drafted Wed 29 June 2016
PENAMPANG. The Native Court here chided a lady teacher
who was defendant in the land dispute case for coming to court and complaining
the hearing was not commencing on time even though the delay was less than 20
minutes. She was told the Court sets the time, not her, and even prominent
people conform to court decorum. Hearing continued after she tendered her apology.
The dispute centred on a piece of land at Kg Limbanak where
4 brothers from Kg Hubah inherited the land from their late father and one of
them sold his quarter share to a stranger without informing the other co-owners.
Later on the stranger sold the share to the teacher and she is proven the legal
owner of one lot. However the three brothers and the teacher failed to agree on
method of subdivision in chambers.
In the dock, the first brother as plaintiff said their
proposed plan of subdivision was prepared without the participation of the
teacher. He denied that the purpose was to choose the better part of the land
for the themselves. He said their late father had advised them not to sell “tanah
pusaka” (inherited land) but did not explain why his brother disobeyed their
father’s wish. He confirmed he is the owner of the existing house on the land.
When asked why he proposed to give the land next to the river to the teacher,
he had no clue neither does he know what is the advantage but said up to the
individual. He admitted that the land next to the river has some steep slopes.
He also claimed the stranger who bought the share previously was an Indonesian
and questioned how the non native was able to buy. The court told him that
issue is over as the present owner is entitled to buy the native land. The
plaintiff then queried how the teacher got a native certificate when she was
only three years old at that time.
The court admonished him saying that is a separate issue
and is challenging the authority of the court in issuing the certificate.
He disagreed with the counter proposal by the defendant
saying only that it is tanah pusaka and his brothers do not agree as they were
not involved with the production of the plan.
In the dock, the teacher said she disagreed with the
proposal from the brothers and have prepared her counter proposal using
professional at her own cost. No
compromised was reached in the native judge chambers as both parties maintained
their arguments.
When asked for reasons, she said she bought the land in
Aug 1988 in order to build a house next to her mother’s land. The lot was shown
to her by a previous owner with witnesses and documents as proof. The court
told her to submit the documents as she did not bring them along. The size of
one lot is 0.230 acre and there will be no open space as the original land is
less than one acre. She said she only want her lot, not necessarily the
original lot sold to her, willing to make a sacrifice and let the three
brothers have the first choice and the lot with the house can go to the
plaintiff. Lastly she begged the court to inspect the land if there is still no
agreement to the proposal.
The court then showed the counter proposal commenting
that it appears to be fair and suitable to everyone as each has access to the
river and the road on the other side.
The second brother was called to the dock and asked if he
agreed to the proposal and to choose his preferred lot. After hesitation he
marked the lot next to the plaintiff’s lot. However the plaintiff was warned
tersely for interrupting his brother as his turn to address the court had been
concluded.
When the third brother was called to the dock, he
disagreed to the proposal saying it is tanah pusaka, the land given to the
teacher is flat but could not justify why he wants the teacher to take all the
land near the river.
Since there are still 2 lots left to choose, the court
let the teacher chose her lot and called for a 15 minutes break after which the
panel of judges came back and announced their verdict.
The panel comprising District Chief Bryan Matasing,
Native Chief Andrew S Lidaun and Village Chief Charles Abel said after
deliberating over all the statements, they are satisfied that every party had
equal privileges, that the river is necessary to both parties, all have access
to the road and the plaintiff has agreed that the lot with the house should be
his. As three persons had agreed to their own lots, the last lot shall go to
the third brother. Their decision is final and conclusive.
Anyone who disagrees with the court’s decision can appeal
to the District Native Court within 60 days.
===============================================================================
WRITERS note: This is one case where the judges kind of used old Solomon WIsdom to punish the most arrogant brother.
The lady teacher who had every right to buy the land and lot previously offered to her by the brothers father, the late man called "Buantu" finally got the lot she wanted, which is next to her parents house. She also informed in previous hearing that Buantu used to rent to her family the same lot where her family planted vegetables.
Now with the land subdivision plan prepared by a professional, all the lots have equal access to river and the road. How nice, but the most outspoken brother who disagreed with the fair plan because he wanted to lady to have all the land by the river, which is obviously subject to river side erosion... ha ha
So the judges called the first brother to pick his choice of lots and since he owns the existing house, he would naturally pick the lot with the house on it. The second brother was called and he would definitely pick a lot next to his first brother. Finally the cheating brother was called and he disagreed with everything.... Oh well, in that case the buyer, lady teacher will get her choice and naturally she got the lot she originally wanted, next to her parent house. So the remainder, which must be the least favourable, was given the the cheating brother... ha ha.
To plead to the court, the lady has said let the brothers choose, as long as she gets a rightful lot which she bought legally before. In the past, even an undivided lot can be sold by the owner. The brother who sold his undivided share was in court but was not allowed by the court to say anything as he is already irrelevant. Who ask him to sell his undivided share when their father said, dont sell their Tanah Pusaka.
I say, the Native Judges really did a Solomon Decision on this Case..... keeehoi...
15 Jan 2016. There was no appeal on this case
