Case ID: pr_6/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me. Justice HeRnández,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alcalá del Olmo v. Estate of Fernández.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 113.
    Decided May 5, 1904.
    Appeal — Final Judgment. — An appeal lies from final decisions only, "by which are understood those decisions which finally terminate the action or make its-continuance impossible.
    Id. — The act of March 12, 1903, converting the Supreme Court of Cassation into one of appeal, left in full force and efEeet the provisions of articles 1687 and 1688 of the Law of Civil Procedure.
    Id. — The appellate jurisdiction conferred upon the District Court of San Juan by General Order No. 118 of 1899 is limited to the decision of the pending appeal, and from that time jurisdiction of the matter pertains to the district court to which is attached the court of first instance where the suit was orig-ginally brought.
    
      STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is an executory action instituted in the abolished court of first instance of Gruayama, hy Evarista Alcalá del Olmo, execution creditor, now prosecuted hy his sister Blanca Alcalá del Olmo, against the estate of Vicente Fernández Mon jardín, execution debtor, for the recovery of a mortgage debt, which case is now pending before us on appeal taken by said estate from the decision of the District Court of San Juan, which had also taken cognizance of said case as an appellate court, the appellant having been represented in this Supreme Court by Attorney Manuel F. Bossy, and the respondent by Attorney Juan Vías Ochóteco.
    In an executory action instituted in the abolished court of first instance of Gruayama, by Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo against the estate of Vicente Fernández Mon jar din, for the recovery of a mortgage debt, interest and costs, the defendant estate,' in opposing the writ of execution issued by an order of July 15, 1897, prayed that the evidence in the action be taken, and by a supplementary prayer asked that Sobrinos de Ezquiaga and Mariano Benito Heredia be called upon to acknowledge their respective signatures to a private document accompanying the pleading in opposition to the complaint and consisting of a liquidation of interest for a number of months, and to this effect that letters rogatory be issued to this city and to the capital of Spain.
    The execution creditor, upon answering the pleading opposing the complaint, filed a copy of the voluntary mortgage deed executed by Jesús.María Texidor y Vázquez in favor of Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo, June 5, 1887, before the notary of Guayama, José Mariano Capó, whence originated the mortgage debt sought to be recovered, and also accompanied by two letters, one signed by Sobrinos de Ezquiaga and the other by Mariano Benito, both referring to aforesaid debt, in order that said signatures might he acknowledged by the signers, and stating, farther, that being satisfied as to the identity of the signatures of Mariano Benito and Sobrinos Ezqniaga, affixed to the liquidation filed witih the pleading opposing the complaint, he prayed that the letters rogatory for the identification of said signatures, applied for by the execution debtor, be denied.
    ■ The Guayama court by an order of August 10, 1897, directed that evidence in the action be taken, and ordered, among other things, that letters rogatory be issued to. the dean judge of Madrid for the identification of the signature of Mariano Benito, affixed to one of the letters filed by the execution creditor, and denied the prayer that letters rogatory be issued for the identification of the signatures of Mariano Benito and Sobrinos de Ezquiaga, appearing on the document of liquidation of interest, produced by the execution debtor.
    The representative of the estate of Vicente Fernández Monjardin moved for a rehearing of aforesaid order of August 10, and prayed that the letters rogatory for the acknowledgment by Mariano Benito and Sobrinos de Ezqui-aga of their respective signatures, attached to the document of liquidation of interest referred to, be issued as requested, and by supplementary prayer asked that the copy of the mortgage deed, executed June 5, 1887, by Jesús María Texi-dor, in favor of Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo, and the two letters signed by Mariano Benito and Sobrinos de Ezquiaga — documents filed by the plaintiff upon answering the pleading opposing the complaint, be detached from the record, inasmuch as said documents, being offered as grounds for the action prosecuted, should have accompanied the complaint, and therefore were not now admissible.
    After considering the motion for a rehearing, the court of first instance of Guayama, by an order made on Angust 23, 1897, overruled said motion and denied the request for a separation of aforesaid documents from the record.
    
      The estate of Vicente Fernández filed a writing setting forth that with respect to the denial of the request to issne the letters rogatory for the purpose of securing an acknowledgment by Mariano Benito and Sobrinos de Ezqniaga of their signatures affixed to the document of liquidation of interest, they reserved their right to renew said request at the hearing in the appellate court, should it be necessary, and as to the separation of aforesaid deed and letters from the record, they prayed for a reconsideration of the ruling of August 23, and stated that if said reconsideration were denied they would take an appeal to the “Audiencia Territorial.” The Gnayama court, by an order of the 28th of August aforesaid, denied the relief applied for, on the ground that the law does not allow a reconsideration of a rehearing, and allowed the appeal for review only; but subsequently, by an order of the 29th of September following, on motion of the execution debtor, allowed said appeal for review and stay of proceedings, the appellant furnishing a bond for the purpose.
    The record having been forwarded to the abolished “Audiencia Territorial,” after citation of the parties, and while the appeal was still pending decision, for reasons which need not be stated, upon the publication of General Order No. 118, series of 1899, cognizance thereof was transferred to the District Court of San Juan, which, by an order of May 6 of last year, admitted Blanca Alcalá del Olmo as a party to the action by virtue of an assignment of the credit claimed, made in her favor, by public deed executed by her brother Evaristo. The hearing of the appeal was had on August 1, counsel for both parties being present, who presented such arguments as were deemed most pertinent in support of their respective claims.
    The District Court of San Juan, by an order of the 8th of August aforesaid, affirming such portions of the ruling and order appealed from as were accepted, and reversing the others, directed that the deed executed before the notary of Guayama, José Mariano Capó, Jnne 5, 1887, by Jesús María Texidor, in favor of Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo, regarding a loan and voluntary mortgage, filed by tbe execution creditor, witb bis reply in opposition to tbe execution debtor’s answer to tbe complaint, be separated from tbe record of tbe case, without special imposition of costs, and ordered that tbe principal papers of tbe record be turned over to tbe District Court of Humacao as legal successor of tbe court of first instance of Guayama, according to section 14 of General Order No. 118, series of 1899.
    Prom tbe ruling of tbe District Court of San Juan the representative of tbe estate of Vicente Fernández Monjardin took an appeal as to tbe portion thereof relating to tbe transfer of the case to tbe District Court of Humacao. Said appeal being allowed, tbe record was transmitted to this Supreme Court, after citation of tbe parties, who, having appeared, were given an opportunity to examine tbe papéis, counsel for Blanca Alcalá del Olmo joining in tbe appeal as to tbe portion of tbe ruling appealed from, wherein tbe deed constituting tbe mortgage giving rise to tbe debt sought to be recovered is ordered to be detached from tbe record.
    Tbe bearing of this appeal was bad on tbe 23d of April last, counsel for respondent being present.
    
      Mr. Bossy (Manuel F.), for appellant.
    
      Mr. Vías Ochoteco, for respondent.
   Me. Justice HeRnández,

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

Tbe order of tbe District Court of San Juan, in so far as it directs that tbe deed executed before tbe notary of Guayama, José Mariano Capó, June 5,1887, by Jesús María Texidor, in favor of Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo, with referencé to a voluntary mortgage, be detached from tbe record of tbe case, is not final, since it does not terminate tbe action, nor render its continuation impossible, and therefore an appeal from said order does not lie, even under tbe act of tbe Legislative Assembly, approved March. 12, 1903, which, transforming the Supreme Court of cassation into a court of appeals, instead of repealing, left in full force and effect, articles 1687 and 1688 of the Law of Civil Procedure, as is to he inferred from section 4 of said act.

The jurisdiction of the District Court of San Juan came to an end with the decision of the appeal whereof it had cognizance, pursuant to the provision of section 12 of General Order No. 118, series of 1899, and from that moment, according to section 14 of aforesaid general order, the District Court of Humacao is the one having jurisdiction over the case, for the town of Guayama, formerly the seat of the abolished court of that name, where the case was originally brought, belongs to the judicial district of Humacao. The ruling appealed from, therefore, in so far as the case is therein ordered to be turned over to aforesaid Humacao court, is in conformity with the law.

In view of the legal texts cited and rule 63 of General Order No. 118, series of 1899, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the ruling made by the District Court of San Juan, August 7, last, in so far as the case is therein ordered to be turned over to the District Court of Humacao, and declare that the appeal taken in intervention by counsel for Blanca Alcalá del Olmo from the same ruling, as to the portion relating to the detachment from the record of the deed executed June 5, 1887, by Jesús María Texidor, in favor of Evaristo Alcalá del Olmo, with reference to a mortgage loan, cannot be entertained by this court; it being understood that there shall be no spécial imposition of costs. The record is ordered to be returned to the District Court of San Juan with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quinones and Justices Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.