KLCE202300104
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Feb 28, 2023Background
- Owner Javier Gandulla Paoli filed an eviction (desahucio) on Dec. 3, 2021; the complaint listed a Florida address for the owner (nonresident).
- At a hearing on Jan. 18, 2022 the parties reached a settlement; the trial court entered a judgment adopting the stipulation on Jan. 20, 2022.
- Gandulla later sought a writ of possession; the trial court issued an order of possession in Sept. 2022.
- Defendant Ricardo Dávila Franqui moved (Rule 49.2) on Sept. 27, 2022 to relieve the judgment, arguing it was null because the trial court never required the nonresident plaintiff to post the bond mandated by Rule 69.5; he also sought a stay of the writ.
- The trial court denied relief Jan. 24, 2023; Dávila petitioned for certiorari. Gandulla moved to dismiss the certiorari as premature, arguing the appeal-bond requirements had not been satisfied. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded to require compliance with Rule 69.5 and to fix the appeal bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gandulla) | Defendant's Argument (Dávila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to suspend proceedings and require a nonresident plaintiff to post the bond mandated by Rule 69.5 before proceeding or entering judgment | No issue as to bond was raised at the hearing; parties’ stipulation resolved the case and the court acted appropriately | Failure to require the Rule 69.5 bond rendered the proceedings and the judgment null for lack of compliance with a mandatory rule | The court held the trial court erred: Rule 69.5 imposes a mandatory suspension until the nonresident bond is posted; remand to impose the bond and amend the judgment |
| Whether the trial court was required to fix the amount of the appeal bond (Article 630) in an eviction judgment and whether lack of that fixation affects finality and appellate timing | Because the trial court did not fix the appeal bond, the remedy is premature; the appellate period has not begun and dismissal of a premature recourse is appropriate | The trial court’s omission of the appeal-bond fixation rendered the judgment non-final; the court must fix the bond or exempt for insolvency before finality | The court held the trial court must set the appeal bond amount (or exempt for insolvency); until then the judgment is not final and the appellate term does not run; remand to fix or exempt the bond |
| Whether the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction or the petition was premature because the appellant had not posted the appeal bond | Move to dismiss certiorari as premature/academic since appeal-bond requirements and finality were not resolved | Sought relief via certiorari to declare the underlying judgment void due to failures to impose mandatory bonds | The appeals court prioritized jurisdictional defects, denied dismissal, and concluded the trial court’s failure to require the Rule 69.5 bond and to fix the appeal bond voided the judgment; vacated and remanded for compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- ATPR v. SLG Volmar-Mathieu, 196 DPR 5 (2016) (trial court must fix appeal bond in desahucio; omission renders judgment non-final and appellate term does not run)
- Cooperativa v. Colón Lebrón, 203 DPR 812 (2020) (desahucio is a summary remedy requiring prompt resolution; appeal timing and bond rules govern finality)
- VS PR, LLC v. Drift-Wind, Inc., 207 DPR 253 (2021) (Rule 69.5 suspends proceedings until nonresident bond is posted; failure to post within 60 days mandates dismissal unless court orders otherwise)
- Yero Vicente v. Nimay Auto Corp., 205 DPR 126 (2020) (Rule 69.5’s requirement for nonresident bond is mandatory and limits judicial discretion)
- Crespo Quiñones v. Santiago Velázquez, 176 DPR 408 (2009) (appeal-bond requirement is jurisdictional in desahucio cases)