R-157



### TTORNEY 

### GENERAL

TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEY

GENERAL Au~-~N~~,-~'ExAs April 8, 1947

Honorable E. D. Camiade Executive Secretary Opinion No. V-133 Texas State Parks Board Austin, Texas

0

Bear Mr. Camiade: Re: Whether the undivided one-half interest of Bexar County in andto the Mission SanJose maybe transferred, andthe authority of the Texas State Parks Board to acaept such interest as a park site.

Your request for an opinion of this Department is substantially as follows:

1. *Is the County of Bexar, Texas, autherizd to transfer all of' its right, title andinte~rest to the 'Plaza of Missien Sin Jose', and 60 feet along the nerti~ slae of said yiaaion Plaza (Pyron Rod), ta(;ether with the walls adjoining the Plaza?"

2. *Is the Texas State Parks Board authorized to acoept such transfer of lntere8t?" Pursuant to anagreed judgplent entered in tke 48th JmU.cial Distr&ct Court of~Bexal County, Texas, on the 8th day of November; 1937, in CauseI?o. B-85355, 'stylM A, .J:Drossoerts vsa SanAntonfo Conservation Society, et al, anunai.vfaea one-half interest in andto the *Plaza of Mission SanJose" vested in A. J.Drosaaertd, RomanCatholic Archbiship of SanAntonio, andthe County of Bexar, Texas, subject, however, to certain designated.

“covenants running with the land”

. Pyron Roadwas de&icated to road andhighway purposes andtitle vested in Bexar County, Texas.

Subsequently,,in oontortity with anagreement between the County of Bexar,and the Texas State Papks-. .

Hon. E. D. Camiade- Page 2 (V-133)

Board, the Texas State Parks Board) Alvin JaWirtz, Acting Seoretary of the Interior, andthe Archbishop OS SanAntonio, onthe 8th dayof May, 1941, exeoutea an agreement designating the Mission SanJose as a national historic site. TheArchbishop agreed to hold andpreserve in perpetuity the historic Mission SanJose ohurch building andappurtenanoess andthe Texas State Parks Board agreed to hold andpreserve in perpetuity all historic buildings, struotures ana appurtenancea*

Article 6068 of Vernon’s Civil Statutes provides as follows:

“The said Board shall solicit donations to the State of tracts of lad, large or small, to be used by the State for the purpose of public parks and/er recreational areaa, and said Board is hereby authorized to accept in behalf er the State the title to any such traot or tracts of landDor, where the site proposed is not deemedsuitable for a State Park bythe State Parks Boaras to reject or refuse title so that it ahall not vest in the State, or.if title to a site has beoomevested in the State for ?ark purposes andthe site is deemedunsuitable for a State Park by the State Parks Board, whether the United States of America has undertaken the &evelopment 6Pany site in which title to 8-e is nowveete& in the State for park purposes8 the Board is herebyauthorized andempoweredto transfer title to another State Department or institution wishing the land, or where the land has been denate& by a city or ceunty or other donor* to traaef ’er title to auoh city or oounty er other donor where they wish the site returned to them, or where the United Utatrrr of America ha8untiertaken the derelepmeat of any site in which title to snmeis newvested in the State ror park purpoaen to transfer title to the Unite& States of America, or where the deed to the atate Parks Board contains areverslo& clause providing that title shall revert to the donor whennot used for park purpoae8, to declare that theperk is unsuitable for State Park purposes anaHon. E, D, Camfade- Page 3 (v-133)

that title has reverted to the grantors; provided that in all instances where the Board acts under the authority of this statute, it must doso by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membersof the Board, and.providing that the Chairmanof the Board shall sign all instruments authorized under this Act." Inasmuch as the Mission SanJose has beans designated as a national historic site, it is believed that the County of Bexar would be authorized to transfer its undivided one-half interest in andto said aission to the Texas State Parks Board to be~maintaimed as a site pursuant to the agreement, subject, however, to the liaitations and covenants imposed.

In accordance with the usual rules of contract law, it is well settled that joint tenants andtenants in commoncan deal with strangers just as freely as owners of property held individually, Theseveral co-owners aoting together can bind themselves andthe commonproperty by their contracts, andeach of them oan bind himself andhis individual W&est therein. (14Am,Jur., po

Onetenant in commoncannot dedicate any part of the land without the assent of its ao-tenant: (Cheaowth Bras, vs* Magnolia Petroleum Company, et al, 129 S.W. (26) 4461. Theagreement reveals anexpression 011the part of all parties that the Mission be designated as aahistorical site,

Therefore, in answer to your first question, it is the opinion of this Department that Bexar County maytransier its undivided one-half interest in andto the Plaza of Mis8lon SahJose, together with the wlls adjoining the Plaza, to the Texas State Parks Boar&, to be maintained as anhistorical site; inasmuch as title vested in such county by an agreed judgment, followed by anagreement OSdedication.

Since Pyron Roadhas been dedicated for road' andhighway purposes, title vested in the State OSTexas.Hon. E. D. Camiade- Page 4 (V-133)

Counties being legal

- subdivisions of the State, county roads are State property, andthe title is held for the benefit of the State. (21 Tex. Jur, 625) Therefore, it is the opinion of this Department that, so long as Pyron Roadis used for the purposes for which dedicated, the title will remain in the State,

Your second quo&ion requires a construction of the above quoted statute. Anexamination of the original Act of the Legislature (Acts 1939, 49th Leg., R,S., S. B., 298) reveals that the caption of such Act relates to “land titles andinterests”

. Theword Winterestsn in such caption would seemto negative the fact that a fee simple title wasintended to be conveyed in all cases. It would appear from the reading of the original Act that the Legislature intended that the Parks Boardmayreceive whatenr interest a aonor of ’ land hadat the time of such tranrier tc’the Boara. If such be true, the Parks Board would be authorized to do those things nsdrrrrry to accomplish the purpoms intended by the Le statute I8 eusceptible of construetim, sf islature. If a t di0ula be so construed a8 to a*oamplish itrs purposes, et al, vs. watts, et al, 1373. w. 262) (Lowenetein,

The State Parks Board is not anindependent oorperation or Institution operated fcr financial gain, but an agency of the State charged with the responsibility of acquiring andmaintaining a system of publicparks far the bansiit of the people generally, for the benevolent purpose of promoting health, happiness andgeneral welfare of citizene. (3tata ve Brannmn,et ux. 111 S.W. (2d1.347,) A8suohagency, it Is bsl,ieVed that Article 4068, sups, rhould be liberally oonstrued to accomplierh the purpase intended by the Legislature, Moreover, the upress authority given to the Board to accept or refuse title indicates anintention of the Legielature to comJt to the Board the discretion of accepting or rejecting any traat of land or title whatsoever offered,~ If, after aebeptamaes such tract of land Is not auitable,~the Board is l uthcrlzo& to reconvey the dameto the donor,

Therefore, in answer to your second question, it is the epinion of this Department that the FwkrBoanl would be authorized to aocept the undivided one-hal? interest nowvested in the County of Bexar, Texas, in and te the Plaza ef Mission SanJose,Hon. E. Il. Camiade- Page 5 ('iT-133)

SUMMARY subject by agreement, to the limitations imposed andthe Texas Bexar Countynay transfer

State Parks Board mayaccept in behalf of the State, title to an undivided one-half interest in and to a tract of lana referred to as the "Plaza of Mission SanJose". Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS

BW:djm:wb Burnell Weldrep Assistant

APPKOPED

APRIL8, 1947

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFi'EX&3