Pr Recovery and Development Jv LLC v. Valley Produce Inc, KLCE202301088

Background

Original money-collection suit filed in 1987 by Corporación de Crédito Agrícola; final judgment against petitioners entered in 1990. Execution was first sought in 1997; proceedings were stayed after petitioners filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
In October–November 2021 Puerto Rico Recovery and Development JV, LLC (PPRD) substituted as plaintiff and sought resumption of execution proceedings; petitioners moved (April 2022) to dismiss or stay execution.
Petitioners argued PPRD had not posted the nonresident bond required by Rule 69.5, was not authorized to do business in Puerto Rico (lacked standing), the loan-sale that transferred the notes to PPRD is being contested in a separate case (SJ2019CV11697), and an inverse expropriation claim might vest title in the Commonwealth.
The Trial Court (TPI, Ponce) denied the motion to stay on July 26, 2023; petitioners sought certiorari from the Court of Appeals to halt execution procedures.
The Court of Appeals denied certiorari, concluding PPRD is the holder of the notes under the Law of Commercial Transactions, the 1987 final judgment constitutes law of the case, and speculative future invalidation of the loan sale or expropriation does not excuse enforcement; Judge Pagán Ocasio dissented and would have granted the stay to adjudicate title issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals should grant certiorari and stay execution pending resolution of related disputes	Execution should be stayed because a pending case may invalidate PPRD’s title to the notes or vest property in the Commonwealth, producing irreparable injustice	Certiorari/stay not warranted; PPRD is note-holder with right to execute under commercial law and the 1987 final judgment must be enforced	Denied certiorari; no stay. The panel majority held execution may proceed.
Whether PPRD must post a nonresident bond under Rule 69.5 before executing	PPRD failed to post required nonresident bond, so enforcement should be stayed	Nonresident-bond requirement is inapplicable to enforcement of a long-final judgment	Court accepted defendant’s position that bond requirement does not bar execution in these circumstances (no stay).
Whether PPRD has standing/legitimación activa to execute (i.e., is holder of the notes)	PPRD lacks authorization/legitimacy and its acquisition of the notes is contested	Under the Law of Commercial Transactions PPRD is the holder and has the right to demand payment; holder presumptions apply	Held PPRD is the holder with the right to pursue execution; title disputes are speculative and do not bar enforcement.
Whether potential annulment of the loan-sale or inverse expropriation requires pausing execution	If loan sale is annulled or property expropriated in favor of ELA, executing now would wrongfully dispossess petitioners	Even if sale were later voided or expropriation declared, petitioners remain liable on the debt; any recovery against PPRD would be addressed between creditors	Denied: possible future outcomes are speculative and do not prevent enforcement of a final judgment.

Key Cases Cited

McNeil Healthcare v. Mun. Las Piedras I, 206 D.P.R. 391 (2021) (discretionary nature of certiorari and review standards)
800 Ponce de León v. AIG, 205 D.P.R. 163 (2020) (limits on certiorari as extraordinary review)
IG Builders v. BBVA P.R., 185 D.P.R. 307 (2012) (scope of appellate intervention and certiorari)
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Santiago Martínez, 202 D.P.R. 950 (2019) (definition and enforcement rights of promissory notes under commercial law)
Management Administrative Services Corp. v. E.L.A., 152 D.P.R. 599 (2000) (doctrine of law of the case and preclusive effect of final decisions)
A.C.T. v. 780.6141 m2, 165 D.P.R. 121 (2004) (expropriation does not automatically extinguish the underlying debt)
IBEC v. Banco Comercial, 117 D.P.R. 371 (1986) (cession transfers creditor’s rights to assignee)