Case Name: Argüeso et al. v. Müllenhoff & Korber
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-02-19
Citations: 5 P.R. 331
Docket Number: No. 96
Parties: Argüeso et al. v. Müllenhoff & Korber.
Judges: Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernandez, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 331–335

Head Matter:
Argüeso et al. v. Müllenhoff & Korber.
Appeal from the District Court of Humacao.
No. 96.
Decided February 19, 1904.
Jurisdiction — Personal Action. — Except in cases of express or implied submission in proceedings in which personal actions are instituted, the competent judge shall be that of the place where the obligation is i¡o be performed, and, in his absence, that of the domicile of the defendant or of the plaee of the contract if said defendant is found there, even accidentally, and process can be served upon him.
Id. — An action to obtain the execution of a deed and indemnity for losses and damages is a personal aetion.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This was a suit brought in the District Court of Humacao by Manuel Argüeso y Flores and Ernestina Frías y Noya against Müllenhoff & Korber, for the execution of a deed of purchase and sale of the Estate “Ingenio” of Yabucoa, and indemnification for losses and damages, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by plaintiffs from the decision of said court upon a question of jurisdiction, appellants having been represented by Rafael López Landrón, Esq., and respondents by Jacinto Texidor, Esq.
Under date of May 5, 1903, Mannel Argüeso y Flores and Ernestina Frías y Noy a, bis wife, brongbt an action in tbe District Conrt of Humacao against tbe mercantile firm of Mülíenboff & Korber, of tbis city, asking tbat under tbe proceedings prescribed for declaratory actions, final judgment be rendered ordering defendants to execute tbe deed of purchase and sale of tbe Central Sugar Estate known as “Inge-nio,” situated in tbe former municipal district of Yabucoa, “upon tbe basis of its rental value during tbe last three years, excluding tbat of tbe cyclone,” within a peremptory period, should they not find a third person to buy 'it within a period which shall also be fixed, with indemnity for losses, damages and payment of all tbe costs.
Tbe complaint being admitted, summons to answer tbe same was served in tbis city upon Mülíenboff & Korber, who applied to tbe District Court of San Juan for a writ forbidding tbe Humacao court to take cognizance of the case. Tbis request was granted, and accordingly, on tbe 25th of May last, tbe San Juan court issued a writ of inhibition forbidding tbe Humacao court from taking further cognizance of tbe case, which was complied with by tbe latter in an order of tbe 20th of July last. From tbis order tbe plaintiffs appealed and tbe record was forwarded to tbis Supreme Court for decision.
Tbe appeal having been transmitted in due form, after tbe parties bad been afforded an opportunity to examine tbe papers, and an incidental issue of consolidation decided, a day was set for tbe bearing, which was held on tbe 13th instant, tbe parties being present and arguing their cases.
Mr. López Landrón, for appellant.
Mr. Texidor, for respondents.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Sulzbacher,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
Under paragraph 1 of article 62 of the Law of Civil Procedure, it is provided that with the exception of cases of express or implied submission in personal actions, the competent judge shall be that of the place where the obligation is to be performed, and in his absence, that of the domicile of the defendant or of the place of the contract, at the election of the plaintiff, if said defendant be found there, even accidentally, and the process can be served upon him.
The cause of action in the present complaint is a personal one, and the place where the obligation is to be performed is not stated, nor has there been either express or implied submission to any tribunal by the parties; therefore, under the foregoing legal provision, the San Juan court is the one having jurisdiction over the case in question, because it is that of the domicile of the defendants, and the process was not served upon them in Humacao.
The order made on the 20th of July last by the District Court of Humacao is therefore proper and according to law.
We adjudge that we should accordingly affirm and do affirm the order appealed from, with costs against appellants. The proper certificate is ordered to be issued to the District Court of Humacao and the record forwarded to be returned.
Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernandez, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.