Case ID: pr_6/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice MacLeary,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martínez v. Rivera.
    IRemedy of complaint against a decision of the District Court of Mayagüez.
    No. 1.
    Decided April 4, 1904.
    .Appeal — ITinai. Judgment. — An appeal lies from final judgments, understanding by such not only those which put an end to the action, hut also those rendered on an incidental issue or collateral matter which terminates the proceedings and renders their continuance impossible.
    Id. — An order denying a reconsideration of another order which refused intervention in the work of harvesting the coffee crop of a rural estate, within the summary proceedings prescribed by the Mortgage Law, is not final, and is therefore not appealable to the Supreme Court.
    MORTGAGES — Summary PROCEEDINGS. — The summary proceedings prescribed by the Mortgage Law for the collection of mortgage credits cannot be suspended at the instance of the debtor or of any other person.
    Id. — Remedies of Debtor — Effectiveness of Judgment. — The debtor, in addition to the remedies granted by paragraph 9 of article 175 of the Mortgage Begulations, may secure the effectiveness of the judgment rendered in the action which may be instituted at his instance, by praying therein for the retention of the whole or a part of the sum which should be delivered to the execution creditor by virtue of the executory proceedings.
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    In the summary proceedings prescribed by tbe Mortgage Law and conducted under tbe Eegulations for tbe execution thereof, instituted by Victor Martinez against Domingo Rivera for tbe recovery of a mortgage debt, tbe judicial administration of tbe mortgaged estate was decreed at tbe instance of tbe mortgage creditor, pursuant to tbe provisions of article 1528 of tbe Law of Civil Procedure.
    Counsel for tbe defendant, on behalf of bis client, requested intervention in tbe harvesting of tbe coffee crop, which was tbe object of tbe administration of the property, basing bis request on articles 1528, 1519, 1520 et sec[. of aforesaid law, bis request being overruled by an order of October 1 of last year.
    Tbe aforesaid counsel then prayed for a reconsideration of said order, which was also refused in a ruling of November 19 of last year.
    Thereupon be immediately took an appeal from tbe last mentioned decision, which appeal was disallowed by another ruling of tbe 5th of December following.
    Availing himself of tbe right which, be contends, is granted to bis client by article 397 of tbe Law of Civil Procedure, counsel for tbe defendant prosecuted tbe proper remedy of complaint and requested this court to render such decision as may be meet and according to justice.
    The debtor having taken an appeal in complaint in due time and form from the order denying the right of appeal, a day was set for the hearing, which was held without the presence of the counsel for the parties, on the 18th of March of the present year.
    
      Mr. Vázquez (Fernando), for appellant.
    The respondent did not appear.
   Mr. Justice MacLeary,

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

An appeal lies from final judgments, and in addition to those which put an end to the action, decisions rendered upon an incidental issue or collateral matters which terminate the action and render its continuation impossible, are also considered as final, in accordance with the provisions of article 1688 of the Law of Civil Procedure.

The order of November 19, 1903, from which the appeal was prosecuted, which was limited to denying a reconsideration of the order of the 1st of October, and which refused intervention in the work of harvesting the coffee crop of the rural estate in question, within the summary proceedings prescribed by the Mortgage Law, cannot be considered as final, inasmuch as it does not put an end to anything, nor does it make impossible the continuation of the action, and therefore the appeal was properly disallowed by the District •Court of Mayagiiez.

The object of this remedy in complaint is to obtain the admission or refusal to admit the appeal which was denied, and if this court should order its admission it would go counter to articles 175 and 176 of the Regulations for the ■execution of the Mortgage Law, inasmuch as those provisions prescribe that said proceedings cannot be suspended even at the instance of the debtor himself, and if the appeal were to be admitted, its primary effect would be the suspension of tlie proceedings, since the court would then be without jurisdiction to continue to act in the premises.

By the denial of the complaint, and, therefore, of the admission of the appeal, the law is complied with and no injury is entailed upon the debtor, for he has in his favor all the remedies granted by paragraph 9 of article 175 of the regulations previously cited; and he may even secure the effectiveness of the judgment rendered in the action which may be instituted at his instance, by praying therein for th'e retention of the whole or a part of the sum which should be delivered to the execution creditor by virtue of the executory proceedings, in accordance with paragraph 10 , of said article 175 of the law in question.

The appeal taken by Attorney Fernando Vázquez, as counsel for Domingo Bivera, from the order of December 5, 1903, made by the District Court of Mayagüez, is disallowed, and said order is affirmed with costs against the appellant. This decision is ordered to be communicated to the District Court of Mayagüez for such action as may be proper.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernandez, Figue-ras and Sulzbacher concurred.