Concepcion S. Wabol v. Victorino Villacrusis
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 4474, 958 F.2d 1450 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee does not apply to race-based restrictions on land acquisition in an unincorporated territory like the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI) if applying that right would be 'impractical and anomalous' in light of the territory's unique culture and history. Congress has the power under the Territories Clause to approve such local restrictions as part of a political union.
Facts:
- The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI) Constitution contains Article XII, which restricts the ownership of permanent and long-term interests in land to persons of 'Northern Marianas descent.'
- This provision was enacted to protect the native islanders' culture, which is deeply tied to the land, and to prevent economic exploitation by outside investors.
- The restriction defines a long-term interest as a leasehold of more than forty years, including renewal rights.
- In 1978, Philippine Goods, Inc. (PGI), a corporation not of Northern Marianas descent, entered into an agreement to lease a parcel of NMI property from the Wabol family.
- The lease agreement was for a 30-year term with an unconditional option for PGI to renew for an additional 20 years, for a total potential term of 50 years.
Procedural Posture:
- Concepcion S. and Elias S. Wabol sued Victorino Villacrusis and Philippine Goods, Inc. (PGI) in the Commonwealth Trial Court for the NMI, seeking to void a lease agreement.
- On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the lease violated Article XII but reformed it to a valid 40-year term on equitable grounds, and held that Article XII did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
- Both parties appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.
- The Appellate Division affirmed that Article XII was constitutional but reversed the trial court's reformation of the lease, holding that the agreement was void from its inception.
- The Appellate Division remanded the case to the trial court to determine any obligations arising in quasi-contract for improvements made by PGI.
- PGI, as appellant, filed a timely appeal of the Appellate Division's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article XII of the Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, which restricts the acquisition of long-term real property interests to persons of Northern Marianas descent, violate the equal protection guarantee of the United States Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Poole
No. Article XII of the NMI Constitution does not violate the equal protection guarantee because that specific constitutional protection is not fundamental in the context of the NMI and its application would be impractical and anomalous. The court reasoned that not all provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply with full force to unincorporated territories. Only 'fundamental' rights apply, and what is considered fundamental in a territory must be determined by considering whether its application would be 'impractical and anomalous' in that unique setting. Here, land is a scarce resource central to NMI culture and social stability. The land alienation restrictions were a cornerstone of the Covenant establishing political union with the United States and were intended to fulfill the U.S.'s obligation to protect the islanders from exploitation. Applying the equal protection clause to strike down these restrictions would undermine the basis of the NMI-U.S. relationship and the U.S.'s international obligations. Therefore, the right to equal access in acquiring land is not a fundamental right in the international sense that applies to the NMI, and Congress was within its Article IV power to approve the Covenant allowing for such restrictions.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and applies the 'impractical and anomalous' test for determining which constitutional rights extend to unincorporated U.S. territories, drawing a clear distinction from the incorporation doctrine applied to states. The case establishes a significant precedent that allows for the preservation of unique local laws aimed at protecting indigenous culture and property, even when those laws involve classifications based on ancestry that would otherwise be unconstitutional. This ruling provides legal support for the unique political and cultural arrangements between the U.S. and its territories, prioritizing the terms of negotiated political unions like the Covenant over the uniform application of certain constitutional norms.
