Case Name: The PURE OIL COMPANY v. Henry Carl SKINNER et al.; Henry Carl SKINNER et al. v. W. Clayton SIMONTON et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-04-29
Citations: 294 So. 2d 797
Docket Number: Nos. 54087, 54088
Parties: The PURE OIL COMPANY v. Henry Carl SKINNER et al. Henry Carl SKINNER et al. v. W. Clayton SIMONTON et al.
Judges: SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 294
Pages: 797–803

Head Matter:
The PURE OIL COMPANY v. Henry Carl SKINNER et al. Henry Carl SKINNER et al. v. W. Clayton SIMONTON et al.
Nos. 54087, 54088.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 29, 1974.
Rehearing Denied June 7, 1974.
John M. Shuey, Shuey, Smith & Carlton, Shreveport, for defendants-applicants.
Bobby L. Culpepper, Donald C. Brown, Holloway, Baker, Culpepper & Brunson, Jonesboro, Ray A. Barlow, Hargrove, Guy-ton, Ramey & Barlow, Shreveport, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
We granted writs (285 So.2d 541 (La.1973)) to review the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of a plaintiff's burden of proof in a real action when defendant is the possessor of the property in controversy. Defendants, the relators in these cases, contended in their writ applications that the decisions of the Court of Appeal (284 So.2d 608, 284 So.2d 614 (La.App.2d Cir. 1973)) conflict with that of the Third Circuit in Deselle v. Bonnette, 251 So.2d 68 (La.App.3d Cir. 1971), wherein it was held that in a petitory action against a defendant in possession, a plaintiff must make out his title to the property in dispute without regard to the title of the party in possession.
The Court of Appeal in the instant cases held that respondents, the parties claiming title or ownership of the disputed land against adverse claimants in possession without a deed translative of title, did not have to prove a title good against the world but only had to prove better title than relators.
The issues in the instant cases were first presented for consideration in 1961 when The Pure Oil Company, which had oil, gas and mineral leases covering the disputed property from both claimants, instituted a concursus proceeding by depositing royalties attributable to the property in controversy in the registry of the court and citing both relators and respondents to assert their respective interests. Subsequent to the institution of the concursus proceedings, respondents instituted a boundary action against the relators and, by stipulation, the parties agreed that judgment rendered in the concursus proceedings would be determinative of the issues in the boundary action.
The one and one-half acres tract of land, the ownership of which is the subject of the controversy, is claimed under two chains of title. It was established in the lower courts to their satisfaction, and to ours, that neither respondents nor relators have valid record title to the property in dispute.
Code of Civil Procedure Article 3654 provides:
"When the issue of ownership of immovable property or of a real right is presented in an action for a declaratory judgment, or in a concursus, expropriation, or similar proceeding, or the issue of the ownership of funds deposited in the registry of the court and which belong to the owner of the immovable property or of the real right is so presented, the court shall render judgment in favor of the party:
(1) Who would be entitled to the possession of the immovable property or real right in a possessory action, unless the adverse party makes out his title thereto; or
(2) Who proves better title to the immovable property or real right, when neither party would be entitled to the possession of the immovable property or real right in a possessory action."
The record in this case establishes, and it is undisputed, that the relators have possessed the property in question since 1947. Therefore, it is clear that the burden of proof placed on respondents is greater than that provided in Code of Civil Procedure Article 3654(2), the burden of proving a better title. The statutory imposition of a higher burden of proof than simply proving better title when an adverse claimant is in possession of disputed land leads to the inevitable conclusion that respondents' burden was to "make out his title thereto." In other words, respondents were required to prove valid record title, to show title good against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession. C.C.P. Arts. 3653, 3654. See 2 A. Yiannopoulos, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, § 137 (1967); 35 Tul.L.Rev. 541, at 547 (1961). This respondents have failed to do. The record reveals that there is a 16-year break in the title of the respondents from 1858, when an entry by Charles M. Cawthoon from the United States Government is recorded, to 1874, when conveyance of the subject property from Jeremiah Payne to Elizabeth J. Colvin was recorded.
Upon oral argument, in response to an inquiry by the Court, respondents contended that they had established acquisition of prescriptive title to the property in dispute prior to 1947, when relators entered into possession of the tract in dispute. The state of the record, however, does not support this contention of respondents and there is no holding by the lower courts to this effect. Respondents, therefore, have not established either valid record title or prescriptive title to the property in dispute.
Hutton v. Adkins, 186 So. 908 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1939), the case relied upon by the Court of Appeal for the holding that rela-tors were required only to prove better title than respondent who was in possession without a deed translative of title, is hereby overruled.
The judgments of the lower courts are reversed and it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that there be judgment herein in favor of the relators, Felix L. 'Simonton, Lula Bell Simonton Fish, Hattie Simonton Sample, Edwin S. Keasler, David A. Keas-ler, Jr., James R. Keasler and Rose Villa Plantations, Incorporated, decreeing that they are declared owners of the following described property:
One and one-half acres, more or less, situated in the southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 32, Township 19 North Range 3 West, Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, the said one and one-half acres, more or less, being that portion of said forty lying south of Claiborne Road and east of the Old Settlement Road.
It is further ordered that all costs are. assessed against respondents, Henry Carl Skinner and Henry Carl Skinner, Jr.
Reversed and rendered.
SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
The following property description was stipulated by the parties as correct.