prior to the filing of a trespass to try title suit by C’s heirs/devisees on 6/1/2025.
cotenant(s).
The Dominion Statute
• C’s heirs/devisees (F&G) had moved to a remote city with C when they were children and have not been back to the property (save for holiday visits like Christmas) during that same fifty (50) year period nor have they paid their share of any real property taxes. • B (and D and E) have run cattle on Blackacre, raised crops on parts of it, hunted it and maintained the fencing during the fifty (50) year period, including the twenty-five years immediately preceding the filing of the title suit. There is no house located on Blackacre. • Oil and gas development in the general area commenced in 2025. F&G are suing in trespass to try title to recover their undivided one-half (1/2) fee simple interest in Blackacre, including the right to lease for oil and gas. • There has never been a formal act of ouster by B or his heirs/devisees against C and his heirs/ devisees. • D and E are defending their title asserting, among other defenses, that as a matter of law, title to the entire fee simple interest should be awarded to them under Article 16.029, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Title 2, Subtitle B, Chapter 16 (Dominion Statute). NOTE: The foregoing factual situation may, at first, seem simplistic at best. In the author’s experience, other than possibly more generations of B and C claiming an interest in Blackacre, many rural families find themselves in a situation where one child (and usually that child’s intestate heirs) has stayed behind on the land in some capacity with one or more undivided interest owners leaving the area to pursue non-agricultural careers. Generations pass with the out of possession cotenants usually not asserting any ownership in the land(s) at issue or paying any county property taxes until oil and gas is discovered in the area. Some of the titles the author has examined have had over one hundred out of possession owners all attempting to establish ownership via heirship and their cotenancy relationship with the in-possession
The below quoted provision is an older version of the modern Dominion Statute coming out of the case of W.T. Carter & Bro. v. Rhoden , 72 S.W.2d 620, 626 (CCA 1934). It is quoted since many of the cases cited in this paper involve old Article 5519a and not the new Article 16.029, also quoted below.
Article 5519a, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Civil Statutes:
In all suits involving the title to land not claimed by the State, if it be shown that those holding the apparent record title thereto have not exercised dominion over such land or have not paid taxes thereon, one or more years during the period of twenty-five years next preceding the filing of such suit and during such period the opposing parties and those whose estate they own are shown to have openly exercised dominion over and asserted claim to same and have paid taxes thereon annually before becoming delinquent for as many as twenty-five years during such period, such facts shall constitute prima facie proof that the title thereto had passed to such persons so exercising dominion over, claiming and paying taxes thereon . (emphasis added) As of the date of this article, the following is the modern Dominion Statute found in CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE; TITLE 2. TRIAL, JUDGMENT, AND APPEAL; SUBTITLE B. TRIAL MATTERS; CHAPTER 16. LIMITATIONS: SUBCHAPTER B. LIMITATIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS. ‘Sec. 16.029. EVIDENCE OF TITLE TO LAND BY LIMITATIONS. (a) In a suit involving title to real property that is not claimed by this state , it is prima facie evidence that the title to the property has passed from the person holding apparent record title to an opposing party if it is shown that :
19
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J anuary / F ebruary / M arch 2026
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator