Bid to drop lawsuit vs Quichocho and others in Tinian land dispute is denied

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed in 2005 by four children of a landowner against disbarred lawyer Ramon K. Quichocho and other persons over the transfer of their father’s two lots on Tinian.

Wiseman ruled that the court is not persuaded by the arguments of defendants Quichocho, Jesse S. Palacios, and Diego Lebante.

In their motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Quichocho, Palacios, and Lebante argued that Roma P. King, Mary Christine P. King, Angelica Isabel P. King, and Stephanie P. King (children) lack standing to sue under a quiet title theory on one of the two lots.

The four Kings are children of Jose Borja King.

Quichocho and Lebante also argued that the four Kings only bring a claim for a quiet title action and that they—Quichocho and Lebante—should be dismissed from the lawsuit because they do not have any interest or claim on either two lots.

In their opposition, the Kings, through counsel Mark B. Hanson, asserted that they have valid claims against Quichocho and Lebante under a slander of title theory or interference with the quiet enjoyment of real property.

Wiseman said that even if the allegations of Quichocho, Palacios, and Lebante were false, at this stage in the litigation, the court’s primary concern is evaluating the sufficiency of the pleading—not the merits of it.

On the second argument, Wiseman said it is the defendant’s burden to show that a plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that would provide him or her relief—simply stating so is not enough under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

“Here, defendants did not meet that burden,” Wiseman said.

In light of the case’s unique situation, the judge made some modifications by allowing defendants more time to file an answer to no later than 30 days from the issuance of the order.

Wiseman said if no answer is filed, the court will entertain the appropriate motions for entry of default pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Quichocho and Antonio M. Atalig, both lawyers for the defendants, have been disbarred from the practice of law before the local courts.

In separate orders, Wiseman said the defendants’ request for the court to reconsider Quichocho’s disqualification from the case is moot due to his disbarment.

Wiseman also granted the Kings’ motion to disqualify Atalig as the other counsel for defendants. He ruled that any opposition to the motion to disqualify is moot because of the disbarment order.

According to court records, the four Kings alleged that they are owners of certain parcels of land pursuant to deeds of gift from their father, Jose Borja King. The two lots are both located in Tinian.

Plaintiffs alleged that Jose King owned title to the two properties in fee simple, but executed a number of deeds of gift with plaintiffs as beneficiaries.

Regarding one lot, Jose King twice executed deeds of gift conveying the properties to his children.

In 1996, plaintiffs alleged that Jose King executed a deed of gift conveying the lot to Angelica Isabel P. King.

Seven years later, in 2003, plaintiffs alleged that Jose King executed another deed of gift conveying the said lot to plaintiffs Roma P. King, Mary Christine P. King, Angelica, and Stephanie P. King.

Plaintiffs claimed that both deeds of gift were recorded in the Commonwealth Recorder’s Office.

Regarding the second lot, plaintiffs alleged that Jose King executed a deed of gift also conveying the lot to Roma, Mary, Angelica, and Stephanie.

Plaintiffs also claimed that the deed was recorded in the Commonwealth Recorder’s Office.

Plaintiffs alleged that Jose King became seriously ill in 2004. At that time, Jose King executed a general power of attorney to Quichocho.

Plaintiffs alleged that Quichocho, acting under the power of attorney and in collaboration with his brother-in-law, Lebante, executed real property transactions conveying Jose King’s “ownership interest” in the two lots to Palacios pursuant to quit claim deeds.

Plaintiffs allege that the quit claim deeds were recorded in the Commonwealth Recorder’s Office.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendants collected and retained rents from the tenants of the two lots.

Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants may have made claims with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for typhoon damage.

Plaintiffs said the defendants padlocked the premises and prevented them from using or occupying the premises.

Plaintiffs also alleged that Quichocho physically and/or verbally attempted to evict plaintiffs and called the police to arrest plaintiffs on their own land.

Among other relief, plaintiffs seek to quiet title and obtain damages from defendants.

In response, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.