Case Name: Succession of Pereda v. Succession of Rodriguez
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-02-16
Citations: 3 P.R. 345
Docket Number: No. 12
Parties: Succession of Pereda v. Succession of Rodriguez.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Quiñonez and Associate Justice Hernandez, Sulzbacher and MacLeary, concurred in the foregoing opinion and judgment.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 345–351

Head Matter:
Succession of Pereda v. Succession of Rodriguez.
Appeal in cassation from a judgment rendered by the District Court,of Mayagüez.
No. 12.
Decided February 16, 1903.
Appeals. — Evidence.—An appeal in cassation for error in the consideration of a particular portion of the evidence does not lie where the lower court reached a correct conclusion on the whole evidence.
Management oe the Business oe Another. — The provisions contained in Article 1888 and 1889 of the Civil Code are applicable only where the management of the business of another is voluntary and without the authority of the latter, but not when said management is undertaken by order and with the intervention of the party concerned.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
The Succession of Don Fermín Pereda, consisting of Doña Blasina Alemar, in her own right as the widow of said Pereda, and as the legal representative of her minor children, Don Francisco and Doña Leonor Pereda y Alemar, and in the name of Doña Georgina of the same surname, legally represented by her husband, Don J osé Dominguez y Portero, after the institution of an unsuccessful conciliatory proceeding (acto de conciliación), filed a complaint in the District Court of Mayagüez, on the 27th of September, 1901, together with a copy of a power of attorney executed by Don Fermín Pereda to his-wife, Doña Blasina Alemar, o,n the 26th of February, 1885, granting authority to make a will, and a copy of the will made under said power of attorney dated the 27th of September, 1899, against the Succession of Don Juan Rodriguez Diaz, consisting of Doña María Luisa Alemar, as his widow, and as the legal representative of her minor daughter, Asunción Rodriguez, and Doña Juana and Doña Ana Luisa Rodriguez, married to Don Jose Sueca and Don Antonio Vicente Sanchez, respectively, the complaint being based principally on the fact that Don Juan Rodriguez Diaz on the death of Don Fermín Pereda took possession of property valued at no less than eleven or twelve thousand pesos, Mexican money, represented by the stock of merchandise in his store, as well as several debts of no mean importance, owing to the said Pereda, Rodriguez taking advantage of the fact that he was married to a sister of Perecla’s widow without the knowledge of the said widow or of her minor children, and in this manner effecting a seizure, under cover of his administration of the business of which neither he nor his succession has ever rendered any accounting, in spite of the friendly efforts which have been made with that end in view since the facts came to the knowledge of the Succession of Pereda; and after citing Articles 1888 and 1889 of the Civil Code in regard to the management of the affairs of others, in relation to Articles 1101 and 1108 of the same Code, plaintiff prayed the Court that the defendant be required within the term of five days to render a detailed accounting of the liquidation of the property left by Don Fermin Pereda, which liquidation was made by Don Jaun Rodriguez; that defendant be required to deliver the balance shown by such accounting to plaintiff, and to pay the damages and losses suffered by plaintiff and all the costs of the proceeding. The defendant answered the complaint refusing to admit the facts set out therein until the same should be proved, and alleged that on the death of Don Fermin Pereda, his wife Doña Blasina Alemar, who was alone and without any one to assist her in the liquidation of the business, and being -beset by the claims of creditors who threatened to attach the stock of goods in the store and the two houses left by her husband on his death,- on the advice of her father and her brother, she called upon her brother-in-law, Don Juan Rodriguez Diaz, requesting him to assist her in this difficult situation, which he did without any remuneration whatever, and he succeeded in persuading the creditors not to institute judicial proceedings, and always acting by agreement with Doña Blasina and with her cooperation, the accounts due were all collected and the debts against the estate were paid, saving for the Succession of Pereda the furniture or fittings, a portion of the stock of provisions and two houses, one built of brick and cement' and the other a frame house, and that the liquidation was made with the consent of Doña Blasina and at her request, no instrument being executed authorizing the administration, and no other authority having been given to Rodriguez; and after having cited such legal provisions as were deemed proper, the said answer was concluded by praying the court to dismiss the complaint and exonerate the Succession of Don Juan Rodriguez from all liability thereunder, and impose all the costs of the proceeding upon the plaintiff. The case having been admitted for the hearing of evidence, the documental evidence and the testimony proposed by the parties was heard, it having been shown by three receipts made in favor of three creditors of Don Fermin Pereda and signed by Don Juan Rodriguez, that the said Rodriguez collected the amounts for which each of the said receipts were made, and it being shown by all of the evidence taken together that the efforts of Rodriguez were made at the request and with the cooperation of the widow of Pereda, Doña Blasina Alemar, and the further proceedings having been had in the case, the District Court of Mayagiiez rendered judgment on the 6th of January of the year last passed, dismissing the complaint and exonerating the defendant, with costs against the plaintiff. Plaintiff has taken an appeal in cassation provided for by Paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 1690 of the Law of Civil Procedure, based on the following grounds:
I. — “Error of law in considering the three receipts out of so many other creditors of Pereda, and the testimony of various witnesses, since it all goes only to show that Don Juan Rodriguez collected and appropriated sums owing to Pereda by reason of liis situation as a merchant; that the collections were made after the death of the said Pereda, since which date Rodriguez was in the management of the business establishment left by Pereda”.
II. — “By committing the said error, in considering the evidence referred to, Articles 1888 and 1889 in connection with 101 as stated, but which should be 1101 and 1108, all of the Civil Code, have been violated, inasmuch as the judgment does not recognize in the acts of Rodriguez the execution of a quasi contract to manage the affairs of others, and therefore the obligations thereof”.
Mr. Eduardo Acmia, for appellant.
Mr. Alvarez Nava, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr.. Associate Justice Figüeras,
after making the aboye statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the Court:
The trial court considering together all of the evidence introduced, correctly concludes that the liquidation of the mercantile establishment left on his death by Don Fermin Pereda was made by Don Juan Rodriguez Diaz at the request and with the intervention of Pereda's widow, Doña Blasina Alemar, and therefore no error has been committed in considering the evidence as is alleged in the first ground of the appeal; nor were the articles violated as alleged in the second ground of the appeal because the provisions cited refer to the management of the business of another undertaken voluntarily, and without the authority of the latter, none of which circumstances are present in this case. We adjudge that we should declare, and do declare, that the appeal in cassation for violation of law which was taken by the Succession of Don Fermin Pereda y Torres, does not lie, and tax the costs against appellant; a proper certificate will be issued to the District Court of Mayagüez, and the record sent to this tribunal, will be returned to' the said district court.
Mr. Chief Justice Quiñonez and Associate Justice Hernandez, Sulzbacher and MacLeary, concurred in the foregoing opinion and judgment.