Case Name: Escobar v. Escobar et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1910-06-18
Citations: 16 P.R. 555
Docket Number: No. 529
Parties: Escobar v. Escobar et al.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices MacLeary and del ‘Toro concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Escobar v. Escobar et al.
Appeal from the District Court of Humacao.
No. 529.
Decided June 18, 1910.
Natural Children — Action eor Acknowledgment — Prescription.—It having ■been alleged and proved herein that the plaintiff was born September 29, 1850, and that the action for acknowledgment was not filed until the month of June, 1909, the alleged natural father having died in 1900, the action is barred by prescription, in accordance with the opinion of this court delivered in the cases of &ual v. Bonafoux, decided June 25, 1909, and Puente v. Amsterdam, decided June 17, 1910.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Enrique López Bias for appellant.
Mr. WImmel F. Bossy for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wole
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of filiation brought by León Escobar against Ildefonso Escobar and others, the complaint praying' for a judgment against the defendants as heirs of Antonio Escobar declaring the plaintiff to be the natural acknowledged son of Antonio Escobar with all the rights given by the Civil Law.
The answer denied the facts of the complaint and among other defenses set up the defense that the action had prescribed, inasmuch as the complainant was born on September 29, 1850, and the action was not begun until July, 1909.
The opinion and judgment of the court below, which was against the complainant, is based upon the defense of prescription. The proof showed that complainant's alleged father died in 1900. Thele was no showing of any authentic document or solemn act in favor of the complainant. The action is for filiation. Hence the case falls under the principles announced by us in the cases of Gual v. Bonafoux (15 P. R. Rep., 545), decided by this court on June 25, 1909, and Puente v. Amsterdam (16 P. R. Rep., 527), decided, on June 17, 1910, and tlie judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices MacLeary and del 'Toro concurred.
Mr, Justice Figueras did not take part in the decision of this case.