KOSRAE STATE COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Jack v. Paulino
10 FSM Intrm. 335 ( Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2001)
 
[10 FSM Intrm. 335]
 
LUISA K. JACK,
Appellant,
 
vs.
 
CHARLES N. PAULINO and
HEIRS OF N. PAULINO,
Appellees.
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 123-00
 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 
Yosiwo P. George
Chief Justice
 
Decided: July 18, 2001
 
APPEARANCE:
 
For the Appellant:                                Charlton Timothy
                                                               P.O. Box 479
                                                               Lelu, Kosrae FM 96944
 
* * * *
 
HEADNOTES
 
Constitutional Law ) Case or Dispute ) Standing; Property ) Certificate of Title
     Someone who by her written request transferred the Certificate of Title to her daughter is no longer the fee owner of that parcel, and therefore has no rights to the parcel and no standing to bring an action concerning the parcel. Jack v. Paulino, 10 FSM Intrm. 335, 336 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2001).
 
Jurisdiction
     A court may raise the issue of jurisdiction at any time because it is the court's duty to insure that jurisdiction exists. Jack v. Paulino, 10 FSM Intrm. 335, 336 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2001).
 
Appeal and Certiorari ) Dismissal; Jurisdiction
     When an action was filed as an appeal under Kosrae State Code § 11.614, which provides that a Land Commission determination of ownership is subject to appeal, but there was no determination of ownership issued, the Kosrae State Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear it as an appeal. When it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. Jack v. Paulino, 10 FSM Intrm. 335, 336 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2001).
 
* * * *

[10 FSM Intrm. 336]

COURT’S OPINION

YOSIWO P. GEORGE, Chief Justice:

     Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on December 7, 2000. On July 16, 2001, the Court received the certified records for parcel 015-T-02 from the Land Commission.

     The records indicate that the Appellant was awarded the Certificate of Title for the subject parcel 015-T-02 on June 28, 1985. The Certificate of Title was awarded pursuant to judgments entered in Civil Actions Nos. 70 and 226, entered by the Trust Territory High Court, on May 21, 1963 and on April 23, 1969, respectively. The Certificate of Title for parcel 015-T-02 was issued pursuant to prior law, 67 TTC 112, which required the Land Commission to accept a prior judgment of the court as binding on such parties, without further evidence. The Land Commission accepted the judgments entered in Civil Cases Nos. 70 and 226, and issued the Certificate of Title to Appellant Luisa J. Kun in June, 1985.

     The Certificate of Title for parcel 015-T-02, issued to Luisa K. Jack, was later cancelled in December 1997. Pursuant to the certified records, the Certificate of Title, by written request of Appellant Luisa K. Jack, was transferred to Appellant’s daughter, Senyorina Yang. The new Certificate of Title for parcel 015-T-02 was issued in the name of Senyorina Yang on December 17, 1997.

     Based upon the certified records provided to this Court, Appellant Luisa K. Jack is no longer the fee owner of parcel 015-T-02. Therefore, Appellant has no rights to parcel 015-T-02 and has no standing to bring this action.

     A court may raise the issue of jurisdiction at any time because it is the duty of the court to insure that jurisdiction exists. Barker v. Paul, 6 FSM Intrm. 473 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1994). This Court now examines its jurisdiction to hear this case. This action was filed as an appeal action under Kosrae State Code, Title 11. Kosrae State Code, Section 11.614 provides that a determination of ownership issued by the Land Commission is subject to appeal in this Court. There was no determination of ownership issued for parcel 015-T-02. Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this matter as an appeal under Kosrae State Code, Title 11. Where it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed. Trance v. Penta Ocean Constr. Co., 7 FSM Intrm. 147 (Chk. 1995). Accordingly, this matter is hereby dismissed.

* * * *