Case Name: Montilla v. P. Van Syckel & Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-03-20
Citations: 3 P.R. 449
Docket Number: No. 53
Parties: Montilla v. P. Van Syckel & Co.
Judges: Messrs. Associate Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzba-cher and MacLeary, concurring.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 449–453

Head Matter:
Montilla v. P. Van Syckel & Co.
Appeal in cassation from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 53.
Decided March 20, 1903.
Appeal in cassation foe eeeou op law. — In an appeal in cassation for error of law, according to article 1718 of the Law of Civil Procedure, the paragraph of article 1690 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon which the appeal is based, must be stated and the law or legal doctrine alleged to have been violated must be precisely and clearly cited, as well as the manner in which the violation ocurred.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
On December 23, 1901, Herminio Diaz Navarro, on behalf of Emilio Mon tilla Valdespino brought a suit in the District Court of San Juan, against the firm of Pi Van Syckel & Co., praying that the summary executory action that had previously been instituted against him by the defendant for the recovery of a mortgage debt amounting to eight thousand thirty-six pesos and ninety-nine centavos upon the estate “Santa-Cruz”, belonging to him and situated in the neighboring township of Bayamón, which by virtue of said proceedings was awarded to the plaintiff for two-thirds of the value at which it had been ■ appraised by the parties to the deeds constituting the credit, be declared null and void, inasmuch as said award was made in violation of the provisions of the General Order of January 31, 1899, according to the provisions of which in no case shall an estate be foreclosed upon or sold for mortgage debts, without a revaluation by experts, one of whom shall be named by the creditor, one by the debtor and a third by the judge. The record having been delivered to the defendants through their counsel Eduardo Acuña Aybar, they filed an answer denying the complaint and in turn urged such allegations as they deemed pertinent in support of their claims.
The stage in the proceeding for the introduction of evidence having been reached, and such as had been proposed by the parties having been heard, the District Court of San Juan rendered judgment on May 22, 1902, dismissing the complaint witli costs against plaintiff.
From this decision counsel for Emilio Montilla Valdespi-no took an appeal in cassation for violation of law, which was allowed and the record having been sent up to this Supreme Court, and the parties cited, upon their appearance the record was delivered to counsel for appellant in order that he might perfect the appeal. This he did returning the record with a writing setting out that the appeal was authorized by paragraph 1 of article 1690 of the Law of Civil Procedure, and alleging that the trial court had violated the Judicial and General Orders invoked in the complaint by construing them in a different sense from that in which they were'understood by appellant.
Mr. Diaz Navarro, for appellant.
Mr. Acuña Aybar (Eduardo), for respondent.

Opinion:
Me. Chief Justice Quiñones,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the court: »
According to article 1718 of the Law of Civil Procedure, in an appeal in cassation for violation of law, the paragraph of article 1690 of aforesaid code upon which the appeal is based shall be stated, and the law or legal doctrine alleged to have been violated shall be precisely and clearly 'cited, as well as the manner in which the violation occurred, and the appeal taken by Emilio Montilla not being in conformity with said provisions, inasmuch as he fails to cite with the precision required by said article, the law or laws that are supposed to have been violated, and to state clearly the manner in which said violations occurred, aforesaid appeal cannot be decided.
We adjudge that we should declare, and do declare, that the appeal in cassation for violation of law, taken by Emilio Montilla, cannot be considered, and impose upon him the costs. This decision is ordered to be communicated to the District Court of San Juan for compliance herewith, and the original records herein returned to the said court.
Messrs. Associate Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzba-cher and MacLeary, concurring.