Palou Bosch, Roberto v. MacElo Guaynabo Sjmc, LLC.
KLAN202400541
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Sep 23, 2024Background
- Parties were co-owners (comuneros) of a property in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, used for an animal slaughterhouse business, with various heirs and entities involved after dissolution of an original civil partnership.
- Following dissolution, the property was held pro-indiviso by the original partners and their successors, with Macelo Guaynabo SJMCM, LLC and Guaynabo Premium Meat, LLC formed to manage the business activities on the property.
- Plaintiffs (Palou Bosch, De Jesús González, and their conjugal partnership) filed a demand for desahucio en precario (summary eviction) in November 2023, following prior litigation, arguing that the companies’ and heirs’ occupation was unauthorized.
- Defendants argued they have valid title as co-owners/heirs, and thus cannot be considered mere occupiers/precaristas; any disputes over division of the property are pending in parallel community division proceedings.
- The trial court denied the eviction action, finding defendants (heirs and corporate entities) were not precaristas and that any division of ownership must be settled in ongoing partition litigation.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing errors in the application of the law on co-ownership, corporate veil, and the definition of precaristas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are occupying as precaristas (without title) | Defendants are corporations exploiting the property without valid title or consent. | Defendants are co-owners/heirs with valid title; use is by right as comuneros. | Defendants are not precaristas; they have title as co-owners, so eviction is improper. |
| Whether the corporate veil should be pierced | Macelo and Premium are alter egos of the heirs, used to circumvent property rights. | No evidence that corporations are alter egos or for improper purpose; formed for managing business. | No piercing veil; corporations not proven to be alter egos or acting to evade obligations. |
| Whether the court erred in its factual findings | Trial court ignored undisputed proof of unauthorized commercial occupation by corporate entities. | Corporations act on behalf of co-owner heirs; all actions are consistent with title and ownership. | No manifest error or abuse of discretion; factual findings are supported by the record. |
| Whether co-owners can use desahucio en precario vs. other co-owners | Co-owners’ rights were violated by commercial exploitation without all’s consent. | Co-owning parties cannot evict each other; must resolve division in partition case, not eviction. | Desahucio does not lie between co-owners; use and division must be resolved in partition proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Díaz v. Aguayo, 162 DPR 801 (P.R. 2004) (Defines community of property rights among co-owners)
- Oquendo v. Registrador, 78 DPR 118 (P.R. 1955) (Co-owners’ abstract shares over entire property)
- Enríquez v. Registrador, 65 DPR 407 (P.R. 1945) (No right to specific part of property before partition)
- Cintrón Vélez v. Cintrón de Jesús, 120 DPR 39 (P.R. 1987) (Heirs have rights to an abstract quota, not specific assets, before partition)
- Vega Montoya v. Registrador, 179 DPR 80 (P.R. 2010) (Communal inheritance and rights)
- SLG Ortiz-Mateo v. ELA, 211 DPR 772 (P.R. 2023) (Scope and limits of eviction action in property disputes)
- Rodríguez v. Bco. Gub. de Fom. P.R., 151 DPR 383 (P.R. 2000) (Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil)