Case Name: María Figueroa de Fernández et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Antonia Alonso et al., Defendants and Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1940-07-26
Citations: 57 P.R. 487
Docket Number: No. 7910
Parties: María Figueroa de Fernández et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Antonia Alonso et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: Mr. Justice De Jesús took no part in the decision of this case.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 487–489

Head Matter:
María Figueroa de Fernández et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Antonia Alonso et al., Defendants and Appellants.
No. 7910.
Argued January 18, 1940.
Decided July 26, 1940.
E. Pérez Gasalduo for appellants. J. Ramírez Viñas for appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice HutchisoN
delivered the opinion of the court.
The first assignment is that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of an averment in a complaint in an action brought by Dnrlach Brothers, Inc. against plaintiffs herein; and of the testimony of a witness in that case.
In Aponte & Sobrino v. Heirs of Pérez, 48 P.R.R. 437, 439, this court said:
". . . The principle generally prevailing is that the decision of a cause must depend upon the evidence introduced. If the court should take judicial notice of certain facts which should have been presented as evidence, then the opposing party has no way to meet such evidence, which becomes conclusive against him, while in reality, if it had been presented he might have been in a position to meet and controvert it. Note to Murphy v. Citizens' Bank, 12 Ann. Cas. 537."
The facts in the instant case do not bring it within any of the recognized exceptions to the general rule.
The second assignment is that the district court erred in finding that the defendant, Antonia Alonso, had tacitly accepted an inheritance before executing a notarial instrument of repudiation. We are constrained to agree with appellants that the evidence was insufficient to support this finding.
The third assignment is that the district court erred in finding that the promissory notes were not commercial transactions and in holding that the action was not barred. An examination of the evidence in the light of the conclusions reached in Barceló & Co., S. en C. v. Olmo, 48 P.R.R. 239, and in Banco de Puerto Rico v. Rodríguez, 53 P.R.R. 166, discloses no error.
We find no abuse of discretion in the award of $200 as attorneys' fees as far as the defendant, Carmen Sáez, is concerned.
The judgment of the district court must be reversed as to the defendants, Antonia Alonso and Esteban Diaz and, in all other respects, affirmed.
Mr. Justice De Jesús took no part in the decision of this case.