Case Name: Alvarez et al., Appellants, v. Registrar of Humacao, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1917-06-08
Citations: 25 P.R. 343
Docket Number: No. 309
Parties: Alvarez et al., Appellants, v. Registrar of Humacao, Respondent.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Hernández concurred in the judgment-
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 343–348

Head Matter:
Alvarez et al., Appellants, v. Registrar of Humacao, Respondent.
Appeal from a Decision of the Registrar of Property Refusing in Part to Record a Deed of Partition. .
No. 309.
Decided June 8, 1917.
SYLLABI OF OPINION'DELIVERED BY MR. JUSTICE ALDREY IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE WOLF CONCURS. !
Partition — Heirs—Minors—Tutor—Opposing Interests — Record of Title.— The letter and spirit of the prohibition prescribed in section 230 of the Civil Code, that the father or the mother cannot represent their unemanei-pated children when they have opposing interests, are not applicable in a partition of property to the heirs who represent other heirs, because be-, tween these there are not the opposing interests which the legislators eon-, templated, but, on the contrary, they have a common interest; therefore, the mere fact that the tutor of some minors may be also an heir is no ground^ for concluding that his interest is opposed to theirs and that for that reason the deed of partition should he denied admission to record.
concurring opinion.
Id. — Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—'When the conveyances made to minor heirs in a • '■ partition in which adult heirs are also interested are recorded in the registry of. property, the records are under the protection of the courts and produce the corresponding legal effects until adjudged null and void in an action : brought by the heirs themselves, and the conveyances made to other adult heirs cannot be denied admission to record on the ground of incompatibility . of interests between the minors and their tutor who is also an heir.
The facts aré stated in the opinions.
])/r_ Francisco González for the appellants.
The registrar appeared pro se.

Opinion:
Opinion deliveréd' by
Me. Justice Audrey
in which Mr. Justice Wolf concurs.
The heirs of José Joaquín Alvarez made an extrajudicial partition of the estate left by Alvarez at his death.' The minor heirs Ramón and Rafael Diaz Alvarez were represented in the partition by their guardian, Isidro Alvarez Santiago, who is also an heir, after he had obtained the authorization of the District Court of Humacao to intervene in the partition. The deed of partition having been submitted to and approved by the district court, it was presented in the Registry oh Humacao, in which the property awarded to the minors and later the property awarded to other heirs were recorded; . but when the heirs Eloy and Eugenio Alvarez Santiago subsequently sought to record the property awarded to them in the partition, the registrar refused to record the same, assigning the incurable defect that said minors had been represented by a guardian who, being also an heir, had interests opposed to those of the minors, and as section 230 of the Civil Code provides that whenever the father or the mother has interests opposed to those of their unemancipated children, the district court shall appoint for the latter a person to defend their interests, who shall represent them in or out .of court, it must be understood that such provision applies to a guardian also, for it would be absurd, in view qf the mandatory nature of the statute, to grant to the guardian what is denied to the father or mother; and it can not be successfully contended in this case that the guardian was authorized by the District Court of Humacao to represent the said minors in the partition of the estate, because such authorization is repugnant to the said section according to the decision of this court'of July 20, 1910, in the ease of the Estate of Alvarez v. Registrar of Property, 16 P. R. R. 572.
The mere fact that the guardian may be also an heir is mo ground, in my opinion, for concluding that he has interests -opposed to those of the minors whom he represented and that for that reason the deed of partition should be refused admission to record. It is true that the decision of this court •cited by the registrar holds that an heir can not represent another minor heir in the partition of an estate because he has an interest opposed to that of his ward, for naturally each heir will seek to secure the greatest benefit for himself in the partition, and that the Directorate of Registries of Spain, in its decision of December 20, 1883, held similarly but without stating its reasons. However, if we. consider the letter and spirit of the prohibition placed upon the father or mother by section 230 of the Civil Code, we must conclude that it is not applicable to heirs who represent other heirs because the conflicting interests which the legislators had in mind does not exist between them.'
Under our statutes the surviving spouse manifestly has an interest in the estate of the other spouse which is opposed to that of the unemancipated minor children, for as the survivor's share of the community property must be deducted from the estate and allotted to him as full owner, the greater such share the less will be the property to be divided among the heirs who, therefore, have a common interest opposed to that of the surviving spouse; for which reason the legislators, bearing in mind that the father or mother was a creditor of the estate .and also a representative of the minor heirs and debtors, prohibited the former from representing the latter. Such conflict of interests of creditor and debtor-does not exist between coheirs, who, on the contrary, have-a common interest, and we fail to see that the said statute should be made applicable to them by analogy.
Nor do we believe that the heir who represents other minor heirs is in a position to derive the greatest possible-benefit from the partition, for as the property is appraised' by experts or by the heirs themselves, each one of them will receive necessarily his proportionate share of the estate as provided by law.
The decision appealed from should be reversed and the record ordered.
Reversed.
Mr. Chief Justice Hernández concurred in the judgment-
justices del Toro and Hutchison dissented.