Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Barrio Huertas, Manuel
KLAN202500222
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 30, 2025Background
- Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) filed a claim to collect a debt from the heirs of Manuel Barrio Viel after he allegedly defaulted on a payment agreement settled in a prior case (JCD2011-1252).
- The original debt originated from credit cards, and a 2012 settlement stipulated Bien (via his agent, Barrio Huertas) owed BPPR and would pay an additional penalty if he defaulted.
- Barrio Viel died in 2023; the bank claimed it only became aware of his death then, while the heirs argued BPPR had earlier notice.
- The heirs contended BPPR failed to properly substitute parties or seek execution in the original action, and thus any claim should be processed within the original case.
- The court of first instance dismissed BPPR’s independent action with prejudice, ordering all matters to be resolved in the original case.
- BPPR appealed, arguing they could pursue a new independent action based on established judicial exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BPPR) | Defendant's Argument (Barrio Huertas/Heirs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPPR could file an independent claim to collect on a prior judgment debt | BPPR is entitled to use an independent action to execute the judgment when conditions justify it | Any claims must be resolved within the original action, not through a new suit | BPPR can pursue an independent action to collect the debt |
| Proper notification and substitution of parties after debtor's death | BPPR learned of debtor's death only in 2023; heirs did not notify the bank or court as required | BPPR was aware of death earlier and failed to substitute heirs in the original suit | Court did not resolve notice dispute, but did not bar independent action |
| Effect and enforceability of stipulations/settlements approved by the court | Court-approved stipulations create a new enforceable debt obligation | Settlement terms were altered outside court and lack heir approval; thus, not enforceable | Court found stipulation binding and enforceable under exceptions |
| Whether new action is barred by procedural rules or must be folded into original case | Exception allows new suit to enforce money judgment under certain factual circumstances | Only original court can enforce, via regular procedures (Rule 51.1 PR Civ. Proc.) | Exception applies; new independent action is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Mun. San Juan v. Prof. Research, 171 DPR 219 (P.R. 2007) (recognized exceptions where an independent action may be brought to enforce a prior money judgment)
- Igaravidez v. Ricci, 147 DPR 1 (P.R. 1998) (general rule that executions of judgments occur in the originating court)
- Quiñones v. Jiménez Conde, 117 DPR 1 (P.R. 1986) (exceptions to the execution-in-original-court rule)
- Rodríguez v. Martínez, 68 DPR 450 (P.R. 1948) (money judgments can create new obligations enforcible independently)
- Rivera Menéndez v. Action Services, 185 DPR 431 (P.R. 2012) (stipulations as judicial admissions binding the parties)