Iglesia De Dios Pentecostal Mi v. Gonzalez Vilella, Ricardo L
KLAN202400217
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Oct 10, 2024Background
- Iglesia de Dios Pentecostal M.I., Inc. (IDPMI) has held and used a church property in Barrio Piedra Gorda, Camuy since at least 1971; the organization is governed by an internal Reglamento that provides that titles are registered in the regional Organization's name and requires ministers to return church property upon cessation of duties.
- Ricardo L. González Vilella served as pastor for the Piedra Gorda congregation for ~10+ years. In May 2021 he and others formed a separate corporation, Iglesia de Dios Pentecostal Barrio Piedra Gorda, Inc., and opened separate bank accounts.
- On October 8, 2023 González and 78 members sent a letter resigning and disaffiliating from IDPMI, stating they would continue under the new corporation and delivering his ministerial credentials; IDPMI demanded return of keys, documents and property.
- IDPMI filed an interdicto posesorio (injunction to recover possession) alleging it had been disturbed/despojada of possession; at a December 26, 2023 hearing the trial court found defendants had been in uninterrupted possession since May 2021 and denied the interdict.
- IDPMI appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed: it concluded González’s ministerial possession was derivative of his role and ceased with his resignation, so IDPMI’s possession had been perturbed within the year and the interdict should be granted; the case was remanded for continuation of proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IDPMI) | Defendant's Argument (González / new corp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDPMI met requirements for an interdicto posesorio | IDPMI contends it had been in possession through its pastor and was perturbed/despojada when González refused to deliver the property after resigning; suit filed within one-year statutory period | Defendants contend they have possessed the property as their own (via the 2021 corporation) since May 2021, so no qualifying disturbance within the year | Court of Appeals: Granted interdict. Pastor’s possession was derivative and ended on resignation (Oct 8, 2023); disturbance occurred within one year and suit timely. |
| Effect of church Reglamento and internal governance on property rights | Reglamento requires titles be registered to the Organization and obligates ministers to return property on cessation; therefore title/possession belongs to IDPMI | Defendants argue title/ownership rests with the new corporation and that they acquired/paid for improvements and accounts are corporate property | Court: Reglamento and documentary history support Organization’s proprietary and custodial rights; ministerial custody is not personal ownership and must be returned on cessation. |
| Whether interdict was inappropriate because of competing title or pending domain proceedings | IDPMI: interdict addresses possession only and is appropriate irrespective of title disputes; preserves possession pending title litigation | Defendants: disputes about title/related domain proceeding mean interdict is improper because possession has long been with defendants | Court: Interdict is a possessory remedy distinct from title; pending or parallel title actions do not preclude granting possession relief. |
| Whether defendants’ continuous possession since 2021 bars relief | Defendants: continuous, uninterrupted possession for >1 year means IDPMI lost possessory protection | IDPMI: possession was in IDPMI’s name via its minister until his resignation; interruption occurred Oct 8, 2023 | Court: Presumption of continuity gives way to proof that possession was derivative and ended on resignation; interruption within one year supports interdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda Cruz v. SLG Ritch, 176 DPR 951 (2009) (distinguishing possession remedies from title disputes; interdict standards)
- Ramos v. Puig, 61 DPR 83 (1942) (purpose of interdict to give prompt protection to a peaceful possessor disturbed or despoiled)
- Martorell v. Municipio de Dorado, 70 DPR 380 (1949) (despojo giving rise to interdict need not involve violence or clandestine acts)
- Buxeda Jr. v. Escalera, 47 DPR 647 (1934) (sufficiency of allegations of possession and disturbance for interdict)
- Disdier Pacheco v. García, 101 DPR 541 (1973) (possession-focused remedies and their scope)