Cordero Mangual, Luis a v. D Desarrollo Economico Y Comercio
KLAN202300851
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Oct 30, 2023Background
- Applicant Luis A. Cordero Mangual filed (5 July 2023) a lotification-via-variation request to segregate parcels within a 126.60-cuerda property spanning Hormigueros (Benavente) and Cabo Rojo (Bajura).
- OGPe (Office of Permits Management) archived the lotification request (14 July 2023), concluding Section 5.1.2.3 of Reglamento Núm. 9473-2023 requires cases on Suelo Rústico Especialmente Protegido (SREP) or flood‑prone areas to be filed as a Consulta de Ubicación, not as lotificación.
- OGPe found the property is 95% AR‑1 (Agricultural Reserve One) and situated in a flood‑susceptible area, so the proper procedure is a Consulta de Ubicación.
- Cordero filed a reconsideration (2 Aug 2023) arguing vested rights from the lot’s formation in 1989 and alleging denial of due process (no hearing). OGPe’s Administrative Review Division issued a "No Ha Lugar" resolution (25 Aug 2023).
- The Appeals Court treated the appeal as an administrative review, affirmed OGPe’s decision, holding: (1) OGPe properly applied the 2023 regulation requiring Consulta de Ubicación; (2) Cordero had no acquired right exempting him; and (3) no deprivation of procedural due process occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedure: must application be processed as lotificación or Consulta de Ubicación? | Cordero sought lotificación by variation for segregation. | OGPe: Section 5.1.2.3 bars lotificaciones on SREP or flood‑prone land; case must be a Consulta de Ubicación. | OGPe properly archived the lotificación; Consulta de Ubicación is the correct procedure. |
| Vested/acquired rights under 1989 law exempting application from new regulation? | Cordero: formation/structure from 1989 created an acquired right to segregate under prior law. | OGPe: no consummated, vested right shown; new regulation legitimately changes the prior legal regime. | No acquired right found; plaintiff cannot perpetuate the old legal status; regulation applies. |
| Due process — denial of hearing / opportunity to be heard? | Cordero: agency erred in not holding a hearing, violating procedural due process. | OGPe: decision to archive was lawful, reasons explained; plaintiff’s property interest not improperly affected. | No procedural due process violation: no protected interest was improperly deprived and procedure was fair and adequate. |
| Agency factfinding / substantial‑evidence review | Cordero implicitly contests agency findings (AR‑1, flood susceptibility). | OGPe: findings are supported by its record and regulation. | Court defers to agency: factual findings sustained by substantial evidence; agency acted within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres Rivera v. Policía de PR, 196 DPR 606 (2016) (scope of judicial deference to administrative determinations and exceptions)
- Consejo Titulares v. Williams Hospitality, 168 DPR 101 (2006) (definition and limits of acquired rights)
- Domínguez v. Caguas Expressway Motors, 148 DPR 387 (1999) (standard for overturning agency findings for lack of substantial evidence)
- Otero v. Toyota, 163 DPR 716 (2005) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Vázquez González v. Mun. de San Juan, 178 DPR 636 (2010) (procedural due process and municipal planning/notice/hearing requirements)