Court Opinion

ID: 9778151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:34:03.631056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.111368
License: Public Domain

NYE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The original dissent filed in this case is withdrawn and the following dissent is substituted therefor.
I respectfully dissent because the judgment of the trial court cannot be upheld for the reasons that plaintiffs did not prove either a superior title in themselves or the wrongful cloud on that title in the defendant.
The defendant obtained a general warranty deed from the Nycum Gin Company, Inc., a Texas corporation, which conveyed to him by metes and bounds, a tract of land out of Block 33 in a subdivision of Rio Hondo Park Townsite located on the Arroyo, Colorado in Cameron County, Texas, on the 7th day of February, 1958. There were two sets of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Jose Silva and wife, Maria G. Silva, claimed a portion of Block 33 of this subdivision in a deed dated February 12, 1960. The other plaintiffs Domingo Rodriguez and wife, Minerva S. Rodriguez, claimed a portion of Block 33 in a deed from the.Silvas dated February 1, 1974.
The majority states that it will not consider defendant’s complaints concerning some of the trial court’s findings of fact because the defendant failed to challenge such findings by specific points of error in his brief on this appeal. Although I doubt if the specific complaint is absolutely necessary for a reversal in this case, I hate to see the majority depart from the familiar rules that we have always followed in this court *632in the past. Rule 422 required us to liberally construe the briefing rules in the interest of justice. We have always been committed to this liberal construction of the briefing rules and in every case we have considered points of error where the brief acquaints the Court with the error relied upon: a) by the arguments; b) by the recitations of the facts; c) and by the law as contained in the appellant’s brief and the answer (if any) of the appellee. Appellant’s brief does exactly this. The appellees on the other hand did not even care to answer the appellant’s brief by written reply nor did they appear for oral argument. The two cases cited by the majority are not even in point for the reason cited in the opinion. But see: Frambrough v. Wagley, 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478 (1943); Charlie Thomas Courtesy Ford v. Sid Murray Agency, 517 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Bookout v. Pugh, 513 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1974, no writ); Blackmon & Associates, Inc. v. Palmer Building, 463 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Weeks v. Heinrich, 447 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Holzapfel v. Brueggman, 404 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.). The defendant’s brief sufficiently attacks the trial court’s findings No. 6 and 5, in addition to finding No. 4, and he also adequately shows by argument and law the reversible error committed by the trial court.
In a quiet title action to remove a cloud on title, the plaintiff must base his action on the strength of his own title and he must allege an adverse claim in the defendant which makes a charge upon the land of the plaintiff who is the true owner of the land. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff throughout the trial. He must prove both superior title and a wrongful cloud on that title by the defendant. 7 St. Mary’s L.J. pp. 117-121, Suit to Quiet Title; 47 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 28, pp. 554-555. The majority overlooks the plaintiff’s burden to prove the superiority of his own title in order to be entitled to prevail.
The majority states that in a suit to quiet title the claimant is never required to prove the superiority of his own title by tracing his title to either the sovereign or a common source. This could only be so if there was no evidence of a record title in the adverse party, e. g., City of Dublin v. Tatum, 232 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1950, no writ); McDonald v. Galt, 173 S.W.2d 962 (Tex.Civ.App.—Forth Worth 1943, error ref’d). In the case before us, however, it was conclusively established that a record title was in the defendant. The plaintiff introduced defendant’s warranty deed into evidence which was prior in time to plaintiffs’ deeds. This showed pri-ma facie legal title in the defendant. Thereafter it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to rebut the prima facie case thus made and show superior title in themselves. Dittmar v. Alamo Nat. Co., 91 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.Civ. App.—El Paso 1936, aff’d); 132 Tex. 44, 118 S.W.2d 298 (1938); and see Hines v. Thorn, 57 Tex. 98 (1882).
The plaintiffs in their suit claim fee simple title to specific acreages and sought to prove superior title in themselves by introducing a series of deeds dating baek to approximately 1920, but not to a common source. Even with such deeds in the record before us, there was a break in the middle of the chain of plaintiffs’ title. The record before us is thus silent as to those missing intervening years where it was possible that defendant grantor could have obtained good title from those in plaintiffs’ prior chain. But we have no way of knowing from the present record. See e. g., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1951, writ ref’d); Felts v. Whitaker, 129 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.Civ.App.— Fort Worth 1939, aff’d); 137 Tex. 578, 155 S.W.2d 604 (1941). All of the deeds introduced by plaintiffs including defendant’s deed, had been recorded in the deed records of the county. The superiority of plaintiffs’ titles, therefore, could not be determined by a partial tracing of plaintiffs’ chain of title and ignoring entirely defendant’s chain of title. See 6 St. Mary’s L.J. 802, pp. 824-33 *633“Texas Land Titles”; Olds, the Scope of the Texas Recording Act, 8 S.W.Law J. 37 (1954).
The majority say that plaintiffs’ title was not in issue. This is not so. The plaintiffs’ title was directly placed in issue by defendant’s general denial and by his plea of not guilty. The general rule in Texas is that in suits to quiet title, where the plaintiff’s title has been so controverted, the plaintiff must prove that his title is superior out of a common source or, in the alternative, by deraignment from the sovereignty of the soil. 47 Tex.Jur.2d, Quieting Title § 27 (1963) and cases cited therein. Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1969, no writ); McGuire v. Bond, 271 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.Civ.App —El Paso 1954, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Perry v. Venable, 112 S.W.2d 1069 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1938, writ dism’d); Atkinson v. Shelton, 160 S.W. 316 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1913, writ ref’d); and Ballard v. Carmichael, 17 S.W. 393 (Tex.Sup.1891). This rule is particularly persuasive in cases such as the present one, where deeds are in evidence which on their faces show fee simple title in defendant as well as in plaintiff.
The only exception to this rule that I could find was in a boundary dispute case where the claimant’s chain of title was actually not in issue and the common source was not important. See Lee v. Grupe, 223 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1949, no writ). There is no relevancy to the issue before us in the other cases cited by the majority. See Dalton v. Davis, 1 S.W.2d 571 (Comm’n App.—1928, holding approved). (Question of whether plaintiffs’ pleadings conformed to the Court’s judgment). Texan Development Co. v. Hodges, 237 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.Civ.App.— Amarillo 1951, no writ). (Plea of privilege case where adverse claimant asserted a sufficient contractual interest in plaintiff’s fee simple title to constitute a cloud for venue purposes under Subdivision 14 of Article 1995). The trial court in its findings of fact admits that plaintiffs failed to trace title to the sovereign or a common source, and the trial court did not make a single other fact finding that would support the legal conclusion that plaintiffs had superior title. At the minimum, plaintiffs’ burden of proof required them to trace both chains of title back to a point where the trial court could determine who had the superior title. This was not done.
Although the plaintiffs attempted to prove title by adverse possession, the record fails to show that they met the statutory requirements either by possession, the payment of taxes, or by proper pleadings.
The original majority opinion holds that the trial court judgment could be affirmed on two bases: 1) that plaintiffs proved a superior title because some of the deeds from plaintiffs’ predecessors in title antedates the defendant’s warranty deed, and 2) that the plaintiffs were not required to prove the wrongful title of the defendant because the general denial and plea of not guilty did not (by way of pleading) controvert the plaintiffs’ alleged superior title or put such title in issue. They do not cite a single authority to substantiate either of these holdings. This, I believe, is error.
In the new opinion on motion for rehearing, the majority is now attempting to rely on prior possession as an additional reason to affirm the judgment of the trial court, based solely on Katz v. Maddox, 256 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1953, writ ref’d n. r. e.). The majority’s interpretation of Katz is also error.
A careful reading of Katz reveals the following reason for that court’s finding of superior title based upon prior possession: quoting from Justice Pope’s opinion from the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, he said:
“Despite plaintiff’s failure to prove title from the sovereign or common source, he (plaintiff) may recover by virtue of prior possession since there is no proof of title in the defendants.” (emphasis added).
Clearly the rule announced in Katz would not apply to this case where the defendant’s proof of title was in evidence by a general warranty deed to the defendant and such title was filed of record prior to plaintiffs’ deeds. Additionally, the “prior possession” *634rule is not a rule of property, but a rebut-table presumption of evidence which applies only where there is no showing of title in the defendant. See: Lorino v. Crawford Packing Co., 142 Tex. 51, 175 S.W.2d 410, 413 (1943); Turner v. Cunningham, 158 S.W. 176 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1913, no writ). Accord, Decuir v. Houseman, 310 S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1958, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Dimwitty v. McLemore, 291 S.W.2d 448, 451 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1956, no writ); Ballingall v. Brown, 226 S.W.2d 165, 171 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1949, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take nothing judgment.