Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alaniz v. Aguirre

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

December 27, 2017

Hugo ALANIZ, Appellant
v.
Jose Maria AGUIRRE, Elias Aguirre Jr., Argelio Aguirre, Jose Guadalupe Aguirre, Merced Aguirre, Mauricia A. Villarreal, Elsa A. Lara, and Alma Rosa A. Trevino, Appellees

         From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-09-71 Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

          Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Karen Angelini, Justice

         In a prior appeal, we reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice. In the present appeal, Hugo Alaniz argues the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's judgment following remand. We affirm.

         Background

         Jose Maria Aguirre, Elias Aguirre Jr., Argelio Aguirre, Jose Guadalupe Aguirre, Merced Aguirre, Mauricia A. Villarreal, Elsa A. Lara, and Alma Rosa A. Trevino (collectively, "the Aguirres") brought a trespass to try title claim against Alaniz. In their petition, the Aguirres claimed they owned a 0.1530-acre tract of land located in Starr County, Texas, by adverse possession and that Alaniz had wrongfully ousted them from the property. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Aguirres, declaring that they had title to the property based on adverse possession. Alaniz appealed.

         In Alaniz's first appeal, he complained that (1) the evidence did not adequately or specifically describe the property in question, (2) the property description in the judgment was different from the property alleged in the petition, and (3) the metes and bounds description contained in the judgment was never introduced into evidence at trial. In our opinion, we acknowledged that discrepancies existed between the property description in the pleadings, the evidence presented at trial, and the property description in the judgment. Therefore, we reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice. Alaniz v. Aguirre, No. 04-14-00896-CV, 2015 WL 7748521, at *6 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2015, no pet.). Specifically, we noted that the Aguirres' petition described the land as:

A tract of land containing 0.1530 of an acre (6, 664 sq. ft.) out of Share 9-D, Porcion 85, ancient jurisdiction of Camargo, Mexico, now Starr County, Texas, A. De la Rosa Original Grantee, Abstract 148.

Id. We further noted that the judgment found that the Aguirres had title to the following property by adverse possession:

A tract of land containing .02648 OF OE [sic] ACRE (6, 664 Sq.Ft.) out of Share 9-D, Porcion 85, Ancient Jurisdiction of Camargo, Mexico, now Starr County, Texas, A. De La Rosa, Original Grantee, Abstract 148 and said 0.2648 of one acre (11, 534 square feet) also being more particularly described as follows:
[metes and bounds description].

Id., at *6-7. We then went on to state:

An award of title to a 0.2648 acre tract of land does not conform to pleadings alleging ownership of a 0.1530 acre tract. And, in this case, the judgment is internally inconsistent first describing the 0.2648 acre tract as containing 6, 664 square feet, then describing the 0.2648 acre tract as containing 11, 534 square feet.
In addition to the problem with their pleadings, the evidence presented at trial suffered from similar deficiencies. All of the deeds introduced to show ownership of the property in dispute described a 0.1530 acre tract of land. No deed was introduced into evidence describing a 0.2648 acre tract of land. In addition, no metes and bounds ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.