Case ID: pr_3/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice MacLeaey,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moreno v. Oliú.
    Appeal in cassation from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 61.
    Decided February 19, 1903.
    Appeals. — Pinal Judgment. — An order dismissing an action for temporary support because the documentary evidence establishing- a right thereto was not presented, is not final for the purpose of an appeal in cassation.
    Id. — An appeal in cassation which has not complied with the provisions of Article 1718 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be considered.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    On September 12, 1902, Sandalio Torres on behalf of Luisa Basilia Moreno, brought an action in the District Court of San Juan, for temporary support to which she was entitled from Pompeyo Oliu, a property owner and resident of Bayamón, the plaintiff being his illegitimate daughter according to a letter which accompanied the complaint wherein Oliú after calling her his daughter, expresses his sympathy for her on account of the death of her mother, and asks for a memorandum of such articles as she stood most in need of, so as to send them to her. On September 12, 1902, the court admitted Torres as party to the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, and dismissed the suit on the strength of Article 1607 of the Law of Civil Procedure, which provides that a person who considers himself entitled to demand maintenance must present with his complaint the documentary evidence establishing his right thereto. A reconsideration of this decision having been requested, it was refused by an order of the court dated September 18th of the same year. From the aforesaid orders an appeal in cassation has been taken for violation of law, authorized (it is stated) by Section 78 oí General Orders No. 118, series of 1899, the following violations being alleged, to wit: First. — Article 1607 of the Law of Civil Procedure, because accoi'ding thereto the complaint could not be peremptorily dismissed when an offer was made to furnish further evidence should it be necessary. Second.— Article 1611 of aforesaid Law, because the defendant alone may, at the hearing, contest the application for maintenance. Third.— Section 70 of General Orders No. 118, which allows the presentation of documentary evidence either with the complaint or with the answer thereto, or at the proceeding for the proposal of evidence. Fourth. — Article 806 of the Civil Code which expressly concedes to unacknowledged illegitimate children the right to their support.
    
      Mr. Torres Monge for appellánt.
   Me. Justice MacLeaey,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the Court:

The order appealed from is not in the nature of a final judgment according to article 1688 of the Law of Civil Procedure, because it does not terminate the suit, nor render its continuation impossible, being solely and entirely subordinate' to the presentation of the title on which the claim to maintenance is based; and this being so, it follows that paragraph 3 of article 1727 of aforesaid Law, taken in connection with article 1726, should be complied with, by declaring that .the appeal does not lie. Nor has the provision of article 1718 of aforesaid Law of Civil Procedure been complied with in formulating the appeal, since neither article 1690 nor the paragraph thereof involving the legal question raised has been stated in the petition. We should declare, and do declare, that the appeal in cassation taken by Luisa Moreno does not lie, and there being no respondent, no costs are imposed. The proper certificate is ordered to be forwarded to the District Court of San Juan, together with the record herein for compliance therewith.

Messrs. Chief Justice Quiñones and Associate Justices Hernández, Figueras and Sulzbacher, concurring.