Dear Joel, this ruling applies to your question, is the clearest I found the reason for the publication on the blog answers to the many queries received from your condo in the same sense, we are attentive to your case. Administration
ownership - 24/11/04 - Rol No. 3629-03
Santiago, 24 November, two thousand four. VIEW: 4054-95 role in these proceedings of the 12th Civil Court of Santiago, caratulas Ramírez Aliaga, Jorge Island in Pearl Black Community, by decision of 30 June of 1998, the judge of that court rejected the claim whereby it requested the annulment of the charter of the defendant. Appealed this resolution by the actor, a Chamber of the Court of Appeals in this city, June 19 ruling of last year, confirmed without amendment. Against this last statement, the applicant concluded an appeal in the background. Cars were brought into relation. WHEREAS: FIRST: That the appellant argues that the failure of the second degree, in upholding the trial and rejected the demand, made a first error of law by violating Article 1683 Civil Code. In fact, he adds, has refused to place the requested annulment of the statutes of the sentence the defendant claiming that his party has no interest in it, in circumstances under those instruments Establishing the obligation to pay arbitrary 5 UF for the simple fact of being part of the community, in addition to setting regular and special assessments. Clearly, then, continues the appellant, has the financial interest statement that he is missing, to request the annulment of the act mentioned. A second strand of appeal the appellant does involve a breach of Articles 2304 and 2081 Civil Code, since they have been allowed to persist statutes given by some of the villagers, in circumstances that administrative acts should undivided property taken by mutual agreement by all members of the community. Finally, the sentence is wrong in concept the appellant to violate Article 1304 Civil Code, since if the community has eighty-eight commoners, it was necessary that all of them from going to hold the event as invalid implore and, unable to decide in this way has been committed error of law is discussed. SECOND: That for the proper understanding of the resource under study should be noted the process the following circumstances: a) by deed of April 28, 1982, before notary public of this city, Baros Mario González, eighty-eight people bought natural Lucila lords, and Virginia Guardian Angel Victoria, all surnamed Diaz San Martin, a farm in the town of Punta de Tralca Island Black community of The Quisco. This building is registered on behalf of buyers fs. 364 N º 473 of the Land Registry in 1983 of the Real Estate Casablanca; b) forty-six of the guests passed a certain statutes of what they called Community La Perla de Isla Negra, which, according to the defendants entered into force on 5 February 1993; c) Mr. Jorge Aliaga Ramirez, the plaintiff in these proceedings, bought the rights in real estate that had Mr. Enrique Fernando Molinari Antonio Correa Sepúlveda Alejandro Poblete, two of the original communal eighty-eight buyers of the property in Tralca tip, purchases were made by deeds of 13 December 1994 and December 22, 1994, respectively, and d) the applicant, commoner in the property designated above demand in this process concluded, contrary to the community of La Perla de Isla Negra, supposedly represented by one of the community. THIRD: That the rights of the competence of a fellow named person, that is, precisely, a being capable of having rights and obligations. People are, as subjects of law and is classified as either natural or legal persons, the first defined in Article 55 and the second in article 545, both the Civil Code. The parties to a civil trial must necessarily be subject to rights, Debens natural or legal persons. FOURTH: That if two or more subjects have dominion over all of the same object, they form what is called a doctrine undivided co-ownership or community property undivided, a situation that our Civil Code devotes a special chapter about the quasi (2304 items to 2313). A community of this sort is not a legal entity and therefore is not subject to law. Thus, if one of the community-such as the applicant, wishes to operate against the other joint holders or against some of them, it is precisely these that should direct its action, the more you can not deduct his lawsuit against Community of Isla Negra La Perla, it does not have an entity and is not be summoned as a defendant. Then a villager who says that demand for the community to which he belongs, not to mention such treatment of the action to the community members who carried out the act or the act held flawed, is an impropriety. Was necessary, therefore, direct action against individuals who co-owners, in respect of the applicant, have entered into or executed the act the invalid claims. FIFTH: That in this way, even when the contested decision contains errors of law actually reporting the appellant, such errors, if any, would not affect the device of the sentence, since demand also had to be dismissed for having deducted against of a community that is not a legal person and can not be standing passively. SIXTH: That, well, even if it is true that acts of directors of a co-ownership must be decided unanimously by the villagers and can not pretend that there are laws governing one undivided if the act did not go to his will all the co-owners, the appeal in the background subtracted, for the reason mentioned above, must be rejected. And see also the provisions in Articles 766 and 767 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the appeal on the merits fs deduced. 344 by Don Jorge Aliaga Ramirez against the sentence of nineteen June, two thousand three, written fs. 343. Writing by the Minister Mr. Hernán Álvarez García. Sign up and be refunded. No. 3629-03. Statement by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Ministers Hernán Álvarez G., Eleodoro S. Ortíz, Enrique Tapia W., and Jorge Rodríguez A. and Advocate Mr. Manuel Daniel A. Integrative A member does not sign the Advocate Mr. Daniel, despite having attended the appeal hearing and resolution of failure, absent. Approved by the Acting Secretary Cornejo Marcela Urrutia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment