TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00001-CV
Ofelia Rincon, Brigida Guzman, Hilario S. Dominguez, and Andrew Dominguez, Sr.,
Appellants
v.
Nellie Ramirez, Appellee
FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-24-000580, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal from a summary judgment in a suit for trespass to try title and quiet
title, we are presented with a single question of law: whether plaintiff-appellee Nellie Ramirez
proved as a matter of law that certain real property in Travis County, Texas (the Property) was
her mother Manuela Dominguez’s separate property when her father Cruz Dominguez died
intestate in 1973. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(c). If the answer is “yes,” then the district court
correctly held that Nellie is the sole owner of the Property as the sole beneficiary of Manuela’s
will, since Manuela obtained title to the Property after Cruz’s death. But if the answer is “no,”
then the district court erred in so holding. We hold that Nellie did not meet her
summary-judgment burden to prove that the Property was Manuela’s separate property and
therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
The material facts are simple and undisputed. On June 19, 1968,
Charles Villasenor, as seller, and Cruz and Manuela Dominguez, as buyers, entered into a
contract-for-deed (also known as a rent-to-own or installment contract) for the Property. See
Shook v. Walden, 368 S.W.3d 604, 624 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. denied) (contract for deed
is form of real property conveyance in which purchaser obtains immediate right to possession but
seller retains legal title and has no obligation to transfer it unless and until purchaser finishes
paying full purchase price, typically done in installments over several years). Under the contract,
Cruz and Manuela would make monthly payments directly to Charles while Charles retained title
to the Property. Once the principal amount was paid in full, Charles would deliver a warranty
deed conveying the Property to Cruz and Manuela in fee simple.
Some five years later, in 1973, Cruz died intestate, leaving thirteen heirs: his five
children from his first marriage and his eight children from his marriage with Manuela, including
their daughter, Nellie. See Tex. Est. Code § 201.003(c) (“If the deceased spouse is survived by a
child or other descendant who is not also a child or other descendant of the surviving spouse, the
deceased spouse’s undivided one-half interest in the community estate passes to the deceased
spouse’s children or other descendants.”). At the time of Cruz’s death, the principal amount of
the contract-for-deed had not been paid in full, so the contract remained executory. See Shook,
368 S.W.3d at 624–25 (in executory contract for sale of land, such as contract for deed, superior
title remains with seller until purchaser fulfills its part of contract).
For the next twenty years, Manuela continued to make the monthly payments
under the contract-for-deed. In 1993, Manuela finished paying the principal amount in full and
thereby obtained equitable title to the Property. See South 1/2 Block 8 Venture v. Travis Cent.
Appraisal Dist., 731 S.W.3d 642, 647 (Tex. App.—Austin 2025, no pet.) (“An equitable owner
2
is a party who has the present right to compel the legal-title holder of land to convey its legal title
to that party.”); Graves v. Diehl, 958 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997,
no pet.) (“[A] purchaser under a contract for deed possesses only an equitable right to complete
the contract [that] does not ripen into equitable title to the property until he has fully performed
under the contract, i.e., paid the full purchase price.”).
In 2001, Lois Villasenor, Charles’s widow, executor, and sole beneficiary,
conveyed legal title to the Property to Manuela by executing a warranty deed. After Lois
executed the warranty deed, Manuela filed with the County Clerk an affidavit of heirship. In her
affidavit, Manuela averred that Cruz had died on August 30, 1973, and that she and Cruz were
married from January 26, 1949, until his death. Manuela averred that Cruz had thirteen children,
five with his first wife and eight with her. Manuela identified the children from Cruz’s first
marriage as (1) Vicky Guzman, (2) Gonzala Rasbury, (3) Porfiria Rodriguez, (4) Ofelia Rincon,
and (5) Cruz Dominguez, Jr. And she identified the children from Cruz’s marriage with her as
(1) Larry S. Dominguez, (2) Frank Dominguez, (3) David Dominguez, (4) Robert Dominguez,
(5) Nellie Dominguez Cadena, (6) Ellen Dominguez Cerda, (7) Alexander Dominguez, and
(8) Andrew Dominguez. Manuela further averred that Cruz died “without leaving a written will”
and that “to the best of [her] knowledge,” Cruz “owned an interest in” the Property, which she
and Cruz had “purchased” “on or about June 19, 1968 from Charles Villasenor.”
Sixteen years later, in 2017, Manuela died testate, naming Nellie as her executor
and sole beneficiary. Three years after that, in 2020, Nellie probated Manuela’s will, and, upon
closing the estate, believed that she owned the Property in fee simple, as she had been Manuela’s
sole beneficiary.
3
In 2023, Nellie listed the Property for sale and accepted an offer. However, while
the Property was under contract, the title company issued a title commitment identifying a cloud
on the title: the affidavit filed by Manuela in 2001, which led the title company to form the
opinion that the Property belonged to Manuela and Cruz’s community estate when Cruz died in
1973 and that, as a result, Cruz’s other children and Nellie each had an equal interest in Cruz’s
½ interest in the Property. The title company informed Nellie that the cloud could be removed if
Cruz’s other children conveyed their interests in the Property to Nellie or if a trial court rendered
a judgment declaring Nellie to be the sole owner of the Property.
Nellie asked Cruz’s other children to convey their interest in the Property to her,
but four of them—Nellie’s two half-sisters, Ofelia Rincon and Brigida Guzman and Nellie’s two
brothers, Hilario Dominguez and Andrew Dominguez (Appellants)—refused to do so without
Nellie agreeing to pay them a share of the proceeds from the sale of the Property. Nellie and
Appellants could not reach an agreement. As a result, the title company would not issue a title
insurance policy, and the sale of the Property failed.
Nellie then filed her original petition, asserting claims for trespass to try title and
quiet title. Nellie requested that the district court render a judgment awarding her title to the
Property, declaring Manuela’s affidavit void as it relates to the Property, and further declaring
the 1968 contract-for-deed as having no effect on the 2001 general warranty deed conveying the
Property to Manuela.
After Appellants answered and the parties engaged in discovery, Nellie filed a
motion for summary judgment, and Appellants filed a response. In their filings, the parties
agreed on the material facts but disagreed on the meaning and application of the law,
specifically, the meaning and application of the rule of inception of title. Nellie argued that,
4
under the inception-of-title rule, real property is community property only if one or both spouses
obtain title to the property during their marriage. And since Manuela did not obtain title to the
Property until after Cruz’s death and the dissolution of their marriage, Nellie argued that the
Property was Manuela’s separate property and that Cruz’s other children had no interest in it by
virtue of their status as Cruz’s heirs. Appellants responded that, when real property is acquired
under a contract-for-deed or installment contract, the inception of title relates back to the time the
contract was executed, not the time when legal title is conveyed. And since Cruz and Manuela
executed the contract-for-deed during their marriage, Appellants argued that the Property was
community property even though the contract remained executory when Cruz died.
The district court agreed with Nellie, granted her motion, and rendered judgment
awarding her title to the Property. Appellants then filed this appeal, raising a single issue:
whether, on these undisputed facts, the Property was community property belonging to Cruz and
Manuela’s community estate or separate property belonging to Manuela’s separate estate. We
hold that Nellie did not prove that the Property was separate property and that the district court
erred in holding otherwise.
Under the Family Code, “[c]ommunity property consists of the property, other
than separate property, acquired by either spouse during marriage.” Tex. Fam. Code § 3.002.
The Family Code further provides that “property possessed by either spouse during or on
dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property.” Id. § 3.003(a). However,
this statutory presumption, like all presumptions, does not apply in a summary-judgment
proceeding. Cruz v. Bazan, No. 03-24-00478-CV, 2025 WL 3180239, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin
Nov. 14, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.).
5
To obtain summary judgment, Nellie had the burden to conclusively prove that
the Property was not the community property of Cruz and Manuela’s estate when Cruz died in
1972. To meet her burden, Nellie had to produce conclusive summary-judgment evidence
proving as a matter of law that the Property was not community property according to the rule of
inception of title. As the name suggests, under the inception-of-title rule, “property is
characterized as ‘separate’ or ‘community’ at the time of inception of title, that is to say, when a
party first has a claim of right to the property by virtue of which title is ultimately vested.”
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 992 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.) (emphasis
added); see Bean v. Bean, 658 S.W.3d 401, 416 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, pet. denied)
(“Inception of title occurs when a party first has a right or claim to the property by virtue of
which title is finally vested.” (quoting Pettitt v. Pettitt, 704 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.)); In re Marriage of Morris, 123 S.W.3d 864, 871
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.) (same). Thus, at the inception of title, actual “title need
not be vested.” Pace v. Pace, 160 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). And
“[t]he fact that the right is unenforceable at inception is irrelevant.” Bean, 658 S.W.3d at 416.
Instead, all that is needed is “right of claim” to the property that may vest in the future. As the
Dallas Court of Appeals has explained:
The status of the property of marital partners is determined by the time
and circumstances attending its “acquisition.” It is therefore helpful to
keep in mind what is meant by “acquired.” The term signifies the origin
or inception of the right, rather than its later ripening or fruition.
Id. (quoting Speer’s Marital Rights in Texas § 388 (4th ed.)).
We have previously addressed how the inception-of-title rule applies to a
contract-for-deed. “When real property is acquired under a contract for deed or installment
6
contract, the inception of title relates back to the time the contract was executed, not the time
when legal title is conveyed.” Wilkerson, 992 S.W.2d at 722. So, “if one spouse entered into a
contract for deed before marriage, the property is separate property even if the conveyance of
legal title occurs during the marriage and the deed names both spouses as grantees.” Id. It
stands to reason, then, that the converse is also true: If the spouses entered into a contract for
deed during marriage, the property is community property even if the conveyance of legal title
occurs after the dissolution of the marriage due to the death of one of the spouses and the deed
names only one spouse as grantee. That is what happened here: Cruz and Manuela entered into
the contract-for-deed during their marriage, so the inception of title relates back to that time and
the Property is community property even though the conveyance of title occurred after the
dissolution of the marriage upon Cruz’s death and the deed names only Manuela as grantee.
Nellie offers various arguments against this straightforward application of the
rule. We find none of them availing.
First, Nellie contends that the inception-of-title rule does not apply unless one of
the spouses held at least equitable title to the property on dissolution of the marriage, reasoning
that the inception-of-title rule “traces ownership” and that “real ownership requires equitable
title.” In support of her contention, Nellie cites various opinions relied on by Appellants. See,
e.g., id. at 719; Dawson v. Dawson, 767 S.W.2d 949, 949 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, no writ).
Although these opinions involved situations in which one of the spouses held equitable title to
the disputed property on dissolution of the marriage, none of them hold that equitable title must
be conveyed to at least one of the spouses before the marriage ends, and such a holding would be
inconsistent with the basic principle that an unvested property right is a contingent interest in
property subject to transfer or division. See, e.g., Bodin v. Bodin, 955 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex.
7
App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (holding that trial court did not err by awarding wife interest
in certain unvested stock options husband received from employer before divorce, reasoning that
stock options constitute contingent interest in property subject to just and right division
upon divorce).
Second, Nellie contends that Appellants, by their own admissions, never made
any payments under the contract-for-deed and have never made any payments toward the taxes,
insurance, or maintenance of the Property. But Appellants’ failure to make these monetary
contributions does not affect the status of the Property as community property at the time of
Cruz’s death or Appellants’ interest in the Property as Cruz’s heirs. Once a party has a claim of
right to property that may eventually vest, the character of the property is fixed. Wilkerson,
992 S.W.2d at 722. Thus, when Cruz and Manuela executed the contract-for-deed, the character
of the Property was fixed as community property.1
Third, Nellie contends that Appellants never challenged the validity of the deed
conveying legal title to Manuela and never challenged the probate of Manuela’s will. But
again, Appellants’ failure to take these actions does not affect the status of the Property as
community property.
We hold that Nellie failed to meet her burden to prove as a matter of law that the
Property was not the community property of Cruz and Manuela’s community estate.
1 When Cruz died, Manuela became a tenant in common with Cruz’s heirs as it pertained to the executory contract. Cf. S.C. v. M.B., 650 S.W.3d 428, 438 (Tex. 2022) (tenancy in common is correct characterization of ownership for undivided community property). Any failure to make monetary contributions occurred after Cruz’s heirs acquired a tenancy-incommon interest, not before. Thus, while Appellants inaction may be relevant to a partition action, it is not relevant to whether they inherited Cruz’s ½ interest in the Property, which is the question we are presented here.
8
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment holding Nellie to be the sole lawful owner
of the Property and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Maggie Ellis, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne and Justices Kelly and Ellis
Reversed and Remanded
Filed: August 31, 2026
9