein, which was adverse t o the named defendants on all questions presented to the jury other than the issue of statute of limitations and laches. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [29]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab The court below held the decision adverse to Glorina on these issues rendered the matter moot, but further found th at the allegedly indispensable parties were each present through various stages of the trial, some present throughout the entire trial, all had full knowledge of the proceedings and many of them testified as witnesses.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The court found that it would be inequitable to allow a motion for dismissal after return of the verdict.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 However, timing does not bar consideration of the issue, since as noted above, it may be raised }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 sua sponte}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 by the court, even on appeal.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The court may consider, among other factors, "the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies. .\~.\~ . [and the] public stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible . . . ."}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Provident Bank & Trust Co.,}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 390 U.S. at 111, 88 S.Ct. at 739. \par }{\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [30]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab However, defendant in its cross\_ appeal has asked that we consider the issue only in the event we reverse the decision of the trial court on the other issues raised, which we have not done, and in the circumstances of this case we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the issue }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 sua sponte}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The granting of the motion below would have left the underlying issues between the parties unresolved, and could have given the defendants who had been joined in the action and who had fully litigated i t the opportunity to re-litigate the issues which had been determined adversely to them in the event the decisions of the jury on the statute of limitations and laches were not sustained.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 There appears to be no prejudice to any of the named parties from non\_joinder of additional interested parties.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 To the extent there was any such prejudice, there should also be taken into account any contribution of the parties thereto; the plaintiffs chose who to name in this action, and the defendants chose the timing of their motion.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The non\_joined parties are not adversely affected by the judgment.}{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The purpose of Fed.R.Civ.P.\~19(a)(2)(i) is to protect the legitimate interests of absent parties, as well as to discourage multiplicitous litigation.}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f41\fs24}}}{\insrsid7760814 }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 United States. ex rel. Morongo Band of Mission Indians. v. Rose}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , 34 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 1994).}{ \insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Consideration of the issue appears unnecessary to avoid prejudice, and may ultimately have the effect of giving one side of this controversy or the other, or possibly both the opportunity to re-litigate those issues in the case determined adver sely to it, the timeliness issues in the case of the plaintiff, and the other issues in the case as to the defendants, and therefore to promote rather than discourage multiplicity of litigation. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 IV. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\b\insrsid9380452 \par }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 [31]}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 \tab In an action to cancel a deed due the incompetence of the grantor, we hold that the defense of statute of limitations is available.}{\insrsid7760814 }{ \insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 The trial court}{\insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s decision is }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 , therefore the Appellee}{ \insrsid7874968\charrsid7760814 '}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 s Cross-Appeal need not be considered and is }{\b\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 DISMISSED}{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 .}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\insrsid9380452 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 MARK E. COWAN \par Designate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid7760814 }{\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Justice }{\i\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9380452 {\insrsid7760814 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7760814 {\insrsid2760069\charrsid7760814 RICHARD H. BENSON \par Chief Justice (Acting) \par }}