Mitchell v. Mesa Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1979
• Docket Number: No. 16222,16222
• Parties: Arthur MITCHELL, Trustee, Appellant, v. MESA PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 507

594 S.W.2d 507

Arthur MITCHELL, Trustee, Appellant, v. MESA PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 16222.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Dec. 12, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1980.

Robert Miller, Dallas, John F. Ryan, Austin, for appellant.

D. D. Dent, Barry F. Cannaday, Thomas H. Hawkins, Amarillo, for appellee.

OPINION

KLINGEMAN, Justice.

This is a trespass to try title suit. Appellant, Arthur Mitchell, Trustee (plaintiff below), contends that he has a superior legal title to the oil and gas leasehold estate under Tract "A" of the La Moca Ranch field, and Appellee, Mesa Petroleum Company (defendant below), contends that it has legal title to such oil and gas. The court after a non-jury trial entered judgment that Mitchell take nothing by his suit. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested of or filed by the trial court. Appellant will normally hereinafter be referred to as "Mitchell" and Appellee as "Mesa."

By six points of error, Mitchell asserts that the trial court erred in ruling that he take nothing because (1) he established good title in himself; (2) his oil and gas lease is valid; (3) his title is superior to Mesa's; (4) Mesa was a bad faith trespasser; (5) Mitchell had standing to challenge Mesa's lease; and (6) the Veterans' Land Board of Texas had the power to cancel Mesa's lease. By counterpoints, Mesa asserts that the trial court correctly held that Mitchell take nothing because (1) Mitchell did not establish a good title in himself; (2) Mitchell's lease, even if executed by the proper party, is not in force and effect; (3) Mesa's title is superior to Mitchell's; (4) Mitchell had no standing to challenge Mesa's lease; and (5) the Veterans' Land Board did not cancel Mesa's lease.

In a trespass to try title suit the plaintiff is required to affirmatively establish his title. Land v. Turner, 377 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.1964); Hejl v. Wirth, 161 Tex. 609, 343 S.W.2d 226 (1961); Doria v. Suchowolski, 531 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of his opponent's title. Adams v. Rowles, 149 Tex. 52, 228 S.W.2d 849 (1950); Trevino v. Munoz, 583 S.W.2d 840 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1979, no writ); Gillum v. Temple, 546 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Stark v. Stefka, 491 S.W.2d 757 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1973, no writ); Perkins v. Smith, 476 S.W.2d 902 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.). If plaintiff fails to affirmatively establish his title, judgment must be entered for defendant and there is no necessity for determining whether defendant had title to his property. Hejl v. Wirth, 161 Tex. 609, 343 S.W.2d 226 (1961); Gillum v. Temple, 546 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.).

A plaintiff can establish his title by any one of four different methods: (1) title emanating from the sovereignty of the soil to plaintiff; (2) a superior title in plaintiff emanating from a common source to which the defendant claims; (3) adverse possession; or (4) prior possession at a time which antedates defendant's possession of the land. Land v. Turner, 377 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Tex.1964); Gillum v. Temple, 546 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.); French v. May, 484 S.W.2d 420, 427 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.).

No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested of or filed by the trial court. We must presume that the trial court found every fact necessary to sustain the judgment if such fact is raised by the pleadings and supported by the evidence. Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950); Plata v. Guzman, 571 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.). If there is any legal theory supported by the evidence that will support the judgment of the trial court the judgment must be affirmed. Seaman v. Seaman, 425 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex.1968). In considering the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the trial court's findings, the appellate court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and make every legitimate conclusion which tends to uphold the judgment. Bishop v. Bishop, 359 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.1962). Any fact impliedly found by the trial judge must be accepted on appeal if there is any evidence of probative value to support it. Seaman v. Seaman, 425 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.1968); Patton v. Rogers, 417 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1967, writ ref'd n. r. e.). ¹

Mitchell asserts that he proved a superior title emanating from a common source. ² Mesa on the other hand contends that Mitchell wholly failed to establish that he had a superior title to the oil and gas leasehold rights on Tract "A" emanating from a common source or otherwise. ³

The chain of title relied on by Mitchell is (a) a warranty deed from the Rio Grande Corporation to the Veterans' Land Board of Texas dated June 15, 1954, (b) a surface and recreation lease from the Veterans' Land Board to La Moca Club, Inc., dated July 10, 1954, and (c) an oil and gas lease from La Moca Club, Inc., to Arthur Mitchell, Trustee dated May 1, 1976. Mesa's chain of title is as follows: (1) the warranty deed from Rio Grande Corporation to Veterans' Land Board dated June 15, 1954; and (2) an oil and gas lease from the Veterans' Land Board to Mesa, dated September 11, 1972. ⁴

An examination of the instruments relied on by the parties hereto shows:

(1) The warranty deed from Rio Grande Corporation to Veterans' Land Board relied on by both parties conveys the land here involved to the Veterans' Land Board, including the oil, gas and mineral rights, with no restrictions as to power of leasing;

(2) The surface and recreation lease from the Veterans' Land Board to La Moca Club, Inc., of Tracts "A" and "B" is for a limited term of years for utilization of and providing facilities thereon for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes to be used by the 77 veterans who are purchasing tracts of land under the Veterans' Land Board program;

(3) The oil and gas lease from the Veterans' Land Board, Lessor, to Mesa Petroleum Company is dated September 11, 1972, covering Tract "A" on the Veterans' Land Board form lease for a term of five years and so long thereafter as there is production and providing for annual delay rental of $157.10; and

(4) The oil and gas lease from La Moca Club, Inc., Lessor, to Arthur Mitchell, Trustee, is dated May 1, 1976, containing an approval by Bob Armstrong, Chairman of the Veterans' Land Board, for a primary term of two years and providing an annual delay rental of $314.20.

It is undisputed that Mesa commenced a well on the leased premises on April 30, 1977, during the primary term of the lease. It was completed as a gas well and was thereafter shut-in during the primary term. A shut-in royalty payment was timely made in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease. This well is presently producing.

Mitchell's bases for his contention that he has a valid oil and gas lease on the premises involved may be summarized as follows:

(a) The Veterans' Land Board does not own the mineral rights in Tract "A", and they are merely the leasing agent for the veterans;

(b) La Moca Club, Inc., as lessor in the oil and gas lease, was acting as agent for the various veterans and this lease was approved by the Veterans' Land Board; and

(c) Mesa's lease had in some manner expired or been terminated.

In support of his contention that the Veterans' Land Board does not own the minerals under Tract "A" and is merely acting as agent of some 77 veterans, Mitchell relies on one deed which he introduced into evidence, to wit, a deed dated March 6, 1974, from the Veterans' Land Board to Rudy Santos, of Tract No. 56 of the subdivision of the La Moca Ranch, containing 142.85 acres. This deed recites that Santos has fully complied with the terms and provisions of a contract of sale between Santos and the Veterans' Land Board dated February 18, 1960, and paid off the entire indebtedness under the contract.

There are numerous problems in Mitchell's contentions. One basic problem is that, although Mitchell contends that the Veterans' Land Board does not own the minerals in Tract "A" but is merely agent for 77 veterans, he has seen fit to introduce into the record only one deed to any of these veterans. Insofar as this record is concerned, there is no proof of title whatsoever as to any of the other veterans. The deed to Santos does convey some type of mineral interest in Tract "A" to him, subject to certain specific conditions set forth in his deed, one of these conditions being the full and final payment of all indebtedness by all of the veterans on all involved tracts and providing that, upon this occurrence, the Veterans' Land Board will convey Tracts "A" and "B" to the veterans who have fully complied with all of the terms and conditions of their respective contracts of sale and purchase. However, the record contains no Veterans' Land Board Contracts of Sale and Purchase and no deeds of conveyance to any of these veterans other than the Santos deed. Proof that one veteran has a deed of conveyance to one tract out of an unnamed group of veterans is not proof that 76 other veterans have either contracts of sale or deeds, or have acquired any title of interest in the La Moca Ranch. As the record stands before us, the Veterans' Land Board is still the owner of the other tracts including the oil, gas and mineral interest and leasing power to Tracts "A" and "B." Since Mitchell failed to introduce any other deeds into evidence, except the Santos deed, he did not prove his chain of title.

The very instrument relied on by Mitchell (the Santos deed) shows that (a) deeds of conveyance involving the oil, gas and mineral interests in Tracts "A" and "B" will only be given to a veteran who...