Pico v. United States
17 L. Ed. 856 · 1864 U.S. LEXIS 429 · 2 Wall. 279 · 69 U.S. 279
February 13, 1865
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 167.20.12 Real Property Law > Title, Marketability, and Title Insurance Law > Real Property Title Law
The 1828 regulations required that petitions, assembly approvals, and final grants be recorded in the government’s books. The Court examined the Mexican archives for any record of the claimed grant and found none, thereby triggering the presumption of invalidity.
- Headnote 2
To rebut the archival presumption, a claimant must produce the clearest evidence that the grant was genuinely issued by Mexican authority and show that he or his predecessors have possessed the premises openly from the time of the grant.
- Headnote 3
Because the claimant produced no authentic grant documents and no evidence of possession, the statutory burden was unsatisfied; consequently the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the claim.
- Headnote 4
The regulations required that petitions, approvals, and final grants be recorded in the proper books kept by the Departmental Assembly and preserved by the Secretary of State, establishing a documentary trail for each concession.
- Headnote 5
The Court explained that the absence of any entry in the archives creates a factual inference against the legitimacy of the instrument, shifting the evidentiary burden to the claimant.
- Headnote 6
To rebut the archival presumption, the claimant must produce the clearest documentary proof that the grant was genuinely issued and show that he (or his ancestors) have possessed the premises without interruption since the grant date.
- Headnote 7
Because the claimant did not produce the required authentic documents nor evidence of possession, the Supreme Court held that the district court’s rejection of the claim was correct and should be affirmed.
- Headnote 867.14.4 Real Property Law > Possession, Occupancy, and Real Property Rights Law > Color of Title Law
The 1828 regulations required that every grant and related proceedings be recorded in the departmental archives, so a claimant asserting title based on an alleged Mexican grant must first produce an archival entry showing the grant.
- Headnote 967.14.4 Real Property Law > Possession, Occupancy, and Real Property Rights Law > Color of Title Law
The Court held that the absence of any archival entry creates a presumption against the validity of the instrument, which the claimant must attempt to rebut.
- Headnote 1067.14.4 Real Property Law > Possession, Occupancy, and Real Property Rights Law > Color of Title Law
To rebut the presumption, the claimant must produce authentic documentary evidence showing that the grant was actually issued by the proper Mexican authority.
- Headnote 1167.14.4 Real Property Law > Possession, Occupancy, and Real Property Rights Law > Color of Title Law
Proof of continuous possession by the claimant or his predecessors is a statutory element required together with proof of the grant’s authenticity to overcome the presumption of invalidity.
- Headnote 1267.14.4 Real Property Law > Possession, Occupancy, and Real Property Rights Law > Color of Title Law
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial because the statutory burden of proof was not satisfied, and therefore the lower court’s factual determinations were binding on appeal.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The regulations of 1828, which were adopted to carry into effect the colonization law of 1824, prescribed with great particularity the manner in which portions, of the public domain of Mexico might be granted to private parties, for the pui’poses of residence and cultivation. Jt is unnecessary to state the several proceedings designated, as they have been the subjects of frequent consideration in previous opinions of this court. All of them, from the petition of the colonist or settler to the concession of the Governor, were required to be in writing, and when the concession was made, to be forwarded to the Departmental Assembly for its consideration. The action of that body was entered, with other proceedings, upon its journals, and these records, together with the documents transmitted to it, were preserved among the archives of the Government in the custody of the Secretary of State of the Department. The approval of the Assembly was essential to the definitive validity of the concession, and when obtained, a formal grant'was issued by the Governor to the petitioner. The regulations contemplated an approval to precede the issue of the formal grant; so when the grantee received this document the concession should be considered final. For a long time after the adoption of the regulations this course of proceeding was followed; but afterwards, and for some years previous to the conquest, a different practice prevailed, and the formal title-papers ’were issued without waiting for the action of the Assembly, a clause being inserted to the effect that the grant was subject to the approval of that body. Of the petitions presented and grants issued, whether before or after the approval of the Assembly, a record was required to be kept in suitable books provided for that purpose.
As will be perceived from tbis statement, it was an essen* tial part of the system of Mexico, to preserve full record evidence of all grants of tbe public domain, and of the various proceedings by which they were obtained. When, therefore, a claim to land in California is asserted under an alleged grant' from the Mexican Government, reference must, in the first instance, be had to the archives of the country embracing the. period when the grant purports to have been made. If they furnish no information on the subject, a strong presumption naturally arises against the validity of the instrument produced, which can only be overcome, if at all, by the clearest proof of. its genuineness, accompanied by open and continued possession of the premises.
Tested by this rule, the grant under which the appellant claims was properly rejected as invalid. The archives contain no trace of its existence, with the exception of a communication from the Deputy Secretary of the Assembly, addressed to the Secretary of State, informing the latter that the grant had been approved on the 15th of July* 1846. The certificate of approval produced by the claimant declares the approval to have been made on the 15th of June preceding. The journals of the Assembly destroy all confidence in the statements of both certificate and communication. They show that no session was held on the 15th of July, and that no proceedings with reference to the grant in question were had on the 15th of June. • There can be little doubt, therefore, that the communication was introduced among the archives subsequently to the acquisition of the country.
Nor was there any evidence produced, either before the Board of Commissioners or the District Court, that the grantee ever entered into possession of the premises alleged to have been granted, or that the existence of the grant was known or suspected until long after the conquest.
The decree of the District Court rejecting the claim must, therefore, be affirmed; and it is
So ORDERED.