Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 P.R. 364

Arandes v. Báez

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Decided May 1, 1914

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · decided 1914-05-01

<p>Partition of Inheritance — Error of Fact.- — Section 1048 of the Civil Code refers to an error of fact, and not to an error of law, in the designation of heirs who intervene in a partition of inherited property.</p> <p>Id. — Voluntary 'Payment — Error of Law. — As a general rule a payment voluntarily made under an error of law is not recoverable.</p> <p>Id. — Usufructuary Share — Intestate Succession. — When in accordance with the opinion that the widow is entitled to an usufructuary share in the intestate succession, which opinion prevailed until the contrary doctrine was laid down in the ease of JuTbe v. Guzman, 16 P. B. B., 502, a partition is made of the inherited property in which the widow is awarded a certain sum of money in payment of said share, the said partition is not void because it is made under an error of law, nor is the award of such a nature as to warrant the restitution of the amount paid as an exception to the general rule above stated.</p> <p>Id. — Contract of Compromise — Error of Law. — When the parties to a deed of partition of inherited property also enter into a contract of compromise, the latter cannot be deemed void because of an error of law suffered by the parties.</p> <p>Id. — Incongruency Between Evidence and Complaint — Contract of Compromise. — -The evidence must be in harmony with the theory raised by the alle- ■ gations of the complaint, and when the complaint prays only for the nullity of the designation of heirs and the partition of the inherited property, there exists an ineongrueney between the evidence and the complaint when it results from the former that a contract of compromise is involved.</p>

Decided 1914-05-01

¶1CONCURRING OPINION OP

MR. CHIEE JUSTICE HERNANDEZ AND MR. JUSTICE AUDREY.

¶2By a judicial decision of February 18, 1909, the intestate heirs of Ramón Arandes were decreed to be his mother, Clara Virella, and also his widow, Estebanía Báez, of an usufruc-tuary estate. Subsequently the mother and widow made a partition of the property inherited.

¶3The complaint which originated this case prays for the annulment of the declaration of heirship as well as of the partition of the property, alleging that the widow had no right to an usufructuary estate jointly with the ancestor and that, therefore, the partition of the property was made with a person who was erroneously considered an usufruc-tuary heir.

¶4The lower court sustained the prayer of the complaint in the judgment appealed from.

¶5We are of the opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action because the widow, Estebanía Báez, had a right to an usufructuary estate in the property of her husband, Ra-món Arandes, who died intestate, and in support of our opinion we refer to the same reasons stated in the dissenting opinion handed down when a majority of this court held to the contrary on June 15, 1910, in the case of Julbe v. Guzmán, 16 P. R. R., 502, 518.

¶6But, on the hypothesis that Estebanía Báez could not be considered to have any hereditary right in the intestate inheritance of Ramón Arandes and that she was not his usufruc-*374tuary heir, we are of the opinion that, in view of the special circumstances of this case, she could not be compelled td return what she received as an usufructuary estate. Under the foregoing hypothesis we concur in the reasoning of the opinion which is the basis of the judgment rendered by this court to-day.

¶7Whether Estebanía Báez has or has not a right to an usu-fructuary estate in the intestate inheritance of her husband, Bamón Arandes, the judgment appealed from should be reversed.

/20/pr/364 · .json · Public domain