Case Name: Paris v. The People
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-12-14
Citations: 5 P.R. 29
Docket Number: No. 43
Parties: Paris v. The People.
Judges: Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 29–39

Head Matter:
Paris v. The People.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 43.
Decided December 14, 1903.
Ownership. — The brief and summary nature of the proceedings to establish ownership preeludes therein all kinds of incidental issues and therefore the decisions rendered in said proceedings must be confined to a declaration as to whether or not the ownership of the estate which is the object thereof has been established.
'STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
These proceedings were brought to secure a declaration of ownership, in the District Court of San Juan by Juan Paris, and contested by The People of Porto Pico, and the case is now pending before ns on appeal taken by the petitioner, represented in this Supreme Court by Wenceslao Bosch, Esq.; the respondent, namely The People of Porto Rico, being represented, first, by the Acting Attorney General, and afterwards by the Fiscal of this court.
Said District Court, upon the termination of the proceedings rendered its decision which literally reads as follows:
“San Juan, Porto Rico, April eighteenth, one thousand nine hundred and three.
“On August 29, 1902’, Attorney Wenceslao Bosch, on behalf of Juan Paris, instituted these judicial proceedings to secure admission to record a title of ownership in his favor, of a parcel of land containing seventy-two cuerdas, situated in barrio ‘Cangrejos-Arriba,’ within the Municipal District of Carolina, being bounded on tlie east and south by lands belonging to Fermín Martínez Villamil; on the north by the sea and on the west by the lands of Pedro Bulerni; he stated that his client acquired the said property by inheritance from his father, Pedro Paris, and had been paying the taxes assessed thereon, since 1895; that said real estate is free from encumbrances and is ■valued at two hundred and fifty dollars; and as he had no recorded title, he prayed that the testimony which he proposed to .introduce be admitted and that the ownership (dominion title) of said property be declared in his favor, in order that he might have the same recorded in the Registry of Property.
“This petition was accompanied by a number of tax-receipts for the years 1900 to 1903 and two for June of 1895, of municipal tax in Carolina.
“The application for a hearing was granted and the Fiscal was heard, an order being issued for his citation. An edict appeared in the Gazette of September 4, 1902, it not appearing that the same was ordered by the court, summoning all parties who had any property rights in the tract of land hereinbefore described, persons unknown and in general all those who might desire to oppose the declaration of ownership solicited, in order that they might do so within sixty judicial days.
“In response to said publication the Treasurer of Porto Rico, on the 9th of the same month, contested the petition of Juan Paris, alleging that the lands referred to belonged to The People of Porto Rico, the same having been acquired from the abolished religious communities and that said Paris had no right thereto, but on the contrary, the property was in default with the Treasury of Porto Rico for many years’ lease-rent, which had not been satisfied.
“Notice of the Treasurer’s opposition was given to the Attorney General on October 1, 1902, and the Acting Attorney General, on behalf of The People of Porto Rico, perfected said opposition, and filed therewith a map drawn June 25, 1859, of the lands belonging to the Beal Hacienda (the Treasury), in barrio ‘Cangrejos-Arriba’ of Carolina, together with a record of proceedings had by the ‘Adminis-tración General Económica’ (Treasury Department) of this Island, during the Spanish domination, for the sale of said lands, alleging that as shown from said record, the sale of these lands having been decided upon in 1872, they were divided into parcels for greater convenience and profit to the Treasury, parcel No. 11 being held by Gabriel Paris, as lessee thereof; that said parcel was offered at public sale on various occasions without success; that for failure to pay the lease-rent in July 1874, Gabriel Paris was ordered to be ejected from the lands occupied by him, which order was not carried out; that in ¡September of 1879, said Paris requested that he be granted free use of said parcel of land, which request was denied; that in July of 1888 the Public Treasury was ordered, among other things, to take possession of aforesaid parcel No. 11, from which some cuerdas had already been segregated and the usufruct whereof continued to be enjoyed by G-abriel Paris or his heirs, Juan Paris being appointed the-trustee thereof; that the said decision was complied with on July 24, 1888, Juan Paris taking charge of the trust, under the penalty prescribed by the laws, according to a document signed at his request by Manuel Méndez. After urging many legal considerations the-Acting Attorney General finally prayed that the claim set up by Paris be dismissed, with costs, and that the ownership of said parcel of land be declared in favor of The People of Porto Eico, and that: it be ordered that aforesaid Paris be criminally prosecuted for the-offense committed in representing as his own, property which h& held in trust, with such other action as the case might warrant
‘ ‘ The period fixed for the introduction of evidence having expired and the value of the property in question being less than one thousand dollars, an order was issued on March 6, 1903, directing that the Department of Justice and the other parties interested be summoned to appear at an oral hearing which was set for eight o ’clock a. m., on the 23rd of the same month; but said day being a holiday, and Associate Judge Eichmond being unable to take cognizance of the case, by orders dated March 25 and April 4, 1903, said hearing was postponed to the 16th of April, qf which orders due notice was served upon the parties and they acquiesced therein.
‘ ‘ On April 15, Wenceslao Bosch, Esq., counsel for Paris, raised an incidental issue asking for the annulment of all proceedings had subsequently to the issuance of the order of March 6, and that in lieu thereof the term of one hundred and eighty days fixed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law for the proposal of evidence be allowed, and at the same time asking that the oral hearing set for the following day, be postponed, which requests were denied on the same day, the oral hearing taking place as ordered, on the 16th, at which only the Fiscal appeared and made such allegations as he deemed proper on behalf of The People of.Porto Eico.
‘ ‘ Juan Paris proposed no evidence during the period allowed therefor, nor subsequently, nor did he even attend to the summoning of tbe adjoining land-owners, nor show that the proclamation ordered to be inserted in the ‘Gazette’ had been published.
“The Acting Attorney General has fully proven by the survey and record filed during the aforesaid period, and which were not in any manner attacked, all the facts upon which his opposition was based.
“Juan Paris not having even attempted to prove the ownership claimed by him, it is imposible to grant his application.
“The Acting Attorney General has fully proven that said ownership resides in The People of Porto Rico; that the predecessors of' the aforesaid París, and Paris himself, were only the lessees of the lands in question, which latterly were held in trust by the said Paris who accepted the trusteeship and was bound to discharge the duties, of same under the penalties imposed by the laws upon unfaithful trustees.
“If, as such trustee, Juan Paris has possessed the parcel of land referred to in the proceedings and paid taxes thereon, this circumstance does not give him any title to aforesaid lands, nor could his predecessors have transmitted said title to him, since they never had it, they having held the tract of land in question only as lessees thereof. r
“Article 395 of the Mortgage Law, which fixed one hundred and eighty days for the admission of evidence in these proceedings, was-modified by paragraph 6 of the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, which limited said period to sixty days, and accordingly, the orders of .March 4 and 24, 1903, which were of mere procedure, having been acquiesced in and executed and the brief and summary nature of the special procedure, as éstablished by the Mortgage Law, precluding incidental issues of every character, the one referring to the annulment of proceedings, raised on the 15th instant by Wenceslao Bosch, Esq., was properly dismissed.
“For these reasons the decision rendered in this case should have reference only to the declaration of ownership requested by the plaintiff, without prejudice to such rights as The Peopie of Porto Rico may have in other respects, to be prosecuted in the proper action.
“The claim set up in these proceedings by Juan Paris is dismissed, he having failed to prove his right of ownership to the property hereinbefore described, which belongs to The People of Porto Rico, the latter being left at liberty to exercise all such rights as in the opinion of its. representatives it may have against Juan Paris or other persons, by prosecuting the same in the proper action. As soon as this decision becomes final, the map and record of administrative proceedings remitted by him to the Treasurer, are ordered to be forwarded to the Attorney General, with the proper communication. Thus it is decided and signed by the judges of this court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez, Angel García, José Tous Soto. Luís Méndez Yaz.”
From this order the party instituting the proceedings to secure a declaration of ownership (dominion title) took an appeal which was allowed en ambos efectos, that is to say, with the effect both of staying the proceedings in the trial court and of transmitting the case for review in the appellate court. The record having been forwarded to this Supreme Court, and the parties duly summoned to appear, the appeal was proceeded with under the provisions of the act of the Legislative .Assembly of the 12th of March last, counsel for the parties being present at. the hearing.
Mr. Bosch, for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Figueras,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the court.
The findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in the decision appealed from are accepted, after correcting an error contained in the fourth conclusion of law, the Judicial Order cited being dated April 7, 1899, and not April 4, as erroneously stated.
Notice of the orders of. March 6 and 25, and of April 4, 1903, were served upon and acquiesced in by the counsel for the party who sought to obtain the annulment thereof, and the order which decides only the question of ownership cannot now be reversed.
In view of the provisions cited in the order appealed from, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the decision rendered by the District Court of San Juan on April 18, 1903, with costs against the party appellant. This decision is ordered to be communicated to said court, and the record returned for the proper purposes.
Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.