Anna Maria Salinas Saenz v. Thorp Petroleum Corp., 04-14-00527-CV

Background

The dispute concerns a 1968 Partition Agreement that divided 1,134 acres (surface) into nine parcels and allocated the partitioners' mineral interests along those parcels; the Agreement was recorded and acted on for ~36 years.
Juan and Ynez Salinas had earlier conveyed a 17/32 mineral interest to third parties and 150 acres to son Octavio; in 1964 they conveyed undivided interests in the remaining property to their 12 children (the Salinas siblings).
Leoncio deeded to Horacio in October 1968 a described 214.164-acre tract (Leoncio–Horacio deed) conveying “together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto”; the Partition Agreement later allots the same Parcel 1 to Horacio.
The December 1968 Partition Agreement was signed by the nine siblings who owned surface interests; it did not contain signature lines for Juana (who reserved her mineral interest when conveying surface to Octavio) or Leoncio (who had already conveyed to Horacio).
For decades parties and successors treated the partition as valid: possession, improvements, recorded leases and royalty payments followed the partition; later production (2001) generated royalties paid per the Agreement.
Plaintiffs (successors to some siblings) sued (trespass-to-try-title) in 2004 seeking to void the partition as unsigned by all mineral owners and to recover royalties; trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment (court did not specify grounds).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Partition when not signed by all mineral owners	Partition is void because Juana and Leoncio (and arguably other mineral owners) did not sign, so minerals could not be partitioned without all mineral owners	Partition is valid because it was signed by all parties whose rights/interests it actually affected; nonjoining mineral owners (Juana, third parties) were not affected or had previously conveyed	Partition upheld: valid and enforceable as to parties whose interests were affected; nonjoinder of those not affected does not invalidate it
Effect of Leoncio deed and non-signature	Partition cannot bind interests not signed	Leoncio had conveyed his interest to Horacio prior to the Partition; Partition ratified that conveyance by allotting the same parcel to Horacio	Leoncio’s earlier conveyance and the contemporaneous partition allotment mean he did not need to sign; the conveyance was effectively ratified
Estoppel/ratification/acquiescence from long performance	Plaintiffs say long performance does not cure formal defects	Defendants say 36 years of acceptance, possession, leases, royalty payments, cross-conveyances and reliance estop plaintiffs from attacking the Partition now	Court affirmed summary judgment on these equitable grounds: successors who accepted benefits and acted under partition are estopped from repudiating it
Adverse possession of unsevered minerals and parcels	Plaintiffs argue adverse-possession theory inapplicable because minerals severed or consent negates hostility	Defendants argue unsevered portion of minerals passed with surface by adverse possession; possession, improvements, and repudiation of cotenancy meet statutory period; any later consent (by those who acquired interests after limitation ran) is ineffective	Summary judgment also sustainable on adverse-possession grounds for the unsevered mineral interest and parcels where possession met statutory requirements

Key Cases Cited

Garza v. De Montalvo, 217 S.W.2d 988 (Tex. 1949) (partition can be effective as to parties who join even if mineral lessee or other mineral owner did not join)
Joyner v. Christian, 113 S.W.2d 1229 (Tex. 1938) (party who joins a partition and thereafter takes possession and makes improvements may be estopped to deny its effect)
Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., 123 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1939) (equitable partition and effect of conveyance by one cotenant; partition without joinder may be ineffective when made but can be binding if ratified)
Republic Production Co. v. Lee, 121 S.W.2d 973 (Tex. 1938) (partition followed by adverse possession manifests repudiation of cotenancy and can perfect title as to participating cotenants)
Stradt v. First United Methodist Church of Huntington, 573 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. 1978) (parol partition requires agreement of all parties with possessory interests; contrasts where partition did not divest nonjoining parties)
Dixon v. Henderson, 267 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1954, no writ) (adverse possession of surface can include unsevered minerals beneath it)