Case ID: pr_6/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Figueras,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rivera v. Rivera et al.
    Appeal from tire District Court of Mayagüez.
    No. 26.
    Decided May 5, 1904.
    Unlawful Detainee — By Whom: Action May Be Maintained. — All persons who have the actual possession of an estate either as owners, beneficiaries, or by virtue of any other title which gives them the right to the enjoyment thereof, and their successors in interest, are legal parties to and may maintain an action of unlawful detainer.
    Id. — Against Whom: it Lies. — The action of unlawful detainer lies against any person having the enjoyment or holding an estate, whether rural or urban, at suffranee, without paying rental, provided that one month’s notice to vacate has been served upon him.
    Id. — Default of Defendant. — If, in a case of unlawful detainer, the defendant fails to appear at the oral trial for which he has been cited, he will be considered as having admitted the facts stated in the complaint, and judgment by default will be entered.
    Costs. — Judgment having been rendered in an action without special imposition of costs, if the party in whose favor such judgment has been rendered fails to appeal from the decision as to costs, or to adhere on this point to the appeal taken by the other party, such decision will not be disturbed on the appeal.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    The ease before us is an action instituted in the District Court of Mayagüez by Juan E. Rivera, a resident of said city, against Ramón B. Rivera, Monserrate Valentin, Cle-mente Vélez, Miguel Rivera and Dámaso Tubens, whose domicile and other conditions are not stated, for the unlawful detainer of certain houses and premises; which case is pending before us on an appeal in cassation, now ordinary appeal, taken by Miguel Rivera, who appeared in this Supreme Court through his attorney Juan Quintero, the latter being made a party thereto. The plaintiff and the other defendants failing tó appear, service of notice was made upon them in the court room.
    The District Court of Mayagüez, after going through all the proceedings of the aforesaid action of unlawful detainer, rendered judgment therein as follows:
    “Judgment. — In tlie city of Mayagiiez, December 24, 1901. An oral and public Rearing was Rad of the action of unlawful detainer instituted in tRis court by Juan E. Rivera Rodriguez, of legal age and a resident of this city, represented by Attorney Luis Campillo y Abrams, a against Ramón B. Rivera, Monserrate Valentin, Clemente Velez, Miguel Rivera and Dámaso Tubens, as defendants, all of whom were declared in default, except Miguel Rivera, who was represented in these proceedings by Attorney Luis Méndez Vaz, to compel them to vacate certain Rouses and premises.
    “Plaintiff bases his right of action on the fact that he is owner of a piece of land situated in barrio ‘Ovejas,’ within the municipal district of Añasco, forming part of this judicial district, consisting of 24.02 cuerdas, more or less, devoted to the cultivation of coffee and containing a dwelling-house, an engine house, apparatus for polishing coffee, three tanks for washing coffee, pulping machinery, three masonry platforms or floors for drying coffee, with their huts, a reservoir, and all the other accessories pertaining to an estate of this class; that the houses and premises were occupied by defendants as tenants at sufferance, without paying rent therefore, and that upon their being judicially summoned to vacate said houses and premises within the period of thirty days, they failed to do so, notwithstanding the expiration of said period.
    “The complaint was accompanied by a copy of the order made by this court, September, 17, 1900, declaring the ownership of aforesaid estate, along with others, in favor of the plaintiff, said estate being recorded in the Registry of Property; and the papers relating to the service of notice- upon the defendants.
    ‘ ‘ The parties having been cited to appear on the day set therefor, the only one who did appear was the defendant Miguel Rivera, who demurred to the complaint on the ground that he was a joint owner of the property, the other defendants being declared in default.
    “Notice of the complaint having been served on the defendants, it was answered only by Miguel Rivera, who prayed that the same be dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff, alleging that the dwelling-house and other appurtenances of the estate in question are not wholly the property of said plaintiff, because, together with the land on which they are situated, they 'are held in common and belong to the estate of Santiago Rivera and Juana Cecilia Rodriguez, as shown by tbe accompanying private document, and therefore, inasmuch as the defendant forms part of said estate, it is not true that he occupies the house and premises as a tenant at sufferance, but in the capacity of a joint owner thereof.
    “From the private document produced by the defendant Rivera it appears that Sandalio Rivera, Ramón García, as the representative of his wife, and Miguel Rivera, all joint owners of the coffee plantation that had belonged to the estate of Santiago Rivera and Juana Cecilia Rodriguez, agreed to divide the property in the proportion indicated in said document, the plaza -and establishments, covering sixty-six hundredths of a cuerda, to remain undivided.
    “The parties being summoned to appear for the submission of evidence, they did so on the appointed day and hour, and their evidence being admitted, that only relating to the party plaintiff was taken, consisting of certificates of the records of possession in favor of the previous owner of the estate which had been attached to the record of the posessory proceedings, and a certificate from the registrar of property to the effect that the records of possession were duly entered, Miguel Rivera being mentioned therein as an adjacent property owner.
    “On the day and hour set for the oral trial only the plaintiff appeared, who presented such arguments as were deemed by him most pertinent in support of his claim, the judgment being publicly voted on the same day.
    ‘ ‘ In the conduct of these proceedings all the legal formalities have been observed.
    “Judge James E. Erwin prepared tlie opinion of the court, as follows: '
    “All persons legally entitled to the possession of the estate, either as owners, beneficiaries, or by virtue of any other title which gives them the right to enjoy the estate, and their successors in interest, are legal parties to institute an action of unlawful detainer. (Article 1562 of the Law of Civil Procedure.)
    “An action of^unlawful detainer may be prosecuted against any person enjoying the products of the property, or who may be a tenant at sufferance, without paying rental thereon, whether such property is a rural or urban estate, provided one month’s prior notice is given to vacate the same. (Article 1563, subdivision 3, of the law above cited.)
    “The defendants, Ramón B. Rivera, Monserrate Valentin, Cle-mente Vélez and Dámaso Tubens not having appeared at the oral trial to which they were cited, they must be considered as having lagreed as to the facts set up in the complaint, according to the provisions of article 1591 of the said law.
    “The plaintiff has proved that he is in the actual possession of the property in question under title of ownership, and therefore he is a legal party to the suit.
    “The defendant Miguel Rivera states that he is in possession of houses and buildings, as a co-owner thereof, but he has not proved this fact, because not only is the authenticity of the document attached to his answer not shown, but it is not shown that it refers to the same buildings, the vacation of which is demanded, and he must therefore be considered as a tenant at sufferance.
    “In eases like the present one costs should be imposed in accordance with equity.
    “In view of the authorities cited, and others of general application, we adjudge that we should sustain and do sustain the complaint filed in this action of unlawful detainer, and the defendants are hereby notified that they will be ejected from the said properties if they fail to vacate the same within the time provided for by the law, without special imposition of costs. The defendants in default are ordered to be notified in acordance with law. Thus by this our judgment do we finally pronounce, command and sign. — Arturo Aponte, J. A. Erwin, Pascasio Fajardo.”
    From the foregoing judgment Miguel Rivera took an appeal in cassation for error of law and the record having been sent up to this Supreme Court, the appeal was conducted as an ordinary appeal, in compliance with the act of the Legislative Assembly of this Island, approved March 12, 1903, a day having been set for the hearing, which took place without the appearance of the parties.
    
      Mr. Quintero, for appellant.
    The respondents did not appear.
   Mr. Justice Figueras,

after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

We accept the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in the judgment appealed from, with the exception of the last conclusion of law.

The defendant has not appealed from the judgment of the District Court of Mayagüez, in so far as the same provides that there shall he no special imposition of costs, nor has he joined in the appeal, on this point, taken by one of the defendants, for which reason, in accordance with law, the decision of the court below upon that point should be sustained.

In view of the authorities cited in the judgment appealed from, and articles 358 and 371 of the Law of Civil Procedure, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment rendered by the District Court of Mayagüez on December 24, 1901, sustaining the complaint in the action of unlawful detainer filed by Juan E. Eivera, as well as the other findings; of the court below in this case, and the costs of the appeal' are hereby taxed against the appellant, Miguel Eivera. The-record herein is ordered to be returned to the court below,, together with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Sulz-bacher and MacLeary concurred.