The Supreme Court overturned an earlier ownership ruling; historical deeds, rock walls, and decades of alleged possession remain central to the dispute.
PHILIPSBURG:--- A land ownership dispute on Marigot Hill that reached the courts in 2010 remains unresolved in the latest judgment, with the Joint Court of Justice ordering a US$30,000 expert investigation into the boundaries of a disputed 8,993-square-meter property.
The decision, delivered on August 26, 2026, and published on October 19, directs Independent Consulting Engineers (ICE) to examine historical documents, cadastral information, and the physical terrain. The Court also authorized witness evidence concerning longstanding possession and rock walls allegedly marking the property’s boundaries.
Each side must advance US$15,000 toward the expert’s work.
The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s July 2016 decision overturning an earlier Joint Court judgment that fixed the boundary and declared the disputed land belonged to one group of heirs. That earlier judgment, delivered on November 7, 2014, therefore cannot be presented as the standing determination of ownership.
The August 2026 decision reserves all further rulings while the evidence is developed. Pasted text (3)
The dispute involves neighboring family estates on Marigot Hill in Cul de Sac. The contested land extends uphill from Marigot Hill Road toward the boundary between the Dutch and French sides of the island.
Earlier proceedings identify the principal parcel through survey certificate 457/1996, which records an area of 8,993 square meters and describes its boundary markers as rock walls and iron rods.
At the center of the litigation is whether that parcel forms part of the estate to its east or to its west.
The published decisions largely anonymize the families. Their numbered labels also change between documents, so procedural roles and case references are essential to accurately following the litigation.
The original claimants, represented in the 2026 proceedings by attorney C.H.J. Merx, maintain that their predecessors acquired the disputed land through historical deeds dating to 1866.
The opposing heirs, represented by attorney S.R. Bommel, rely on acquisitions by their predecessor in 1936 and 1937, longstanding physical boundaries and possession. They also claim ownership through prescription. Pasted text (3)
The original claimants initially sought a declaration confirming Kadaster’s determination of their boundaries or, alternatively, a judicial determination of those boundaries.
The opposing heirs conditionally asked that the boundary follow the existing rock walls or their remains.
The Court of First Instance declared the original claimants' claims inadmissible. An appeal followed, including an intermediate judgment in March 2013 and a judicial inspection of the land in December that year.
In November 2014, the Joint Court overturned the lower court’s decision and accepted Kadaster’s explanation that the survey certificate had been incorrectly positioned.
Under that explanation, the surveyed parcel should have been plotted farther west, by approximately its own width. The Joint Court fixed the boundary along the western edge of the disputed surveyed parcel and declared that the land belonged to the original claimants.
That decision also covered the site of a house an elderly woman from the opposing family occupied at the time.
The 2014 Court rejected the opposing heirs’ prescription argument, citing Article 5:47(2) of the Civil Code, which provides that the statutory presumption that a possessor is the owner does not apply in an uncertain-boundary dispute.
It consequently did not examine what acts of possession had occurred over most of the property. This approach became central to the challenge before the Supreme Court.
On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and returned the case to the Joint Court. It held that the Court had prematurely applied the special procedure for judicial boundary determination under Article 5:47.
The heirs challenging the ruling argued that the rock walls established the boundary and that they had acquired ownership by prescription. They had offered evidence supporting those arguments.
The Court could not proceed because the legal boundary was uncertain. The Supreme Court did not itself determine which family owned the land. uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
An advisory opinion by Advocate-General R.H. de Bock, dated April 29, 2016, had likewise recommended overturning the judgment.
Her analysis distinguished between a disagreement over a boundary and a boundary that cannot be established through evidence. It also explained that excluding the statutory presumption of ownership does not eliminate a properly supported claim to ownership through prescription. Pasted text(20261020-132447)
The 2026 judgment records further submissions by the parties in January, March and May 2025, followed by an oral hearing in Sint Maarten on March 17, 2026.
Both sides filed submissions on June 16 concerning the proposed expert and questions. The Court later allowed an additional submission with three exhibits from the original claimants on July 2, despite the opposing side's objection.
The judgment does not explain the entire interval between the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision and the submissions recorded in 2025. It therefore does not establish who, if anyone, was responsible for that period.
The documents now before the Court reveal both Kadaster’s earlier conclusions and qualifications within its historical research.
In a May 2008 letter, Kadaster stated that the survey had incorrectly identified the titleholder and that the opposing family’s land lay farther west. It advised returning the survey certificate for correction.
However, Kadaster’s July 2009 report acknowledged limitations in the available material. It distinguished registered deeds from older historical documents, warned that some information was unclear, and noted that deeds predating 1869 could be missing.
The report also identified uncertainty over land described in earlier documents as two acres and in later deeds as three acres. It suggested that an agreement between the families, supported by a boundary settlement, could resolve the issue.
In February 2011, Kadaster reaffirmed that past misinterpretations led one family to occupy land belonging to the other estate. Pasted text (3)
During an earlier judicial inspection, a Kadaster representative said a previous researcher had incorrectly interpreted the survey information.
The inspection record also describes discussions about exchanging land around the house. The accounts differed over the proposed location of replacement land and whether someone who reportedly agreed had authority to represent the heirs.
Those discussions did not produce a settlement resolving the litigation.
The opposing heirs now argue that their predecessor’s 1936 and 1937 notarial deeds establish their ownership. They maintain that rock walls marked the boundaries even before those purchases and that later survey documents support their position.
They dispute Kadaster’s assertion that the principal survey was incorrectly prepared and contend that its investigation was incomplete because it failed to take the relevant acquisition deeds sufficiently into account.
They further assert that the family visibly possessed the property without disturbance for many decades, including through the construction and occupation of the house.
The original claimants reject those arguments. They rely on the 1866 deeds and dispute whether the opposing family exercised the visible acts of possession necessary to establish ownership through prescription.
They describe most of the disputed land as uncultivated and inaccessible. They also rely on drone footage and a written witness statement in support of their description of the terrain.
These remain competing claims requiring assessment; the 2026 ruling does not accept either side’s ownership case as finally established.
The elderly aunt who occupied the house has since died. According to the latest judgment, the house is now unoccupied. The ruling contains no order for its demolition or for anyone’s eviction. Pasted text (3)
In addressing the evidence, the Court explained that possession requires exercising factual control over land with the pretension of being entitled to it.
That assessment turns on outward facts, the property's nature and intended use, and the surrounding circumstances.
The Court found that the 1936 and 1937 deeds did not sufficiently identify the precise boundary with the neighboring estate. Those deeds did not mention the rock walls; the walls appeared in the later survey certificate.
The heirs asserting possession will therefore be permitted to present witnesses concerning visible, uninterrupted possession and longstanding rock-wall boundaries. The original claimants may call witnesses in response.
The Court also decided that a court-appointed survey expert was preferable to a report commissioned solely by one party. Both sides agreed to that approach.
They proposed different experts: the opposing heirs suggested a surveyor from Curaçao, while the original claimants proposed ICE based in Sint Maarten.
The Court selected ICE, citing its relevant local experience and knowledge of historical documentation and on-the-ground conditions. It also noted that the opposing heirs had not raised objections to ICE when given the opportunity.
Both parties agreed to the proposed US$30,000 advance. The Court ordered each side to pay half within four weeks of the judgment.
The expert must receive the full advance and the case file before beginning work. Any request for an additional advance must be submitted to the Court, with the parties consulted.
ICE must investigate the eastern boundary, produce a drawing or map, and explain whether it can establish that boundary with sufficient certainty.
It must identify rock walls or other physical markers, record their positions, and assess whether they correspond to the boundaries it finds through its investigation.
The expert must also compare the underlying information for the relevant survey certificates with later measurements and explain which provides the most reliable representation of the boundaries.
The parties must prepare a joint numbered list of relevant documents, including additional historical material obtained from Kadaster. These documents must accompany the expert report.
The report must be reasoned, signed and submitted within three months after receipt of the full advance. Both sides must have an opportunity to make observations and requests during the investigation. Pasted text (3)
The Court indicated that the expert investigation should ordinarily precede witness testimony, although it allowed the heirs asserting possession to request that witnesses be heard while the investigation proceeds.
Judge C.G. ter Veer, or another designated member of the Court, will supervise witness hearings.
The August judgment was delivered by Judges C.G. ter Veer, C.J.H.G. Bronzwaer and L.J. Saarloos. The court declared its procedural orders provisionally enforceable, while reserving all further decisions.
For the families, the next stage therefore requires both a substantial advance toward expert costs and further examination of documents, terrain and testimony. The August 2026 ruling leaves the ultimate ownership question open.
