{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch12\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f12\fnil\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 02030600000101010101}Batang{\*\falt \'b9\'d9\'c5\'c1};}{\f72\fnil\fcharset129\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}@Batang;}{\f73\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}
{\f74\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f76\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f77\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f78\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}
{\f79\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f80\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f81\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid8257573 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive 
\ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\loch\f0\hich\af0\dbch\af12\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\widctlpar
\tx-1152\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7776\tx8496\tx9216\tx9936\hyphpar0\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\dn4\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid8257573 
Body Text;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid8257573 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive 
\sbasedon10 \styrsid8257573 page number;}{\s18\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 \slink20 \ssemihidden \styrsid8257573 footnote text;}{\*
\cs19 \additive \super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden \styrsid8257573 footnote reference;}{\*\cs20 \additive \lang1033\langfe1033\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon10 \slink18 \slocked \ssemihidden \styrsid8257573 Footnote Text Char;}}
{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1660164\rsid1727525\rsid4801105\rsid5470034\rsid6715498\rsid8257573\rsid10443883\rsid11215906\rsid11221873\rsid12083807\rsid12392580\rsid13007169\rsid13243923\rsid15623575}{\*\generator Microsof
t Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title Notice: This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the permanent law reports}{\author eric nelson}{\operator freriks_k}{\creatim\yr2009\mo5\dy5\hr11\min19}
{\revtim\yr2009\mo5\dy5\hr11\min21}{\version3}{\edmins5}{\nofpages14}{\nofwords6015}{\nofchars34290}{\*\company CNMI Supreme Court}{\nofcharsws40225}{\vern24689}}
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1
\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot8257573\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1727525 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1727525 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1727525 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1727525 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\titlepg\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid11221873\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pvpara\phmrg\posxc\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11221873 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs17\insrsid4801105 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4801105 
\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 \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Notice: This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the permanent law reports.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In any event of discrepancies between this slip opinion and the opinion certified for publication, the certified opinion controls.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, PO Box 502165 Saipan, MP 96950, phone (670) 236-9715, fax (670) 236-9702, e-mail SupremeCourtClerk@justice.gov.mp}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 IN THE}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034  }{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 SUPREME COURT}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 OF THE}{
\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1980\shptop60\shpright6660\shpbottom60\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz0\shplid1026{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8192\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx4680\dppty0
\dpx1980\dpy60\dpxsize4680\dpysize0\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}IN RE THE ESTATE OF PILAR DE CASTRO,
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Deceased.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1980\shptop4\shpright6660\shpbottom4\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz1\shplid1027{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8193\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx4680\dppty0
\dpx1980\dpy4\dpxsize4680\dpysize0\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}SUPREME COURT NO. 2007-SCC-0027-CIV
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 SUPERIOR COURT NO. 93-1091
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1980\shptop256\shpright6660\shpbottom256\shpfhdr0\shpbxcolumn\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz2\shplid1028{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn shapePath}{\sv 4}}{\sp{\sn fFillOK}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fArrowheadsOK}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 1}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxcolumn\dobypara\dodhgt8194\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx4680\dppty0
\dpx1980\dpy256\dpxsize4680\dpysize0\dplinew15\dplinecor0\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 SLIP OPINION
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cite as: 2009 MP 3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Decided April 29, 2009
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par Brien Sers Nicholas, Esq., Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for Appellant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 James S. Sirok, Esq., and Antonio M. Atalig, Esq., Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, for Appellees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 BEFORE:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 John A. Manglona, Associate Justice; Jesus C. Borja
, Justice Pro Tem; Timothy H. Bellas, Justice Pro Tem
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Manglona, J.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575 \'b6 1\tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Angela R. Cabrera (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 )}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab Cabrera died on July 29, 1997.  Therefore, her claim is represented by her son, Luis R. Cabrera.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
 seeks review of a trial court order denying her claim of sole ownership of a parcel of land, arguing her biological father purchased the land for her benefit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In the alternative, Cabrera asserts sole ownership under the doctrine of adverse possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Although the trial court did not issue a separate entry of judgment in conjunction with its order, we hold that we have jurisdiction over this pe
tition because the parties waived the separate document rule.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 We further hold that the trial court did not err in denying Cabrera\rquote 
s claim of sole ownership.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Accordingly, the trial court\rquote s decision is AFFIRMED.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15623575 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 I}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575 \'b6 2\tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Pilar De Castro died in 1951 leaving behind a parcel of real property as the sole asset of her estate.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Years later, De Castro\rquote s daughter, Cabrera, claimed she was the sole owner of the property.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, two of De Castro\rquote s other heirs, Herman M. Roberto and William M. Roberto (collectively, }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 the Robertos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
), alleged the property belongs to all the heirs of the De Castro estate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The parties\rquote  claims stem from a lengthy procedural history.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 3\tab \tab De Castro was married twice during her lifetime.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
She first married Jose Roberto, and the two had at least three children together, including Rita R. Quitano, Antonio C. Roberto, and Jose C. Roberto.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Additionally, it was generally assumed that Cabrera was the fourth child of De Castro and Jose Roberto.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Following her first husband\rquote s death, De Castro married Ignacio Aguon.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
De Castro and Aguon had three children together, including Esperanza C. Aguon, Remedio A. Guerrero, and Sophia A. Santos.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
On April 25, 1951, shortly before De Castro\rquote s death, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 TTPI}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ) issued a determination of ownership that recognized De Castro as the owner of a parcel of real property, identified as Lot No. 555 (}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 lot 555}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 4\tab \tab Following De Castro\rquote s death, Cabrera began acting as the representative of both De Castro and De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In 1955, Cabrera, acting as De Castro\rquote 
s land trustee, executed an agreement to exchange lot 555 for a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 851 (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 lot 851}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ), which the TTPI owned.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
The agreement was finalized in 1958 when Cabrera executed a quitclaim deed transferring lot 555 to the TTPI.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
In return, the TTPI granted lot 851 to De Castro.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
The exchange agreement listed De Castro as the exchanging party, and noted that she was represented by Cabrera as her }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 land trustee.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Appellants Excerpts of Record (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ER}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ) at 21, 23.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575 
\par 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 5\tab \tab In 1981, Cabrera submitted an application to the Mariana Island District Land Commission (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 land commission}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ) to register lot 851.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab Cabrera\rquote s son, Dionicio R. Cabrera, submitted the application indicating that he was acting as his mother\rquote s representative.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera\rquote s application did not indicate whether she was acting in her individual capacity or in her capacity a
s the representative of De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
However, the documents she submitted in support of her application all indicated she was representing her deceased mother, De Castro.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Additionally, all of the documents the land commission reviewed indicated that she was acting as a representative of either De Castro or De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab In addition to Cabrera\rquote 
s application, the land commission reviewed four documents in determining who owned lot 851.  These documents include: (1) the \'93Determination of Ownership,\'94 which the TTP
I issued on April 25, 1951 recognizing De Castro as the owner of lot 555; (2) the exchange agreement Cabrera executed with the TTPI on February 12, 1958 to exchange lot 555 for lot 851; (3) the quitclaim deed Cabrera provided the TTPI in transferring lot 
555 to the TTPI on February 12, 1958; and (4) a \'93Notice of Revocation of Power of Attorney,\'94 which was dated October 12, 1977 and on file with the land commission.  No witness testimony was taken and no adverse claims were presented.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The land commission held a hearing regarding Cabrera\rquote s application on May 27, 1982, which Cabrera attended.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 At the hearing, the land commission determined that De Castro\rquote s heirs owned lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 After reviewing the land registration team\rquote s findings,}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab The land commission
 held a hearing on July 15, 1983 and determined that lot 851 belonged to the heirs of De Castro.  On August 1, 1983, the land commission reviewed the adjudication and found it satisfactory for making a determination of ownership.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  the land commission issued a determination of ownership on March 7, 1984, recognizing De Castro\rquote s heirs as the owners of lot 851.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab The determination of ownership was personally served on Cabrera through her administrator, Luis R. Cabrera, on October 1, 1985.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 6\tab \tab Cabrera challenged the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership in 1988, claiming she was the sole owner of lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera filed a lawsuit seeking to quiet title on the property in her name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, De Castro\rquote s other heirs, including Herman M. Roberto and William M. Roberto, claimed the property belonged to all of De Castro\rquote s heirs and not just Cabrera.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Before the lawsuit was fully-litigated,}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab 
The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of De Castro\rquote s heirs, however, this Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.  }{\i\insrsid4801105 Cabrera v. Heirs of De Castro}{\insrsid4801105 
, 1 NMI 172, 178 (1990).  In reversing the case, we stated that the trial court erred in holding that Cabrera failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to a partida of lot 851.  }{\i\insrsid4801105 Id}{\insrsid4801105 . at 177-78.  We therefore remand
ed the case so that Cabrera would have the opportunity to prove at trial that a partida was made.  }{\i\insrsid4801105 Id}{\insrsid4801105 .
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  Cabrera died.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Her son, Luis R. Cabrera, was appointed Cabrera\rquote 
s representative, and he continued to pursue his mother\rquote s claim of ownership by initiating this probate action.}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab 
On December 6, 2006, the trial court stayed Cabrera\rquote s quiet title action and ordered the parties to resolve the ownership dispute regarding lot 851, which is the subject of this probate action.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 7\tab \tab On May 21, 2007, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the rightful owner of lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Prior to the hearing, Cabrera\rquote s sole theory of ownership was based on an alleged partida.}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab 
Generally, a partida is a Chamorro custom whereby \'93the father calls the entire family together and outlines the division of the property among his children.\'94  }{\i\insrsid4801105 Sullivan v. Tarope}{\insrsid4801105 , 2006 MP 11 \'b6 13 n.2 (quoting 
}{\i\insrsid4801105 In re Estate of Deleon Castro}{\insrsid4801105 , 4 NMI 102, 110 (1994)).
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, at the evidentiary hearing, Cabrera advanced a new theory of ownership.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Cabrera claimed that although she was raised by De Castro and Jose Roberto and that she carried the Roberto name throughout her life, she was not the fourth child of De Castro and Jose Roberto.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Rather, she claimed she was the product of a non-marital relationship between De Castro and Juan Sablan.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera argued that Sablan, her alleged biological father, was the original owner of lot 555.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Prior to his death, she claimed Sablan transferred ownership of lot 555 to De Castro to hold for Cabrera\rquote s benefit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Consequently, Cabrera maintained that because lot 555 was exchanged for lot 851, lot 851 belongs solely to her and not to De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 8\tab \tab At the evidentiary hearing, Cabrera produced several witnesses supporting her claim to varying degrees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera\rquote s son, Luis R. Cabrera, testified that a community member told his wife that Sablan was Cabrera\rquote s father.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Connie Togawa also testified that she had heard a similar statement from community members.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Additionally, Cabrera\rquote s niece, Justa Q. Camacho,}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab 
Justa Q. Camacho is the daughter of Rita R. Quitano, who is the oldest child of De Castro and Jose Roberto.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  testified that Sablan was Cabrera\rquote 
s father and that Sablan purchased lot 555 for Cabrera, who later exchanged it for lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Cabrera also advanced an alternate theory of ownership based on adverse possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 She argued that even if she didn\rquote 
t gain ownership of the property through Juan Sablan, she gained sole ownership of lot 851 through adverse possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 9\tab \tab At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court upheld the land commission\rquote s March 7, 1984 determination of ownership.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In so doing, the trial court rejected Cabrera\rquote 
s claim for sole ownership of lot 851, and determined it is jointly owned by all of De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15623575 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 II}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 10\tab \tab On appeal, Cabrera argues that the trial court erred in upholding the land commission\rquote 
s determination of ownership, claiming there is ample evidence supporting her claim that Juan Sablan is her biological father and that he purchased lot 555 for her benefit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In the alternative, Cabrera argues that even if the property was not purchased for her benefit, she subsequently gained sole ownership of lot 851 through adverse possession.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Two of De Castro\rquote s heirs, Herman M. Roberto and William M. Roberto, dispute Cabrera\rquote 
s claims, and also argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Cabrera\rquote s appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Jurisdiction}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 11\tab \tab We first must determine whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 On August 17, 2007, the trial court denied Cabrera\rquote s claim for sole ownership of lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In so doing, the trial court issued a written order, which set forth the factual background in the case along with its findings of fact and conclusions of law.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, the Robertos argue that because the trial court\rquote s order denying Cabrera sole ownership of lot 851 was not accompanied with a s
eparate entry of judgment, Cabrera is not appealing a final order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Therefore, the Robertos maintain that this Court lacks jurisdiction.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 12\tab \tab This Court has appellate jurisdiction over }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
judgments and orders which are final, except as otherwise provided by law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Matsunaga v. Matsunaga}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2001 MP 11 \'b6 13 (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Commonwealth v. Hasinto}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, 1 NMI 377, 384-385 n.6 (1990)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Generally, a decision is not final unless it }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Matsunaga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2001 MP 11 \'b6 13 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Catlin v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Under both Commonwealth and federal law, however, the finality requirement typically is not met until the trial court issues both a decision and a separate entry of judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 See Commonwealth v. Kumagai}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2006 MP 20 \'b6 22; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 435 U.S. 381, 387-388 (1978).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 13\tab \tab Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 [e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 A judgmen
t is effective only when so set forth.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
However, Rule 58 of the Commonwealth Rules of Civil Procedure does not mirror its federal counterpart.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Rather, Rule 58 is a reiteration of Rule 14 of the Commonwealth Rules of Practice.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Compare}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  NMI R. Prac. 14(e)-(f) }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 with}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  NMI R. Civ. P. 58.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Nonetheless, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Commonwealth v. Kumagai}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we noted that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
[w]hile our rules do not explicitly state the obvious, we find that an entry of judgment or order issued as a separate document is a necessary adjunct that must be filed with the Superior Court clerk.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2006 MP 20 \'b6 22 (footnote omitted).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 We based our holding in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
on an evaluation and collective reading of the Commonwealth Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules of Practice, which, read together, indicate that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 without such an entry of judgment or order, this Court has no jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
In order to comply with the rule, we noted that the separate entry of judgment must be distinct from the trial court\rquote s opinion or order, in that it }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 shall not contain a recital of pleadings, the report of a master, or the record of prior proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . at \'b6 19 (quoting NMI R. Civ. P. 54(a)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In so holding, we stated that we }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 will require }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 strict compliance}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  with the separate document rule.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Our strict compliance standard is similar to the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court, which holds that the separate document rule must be }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 mechanically applied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
United States v. Indrelunas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 411 U.S. 216, 222 (1973).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 14\tab \tab In the years since }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, we have neither diminished the importance of the separate document rule nor undermined its applicability.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Rather, in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Commonwealth Ports Auth. v. Tinian Shipping, Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we stated that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 a separate document is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 necessary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  for entry of judgment,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  and that without it, we lack jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2007 MP 22 \'b6 13 (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Similarly, in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Commonwealth v. Superior Court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we reiterated the vitality of our }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  holding.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2008 MP 11 \'b6 20.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Unlike the federal courts, this Court has consis
tently maintained that the separate document rule is jurisdictional, in that we cannot consider an appeal until a separate entry of judgment is filed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Compare Kumagai}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2006 MP 20 \'b6 22, 24 (stating that without a separate entry of judgment, }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 this Court has no jurisdiction to hear most cases, as our jurisdiction, with certain exceptions, is limited to judgments which are final}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ), }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 with}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Vernon v. Heckler}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 811 F.2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1987) (}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Although a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the existence of a properly entered separate judgment is not a necessary prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction . . . .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 15\tab \tab Notwithstanding the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
 line of cases, the present case is distinguishable in that Cabrera appeals a probate order under 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s18\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab 
Section 2206, Title 8 of the Commonwealth Code states as follows:
\par }\pard \s18\qj \li720\ri720\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid8257573 {\insrsid4801105 An appeal may be ta
ken from an order granting or revoking letters testamentary or of administration; admitting a will to probate or revoking the probate of a will; setting aside an estate claimed not to exceed $1,500 in value; setting apart property as a homestead or claime
d
 to be exempt from execution; confirming a report of an appraiser or appraisers in setting apart a homestead; granting or modifying a family allowance; directing or authorizing the sale or conveyance or confirming the sale of property; settling an account
 of an executor or administrator or trustee, or instructing or appointing a trustee; directing or allowing the payment of a debt, claim, legacy, or attorney\rquote 
s fee; determining heirship or the persons to whom distribution should be made or trust property should pass; distributing property; refusing to make any order mentioned in this section; or fixing an inheritance tax or determining that none is due.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Although the trial court order determined that De Castro\rquote 
s heirs own lot 851, the order did not conclude the probate case as a whole, as there are a variety of issues yet to be resolved.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Thus, the trial court\rquote s order does not satisfy the finality requirement as set forth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Matsunaga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, as the order did not end }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 the litigation on the merits}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  and leave }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2001 MP 11 \'b6 13 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Catlin}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 324 U.S. at 233).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Matsunaga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  we tempered the finality requirement, stating that we can only entertain appeals }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 from judgments and orders which are final, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 except as provided by law}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2001 MP 11 \'b6 13 (emphasis added).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Section 2206 states that }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
[a]n appeal may be taken from an order determining heirship or the person to whom distribution should be made or trust property should pass . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera contests a trial court order determining the ownership of lot 851 based on an heirship claim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The language of Section 2206 clearly indicates that this issue is appealable.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
However, it is unclear how the separate document rule interacts with this Court\rquote s appellate jurisdiction over probate cases, particularly contested claims under 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 We therefore must determine whether an order appealed under Section 2206 requires a separate entry of judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 16\tab \tab We have had few opportunities to interpret the meaning and applicability of Section 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Tudela}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, we were faced with the question of whether 8 CMC \'a7 2206 requires an appeal to be made within thirty days after the issuance of an appealable order, or whether a party may wait until the final determination of the probate case to appeal.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 3 NMI 316, 319 (1992).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
We interpreted Section 2206 to be permissive rather than mandatory.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
. at 320.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Conse
quently, we held that we have appellate jurisdiction over Section 2206 orders regardless of whether an appellant contests an appealable order within thirty days of the issuance of the order, or within thirty days after the conclusion of the probate case.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In so holding, we did not address whether the separate document rule implicates our appellate jurisdiction under 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In fact, this Court did not adopt the separate document rule until thirteen years after }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Tudela}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 17\tab \tab However, in adopting the separate document rule in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , and in subsequently upholding it in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Tinian Shipping}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Superior Court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we did not condition its applicability.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 See, e.g.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2006 MP 20 \'b6 24 (stating }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
in future appeals we will require a separate document which formally directs entry of judgment or order in a case before appellate jurisdiction is ripe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Rather, we have only discussed its applicability in broad terms, describing it as a }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 bright line requirement.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . \'b6 22.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 These broad statements of applicability evince a desire to apply the separate document rule to all judgments and orders, including those filed under 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 18\tab \tab Additionally, this Court has, on at least one occasion, described Section 2206 appeals as }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 interlocutory.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Malite v. Tudela}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2007 MP 3 \'b6 21 (describing a Section 2206 appeal of a probate order denying heirs a motion for a temporary restraining order to disgorge attorney fees and vacate attorney fees award as }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 interlocutory}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 If Section 2206 appeals are indeed interlocutory
, we see no reason for disregarding the separate document rule solely on that basis, particularly when federal circuit courts of appeal hold that the separate document rule }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 applies equally to final and interlocutory decisions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Theriot v. ASC Well Serv., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 951 F.2d 84, 88 (5th Cir. 1992); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 see also Cooper v. Town of East Hampton}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 83 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that separate document rule applies to all judgments including partial judgments certified for interlocutory appeal).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 19\tab \tab Furthermore, the purpose behind the separate document rule is three-fold.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 First, it provides parties with }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
conclusive notification that the case has ended and an appeal may be taken.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Kumagai}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2006 MP 20 \'b6 22.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Second, it }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ensures that a decision addressed on appeal is really the trial court\rquote s final resolution of the matter.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Third, it }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
protects litigants from uncertainty as to when a notice of appeal must be filed within the time permitted.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Applying the separate document rule to Section 2206 appeals fur
thers these objectives.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 20\tab \tab In light of these considerations, we find that the separate document rule applies to 8 CMC \'a7 2206 appeals.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 For purposes of the separate document rule, we find little, if any, reason to distinguish appeals brought under Section 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Litigants may appeal Section 2206 orders within thirty days or they may appeal at the conclusion of the probate case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In either case, the trial court must issue a separate entry of judgment before this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab }{\insrsid4801105\charrsid11960276 In so holding, we note that the separate document rule is neither \'93onerous nor burdensome\'94 to the trial court or the parties.  }{
\i\insrsid4801105\charrsid11960276 Id}{\insrsid4801105\charrsid11960276 
.  If a trial court issues a decision subject to a Section 2206 appeal, but does not issue a separate entry of judgment, a party wishing to appeal may request that it do so.  If the trial court denies such a request, the moving pa
rty may file an appropriate writ with this Court.  Finally, the moving party may always appeal at the conclusion of the case.}{\insrsid4801105 
\par }\pard \s18\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 {\insrsid4801105 \tab }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 An
d, like other jurisdictions that require all judgments be set forth in a separate document, the period for filing an appeal in the Commonwealth does not begin to run until the trial court enters a separate entry of judgment.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab Although we do not dictate a specific period in which a judgment must be entered, in the future, \'93we are not averse to enunci
ating a specific time frame to file a separate document, as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\'94  }{\i\insrsid4801105 Superior Court}{\insrsid4801105 , 2008 MP 11 \'b6 20 (footnote omitted).
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Schneider v. Pay\rquote N Save Corp.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, 723 P.2d 619, 622-23 (Alaska 1986).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 21\tab \tab Notwithstanding the jurisdictional nature of the Commonwealth\rquote s iteration of the separate document rule, we adopt a waiver exception.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The United States Supreme Court stated that the separate document rule may be
 waived if a litigant requests that an appellate court set aside an appealable order, and the opposing party agrees to waive the requirement.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 435 U.S. 381, 387-88 (1978).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Waiver, or consent to the appeal without the filing of
 a separate entry of judgment, is generally established where the non-appealing party does not contest the appeal on the basis of the separate document rule.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 see, e.g.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Time Warner Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, 9 F.3d 259, 263 n.1 (2d Cir. 1993); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Whitaker v. City of Houston}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 963 F.2d 831, 833 (5th Cir. 1992).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 22\tab \tab In the present case, both waiver requirements are met.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
First, Cabrera requests that this Court set aside an appealable order.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Cabrera contests a trial court order determining the ownership of lot 851, which is appealable under 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Second, the Robertos, through their counsel, specifically stated at oral argument that they prefer we address the merits of the case rather than remanding it on account of the trial court\rquote s failure to issue to separate entry of judgment.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab The Robertos initially raised the trial court\rquote s failure to comply with the separate document rule in their appellate brief.  }{\i\insrsid4801105 See}{\insrsid4801105  Appellee\rquote 
s Response Br. at 3, 10-12.  At oral argument, they stated that they did so out of obligation and respect for this Court\rquote s previous holdings.  However, they noted that they preferred that this Court address the meri
ts of the appeal without remanding it to the trial court.}{\insrsid4801105\charrsid2445627 
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we waive the separate document rule and address Cabrera\rquote s claims.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Land commission\rquote s determination of ownership}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 23\tab \tab On March 7, 1984, the land commission issued a determination of ownership recognizing De Castro\rquote s heirs as the owners of lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In 2007, the trial court reviewed the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership and upheld its decision.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera contends that the trial court erred in upholding the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Before addressing the trial court\rquote s decision, we must first determine whether the land commission\rquote 
s decision became conclusive under res judicata principles.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 This is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2 NMI 1, 8 (1991).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 24\tab \tab Administrative ownership determinations enjoy a presumption of regularity.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Estate of Muna v. Commonwealth}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 6 NMI 71, 74 (2000).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 A party challenging an administrative ownership determination bears the burden of rebutting the presumption.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Additionally, administrative ownership determinations are quasi-judicial in nature.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2 NMI 10-11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
When an administrative ownership determination is not appealed within the statutorily-required time frame, the determination becomes a final administrative decision and acquires res judicata effect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Arriola v. Arriola}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 6 NMI 1, 4 (1999).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Administrative res judicata }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
bars an action that has already been the subject of a final administrative decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Estate of Muna}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 6 NMI at 73 (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Ogumoro}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, 4 NMI 124, 127 (1994)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we stated that once an administrative decision enjoys res judicata effect, it may only be set aside if one of following criteria satisfied:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 (1) the administrative decision was }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 void when issued;}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  (2) the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
record supporting the agency\rquote s decision is patently inadequate;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  (3) according the decision res judicata effect would }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 contravene an overriding public policy;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  or (4) according the decision res judicata effect would }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
result in manifest injustice.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2 NMI at 11; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Ogumoro}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 4 NMI at 127.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 25\tab \tab Cabrera submitted an application to register lot 851 in 1981.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The land commission issued a determination of ownership on March 8, 1984 recognizing De Castro\rquote s heirs as the owners of lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera did not appeal the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership within the statutorily-required time frame.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Thus, at first glance, it appears that the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership obtained res judicata effect consistent with our holding in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Arriola}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
See Arriola}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 6 NMI at 4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
However, the trial court decided that the land commission\rquote s determination of ownership should not be accorded res judicata effect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
The trial court noted that because Cabrera was within the class of persons recognized as De Castro\rquote s heirs, she did not need to petition the court to set aside the land commission\rquote 
s March 7, 1984 determination under the four narrow exceptions set forth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Rather, the trial court 
held its own evidentiary hearing to resolve the ownership dispute and subsequently determined that lot 851 belonged to all of De Castro\rquote s heirs, and not just Cabrera.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 26\tab \tab The trial court did not err in refusing to give the land commission\rquote s ownership determination res judicata effect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Rather, its decision properly followed the precedent set in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we reviewed an administrative ownership determination establishing that a parcel of property belonged to the heirs of Joaquin Dela Cruz.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 2 NMI at 12-15.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
We held that the administrative ownership determination merely established that the property was not owned by the government or other private individuals, and that the owners were within the class of people known as the heirs of Dela Cruz.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . at 14.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Furthermore, we stated that the ownership determination did not carry administrative res judicata effect as to which individuals within the class of persons at issue were the owners of the property.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Rath
er, we found that a determination as to which individual within the relevant class of persons was the actual owner of the property was a determination that was properly within the province of the courts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 27\tab \tab Like }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Dela Cruz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , we find t
hat in determining lot 851 belongs to De Castro\rquote 
s heirs, the land commission merely established that the property did not belong to the government or other private individuals, and that the owners are within the class of people recognized as De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Consequently, the land commission\rquote 
s March 7, 1984 determination of ownership does not carry res judicata effect as to Cabrera, and the trial court properly held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the ownership dispute among De Castro\rquote s heirs regarding lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 28\tab \tab Having found that the land commission\rquote 
s determination of ownership does not carry res judicata effect, we still must address whether the trial court properly rejected Cabrera\rquote s claim of sole ownership to lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 A trial court\rquote s determination of land ownership is a mixed question of law and fact.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Mixed questions of law and fact are typically reviewed de novo.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Sattler v. Mathis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2006 MP 6 \'b6 7 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Reyes v. Reyes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2004 MP 13 \'b6 3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, this Court adopts a }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 deferential review}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  of mi
xed questions of law and fact when }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 it appears that the [trial] court is \lquote better positioned\rquote 
 than the appellate court to decide the issue in question or that probing scrutiny will not contribute to the clarity of legal doctrine.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . \'b6 9 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Salve Regina College v. Russell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
, 499 U.S. 225, 233 (1991)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Consequently, in reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we review legal issues de novo, while the }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 trial court\rquote s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 . \'b6 7 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Reyes}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2004 MP 13 \'b6 3).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Under the clearly erroneous standard, 
we will not reverse a trial court\rquote s findings }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 unless we are left with a firm and definite conviction that clear error has been made.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 29\tab \tab The Commonwealth Code provides that the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 proper
ty of persons who die before February 15, 1984, shall pass according to title 13 of the Trust Territory Code . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 8 CMC \'a7 2102.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, the Trust Territory Code has no provision on intestate succession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Barcinas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 4 NMI 149, 152 (1994) (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
In re Estate of Cabrera}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2 NMI 195, 203-04 (1991)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Where a person dies intestate, by necessary implication, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 no form of customary testamentary distribution applies.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Thus, by default, a decedent\rquote s property passes to the heirs in equal shares.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Cabrera}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2 NMI at 203.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 30\tab \tab In the present case, De Castro died intestate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Thus, by default, her property passed to all her heirs in equal shares, and Cabrera carried the initial burden of establishing sole ownership of lot 851 by a preponderance of the evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera claims she met her burden and established sole ownership at the evidentiary hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 To support her claim, she points out that she produced three witnesses claiming she is the non-marital child of De Castro and Juan Sablan.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera\rquote s son testified that a community member told his wife that Sablan is Cabrera\rquote s father.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Connie Togawa testified that she heard similar statements from community members when she was a teenager.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Additionally, Cabrera\rquote s niece, Justa Q. Camacho, testified that Sablan is Cabrera\rquote s father, and that Sablan purchased lot 555 for Cabrera, who later exchanged it for lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 31\tab \tab We acknowledge that Cabrera produced witnesses supporting her claim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, in assessing witness credibility, we give the trial court }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
due regard,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  as it is in a much better position to assess witness testimony than this Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 
 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 1 CMC \'a7 3103.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
As such, the trial court has wide latitude in deciding which witnesses to believe and disbelieve.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Commonwealth v. Camacho}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2002 MP 6 \'b6 109.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 We therefore }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 will not second-guess the trial court\rquote s evaluation of a witness\rquote  credibility,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  or }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 reweigh evidence presented to the trial court.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Fitial v. Kim}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 2001 MP 9 \'b6 18.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Under these standards, we are not left with a firm and definite conviction that the trial court erred in disbelieving the witnesses\rquote 
 testimony.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera\rquote 
s assertion that Juan Sablan is her biological father was substantiated solely by the hearsay testimony of three witnesses, at least one of whom is an interested party.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Additionally, none of the witnesses were able to verify Cabrera\rquote s claim that Sablan purchased lot 555 for her benefit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In fact, Connie Togawa testified that she was unable to locate any document indicting who owned lot 555 prior to De Castro.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 32\tab \tab Additionally, the documentary evidence does not support Cabrera\rquote s claims.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera failed to introduce a single document indicating Juan Sablan ever owned, used, or visited lot 555.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Likewise, there is no documentary evidence indicating that Juan Sablan transferred lot 555 to De Castro for Cabrera\rquote 
s benefit, or that he had any kind of relationship with either De Castro or Cabrera.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Similarly, there is no documentary evidence indicating that De Castro transferred sole ownership of lot 555 or lot 851 to Cabrera.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 33\tab \tab Furthermore, Cabrera\rquote s tepid assertion of sole ownership undermines her claim.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 On April 25, 1951, the TTPI issued a determination of ownership recognizing De Castro as the owner of lot 555.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Following De Castro\rquote s death in 1955, Cabrera executed an agreement exchanging lot 555 for lot 851.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera signed the agreement as }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Angela R. Cabrera, representing Pilar de Castro, incompetent, as Land Trustee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ER at 21.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In 1958, the TTPI finalized the exchange and granted lot 851 to }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Pilar de Castro, incompetent, represented by Angela R. Cabrera as Land Trustee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ER at 25-26.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
As a result of these events, Cabrera knew, or should have known, that her deceased mother owned lot 851, which, in turn, meant it belonged to all of her heirs equally.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Despite the fact that Cabrera knew \endash  perhaps as early as 1951, but certainly no later than 1955 \endash  that lot 851 was registered in her mother\rquote 
s name, she did not definitively assert her claim of sole ownership until 1988.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 34\tab \tab Cabrera alleges that she claimed sole ownership in 1981 when she submitted an application to register lot 851 in her name.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Even if this were true, Cabrera still waited twenty-six years after De Castro\rquote s death to claim sole ownership.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, the record indicates that Cabrera made no such claim in 1981, but waited until 1988.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
The application Cabrera submitted to the land commission to register lot 851 in her name did not indicate whether Cabrera was acting in her individual capacity or as a representative of De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 However, all of 
the supporting documents Cabrera submitted to the land commission clearly indicate that she was acting as a representative of either De Castro or De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Additionally, the land commission held a hearing regarding Cabrera\rquote s application in 1982, and determined that De Castro\rquote s heirs owned lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Although Cabrera personally attended the hearing, she did not dispute this finding.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Consequently, the land commission issued a determination of ownership on March 7, 1984, which recognized De Castro\rquote s heirs as the owners of lot 851.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 35\tab \tab After the land commission issued a determination of ownership, Cabrera did not immediately assert her claim of sole ownership.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In fact, after the land commission determined that De Castro\rquote s heirs own lot 851, Cabrera 
took no action for another four years before filing a quiet title action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Thus, after De Castro\rquote 
s death in 1955, Cabrera waited thirty-three years to assert her claim of sole ownership over lot 851, and even then she did so under a theory of partida, as opposed to her current theory of ownership.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 While Cabrera\rquote s inaction does not preclude her claim of ownership, it does severely undermine its credibility.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 36\tab \tab In light of the scarcity of factual and legal support underlying Cabrera\rquote s claim, we find that the trial court did not err in upholding the land commission\rquote 
s March 7, 1984 determination of ownership.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The trial court properly determined there is insufficient evidence to prove Cabrera\rquote 
s theory that Juan Sablan is her biological father and that he purchased lot 555 for her benefit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Adverse possession}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 37\tab \tab As a final matter, we must determine whether the trial court erred in holding that Cabrera failed to establish sole ownership of lot 851 through adverse possession.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Whether a party acquired title to land by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Apatang v. Mundo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 4 NMI 90, 92 (1994).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 38\tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
In the Commonwealth, adverse possession may only be established under the common law because there is no statutory provi\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 sion defining its elements.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Apatang}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 4 NMI at 93.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 However, the statutorily-prescribed time for establishing a claim for adverse possession is twenty years.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 \hich\f0 7 CMC \'a7\loch\f0  2502(a)(2); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Apatang}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 4 NMI at 93.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 The passing of the statutory time period effectively c\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
reates a new title in the adverse possessor.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Teregeyo v. Fejeran}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 \hich\f0 , 2004 MP 18 \'b6\loch\f0  9 (citing }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Devins v. Borough of Bogota}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 592 A.2d 199, 201 (N.J. 1991)).}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 The party asserting title by adverse possession bears the burden of proof.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Apatang}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 4 NMI at 92.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 39\tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 To establish adverse possession, the possession must be }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 (1) exclusive, (2) actual and uninterrupted, (3) open and notorious and (4) hostile under a claim of right.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Teregeyo}
{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 \hich\f0 , 2004 MP 18 \'b6\loch\f0  10 (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Chaplin v. Sanders}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 676 P.2d 431, 434 (Wash. 1984)).}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 A\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
dditionally, this Court applies an }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
intensified}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
 burden on a party attempting to establish adverse possession where }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 the parties are related by blood.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 . (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Apatang}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 4 NMI at 93).}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 40\tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 The trial court properly determined that De Castro
\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s heirs ow\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 n lot 851, which, in turn means Cabrera and De Castro\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s other heirs share the property as cotenants.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 See Apatang}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 4 NMI at 92.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 As a result, Cabrera had the burden of establishing ownership by adverse possession.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
Furthermore, because Cabrera and De Castr\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 o\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s other heirs are related by blood, Cabrera had an intensified burden of establishing adverse possession.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
Specifically, this intensified burden must be applied to the element of hostile possession under a claim of right, which is the primary element in \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 dispute between Cabrera and the Robertos.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 41\tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 In accordance with the intensified burden set forth in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Teregeyo}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
, the hostile possession element is not easily established, as we must }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 presume permissiveness when the occupied land belongs to a blood-relative\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  of the occupier . . . .}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 \hich\f0 
2004 MP 18 \'b6\loch\f0  16 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Pioneer Mill Co. v. Dow}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 , 978 P.2d 727, 738 (Haw. 1999)).}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
In order to satisfy this burden, Cabrera must prove that she occupied lot 851 under a claim of right that was hostile to the interests of De Castr\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 o\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s heirs, as well as prove that De Castro\hich\f0 
\rquote \loch\f0 s heirs had }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
actual knowledge}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
 of this hostile occupation.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 See id}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 .}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 42\tab \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Cabrera fails to overcome her intensified burden.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
As previously stated, Cabrera did not claim sole ownership of lot 851 until 1988.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 It wa\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
s not until 1988 that she first asserted a claim of right over the property that was hostile to the interests of De Castro\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s heirs.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
Therefore, at the time the trial court held its evidentiary hearing on the matter in 2007, Cabrera could not have establish\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 ed adverse possession for the statutorily-mandated twenty years.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
Additionally, there is no evidence that De Castro\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s heirs had actual knowledge that Cabrera possessed lot 851 under a claim of right hostile to their interests in the property.}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Rather, Cabr\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
era simply claims that }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 
it can be inferred that [De Castro\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s heirs] knew the property belonged to [her]}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 "}{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  because they did not occupy it.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{
\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Appellant\hich\f0 \rquote \loch\f0 s Opening Br. at 11.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Absent additional evidence of actual knowledge of adverse possession, we cannot make s
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 uch an inference.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid5470034 \hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0  }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\hich\af0\dbch\af12\loch\f0 Thus, Cabrera fails to meet her burden of establishing ownership by adverse possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1042\dbch\af12\langnp2057\langfenp1042\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15623575 \fs24\dn4\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 III}{
\b\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\faroman\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 {\b\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 43\tab \tab For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Cabrera\rquote s claim of sole ownership over lot 851.}{
\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera failed to establish that the trial court erred in finding that that lot 851 belongs to De Castro\rquote s heirs.}{
\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Cabrera also failed to establish that the trial court erred in rejecting her ownership claim based on adverse possession.}{
\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\up0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Therefore, the trial court\rquote s order is AFFIRMED. 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5470034 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13007169\charrsid5470034 
\par Concurring:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13007169\charrsid5470034 Borja, J.P.T.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
\par Bellas, J.P.T., Concurring:
\par 
\par \'b6 44\tab \tab I would concur in the result reached by the majority, but disagree as to some of the reasoning used to reach that result.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
I would also note that the undersigned did not participate in that portion of the majority decision relating to the issue of adverse possession.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Jurisdiction and the Separate Document Rule}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 45\tab \tab I respectfully disagree with my colleagues of the majority as to this issue.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The reason for reaching the concl
usion that a separate judgment is not required in this matter, is because unlike an interlocutory appeal which requires the trial court to certify the issue for appeal purposes, in the probate setting the interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized by 
8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 46\tab \tab The majority, in paragraph 15 of the opinion, states: }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
[I]n }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Matsunaga}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  we tempered the finality requirement, stating that we can only entertain appeals }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 from judgments and orders which are final, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 except as provided by law}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Ante }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
(citation and internal quotation omitted).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 While I agree that the legislature in enacting 8 CMC \'a7
 2206 created an exception to the finality requirement, reintroducing the separate judgment requirement tends to circumvent the statutorily-created exception.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In this regard, it is noteworthy that the statute begins with the language }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
An appeal may be taken from an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 order}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  . . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 " }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 8 CMC \'a7 2206 (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
The language does not state that an appeal may be taken from a partial judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 47\tab \tab Sometimes the proof is in the application of the concept.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
My disagreement on this issue is also based on the burden the separate judgment requirement will impose upon the trial court and the parties by its applicability to probate cases.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 I realize that the majority has considered this issue and reaches the opposite conclusion. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 See}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 ante}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , n.11.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Again, I must respectfully disagree with the conclusion that having to resort to a writ of mandamus process in order to force the trial court to issue a separate judgment on one of the many issues in a probate case, is not burdensome to the parties. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 48\tab \tab There are pronounced differences between probate cases and other cases that come before the trial court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In probate cases, the court makes various intermediate rulings that affect the parties and the rest of the proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The legislature has taken the trouble to specifically enumerate some of those rulings in the statute.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 See ante}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , n.10.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 49\tab \tab  First, there is one main distinction, in that a partial judgment in a probate case is usually a partial decree of distribution.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
However, the trial court must now enter a plethora of partial judgments to accomplish a host of procedural matters in a probate case, such as: admitting a will to probate, affirming the sale of property, settling 
an account or a judgment, or any of the various other rulings mentioned in 8 CMC \'a7 2206.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
Under the rationale of the majority, the parties will be required to petition the Court for the entry of the separate document in order to appeal any order that accomplishes anything in a probate case. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 

\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 50\tab \tab Likewise, it is disputable that requiring a separate judgment accomplishes some of the benefits that the majority extols.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Three benefits or reasons why this process is necessary in the probate area are enumerated as justification for the separate document requirement.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 First, the separate judgment rule provides the parties with conclusive notification that the case has ended and an appeal may be taken.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 See ante}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  \'b6 19 (citation and quotation omitted).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Second, it ensures that a decision addressed on appeal is really the trial court\rquote s final resolution of the matter.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Third, it protects litigants from uncertainty as to when a notice of appeal must be filed within the time permitted. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Id}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 51\tab \tab Clearly, the first benefit does not exist under the circumstances of a probate case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The case has not ended since this is an interlocutory appeal of an issue which will guide the trial court in deciding the rest of the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 As for the second, there is no guarantee that the trial court has made a final decision on that issue just because the separate document is issued.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 The Court could be asked to reconsider the decision prior to the conclusion of the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Only after the appeal has been resolved will the trial court no longer have the ability change its ruling.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 It is not clear how a separate document makes the time to file an appeal more certain.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In the normal scheme of things it would seem that the thirty days would run from the date that the order to be appealed from was entered.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 How does titling it a partial judgment make the time more certain?}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 52\tab \tab Because we are operating under the statutorily-created exception to the rule requiring finality of the judgment prior to filing an appeal, and because, as the majority co
rrectly points out, under prior holdings of this court }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 [w]e interpreted Section 2206 to be permissive rather than mandatory,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034 "}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 In re Estate of Tudela}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 , 3 NMI 316, 320 (1992), the parties have the option to file an appeal of any interlocutory issue at the end of the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5470034  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 Thus, issuing a separate partial decree or judgment in order to eliminate uncertainty of when to file the appeal would be of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 
de minimus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034  value in the probate setting.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 53\tab \tab In conclusion, I am in agreement with the holding that his court has
 jurisdiction, not because the parties have waived the separate document requirement, but because jurisdiction is expressly authorized by law (8 CMC \'a7 2206), and no separate partial judgment should be required in a probate case.}{
\cs19\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s18\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8257573 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs19\super\insrsid4801105 \chftn }{\insrsid4801105  \tab Furthermore, the procedural value of the separate document rule is minimal if the parties can waive it, as in this case. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15623575\charrsid5470034 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8257573\charrsid5470034 \'b6 54\tab \tab For all of these reasons I concur in the decision to affirm the order of the Superior Court in this matter.
\par }}