Diaz v. Patterson, 113

• Decision Date: 10 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 113,113
• Citation: 263 U.S. 399,68 L.Ed. 356,44 S.Ct. 151
• Parties: DIAZ A. et al. v. PATTERSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

263 U.S. 399

44 S.Ct. 151

68 L.Ed. 356

DIAZ A. et al.

v PATTERSON.

No. 113.

Argued Nov. 28, 1923.

Decided Dec. 10, 1923.

Messrs. Wm. H. Jackson and Harry P. Gamble, of New Orleans, La., for appellants.

Mr. Edwin T. Merrick, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit by the heirs and representatives of Domingo Diaz against Patterson alleging their possession of an estate known as Lo de Caceres in the Canal Zone and an adverse claim set up by Patterson. It prays that the petitioners may be confirmed in their title and, by an amendment, that all parties claiming any interest in the land may be summoned to appear in this case and that the petitioners may be declared entitled to a fund deposited in the registry of the Court, since this suit was begun, upon expropriation of the land by the United States. At the first trial the petitioners obtained a decree, but as material questions of fact had not been decided by the Judge the decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Patterson v. Diaz, 262 Fed. 899. At the second trial there was a careful finding of facts and a decree for the defendant, Patterson, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 281 Fed. 394. The petitioners appealed to this Court and contend that they have been denied rights conferred upon them by the laws of the Canal Zone.

The trial Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals have found that the defendant has established recorded title to the land by an unbroken chain from the original grant from the Spanish Crown in 1695, and also that he and his predecessors have held open, uninterrupted, and notorious possession of the same since 1790. These findings we shall not disturb. The facts relied upon by the petitioners are that there was a sale in 1832, afterwards set aside, purporting to convey the land; that the heir of the grantee made a simulated sale to herself, and that this fictitious title was recorded in 1895, although none of the grantees ever was in possession at any time, or brought any action until 1917, in which year the present suit was begun. The ground of this extraordinary claim is found in article 2526 of the Civil Code of Panama;

'The acquisitive prescription of real property or of real rights constituted therein does not obtain against a recorded title, except by virtue of another recorded title, nor shall it begin to run but from the date of the record of the second.'

The petitioners contend that the effect of this article is that the mere recording of what purports to be a conveyance by a stranger to the title who is and remains out of possession, will give to the grantee a good title by what is called the ordinary prescription of ten years, article 2529, notwithstanding the requirement of regular uninterrupted possession for that result in article 2528. It is argued that constructive possession follows the record and is enough, and it is supposed that this transaction will defeat the previous registered possession and title by ordinary prescription...