{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f36\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Verdana;} {\f399\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f400\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f402\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f403\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f404\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f405\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};} {\f406\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f407\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f409\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f410\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;} {\f412\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f413\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f414\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f415\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f416\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;} {\f417\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f749\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f750\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f752\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f753\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;} {\f754\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f755\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f756\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}{\f757\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f758\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);} {\f759\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f760\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}{\f762\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f763\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f766\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;} {\f767\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Verdana (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\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\ql \li0\ri0\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f1\fs32\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning32\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;} {\*\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 searchterm;}{\*\cs16 \additive bestsection;}{ \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 footer;}{\*\cs18 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s19\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 \ssemihidden footnote text;}{\*\cs20 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\s21\ql \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Block Text;}{\s22\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Body Text In;}{ \s23\qj \fi-810\li810\ri0\sl480\slmult1\widctlpar\tx720\faauto\rin0\lin810\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Body Text 2;}{\s24\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext24 header;}{\*\cs25 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{\*\cs26 \additive \f36\fs19 \sbasedon10 documentbody1;}{\s27\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f35\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext27 \ssemihidden Balloon Text;}{\*\cs28 \additive \b\f1\fs32\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning32\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon10 Heading 1 Char;}{\*\cs29 \additive \i \sbasedon10 Emphasis;}{\*\cs30 \additive \b \sbasedon10 Strong;}{\*\cs31 \additive \f36\fs14 \sbasedon10 informationalsmall1;}{\s32\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext32 Body Text;}} {\*\rsidtbl \rsid6369\rsid615168\rsid3366723\rsid4019401\rsid6758991\rsid7012991\rsid8005047\rsid8455702\rsid9514272\rsid11338676\rsid11564909\rsid11763502\rsid12142968\rsid13310636\rsid13727702\rsid14038047\rsid14052413\rsid15416003\rsid15608521 \rsid16470644}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author Supreme Court of Guam}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2006\mo3\dy31\hr13\min29}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy31\hr13\min29} {\printim\yr2005\mo12\dy30\hr13\min49}{\version2}{\edmins0}{\nofpages17}{\nofwords7458}{\nofchars42515}{\*\company }{\nofcharsws49874}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1440\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\rsidroot14038047 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12142968 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12142968 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12142968 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12142968 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1267\footery130\endnhere\pgbrdropt32\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16470644\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \s24\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\insrsid11564909 Taitano v. Lujan}{\insrsid11564909 , Opinion\tab Page } {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\insrsid11564909 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs18\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3366723 17}}}{\cs18\insrsid11564909 of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs18\insrsid11564909 NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt { \cs18\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8455702 27}}}{\cs18\insrsid11564909 \par _____________________________________________________________________________________________ \par \par }}{\footer \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\insrsid11564909 \par }\pard \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 \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\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 PEDRO T. TAITANO,}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par Plaintiff-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 vs.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 RAFAEL LUJAN, and DOES I Through XX, and any right, title, \par estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint \par adverse to plaintiff\rquote s ownership, or any cloud on plaintiff\rquote s title,}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par Defendants-Appellees.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA04-032 \par Superior Court Case No.: CV0170-04}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 OPINION}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid6369\charrsid15608521 Filed:}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\b\fs24\insrsid6369\charrsid15608521 December 30, 2005}{ \b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid6369\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Cite as:}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 2005 Guam 26}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on June 30, 2004 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph115\trleft-115\trftsWidth1\trpaddl115\trpaddr115\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4565 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9245\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par }{\fs24\ul\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 : \par Seth Forman, }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Esq}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . \par Daniel J. Berman, }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Esq}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . \par Berman, O\rquote Connor, Mann & Shklov \par Suite 503 Bank of Guam Building \par 111 Chalan Santo Papa \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\fs24\ul\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appearing for the Defendants-Appellees}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 : \par Peter F. Perez,}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Esq. \par }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Suite 216, 194 Hernan Cortes Avenue \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par \par }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph115\trleft-115\trftsWidth1\trpaddl115\trpaddr115\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4565\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9245\row }\pard\plain \s32\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid15608521 \par }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice }{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 TORRES, J.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 :}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \s22\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [1]\tab }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 This case arises from a judgment issued by the trial court in a quiet title action filed by Pedro T. Taitano against Rafael Lujan concerning a portion of real property located in Tamuning, Guam.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court ruled that the deed of gift transferring one-half of the property to Rafael in 1980 was valid and title to the property, which was condemned by the United States government and later returned to the original landowners, passed by operation of law to Rafael pursuant to the subsequently acquired title doctrine.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The court further determined that under Guam\rquote s race notice statute, Title 21 GCA \'a7 37102, Rafael\rquote s previously recorded 1980 deed of gift was superior to the 1997 probate distribution to Manuel L. Tenorio, Pedro\rquote s alleged predecessor in interest.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We find no error in the ruling of the Superior Court that the deed of gift was valid and title pa ssed to Rafael pursuant to the subsequently acquired title doctrine and that the previously recorded deed of gift was superior to the probate decree by virtue of 21 GCA \'a7 37102.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Accordingly, we affirm.}{\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 I.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [2]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Maria Santos Lujan, owner of Lot 5049 Tamuning (formerly Dededo),}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 The property in dispute has also been described as Lot 5049-2, Lot 5049-REM, and Lot 5049-R.}}}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 died in 1944 and her six children --}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Manuel M. Lujan, Isabel Lujan Cruz, Enrique M. Lujan, Joaquin Lujan Lujan, Juan Lujan Lujan and Paz Lujan Tenorio -- each inherited a one-sixth undivided interest in Lot 5049.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 During the early 1950's, the United States of America condemned millions of square meters of real estate throughout Guam, including part of Lot 5049.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Notwithstanding the United States\rquote condemnation, certain of Maria\rquote s children still engaged in various transactions conveying their one-sixth interest in the property.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In 1980, three of these children, Enrique, Isabel and Paz granted to their nephew and son,}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 Rafael was Paz\rquote s son. \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael, by deed of gift, their interest in Lot 5049.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Enrique signed the deed even though he had executed a will in 1978 leaving all of his estate to another nephew, Manuel, also Paz\rquote s son. }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [3]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Enrique died in 1990 and the 1978 will was probated in Superior Court Probate Case No.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 PR 0124-92.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Letters testamentary were issued to Manuel who listed Lot 5049 as an asset of the estate.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Notice of the petition for the probate of the will was given to the widows or children of Enrique\rquote s siblings (Manuel, Isabel, Joaquin, and Juan) who had predeceased Enrique.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Paz, the only surviving sibling of Enrique, also received notice of the petition, but her son Rafael, grantee under the deed of gift, did not receive any notice of the petition.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [4]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 I}{\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 n 1994, the United States Congress passed the Guam Excess Lands Act, Public Law}{ \fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 No. 103-339, 108 Stat. 3116 (1994), requiring identification and valuation of lands that had been condemned under eminent domain on Gu am, but which were no longer needed for the purposes for which they were condemned. After identifying and valuing those lands, the Administrator of General Services was to \'93 transfer all right, title and interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land . . . to the Government of Guam for public benefit use, by quitclaim deed.\'94}{\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Guam Excess Lands Act \'a72 (a). }{\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [5]\tab }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 SEQ CHAPTER \\h \\r 1}}{\fldrslt }}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In anticipation of the return of these excess lands, the Guam Legislature enacted several laws, among them An Act t o Develop Land-Use Policy and Plans for Certain Parcels of Land Belonging to the Government of Guam, Guam Public Law 22-145, whereunder the Legislature first expressed its intent to convey all returned land to the original landowners by directing the Dire ctor of Land Management to transfer to the original landowners and their heirs any land that is acquired by the government by the Guam Excess Lands Act.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The Legislature again voiced its intent to return the land to the original landowners when it later pas sed An Act to Create the Guam Land Repatriation Commission, Guam Public Law 23-23; An Act to Provide an Environmental Clearinghouse for the Review of Federal Real Property Transfers, Guam Public Law 23-101; and An Act to Develop Land-Use Policy and Plans for Certain Parcels of Excess Federal Properties, Guam Public Law 23-141.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [6]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Manuel filed a Claim of Interest, for himself and his heirs, with the Office of the Recorder, Department of Land Management in February 1995, as the \'93 Administrator\'94 of the Estate of Enrique.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In the Claim of Interest, he purportedly gave public notice of their legal claim and title to Lot 5049 and requested the lot be returned to Enrique\rquote s Estate.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In 1997, the Superior Court of Guam entered a Decree of Final Distribution in Enrique\rquote s probate case distributing all of Enrique\rquote s property, including Lot 5049, to Manuel.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Manuel later sought assurances from the Government of Guam that the property would be returned to the original landowners, and as part of the process of the return of excess lands from the United States, Manuel, as grantee and the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam as grantor, executed a Grant of Contingent Future Interest granting an undivided one-sixth contingent future interest in Lot 5049 to the s ix children of Maria (five of whom had died by 1998). }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [7]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 On November 14, 2001, Manuel granted a durable limited power of attorney to Pedro to \'93maintain, oversea (sic), execute all transactions concerning Lot 5049.\'94 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record (\'93ER\'94), p. 15 (Petition to Quiet Title).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The same day, Manuel also executed a Bill of Sale which transferred to Pedro the \'93house and everything contained therein located at 1368 N. Marine Drive Tamuning Guam of Lot 5049.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 ER p. 35 (Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alt. for Summ. J., Ex. A, Bill of Sale).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The Bill of Sale further provided that Manuel agreed to \'93negotiate sale of property where house is located at a later time.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record ( \'93ER\'94), p. 35 (Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alt. for Summ. J., Ex. A, Bill of Sale). The power of attorney was not recorded with the Office of the Recorder until March 2002, and two days later Pedro, as attorney in fact for Manuel, quitclaimed Lot 5049 to his son Richard Steuart T aitano.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Shortly thereafter Manuel revoked the power of attorney given to Pedro.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [8]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab The title for Lot 5049 finally passed from the U.S. to the Government of Guam in October 2002 by a quitclaim deed, and from the Government of Guam to the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission in November 2002.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s ER, p.50 Exhibit C. The Guam Ancestral Lands Commission then transferred Lot 5049 to the heirs of Maria by quitclaim deed in June 2003. Appellant\rquote s ER p. 51, Exhibit C. }{ \fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [9]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab Pedro filed the quiet title action against Rafael in February 2004, claiming he was the owner in fee simple of Lot 5049, being a bona fide third party purchaser of the property after it was returned to the heirs of Maria.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael responded with a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, arguing that Pedro\rquote s petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or that summary judgment was appropriate on the basis that the 1980 deed of gift to Rafael was recor ded prior to any conveyance to Manuel and therefore superior under Guam\rquote s race notice statute, Title 21 GCA \'a7 37102.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro opposed, asserting that the 1997 decree of final distribution in Enrique\rquote s estate should be given effect over the 1980 deed of gift, since at the time of the gift, Enrique and his siblings did not own the property.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rather the property was owned by the United States until it was returned to the Government of Guam in 2002.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 In his opposition, Pedro acknowledged that his claim was limit ed only to the one-sixth interest that may have been devised to him from Enrique. \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [10]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab After a hearing, the Superior Court of Guam ruled that Enrique, Isabel and Paz could transfer their ownership interest in Lot 5049 by way of the 1980 deed of gift e ven though they did not possess any present interest in Lot 5049 but only possessed a future contingent interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The court further determined the probate distribution to Manuel in 1997 was precluded by the doctrine of subsequently acquired title because the property had already been conveyed to Rafael in 1980.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Finally the court held, since the deed of gift was recorded with the Office of the Recorder before the decree of final distribution, the deed of gift was superior under Guam\rquote s race notice statute, 21 GCA \'a7 37102.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rafael and vacated the }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 which had been filed by Pedro with the Office of the Recorder.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A judgment decreeing that Pedro had no interest to Lot 5049 was entered and Pedro appealed.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 The Estate of Juan Lujan Lujan, the Estate of Joaquin Lujan Lujan and Maria Rosario Lujan and the Estate of Manuel Lujan Lujan and Pilar Manibusan Lujan joined in the summary judgment motion. These estates later entered into a stipulation and order with Pedro pursuant to which Pedro waived any objection to the partition of Lot 5049-2 into two separate Lots, Lot 5049-2-1 and Lot 5049-2-R1. Pedro also agreed not to appeal the Judgment to the extent it concerned the title of the estates to Lot 5049-2 -1, but he reserved any rights to appeal Rafael\rquote s title to Lot 5049-2-R1. \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 II.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [11]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to 48 U.S.C. \'a7 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 109-20 (2005)), and Title 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107(b) and 3108(b) (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A trial court\rquote s decision granting a motion for summary judgment in a quiet title action is reviewed }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 de novo. Paulino v. Biscoe, }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 2000 Guam 13 \'b612.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In rendering a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Bank of Guam v. Flores}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6 7; }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Taijeron v. Kim}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 1999 Guam 16 \'b6 8.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 III.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [12]}{\b\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously concluded that the 1980 deed of gift was a valid transfer of a future interest pursuant to Title 21 GCA \'a7\'a71226, 1228 and 1230.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The mere possibility of the return of property condemned by the United States to its original owners is, Pedro contends, so remote as to be an expectancy and not an interest of any kind.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Moreover, the doctrine of subsequently acquired title should not have applied in this case because the deed of gift was not a warranty deed conveying a fee simple interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [13]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab Rafael maintains that the trial court properly granted summary judgment be cause, under Guam law, the deed of gift was a valid future interest transfer, and superior to any subsequent inconsistent transfers.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Even if the grantors did not have title in 1980, Rafael insists that Pedro should be estopped from opposing Rafael\rquote s interest under the doctrine of subsequently acquired title which is not limited to conveyances involving warranty deeds.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael also contends that the appeal should be dismissed.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael\rquote s arguments that the appeal should be dismissed are essentially two-fold.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 First, he maintains Pedro has no interest in Lot 5049 and lacks standing to bring the appeal because the Bill of Sale did not convey any property to Pedro and any alleged interest that Manuel had was instead conveyed by quitclaim deed to Pedro\rquote s son Richard}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 and also because Pedro did not make the appropriate jurisdictional allegations that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the parties.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Second, Rafael alleges that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because Rafael\rquote s interest had already been conveyed to Fuji Guam Corporation, a bona fide third party purchaser which later conveyed its interest to yet another bona fide third party purchaser, Chris Felix.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Consequently Rafael argues this court cannot grant any effectual relief in favor of Pedro.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [14]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We first consider whether the appeal should be dismissed because it is moot or because Pedro lacks standing to pursue his claims.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A. \tab Standing and Mootness}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 1.\tab Pedro\rquote s standing to appeal}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [15]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab Rafael\rquote s arguments on standing and mootness are raised for the first time on appeal.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Normally, this court will not entertain new arguments on appeal,}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Taniguchi-Ruth & Assocs. v. MDI Guam Corp.}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2005 Guam 7 \'b6 82 (\'93Our exercise of discretion to review an issue raised for the first time on appeal is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where review is necessary to address a miscarriage of justice or clarify significant issues of law.\'94)}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Standing is, however, a component of subject matter jurisdiction.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Guam Imaging Consultants, Inc. v. Guam}{\i\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Mem\rquote l Hosp. Auth.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2004 Guam 15 \'b6 17 (\'93 Standing is a threshold jurisdictional matter.\'94).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Accordingly, it \'93 may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A}{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 -Z Intern. v. Phillips,}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 179 F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The question of standing to sue goes to the existence of a cause of action against the defendant.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Parker v. Bowron}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 254 P.2d 6, 9 (Cal. 1953); }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Common Cause v. Bd. of Supervisors}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 777 P.2d 610, 613-14 (Cal. 1989).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Our review of whether a party has standing is }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 de}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 novo}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 {\*\bkmkstart SR_2353}{\*\bkmkstart SearchTerm}{\*\bkmkend SR_2353}{\*\bkmkend SearchTerm}Rivas v. Rail Delivery Serv., Inc.}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 423 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [16]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab The argument that Pedro lacks standing stems from the language in the Bill of Sale from Manuel to Pedro and Pedro\rquote s quitclaim as attorney-in-fact for Manuel to his son Richard.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael advances that the Bill of Sale did not convey any real property interest to Pedro and the quitclaim to Richard on behalf of Manuel means Richard, not Pedro, is the proper party to bring the quiet title action. The Bill of Sale states that Manuel is transferring the \'93 following described chattels and personal property:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The house and everything contained therein located at 1368 N. Marine Drive, Tamuning, Guam of Lot 5049. . .\'94.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s ER p. 35, Ex.A, Defendant\rquote s Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alt. for Summ. J.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The Bill of Sale further provides that \'93Seller agrees to negotiate sale of property where house is located at a later time however first option goes to the buyer of said house.\'94}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s ER p. 35.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [17]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro argues that the language of the Bill of Sale itself seems unclea r whether Pedro was being granted an interest in the land where the house was located or just the house without any interest in the land.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 He asserts that the court has the equitable power to determine his and Manuel\rquote s rights in the property and to give effect to their intentions and summary judgment was not appropriate.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [18]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93 In rendering a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Flores}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6 7.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The viewpoint most favorable to Pedro would be that the Bill of Sale in question did indeed convey some cognizable interest in the property to Pedro prior to the quitclaim to his son, Richard.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [19]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Manuel\rquote s subsequent quitclaim of the property to Richard would, therefore, not include any real property interest that Manuel may have earlier conveyed to Pedro.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93 A quitclaim deed only transfers whatever interest the grantor had in the described property at the time the conveyance was made.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Marriage of Gioia}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362, 368 (Ct. App. 2004).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Moreover, even if Pedro was not conveyed any title to the real property by virtue of the Bill of Sale, he was given a \'93first option\'94 on the property.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The grant of the \'93option\'94 on Lot 5049 alone appears sufficient to give Pedro standing to bring a claim.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 This court need not decide at this juncture the nature or efficacy of the conveyances between Manuel, Pedro and Richard in 2001 to 2002.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We only need to d ecide if Pedro has standing.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 When viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the record supports that Pedro had some cognizable interest in the land, and therefore we must conclude that Pedro has standing sufficient to overcome Rafael\rquote s objection on this ground. }{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [20]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael also claims that Pedro does not have standing because he did not make a correct jurisdictional allegation in his pleadings that the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Although Rafael complains of the missing jurisdictional allegation, Rafael simultaneously defends the trial court\rquote s decision, which is in his favor.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Interestingly, Rafael complains only that allegations of the complaint are insufficient to confer upon the court subject ma tter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the parties and not that the court did not actually have subject matter jurisdiction or jurisdiction over the parties.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Again, Rafael did not raise these arguments below.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\cs28\b\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [21]\tab }{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro points out that Rafael\rquote s delay in raising this issue and his failure to identify it in prior pleadings should bar him from raising it at this late stage of the litigation.}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A court\rquote s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over an action may, however, be raised a t any time, including after trial has concluded and for the first time on appeal, and may not be waived or excused by the parties.}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst { \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=578&SerialNum=1966123884&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.10" \\t "_top" }{ \fs24\kerning32\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000083000000050000005f0074006f0070000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0201000068007400740070003a002f002f0077006500620032002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00660069006e0064002f0064006500660061007500 6c0074002e0077006c003f00440042003d003500370038002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0031003900360036003100320033003800380034002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600410050003d0026006d0074003d0057006500730074006c0061007700260066006e003d005f 0074006f0070002600730076003d00530070006c00690074002600760072003d0032002e0030002600720073003d0057004c00570035002e00310030000000000067}}}{\fldrslt {\cs28\i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Jenkins v. Keller}{ \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 216 N.E.2d 379, 382 (Ohio 1966),}}}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst {\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=543&SerialNum=2002327470&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=374&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.10" \\t "_top" }{\fs24\kerning32\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000083000000050000005f0074006f0070000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b5e01000068007400740070003a002f002f0077006500620032002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00660069006e0064002f0064006500660061007500 6c0074002e0077006c003f00440042003d003500340033002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0032003000300032003300320037003400370030002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d00590026005200650066006500720065006e006300650050006f0073006900740069006f006e00540079 00700065003d00530026005200650066006500720065006e006300650050006f0073006900740069006f006e003d003300370034002600410050003d0026006d0074003d0057006500730074006c0061007700260066006e003d005f0074006f0070002600730076003d00530070006c00690074002600760072003d003200 2e0030002600720073003d0057004c00570035002e00310030000000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs28\i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Davis v. Dep\rquote t of Corr.}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , }}}{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst { \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=595&SerialNum=2002327470&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.10" \\t "_top" }{ \fs24\kerning32\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000083000000050000005f0074006f0070000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0201000068007400740070003a002f002f0077006500620032002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00660069006e0064002f0064006500660061007500 6c0074002e0077006c003f00440042003d003500390035002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0032003000300032003300320037003400370030002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600410050003d0026006d0074003d0057006500730074006c0061007700260066006e003d005f 0074006f0070002600730076003d00530070006c00690074002600760072003d0032002e0030002600720073003d0057004c00570035002e00310030000000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 651 N.W.2d 486, 488}{ \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002}}}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 ); s}{\cs28\i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 ee also }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst {\cs28\i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=595&SerialNum=1979122350&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.10" \\t "_top" }{ \i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000083000000050000005f0074006f0070000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0201000068007400740070003a002f002f0077006500620032002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00660069006e0064002f0064006500660061007500 6c0074002e0077006c003f00440042003d003500390035002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0031003900370039003100320032003300350030002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600410050003d0026006d0074003d0057006500730074006c0061007700260066006e003d005f 0074006f0070002600730076003d00530070006c00690074002600760072003d0032002e0030002600720073003d0057004c00570035002e00310030000000000000}}}{\fldrslt {\cs28\i\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, }{ \cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 280 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1979)}}}{\cs28\fs24\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 .}{\cs20\fs24\super\kerning32\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 }{\cf1\insrsid11564909 One consequence of the non-waivable nature of the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction is that attempts are sometimes made to mischaracterize other serious procedural errors as defects in subject matter jurisdiction to gain an opportunity for review of matters not otherwise preserved. }{\i\cf1\insrsid11564909 See}{\cf1\insrsid11564909 }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst {\insrsid11564909 HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0101581&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0291285749" }{ \insrsid9514272 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90bc600000068007400740070003a002f002f007700770077002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00460069006e0064002f00440065006600610075006c0074002e0077006c003f0072007300 3d0064006600610031002e0030002600760072003d0032002e0030002600440042003d0030003100300031003500380031002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d003000320039003100320038003500370034003900000000000000}}}{\fldrslt { \insrsid11564909 Restatement (Second) of Judgments \'a7 11 cmt. e (1982)}}}{\cf1\insrsid11564909 . }{\i\cf1\insrsid11564909 See}{\cf1\insrsid11564909 Robert J. Martineau, }{\i\cf1\insrsid11564909 Subject Matter Jur isdiction as a New Issue on Appeal: Reining in an Unruly Horse, }{\cf1\insrsid11564909 1988 BYU L. Rev. 1 (1988), where a potential for abuse of subject matter jurisdiction is observed: \par \par }\pard \s19\qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\cf1\insrsid11564909 Allowing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction to be raised for the first time on appeal has enormous implications}{\insrsid11564909 }{\cf1\insrsid11564909 for the parties to a legal proceeding, the trial and appellate courts, and the proper functioning of a judicial system. If a case can be litigated for years in the trial court, briefed, argued and [then] considered\'85. in a suprem e court, and after a decision on the merits by the supreme court the party who initially filed the suit or the supreme court itself can for the first time challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of trial court and have the entire matter dismissed, the w a ste of private and public resources is enormous. Before this waste should be tolerated, an examination should be made to ascertain whether courts limit the exception to those matters that properly fall within the definition of subject matter jurisdiction. \par }\pard \s19\qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0 {\cf1\insrsid11564909 \tab \par }{\i\cf1\insrsid11564909 Id}{\cf1\insrsid11564909 . at 3. }}}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\cs26\b\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [22]\tab }{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In determining if the court has subject matter jurisdiction we follow the widely accepted principle that }{ \fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 a complaint is construed broadly and liberally, in conformity with the general principle set forth in Rule 8 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Huettig & Schromm, Inc. v. Landscape Contractors Council,}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 790 F.2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It has been well-established by case law that the pleadings will be read as a whole with any relevant specific allegations found in the body of the complaint taking precedence over the formal jurisdictional allegation, and with all uncontroverted factual allegations in the complaint being accepted as true.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst { \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1998062036" }{\fs24\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90bbe00000068007400740070003a002f002f007700770077002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00460069006e0064002f00440065006600610075006c0074002e0077006c003f0072007300 3d0064006600610031002e0030002600760072003d0032002e0030002600440042003d003700300038002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0031003900390038003000360032003000330036000000000000}}}{\fldrslt { \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env\rquote t}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 523 U.S. 83 }}}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (1998); }{\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst { \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=506&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2002556863" }{\fs24\insrsid9514272\charrsid15608521 {\*\datafield 00d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b0200000003000000e0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90bbe00000068007400740070003a002f002f007700770077002e0077006500730074006c00610077002e0063006f006d002f00460069006e0064002f00440065006600610075006c0074002e0077006c003f0072007300 3d0064006600610031002e0030002600760072003d0032002e0030002600440042003d003500300036002600460069006e00640054007900700065003d0059002600530065007200690061006c004e0075006d003d0032003000300032003500350036003800360033000000000000}}}{\fldrslt { \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 301 F.3d 1163}}}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (9th Cir. 2002).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [23]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The petition in this case is to quiet title to real property located in Tamuning Guam, a matter the trial court obviously has jurisdiction over pursuant to Title 21 GCA \'a7 25101 and 7 GCA \'a7 3105 (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The allegations set forth in the petition are sufficient to confer jurisdiction and need not be pleaded specifically.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael himself indicates this case as a \'93quiet title\'94 action, over which the Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 21 GCA \'a7 25101.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael states in his Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment that he seeks to dismiss the Petition to Quiet Title to Lot 5049.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellee\rquote s ER}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 p. 26, Mot. to Dis. or in the Alt. for Summ. J.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A liberal reading of the complaint and the record makes clear that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [24]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 As to Rafael\rquote s right to object to a lack of personal jurisdiction, generally this is an affirmative defense that is waived by a failure to raise it promptly either by pre-answer motion or in the response pleading Guam R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1).}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Long-Term Credit Bank v. Superior Court}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2003 Guam 10 \'b6 43 (jurisdictional objections such as defects in personal jurisdiction, venue or service of process, are waived unless asserted early in the litigation.).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93There is no dispute that normally a failure to timely raise the defense of personal jurisdiction waives the defense[,]\'94yet a court may \'93retain discretion to reach an issue initially raised on appeal in certain situations.\'94}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Giotis v. Apollo of the Ozarks, Inc.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 800 F.2d 660, 663}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (7th Cir. 1986) }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [25]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We hold that Rafael\rquote s failure to promptly raise the issue of personal jurisdiction, the participation of Rafael in the lawsuit, his submission to the ultimate judgment of the court, and his defense in this appeal of that judgment, constitutes a waiver of the affirmative defense of personal jurisdiction.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 There is no impediment to Pedro\rquote s standing to bring a quiet title action or this appeal.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 2.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Whether Fuji or Felix is a Bona Fide Purchaser Remains in Dispute }{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [26]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael further argues for the first time on appeal that his conveyance to Fuji has made the action moot because Fuji is a bona fide third party purchaser and transfer to a bona fide third party purchaser cuts off prior disputes.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Moreover, when the court vacated the }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 in its Decision and Order, no new }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 was filed.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Meanwhile, the deed transferring title to Fuji was recorded and Fuji entered into an agreement to convey its interests to another third party, Felix, who Rafael argues is also a bona fide purchaser.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro, in reply, insists the action has not been mooted because the transfer to Fuji by quitclaim deed did not occur until January 2005}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 There is no indication of how the \'93Ownership and Encumbrance Report\'94 contained on pages 1-5 of the Appellee\rquote s Supplemental Excerpts of Record and the letters contained in the \'93Appendix\'94 to the Appellant\rquote s Reply Brief became a part of the record below. See Rule 13(m) of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure for the Supreme Court of Guam, requ iring citation to the record for each argument raised. The Ownership and Encumbrance Report is the only document referenced which reflects transfer of legal title to Fuji and the memorandum of purchase and sale agreement between Fuji and Felix .}}}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 and Fuji was aware of the litigation.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Therefore, Fuji is not a bona fide third party purchaser.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In addition, }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pelowski v. Taitano}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2000 Guam 34 \'b6\'b6 22-25, holds that constructive notice of the pendency of the action continues during the time an appeal is taken. The initial }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 effectively imparts constructive notice of the pending action to Fuji and Felix before legal title was transferred, therefore preventing either of them from being a bona fide third party purchaser.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \s21\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [27]\tab }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Under the bona fide purchaser d octrine, a good faith real estate purchaser for value who is without actual or constructive notice of another\rquote s interest in the property purchased has the superior interest in the property.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a7 37102 (2005).}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Se{\*\bkmkstart SR_1421}{\*\bkmkend SR_1421}e Morioka v. I & F Corp.}{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , Civ. No. 91-00027A, 1991 WL 255842 at *3 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 18, 1991) (\'93To become a bona fide purchaser of property one must acquire title through payment of value, in good faith, and without actual or constructive notice of another\rquote s rights.\'94).}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If Fuji or its successor Felix is a bona fide purchaser, then their right to the land prevails over other claimants, and the case becomes moot. An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to resolve issues that have become moot by intervening events.}{ \insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93The case must be viable at all stages of the litigation; it is not sufficient that the controversy was live only at its inception.\'94}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 C & C Products, Inc. v. Messick}{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 700 F.2d 635, 636 (11th Cir. 1983).}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The fact that the mooting event occurred after the decision below \'93does not save the . . . claims from mootness.}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 There must be a live case or controversy before this Court.\'94}{ \insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Kremens v. Bartley}{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 431 U.S. 119, 128 (1977); }{\i\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 see also Silver v. Benson}{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 177 A.2d. 898, 901 (Md. 1962) (recognizing that \'93cases where appeals were dismissed as moot are generally where relief has become impossible, as where the property in question has been sold to a bona-fide purchaser . . . .\'94).}{\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [28]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael\rquote s argument that Fuji and Felix qualify as bona fide purchasers simply because no new }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 was filed after the trial court vacated the original }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 and legal title was thereafter transferred is unpersuasive and has no basis in Guam law. Although a notice of }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 filed under Title 7 GCA \'a714103 cannot be relied upon to afford constructive notice when the underlying action is terminated, in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pelowski, }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 2000 Guam 34 \'b6 25, we interpreted section 14103 \'93to impart constructive notice through the period for which an appeal may be taken or the time for appeal has passed.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 As we stated in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pelowski}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 :}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The policy underlying the lis pendens doctrine is the need, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, \'93 to keep the subject-matter of the litigation within the control of the court, and to render the parties powerless to place it beyond the reach of the final judgment.\'94 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Roberts v. Cardwell}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 154 Ky. 483, 157 S.W. 711, 713 (Ky.1913); }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 see also Ashworth}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 408 S.W.2d at 873.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Where the ownership of property remains subject to further litigation it is incumbent to \'93preserve the pr operty [so] that the [very] purpose of the pending suit may not be defeated by successive alienations and transfers of title.\'94 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Ashworth}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 408 S.W.2d at 873 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A litigant should be forbidden from \'93giv[ing] righ ts to others, [while the opportunity for further review remains], so as to affect the proceedings of the court then progressing to enforce those rights.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . \'b6 24.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Constructive notice to Fuji and Felix continues during the appeal even though the }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 was vacated by the trial court. }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [29]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The fact that Fuji received legal title in January 2005 with constructive notice of the pendency of the action in CV01 70-04 does not, however, completely answer the question of whether or not Fuji or Felix qualifies as a bona fide purchaser. In }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Morioka, }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 the trial court, in construing Title 21 GCA \'a7 37102, rejected the pre-1953 California cases that \'93held that in order to be accorded bona fide purchaser status, a purchaser must prove that he paid the full purchase price before receiving actual or constructive notice.\'94 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Morioka}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 1991 WL 255842 at *3.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Instead the court held that an uncompleted land sales contract does not preclude a purchaser from becoming a bona fide purchaser for value.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . (relying on }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Perry v. O\rquote Donnell}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 749 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1985).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [30]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Fuji entered into its Memorandum of Purchase and Sale in August 2002 and acquired legal title in 2005, while Felix entered into its contract of sale in January 2004.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 We previously stated that [t]here is no indication of how the \'93Ownership and Encumbrance Report\'94 contained on pages 1-5 of the Appellee\rquote s Supplemental Excerpts of Record and the letters contained in the \'93Appendix\'94 to the Appellant\rquote s Reply Brief became a part of the record below. Generally we will limit our consideration of a case to matters appearing in the record made in the lower court, but this rule is not without exception. An appellate court has inherent power to look beyond the record where the orderly administration of justice commends it. }{\i\insrsid11564909 See e.g. Baker v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.}{\insrsid11564909 , 193 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Mo. Ct. App. 1946) (stating that, \'93 an appellate court has inherent power to look beyond the record where orderly administration of justice so requires; such power includes taking notice of facts occurring after rendition of judgment which affect proceedings in the appellate court, such as where the controversy between the parties has become moot\'94); }{\i\insrsid11564909 Crystal Bay Assn. v. Koochiching County}{\insrsid11564909 ., 243 N.W.2d 40, 56-57 (Minn. 1976). \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Fuji and Felix\rquote s constructive notice of the pending action before they acquired full legal title does not preve nt them from enjoying the status of bona-fide purchases.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Both had an equitable interest in the property before the commencement of the litigation and recording of the }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 lis pendens}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93[T]he equitable nature of their interest does not automatically preclude them from becoming bona fide purchasers.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 O\rquote Donnell}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 749 F.2d at 1350. A purchaser who holds an equitable interest leaving legal title in the vendor may be a bona fide purchaser for value.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [31]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 While the equitable nature of their interest does not prevent them from bona fide purchaser status, Fuji and Felix would still not be bona fide purchasers if they acquired their equitable interest with notice of the prior interest claimed by Manuel, Pedro\rquote s\rquote predecessor in interest.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It is undisputed that a \'93Claim of Interest\'94 was completed with the Office of the Recorder in February 16, 1995 wherein Manuel purportedly gave public notice of the Estate of Enrique\rquote s legal claim and title to Lot 5049 and requested the lot be returned to Enrique\rquote s Estate. Appellant \rquote s ER, p. 5 (Claim of Interest, Feb. 16, 1995).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 This document was recorded nearly seven years before Rafael entered into the contract with Fuji to sell the property.} {\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 Title 21 GCA \'a7 37101, provides that \'93[e]very conveyance of real property acknowledged or p roved and certified and recorded as prescribed by law from the time it is filed with the Director of Land Management is constructive notice of the contents thereof to subsequent purchasers and mortgagees.\'94 21 GCA \'a7 37101. We do not decide whether the \'93Claim of Interest\'94 constitutes a \'93conveyance\'94 within the meaning of the statute sufficient to give Fuji constructive notice under \'a7 37101 but merely note that there was a recorded cloud on the title when Fuji entered into its contract for sale. \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 An examination of the record discloses that the trial court did not make a finding on whether Fuji or Felix was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the \'93 Claim of Interest.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The burden of proof is upon Rafael to establish Fuji\rquote s and Felix\rquote s status as bona fide p urchasers without notice of any adversarial claims to the property.}{\cs15\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\cs15\i\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See }{\cs30\i\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Gates Rubber Co. v. Ulman,}{ \i\f36\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\cs31\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 262 Cal. Rptr. 630, 637 n.6 (Ct. App. 1989}{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 )}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 ;}{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rabbit v. Atkinson}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 113 P.2d 14, 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941); }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 James v. James}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 251 P. 666, 670 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A representative of Fuji or Felix did not file any affidavits setting forth that Fuji or Felix did not have notice or knowledge of any competing claims to the property, before the purchase and sale agreements were signed.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rabbit}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 113 P.2d at18. (stating that \'93 [n]either the appellant nor his grantor took the witness stand to testify as to whether or not they had notice or knowledge of respondents' rights or claims or that appellant was a purchaser in good faith, without notice, and for a valuable consideration \'94).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [32]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We cannot determine from the record as it exists if the property has been sold to a bona fide purchaser case thereby rendering the case moot. There is a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Fuji or Felix had notice of a competing claim or opposing interest in the property which presents them from being a bona fide purchaser.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 However, \'93[t]he mere existence of }{ \cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 some}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no }{ \cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 genuine}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 issue of }{\cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 material}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 fact.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Bank of Guam}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6 30 (quoting }{\cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). \'93Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. \'94 }{\cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (quoting }{\cs29\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If we determine Enrique validly gifted his interest in Lot 5049 to Rafael, then deciding whether Fuji Corporation or its successor, Felix, is a bona fide purchaser is immaterial as they would nevertheless receive title from a prevailing party.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If Enrique could not, however, transfer his interest in Lot 5049, by a deed of gift, then there may be a genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary judgment. }{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . \'b6 29. }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [33]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In resolving whether summary judgment was appropriate, the starting point of our analysis must be whether the deed of gift transferring one-half (\'bd ) of the property to Rafael in 1980 was a valid conveyance.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 B.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Validity of the 1980 Deed of Gift}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [34]\tab }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 SEQ CHAPTER \\h \\r 1}}{\fldrslt }}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro initially argues that Enrique did not have any sort of recognizable future interest that could be transferred to Rafael at the time of the 1980 deed of gift.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In 1980 the property was still owned by the United States and Enrique\rquote s chances of recovering the property was dependent on the United States\rquote return of the property which, according to Pedro was, a mere possibility and too remote to qualify as a future interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Under Title 21 GCA \'a7 1231 (2005), \'93 a mere possibility, such as the expectancy of an heir apparent, is not to be deemed an interest of any kind.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael counters this by stating that although the property was owned by the United States at the time of the deed\rquote s execution, the original landowners possessed a future interest in the property which they were free to convey to Rafael.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [35]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The statutory scheme on future interests is found in Title 21 GCA Division 1, Subpart B.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A future interest entitles \'93the owner to the possession of the property only at a future period.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1221 (2005). }{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The \'93Kinds of Future Interests,\'94 are either vested or contingent.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1225 (2005) defines \'93Vested Interests\'94 as follows: \'93 A future interest is vested when there is a person in being who would have a right, defeasible or indefeasible, to the immediate possession of the property, upon the ceasing of the intermediate or precedent interest.\'94 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1226 (2005) defines \'93Contingent Interests\'94 and states: \'93A future interest is contingent, whilst the person in whom, or the event upon which, it is limited to take effect remains uncertain.\'94 \par }}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1224 (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A future interest is also not \'93 void merely because of the improbability of the contingency on which it is limited to take effect.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1228 (2005).}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93Future interests may pass by succession, will, and transfer, in the same manner as present interests.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a71230 (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Future interests are thus freely transferable, and they are not less so simply because the event upo n which they are limited to take effect remains uncertain.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 GCA \'a7 1226 (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The question is, therefore, whether Enrique\rquote s future interest in Lot 5049 was a \'93contingent future interest\'94 or a mere \'93expectancy.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 These are two statutorily unique estates; one is transferable and the other is not.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [36]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 An expectancy has been interpreted by California courts,}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 We find California case law to be persuasive authority in the interpretation of Title 21 GCA \'a7 1231, as that section was derived from California Civil Code \'a7 700. }{\i\insrsid11564909 See Cruz v. Cruz}{\insrsid11564909 , 2005 Guam 3 \'b6 9 (finding that California case law interpreting a California statute from which a Guam statute was derived to be persuasive authority). }}}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 examining the identical statute, as a \'93mere naked hope\'94 and explained that:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93 [T]he mere hope of acquiring future property without any present source from which it may be obtained is neither an interest nor right, nor anything which has value or can be made the subject to legal relations.\'94}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Bank of Cal. v. Connolly}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 111 Cal. Rptr. 468, 480 (Ct. App. 1973).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 However, if the \'93mere naked hope\'94 were united with an interest in a contract, it rose above a \'93mere naked hope\'94 and became a transferable estate, that is, a \'93 possibility of acquiring property coupled with a legal interest in the contract\'94 was transferable).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 . (quoting 4 Pomeroy \rquote s Equity Jurisprudence \'a7 1287 (5th ed. n.d.).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [37]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 An expectancy has always been distinguished from a contingent remainder:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93 It is settled that the interest of a contingent remainderman is not a mere possibility{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_5150}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_5150}, such as the expectancy of an heir{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_5157}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_5157} apparent, but an estate in the property,\'94}{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Kenny v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Savings Bank}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 ,}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 269 P.2d 641, 649 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1954) (citing }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Akley v. Bassett}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 228 P. 1057 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1924));}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 see also Los Angeles County v. Winans}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 109 P. 640 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. Cal. 1910);}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Hall v. Wright}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 120 P. 429 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1911).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 There is a subtle but important distinction between a contingent remainder and an expectancy.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 As the court in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Estate of Ferry}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 361 P.2d 900 (Cal. 1961) instructed, \'93In using the term \lquote expectancy{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_3281}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_3281}\rquote in real property law, . . . a careful distinction must be made between those instances where it is used in relation to \lquote expectant estates\rquote or future interests and those in which it is used to refer to a \lquote mere possibility, such as the expectancy{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_3328}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_3328} of an heir apparent.\rquote \'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 903 (citation omitted).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [38]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 One California court discussed possibility versus contingency in this way:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The term expectancy{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_7455}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_7455} describes the interest{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_7458}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_7458 } of a person who merely foresees that he might receive a future{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_7470}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_7470} beneficence . . .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [T]he defining{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_7473} {\*\bkmkend SR_59_7473} characteristic of an expectancy{\*\bkmkstart SR_59_7477}{\*\bkmkend SR_59_7477} is that its holder has no }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 enforceable right}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 to his beneficence." (} {\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Marriage of Brown}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (1976) 15 Cal. 3d 838, 844-845, 202{\*\bkmkstart citeas_40__40_Cite_32_as_58__32_76_32_Ca} {\*\bkmkend citeas_40__40_Cite_32_as_58__32_76_32_Ca} 126 Cal. Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561.)}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 By contrast, a contract right, which has been earned or purchased for a consideration, is property, even th ough its enjoyment may be contingent upon future events. (}{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.,}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at pp. 846-847 and fn. 8, 126 Cal. Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561; accord, }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Marriage of Fonstein}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 738, 746, 131 Cal. Rptr. 873, 552 P.2d 1169.) Such a right "cannot be defeated or diminished without [the holder's] agreement and it is therefore a valuable property right." (}{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Marriage of Fonstein, supra,}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at p. 746, 131 Cal. Rptr. 873, 552 P.2d 1169.)}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Estate of Mitchell}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 192, 201-02 (Ct. App. 1999).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [39]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A good example of the distinction is found in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Estate of O\rquote Connor}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 322 P.2d 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958), where the decedent left a remainder estate to four educational institutions, on the condition that those four institutions match the bequest, but if they did not match the bequest, then the remainder would go to a hospital.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 619.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The issue was the nature of the hospital\rquote s interest. It was held that the four schools had vested interests subject to defeasance, and the hospital had an executory in terest, specifically, an alienable contingent future interest in the form of an executory interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 622.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Most importantly, even though the hospital\rquote s right to receive the remainder was contingent on something entirely outside its control, it was found to have been an executory interest because it was enforceable in the event the schools did not match the bequest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 622-23.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [40]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Revisiting the issue, the }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Ferry}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 court relied on }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 O\rquote Connor}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 in holding that \'93we disapprove of the inference, if any, created by the Estate of O\rquote Connor that an \lquote executory interest\rquote is a \lquote mere possibility\rquote of the type contemplated in Civil Code \'a7 700.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Ferry}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 361 P.2d at 904}{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A contingent future interest, even if the occurrence of the contingency is improbable, is nonethe less a future interest that can be conveyed like any other interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It is thus more than a \'93mere naked hope;\'94 it is enforceable in the event the contingency comes about.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93[B]y virtue of Civil Code section 699, [footnote omitted] an interest, whether ves ted, contingent or of an executory nature, {\*\bkmkstart SDU_17}{\*\bkmkend SDU_17}may be transferred inter vivos, devised, or be the subject of intestate succession.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id. }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 903. The }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Ferry}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 court reasoned, \'93[t]o draw a contrary conclusion would produce the result that very few conti ngent interests of this type would be descendible or devisable.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id. }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 904.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [41]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Under this analysis, the question is whether Enrique had an enforceable right to a portion of Lot 5049, even if the occurrence of the contingency (the return of the property) was highly improbable and entirely outside his control.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The answer is clearly yes.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If the United States returned the property to the government of Guam and the government of Guam returned the land to the original landowners, Enrique would have an enfor ceable right to that property because he was one of the original owners with an undivided interest.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Enrique therefore had an alienable contingent future interest, not a \'93 mere possibility, such as the expectancy of an heir apparent.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro\rquote s argument that Enrique was legally unable to transfer this interest under Title 19 GCA \'a7 40202 (2005), because it was not coupled with an interest, likewise fails.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 Title 19 GCA \'a7 40202 (2005) states: \'93Possibility:\'94 \'93A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest, cannot be transferred. \'94}}}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We have already agreed that the interest was not a \'93mere possibility.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Enrique \rquote s interest was therefore freely transferable by deed of gift.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Title 21 G.C.A. \'a71230.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 C.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Guam\rquote s Subsequently Acquired Title Doctrine and Race-Notice Statutes}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [42]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The next issue we must address in deciding if summary judgment was appropriate is whether the trial court properly applied Guam\rquote s subsequently acquired title doctrine (codified at Title 21 GCA \'a7 4203 (2005)).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court held that Enrique\rquote s 1980 Deed of Gift to Rafael precluded distribution to Manuel in the 1997 probate case because any title Enrique subsequently acquired when the property was returned by the United States passed by operation of law to Rafael.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [43]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Guam\rquote s subsequently acquired title statute, Title 21 GCA \'a7 4203, provides that, \'93 [w]here a person purports by proper instrument to grant real property in fee simple, and subsequently acquires any title, or claim of title thereto, the same passes by operation of law to the grantee, or his successors.\'94}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 This statute was adopted from a California statute with identical language, California Civil Code \'a71106.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [44]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The California statute, with identical language to Guam\rquote s section 4203, was analyzed by a California appellate court in }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Schwen v. Kaye}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 202 Cal. Rptr. 374 (Ct. App. 1984).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The court}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 there observed: }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Civil Code section 1106 has as its genesis the common law doctrine of estoppel by deed. That doctrine generally precludes a grantor of real property from asserting, as ag ainst the grantee, any right or title in derogation of the deed . . . . The net effect is the same as if the grantor specifically provided in the deed that he conveyed all of the title and estate which he then possessed or which he might at any time there after acquire.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 375-76 (citations omitted)}{\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [45]\tab }{\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\fs24\lang4105\langfe1033\langnp4105\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 SEQ CHAPTER \\h \\r 1}}{\fldrslt }}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The doctrine that allows a prior grantee to receive subsequently acquired title is not so much an acknowledgment of the deed as it is an estoppel theory.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93 The policy behind the doctrine is to protect an unwitting grantee who relies upon the good title of the grantor when the latter does not possess legal or perfect title to the property.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The grantor is essentially estopped from saying that he did not already convey the property.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It prevents a party from validly conveying his interest, whether it is an executory, contingent or a vested future interest,}{ \cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 The doctrine of subsequently acquired title discussed herein presumes that the interest at issue is a conveyable interest under Guam law.}}}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 and then claiming that the prior conveyance meant nothing.}{ \cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid11564909 \par }{\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 The doctrine of subsequently acquired title is an estoppel doctrine, not a legal doctrine that recognizes the legality of a transfer of an expectancy. }{\i\insrsid11564909 United States Nat \rquote l Bank v. Miller,}{\insrsid11564909 \~258 P. 205, 207\~(Or. 1927) discusses the difference: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 There is a conflict in the different jurisdictions in this count ry regarding the effect of an attempt to convey land to which the grantor has no title or interest, but merely expects to inherit or receive the same by will.}{\i\insrsid11564909 Consolidation Coal Co. v. Riddle}{\insrsid11564909 , 198 Ky. 256, 248 S.W. 530;}{\i\insrsid11564909 Spacey v. Close}{\insrsid11564909 , 184 Ky. 523, 212 S.W. 127; }{\i\insrsid11564909 Hunt v. Smith}{\insrsid11564909 , 191 Ky. 443, 230 S.W. 936, 17 A.L R. 588. \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 But it is contended that defendant is estopped from asserting an after-acquired interest as against plaintiff. \par }\pard \qc \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 * * * \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\insrsid11564909 We gather . . . , however, that, in order to estop a grantor from claimi ng an after-acquired title, the grant must contain references or representations, which he is compelled to repudiate in order to assert his subsequently acquired title. Defendant in the instant case is not disputing any recital or representations in his d eed under which plaintiff claims. \par \par }\pard\plain \s19\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\insrsid11564909 Miller,}{\insrsid11564909 \~258 P. at 207. }{\i\insrsid11564909 Miller }{\insrsid11564909 recognizes that the doctrine of subsequently acquired title applies when the grantor is attempting to repudiate a prior conveyance. The opinion highlights the difference between when one is merely trying to convey an interest which one does not have, from a situation where one conveys an interest which he does not have, but later receives an interest which he already conveyed and attempts to secure the benefits of the later acquisition by re pudiating the prior conveyance. If the grantor is not attempting to repudiate a prior conveyance, then the doctrine of subsequently acquired title does not apply. However, in the case}{\i\insrsid11564909 sub judice}{\insrsid11564909 , the grantor, Enrique, is attempting to repudiate (via his alleged successor in interest Pedro and before him, Manuel), the 1980 Deed of Gift. Therefore, the doctrine of subsequently acquired title is applicable.}}}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [46]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A Montana court in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Mitchell v. Pestel}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 208 P.2d 807 (Mont. 1949), reviewing its estoppel-by-deed statute, identical to Guam\rquote s and California\rquote s, describes its operation:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The salutary principle that if a vendor conveys land or an interest in land to which he has no title, and to which he afterw ard acquires the title, the title thus acquired shall inure to the benefit of his vendee, and he is thereby estopped to assert the same as against his grantee, cannot be defeated in equity by any circuitous method of attempting to dishonor or disclaim his }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 covenants. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id. }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 811.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The doctrine of subsequently-acquired title thus puts grantors on notice that a conveyance will be honored by the law even if the grantor changes his mind after he actually receives the title he expected.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It is designed, not so much to protect the prior grantee, as to prevent inconsistent grants or unjust enrichment by the grantor.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 If the first grant would otherwise be valid if the grantor did own the land, then the initial grant counts if the grantor afterward acquires ownership, regardless of whether the grantor owns it or not at the time of the initial grant.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [47]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Under the doctrine of subsequently acquired title, courts have gone back as far as forty years to honor prior grants of future interests.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 For instance, in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Lampley v. United States}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 17 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Miss. 1998), the court went back to 1955 to look at the grantor\rquote s actions in granting the property as tenants in common.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id. }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 615.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Mortgages undertaken before the surviving tenant owned the property were recog nized as valid, though the mortgagor did not really own the property at the time she was mortgaging it.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A more common fact pattern is the landowner whose land is taken by property tax sale.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Though the land has already been seized by county authorities, landowners have been known to still sell their land.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 When they redeem it from the tax authorities, the conveyances executed when the tax authorities were holding title to the land are honored.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See Anderson v. Pease}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 727 N.Y.S.2d 717 (Ct. App. N.Y. 2001) (holding that subsequently acquired property doctrine applied to grantor whose land had been taken at the time that he executed a sale to a third party; third party\rquote s ownership of land recognized).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [48]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro argues that since Rafael acquired title b y a deed of gift, rather than a warranty deed, the doctrine of subsequently acquired title is not recognized by law and cannot be applied.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In support he cites to a number of the cases wherein courts have held that the subsequently acquired title doctrine does not apply to quitclaim deeds.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The deed before the trial court was not, however, a quitclaim deed.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A quitclaim deed by its very nature conveys only what the grantor has.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It is established that a quitclaim deed would not suffice to pass this not-yet-acquired title.}{\i\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 North Star Terminal and Stevedore Co., Inc. v. State}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 857 P.2d 335, 340 (Alaska 1993); }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 see also }{\i\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Klamath Land & Cattle Co. v. Roemer}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 91 Cal. Rptr. 112, 115 (Ct. App. 1970) (\'93A grant deed unquestionably transfers an after-acquired title.\'94).}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [49]}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \tab On the other hand, where}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 It appears that the intention of the parties was to convey the fee simple or any definite estate in the land, effect will be given to such intention, and the deed will operate by way of estoppel, so that any estate subsequen tly acquired by the grantor will inure to the grantee . . . }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 even in the absence of any warranty whatever.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard\plain \s32\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Balch v. Arnold}{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 59 P. 434, 436\~ (Wyo. 1899) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Pedro presents no authority for the position that a transfer by deed of gift cannot be subject to the subsequently acquired title doctrine.}{ \insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [50]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Moreover, Title 21 GCA \'a7 4202 (2005) which governs when a \'93fee simple\'94 title passes, provides that}{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 a fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 As long as the word \'93grant\'94 is used in the instrument of conveyance, then fee simple title is presumed.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93To convey a fee, all that is required is the word \lquote grant.\rquote \'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Severns v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100, 104-105 (Ct. App. 2004).}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'93A fee-simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.\'94}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Collier v. Oelke}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 21 Cal. Rptr. 140, 142 (Ct. App. Cal. 1962).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 A grant is also to be construed in favor of the grantee.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82, 89 (Cal. 1996).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [51]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In this case, the operative language in the deed of gift is that the grantors \'93do by these presents hereby give, }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 grant}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , alien and confirm unto the said RAFAEL L. LUJAN . . .}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Lot 5049 . . .\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Appellant\rquote s ER, p. 37 (Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alt. for Summ. J.) (emphasis added).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 By using the term \'93 grant,\'94 a fee simple title was presumed to have been conveyed by the deed of gift.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 We reject Pedro\rquote s arguments that the subsequently acquired title doctrine does not apply to the deed of gift.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [52]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court also relied upon Title 21 GCA \'a7 37102 in holding that the deed of gift from Enrique to Rafael prevailed over the Probate Decree, recorded in 1997, since the deed was recorded first.}{\cs20\fs24\super\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s19\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs20\super\insrsid11564909 \chftn }{\insrsid11564909 Although not discussed by the court or the parties, the voluntary transfer by Enrique of Lot 5049 after the execution of the 1978 will, but before his death, is a classic example of an ademption. }{\i\insrsid11564909 See}{\insrsid11564909 Black \rquote s Law Dictionary 42 (8th ed. 2004) (stating that an ademption occurs because the property that is the subject of the bequest has been given away, ceasing to be part of the estate at the testator\rquote s death). }}}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court, aptly we think, labeled this provision as a \'93race-notice statute.\'94 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See}{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In re Walker}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 861 F.2d 597, 598 (9th Cir. 1998) (identifying California Civil Code \'a7 1214, upon which \'a7 37102 is based, as \'93California\rquote s race-notice recording statute.\'94).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Section 37102 reads:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard\plain \s19\qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Every conveyance of real property, other than a lease for a term not exceeding one (1) year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee of the same property, or any part thereo f, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded, and as against any judgment affecting the title, unless such conveyance shall have been duly recorded prior to the record of notice of action.}{ \fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \s19\qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 21 GCA \'a7 37102 ((2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Guam\rquote s recording statute, Title 21 GCA \'a7 4204 is also relevant to our discussion and provides:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Every grant of an estate in real property is conclusive against the grantor, also against every one subsequently claiming under him, except a purchaser or e ncumbrancer who in good faith and for valuable consideration acquires a title or lien by an instrument that is first duly recorded.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 21 GCA \'a7 4204 (2005).}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [53]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 One of the functions of sections 37102 and 4204 is to permit a purchaser or encumbrancer without actual or constructive knowledge of another\rquote s rights, who pays valuable consideration for his interest in real property in good faith and who records his interest,}{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 to receive an interest in the property free and clear of all prior unrecorded claims. However, the priority given to a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value is inapplicable in the instant case for two reasons.}{ \fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 First, }{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Rafael was not a subsequent purchaser.}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Secondly, Rafael did not provide valuable consideration because Enrique conveyed his interest for \'93the love and affection which [the grantors] have and bear unto our nephew and son\'94 which this court has held does not constitute valuable consideration.}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\cs26\i\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 See Torres v. Torres}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2005 Guam 22 \'b6 17 n.3 (\'93[A]ssuming an expressed consideration \lquote for love and affection\rquote typical in deeds of gift, while good, it is not valuable consideration.\'94) (citing }{\cs26\i\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Town House v. Ahn}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 2000 Guam 32 \'b6 28).}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Lack of valuable c onsideration, however, does not end our analysis.}{\cs26\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [54]\tab }{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Section 37102 additionally provides that every conveyance of real property is void against \'93 any judgment affecting the title, unless such conveyance shall have been duly recorded prior to the record of notice of action.\'94}{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\cf1\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 21 GCA }{ \fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 \'a7 37102.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Evarts v. Jones}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 274 P.2d 185 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1954), observed that the analogous California statute was amended to include this language in order to \'93afford a means for strengthening titles to real property.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 at 187.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The court further stated:}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Before the amendment one who obtained a judgment quieting his title in an action instituted subsequent to the acquisition of an earlier hostile conveyance was not protected as a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Unless his judgment ran against the holder of the earlier conveyance, it would not have been binding upon the latter.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\widctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Id.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [55]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In the instant case, Rafael recorded the deed of gift prior to the notice of petition for probate of Enrique\rquote s will. Under s ection 37102, the recording of the instrument made the conveyance of Enrique\rquote s interest effective against any claims which arose under the probate decree.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Although arguably distinguishable from the quiet title action in }{\i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Evarts}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , our reading of 21 GCA \'a7 37102 promotes the purpose of the amendment to \'93 encourage the recordation of instruments affecting title and thereby give greater protection to those who in all matters concerning title might rely upon the public records.\'94}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{ \i\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Evarts}{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 , 274 P.2d at 187.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15608521 {\*\bkmkstart SR_3021}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3024}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3026} {\*\bkmkstart SR_3040}{\*\bkmkstart SR_3043}{\*\bkmkend SR_3021}{\*\bkmkend SR_3024}{\*\bkmkend SR_3026}{\*\bkmkend SR_3040}{\*\bkmkend SR_3043} \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 IV.}{\b\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [56]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 In conclusion, we hold that Enrique, Isabel and Paz could transfer their ownership interest in Lot 5049 by way of the 1980 Deed of Gift even though they did not possess any prese nt interest in Lot 5049 but only possessed an executory interest. Guam law allows the conveyance of this sort of interest, and the trial court correctly applied Guam\rquote s subsequently acquired title statute in ruling that Rafael is the owner of one-half of Lot 5049.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521\charrsid15608521 }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 Although Rafael was not a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, the 1980 Deed of Gift still had priority over the 1997 probate decree by virtue of Guam\rquote s race-notice statute because the 1980 conveyance was duly recorded prior to the 1997 probate decree.}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15608521 {\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 [57]\tab }{\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 The trial court\rquote s Decision & Order is }{\b\fs24\insrsid15416003\charrsid15608521 AFFIRMED}{\fs24\insrsid15608521 . \par }}