Diaz Diaz, Angel C v. Beirat, Kamel
KLAN202301117
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Feb 9, 2024Background
- This case involved a summary eviction (desahucio) action by Ángel C. Díaz Díaz (plaintiff) against Kamel Beirat (defendant), a long-term tenant, to recover a residential property in Vega Alta, Puerto Rico.
- Díaz Díaz claimed to own the property and that he asked Beirat to vacate, asserting need due to health conditions; Beirat had a verbal lease and had paid rent for over 25 years.
- Beirat presented medical evidence that he was hospitalized as of November 8, 2023, but was unable to attend the eviction hearing or respond to the court’s 24-hour demand for proof of illness.
- The lower court found Beirat in default (rebeldía) for not complying with the 24-hour deadline and entered judgment for Díaz Díaz, ordering Beirat’s eviction—despite acknowledging Beirat may not have received notice of the videoconference hearing.
- Beirat appealed, arguing procedural unfairness, lack of notice, and violation of due process; Díaz Díaz did not respond on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of Videoconference Hearing | Beirat should have complied | Did not receive notice and was hospitalized | Lower court erred; lack of notice |
| Justification for Nonappearence | No proper justification provided | Provided medical evidence, unable to attend in person | Lower court erred; evidence sufficient |
| Appropriateness of Rebeldía (Default) | Appropriate due to noncompliance | Unjust because unable to comply due to health | Abuse of discretion; improper |
| Due Process/Reasonableness of Court’s Actions | Court followed procedure | Violated right to a fair hearing and reasonable process | Due process violated, judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera Rodríguez & Co. v. Lee Stowell, 133 D.P.R. 881 (P.R. 1993) (due process under PR and U.S. Constitution requires notice and fair hearing)
- San Gerónimo Caribe Project v. A.R.P.E., 174 D.P.R. 640 (P.R. 2008) (due process must align with particular case circumstances)
- Argüello v. Argüello, 155 D.P.R. 62 (P.R. 2001) (appellate deference to trial court findings isn’t absolute, especially in cases of manifest error)
- Serrano Muñoz v. Auxilio Mutuo, 171 D.P.R. 717 (P.R. 2007) (grounds for appellate intervention in cases of abuse of discretion or errors of law)
- Sierra v. Tribunal Superior, 81 D.P.R. 554 (P.R. 1959) (trial court discretion must be reasonable and not impair substantial rights)