It belonged to the chiefs and the people in common, of whom Kamehameha I, was the head, and had the management of the landed property. State by Kobayashi v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 111, 566 P.2d 725, 729 (1977) (quoting Fundamental Law of Hawaii 3) (emphasis added). Thus, "[i]t was long ago acknowledged that the people of Hawaii are the original owners of all Hawaiian land," with the king holding it as a trustee and managing it for their benefit.

The values vindicated by this doctrine are so universal in their application that, in this jurisdiction, its roots can be traced to the time of the Hawaiian Kingdom, when it was reaffirmed that it was not the King—the sovereign—but “the people of Hawaii [who] are the original owners of all Hawaiian land.” State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106 , 111, 566 P.2d 725 , 729 (1977). The Constitution of 1840, the first one to bind Hawaii, expressly provided that “all the land from one end of the Islands to the other” belonged to Kamehameha I, “though it was not his own private property[, for i]t belonged to the chiefs and the people in common, of whom Kamehameha I, was the head.”

See infra. State by Kobayashi v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 566 P.2d 725 (1977), provides further instruction. InZimring, the State of Hawaii sought to quiet title in itself "to approximately 7.9 acres of new land added to the acreage of the island of Hawaii when the Puna volcanic eruption of 1955 overflowed the shoreline and extended it [(hereinafter, lava extensions] ."Id. at 107, 566 P.2d at 727.

Id. at 597, 562 P.2d at 778. In State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 566 P.2d 725 (1977), the State sought to quiet title in itself as against the Zimrings and their predecessors-in-interest to approximately 7.9 acres of new land that had been added to the Zimrings' shoreline property by the Puna volcanic eruption of 1955 (lava extension). The Zimrings' deed described the oceanfront boundary of their property as being "along high water mark[.

See, e.g., In re Ashford, 50 Haw. 314 , 452, 440 P.2d 76 (1968) (holding that the boundary of the State’s ownership of public beaches extended to upper reaches of wash of waves, rather than the mean high tide line); Sotomura, 65 Haw. at 181-82 , 517 P.2d at 61-62 (describing Ashford as a judicial recognition that the “long-standing public use of Hawaii’s beaches ... has ripened into a customary right” and noting that public policy “favors extending to public use and ownership as much of Hawaii’s shoreline as is reasonably possible”); State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106 , 121, 566 P.2d 725 , 735 (1977) (new ocean shoreline formed by volcanic eruption belonged to the public rather than private property owners, because “sound public policy demand[s] that such land inure to the benefit of all the people of Hawaii”)

In re Title of Kioloku, 25 Haw, 357 (1920) ; United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256, 67 S.Ct. 1287, 91 L.Ed. 1474 (1947).State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 114, 566 P.2d 725, 731 (1977). Throughout these proceedings, A&B described its claim of ownership as based on "Royal Patent Grant No. 165."

Article XI, section 1 of the Hawai‘i Constitution places upon the State a fiduciary duty analogous to the common law duty of a trustee with respect to lands held in public trust. See In re Conservation Dist. Use Application HA-3568 (In re TMT), 143 Hawai‘i 379, 400, 431 P.3d 752, 773 (2018) ; State ex rel. Kobayashi v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 121, 566 P.2d 725, 735 (1977). Article XII, section 4 imposes a similar duty regarding lands ceded to the State under Section 5(b) of the Admission Act.

After the Land Commission entered a Land Court Award (LCA), the Minister of Interior could issue a Royal Patent after the awardee paid a commutation fee. State v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 111, 566 P.2d 725, 730 (1977). In essence, a Royal Patent was a quitclaim of the government's interest in the pertinent land. Mist v. Kawelo, 11 Haw. 587, 589 (1898).

One of the most dramatic differences in the application of custom in Haw. is that passage of HRS § 1-1's predecessor fixed November 25, 1892 as the date Hawaiian usage must have been established in practice. Compare State v. Zimring [ Zimring II], 58 Haw. 106, 115 n. 11, 566 P.2d 725, 732 n. 11 (1977) (citing State v. Zimring [ Zimring I], 52 Haw. 472, 479 P.2d 202 (1970)), with Oni, 2 Haw. at 90 (implying that the "time immemorial" standard "is entitled to great weight" but declining to express a conclusive opinion). The Zimring I court implicitly disapproved the "time immemorial" standard when it indicated that "the Hawaiian usage mentioned in HRS § 1-1 is usage which predated November 25, 1892."

July also misapprehends the Land as being a part of the "crown lands" and as being classified as "public lands" under the Great Mahele of 1848. Through the Great Mahele of 1848, King Kamehameha III divided land in Hawai`i into four principal categories: (1) lands held by the King as his private lands, known as "crown lands," and (2) of the remaining lands, one-third would be granted to the government, one-third to the chiefs, and the remaining one-third to the tenants. State by Kobayashi v. Zimring, 58 Haw. 106, 112-13, 566 P.2d 725, 730 (1977). See also Application of Robinson, 49 Haw. 429, 437-38, 421 P.2d 570, 576 (1966); The Fundamental Law of Hawaii, 3. Any land which was overlooked or not covered in the above categories remained part of the public domain.