The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling in a case involving Dalila AGiza and Janet Moy. The court's decision, delivered on October 28, 2026, confirms that AGiza's challenges to the eviction proceedings were without merit. This ruling is significant for both parties, as it upholds the eviction of AGiza from the property located on Culebra Road in San Antonio.

The dispute began in 2025 when Janet Moy filed a forcible detainer action against Dalila AGiza, claiming that AGiza had failed to pay rent. AGiza contested the eviction, arguing that the case was improperly filed and that she was not the correct defendant. After a series of hearings and appeals, the county court ruled in favor of Moy, leading AGiza to appeal the decision to the Texas Court of Appeals.

The case, identified by docket number 04-25-00463-CV, involved several key issues raised by AGiza. She claimed that the justice court lacked jurisdiction and that she did not receive adequate notice of the trial. AGiza also argued that her previous notice of appeal should have stayed the county court's proceedings. However, the court found that AGiza's arguments did not hold up under scrutiny.

In its ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals, led by Justice H. Todd McCray, stated, "Because AGiza has not established that the justice court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and did not preserve her personal jurisdiction challenge in the county court, we overrule her first two issues." The court also noted that the notice of appeal filed by AGiza did not divest the county court of its jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

The court emphasized that AGiza failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting her claims regarding the jurisdiction of the justice court. The ruling also addressed AGiza's concerns about receiving notice of the trial, stating that the record contained prima facie evidence that she had been properly notified. The court concluded that AGiza did not demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings.

This decision has implications for future eviction cases, particularly regarding the importance of proper notice and jurisdictional challenges. It reinforces the principle that parties must adequately preserve their objections and provide sufficient evidence to support their claims in court. The ruling also clarifies the procedural aspects of eviction appeals in Texas, indicating that a notice of appeal does not automatically stay further proceedings unless specific conditions are met.

Going forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving forcible detainer actions in Texas. It highlights the necessity for defendants to actively participate in court proceedings and to ensure that their objections are formally addressed. The court's affirmation of the lower court's judgment solidifies Moy's right to regain possession of the property in question.

As for AGiza, the option to appeal this ruling further is limited. The court did not specify whether there are any related cases pending, and details regarding potential next steps were not available in the court filing. For now, the Texas Court of Appeals' decision stands as the final word in this dispute.