Case ID: pr_6/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice MaoLeaey,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sánchez v. Soldevila.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagfiez.
    No. 3.
    Decided May 6, 1904.
    Divorce — Connivance oe Parties. — The grounds upon which an aetion for divorce is based must be perfectly established on the trial before the divorce can be granted, since although the matrimonial bond originates in a civil contract, the dissolution thereof should not be made easy and it is neeessary to prevent its being accomplished by the connivance of the parties.
    
      STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    The appeal pending before ns was taken by Ramona Sán-chez Cintron, who entered an appearance as a party thereto in this Supreme Court under the direction of Attorney Eduardo Acuña Aybar, for the purpose of obtaining a reversal and annulment of the judgment rendered by the District Court of Mayagiiez, which reads as follows:
    “Judgment. — In the city of Mayagiiez, November 26, 1902. An oral and public bearing was bad of this civil suit for divorce, prosecuted by Antonio Manrique de Lara, as tbe representative of Ramona Sánchez Cintron, who is married and a resident of this city, the Department of Justice having appeared as the representative of the People of Porto Rico, and Luis Soldevila y Costas, as defendant, a resident of Peñuelas, who was represented at the beginning of this * suit by Attorney Rodolfo Ramirez.
    “On September 30, 1899, Luis Soldevila y Costas and Ramona Sanchez y Cintron contracted canonical marriage in the city of Ponce, said matrimonial union being recorded in the Civil Registry of that city on January 30 of the following year.
    “Ramona Sanchez brought an action alleging that the year 1899 had hardly expired when disagreements between the spouses began, until they became irreconcilable, and in this situation, owing to the incompatibility of dispositions thus created, in November of 1899, Luis Soldevila abandoned his wife and has not again lived with her, for which reason the plaintiff has moved to this city, where she resides with her sons, Ermelindo and Enrique Fajardo, the issue of a former marriage; and inasmuch as abandonment of the wife by the husband or of the husband by the wife for a period longer than one year was a .cause for divorce, she prayed that the divorce applied for be granted and thal the defendant be adjudged to pay the costs, should he fail to acquiesce in the complaint.
    “The defendant acknowledged the truth of the facts as stated in the complaint, and in his answer in confession prayed that the same be admitted, without special imposition of costs; and after the formalities prescribed by law, a day was set for the oral hearing, judgment being rendered without dissent.
    
      “In the conduct of this ease all the legal provisions have been complied with.
    “Presiding Judge Arturo Aponte Rodriguez prepared the opinion of the court.
    “Abandonment of the wife by the husband having been alleged as cause for divorce, the same should have been clearly and indisputably proven, but it does not appear from the record of the oral trial.
    “Such evidense is the more necessary as a dissolution of the marriage bonds, by agreement or connivance between husband and wife, should be avoided.
    “In view of sections 137 and 138 of the Civil Code, and General Order No. 118, series of 1899, we adjudge that we should declare and do declare that the complaint does not lie, and release therefrom Luis Soldevila Costas, with costs against the plaintiff.”
    Notice of the foregoing judgment having been served upon Ramona Sánchez y Cintron, she took an appeal to this Supreme Court, which was allowed,, and after citing the parties, the record was sent up to this court, where the appellant and the Fiscal appeared in due time.
    A day having been set for the hearing, the same was had on April 21, 1904, counsel for the appellant being present as also the Fiscal of this court, who respectively pleaded in support of the contention's of the appellant and of the People, the respondent not being represented before this Supreme Court.'
    
      Mr. Acuña (Eduardo), for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
    The respondent failed to appear.
   Me. Justice MaoLeaey,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment appealed from are accepted, and moreover:

Divorces cannot be granted except when the causes specified in the statutes exist, irrespective of the opinion of the judges composing the court as to what would be more convenient for the parties, and inasmuch as proofs of the grounds and requisites prescribed by law, to the entire .satisfaction of the court, do not exist, the divorce applied for cannot be granted, the more so, as the marriage bond, although derived from a civil contract, should not be made easy of dissolution.

.We adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, as rendered November 26, 1902, by the District Court of Mayagiiez, with costs against the appellant. The record is ordered to be returned to said court, together with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Figueras and Sulzbacher concurred.