Hector Isaias Romero v Juan Franco
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Farnese, J |
| Judgment Date | 12 September 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. CV 808 of 2021 |
CLAIM No. CV 808 of 2021
IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Mr. Darrell Bradley, Counsel for the Claimant
Ms. Audrey B. Matura, Counsel for the Defendant
Mr. Romero asks that 27.92 acres of land, currently in Mr. Franco's possession, be returned to him and for compensation for profits Mr. Franco has obtained from the land. Mr. Romero claims that he gave Mr. Franco permission to cut and clear three acres of land in 2017, but Mr. Franco has cultivated and occupied 27.92 acres without permission and refuses to vacate. Mr. Franco claims that he is in lawful possession of the land pursuant to an oral agreement with Mr. Romero to purchase the land for $15,000. Mr. Franco does not dispute that he has not paid the purchase price. Mr. Franco counterclaims for specific performance of the agreement or compensation for his improvements. Mr. Romero denies that there is an agreement of sale but countersues for the purchase price if the court finds that an agreement exists.
After reviewing all of the evidence, I find that the parties entered into an oral agreement for the future transfer of land. The oral agreement, however, is not enforceable. At the time the agreement was entered into, Mr. Romero had no rights to the land he agreed to transfer to Mr. Franco. When Mr. Romero acquired rights to the land, transfer would only have been possible with the Minister of Natural Resources' consent. No consent was obtained. Moreover, oral agreements for the purchase of land are generally not enforceable in Belize. Mr. Franco must vacate the property. I find that no other remedy is just in the circumstances.
The following issues are raised in this matter:
-
a. What did the parties agree to in relation to the Property?
-
b. Is the agreement enforceable?
-
c. Is either party entitled to compensation?
The land at the centre of this claim is comprised of 27.92 acres of national lands located at Block 4 in the Doubloon Lagoon, Orange Walk Town, Orange Walk District. The land is described as Parcel 1175, Block 59 in the Millers Bight Registration Section (the Property). Mr. Romero claims he has been in possession of the Property since at least 2015, but he only began leasing the Property from the Lands and Survey Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2019. Nonetheless, in 2017, Mr. Romero entered into an agreement with Mr. Franco with respect to the Property.
The Parties dispute the terms of that agreement. Mr. Romero says he agreed to allow Mr. Franco to clear and use 3 acres to maintain his sugar cane quota, but instead Mr. Franco took possession of the entire property in 2017 while Mr. Romero was ill and refuses to leave. Therefore, in addition to his possession being restored, Mr. Romero asks for mesne profits for sticks he alleges Mr. Franco cut and sold from the Property and from sugar cane sales.
Mr. Franco claims that they made an oral contract for the purchase of all 27.92 acres that was subsequently confirmed in writing before Mr. Raoul Torres, a Justice of the Peace. He paid $500 upfront and would pay $15,000 after Mr. Romero obtained title and transferred it to him. Mr. Franco argues that he cleared and planted many acres of land based on that agreement and he seeks specific performance of the agreement or compensation for the improvements.
I have considered all the evidence, and all of the authority stated to the court. I, however, only refer to that which is necessary to resolve the dispute because the law governing this dispute is very clear. I find that the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby Mr. Romero permitted Mr. Franco to possess all the Property in anticipation of transferring at least a significant portion of the Property to Mr. Franco in the future.
Mr. Romero offered no corroborating evidence to support his claim that his agreement with Mr. Franco was limited to permission to clear and plant 3 acres. In contrast, Mr. Franco presented a written document sworn by Mr. Romero before Justice of the Peace, Mr. Raoul Torres. The document was prepared near contemporaneously with their agreement and supports Mr. Franco's claim that Mr. Romero agreed that Mr. Franco would have the right to purchase the entire Property in the future. Mr. Torres also testified in a straightforward, direct manner and largely confirmed Mr. Franco's claim as to the content and purpose of their agreement.
I found Mr. Romero unnecessarily evasive and lacking candor during his testimony. This demeanor was especially evident from his denial of knowing Mr. Torres, who testified that they had known each other for close to 40 years. Mr. Romero also alleges the document sworn before Mr. Torres was a forgery. He asks the court to make that finding based on its own comparison of two signatures purporting to be those of Mr. Romero and the fact that the document was in English, a language Mr. Romero does not speak. I find, however, those factors are not sufficient evidence of a forgery. The Court of Appeal has held that it is not proper for a judge to engage in a comparison of signatures. 1 Had Mr. Romero wished to challenge the authenticity of the signature, he was free to request that an expert conduct an analysis on behalf of the court.
While it is the case that the person relying on a document must prove its authenticity, I find that Mr. Franco established the document was authentic by presenting Mr. Torres as a witness. Mr. Torres gave clear and compelling testimony that withstood cross-examination regarding the circumstances that led to the document's creation. I accept Mr. Torres' evidence that he drafted the document in English based on information provided to him by Mr. Romero. Mr. Romero offered a mere assertion that Mr. Torres was lying because he “knows” Mr. Franco to explain why the court should regard Mr. Torres's testimony as untruthful. Mr. Romero offered no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a relationship between Mr. Franco and Mr. Torres.
Finally, Mr. Romero admitted that Mr. Franco cleared and cultivated much more than 3 acres of the Property although he disputes the value of those improvements. Mr. Torres's testimony also confirmed that Mr. Franco understood in 2017 that Mr. Franco did not have a lease, which is why Mr. Romero requested that the document be drafted and sworn. I find it unlikely that Mr. Franco would develop the land without seeking his own lease for those lands, as he was aware that Mr. Romero did not have a lease when the agreement was made, if he did not believe he would get title through Mr. Romero.
Despite my finding as to the content of their agreement, any agreement between the parties is unenforceable because Mr. Romero had no legal or equitable interest in the Property that could be transferred at the time the agreement was made. In addition, oral agreements for the sale of land are generally unenforceable in Belize.
The legal rule, known in Latin as nemo dat quod non habet, and translated as ‘no one can give what they do not have’, settles this dispute in Mr. Romero's favor. In 2017, Mr. Romero may have been in possession of the Property, but that possession bestowed no legal or equitable interest.
Under section 42 of the Registered Land Act, 2 continuous and undisturbed possession of national lands for 30 years may result in a declaration of title by the High Court. But even where a person can prove they have had continuous and undisturbed possession for 30 years, the acquisition of title by long...To continue reading
Request your trial