Rodriguez Ocasio, Edgar Antonio v. Soto Rodriguez, Benito
KLAN202500309
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 30, 2025Background
- Edgar Antonio Rodríguez Ocasio, Carmen Ana Ortiz Rodríguez, and their sociedad legal de gananciales acquired a parcel of land in Cayey, Puerto Rico from Benito Soto Rodríguez and others.
- In 2021, Rodríguez Ocasio sued Soto Rodríguez and others, alleging encroachments on their property and seeking damages and demolition of unauthorized structures (house, wall, septic tank, and an electric light installation).
- During litigation, it was revealed there was an inscribed servitude (servidumbre) for electric utilities in favor of LUMA (previously Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica), impacting the disputed area.
- The defendants argued that LUMA, as the servitude holder, was an indispensable party and its absence warranted dismissal.
- The trial court dismissed the action for failure to join an indispensable party (LUMA) and denied plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint to add LUMA.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing and not allowing amendment to include LUMA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LUMA is an indispensable party | LUMA was not affected by the relief sought; allegations did not concern LUMA's rights | LUMA's rights would be impacted by any order affecting the servitude or light installation | LUMA is an indispensable party; its rights could be affected |
| Whether dismissal was warranted over amendment | Dismissal was excessive; amendment should be possible despite delay | Amendment after 3.5 years and after discovery is unreasonable; dismissal proper | Dismissal is drastic; amendment should be allowed for indispensable parties |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend | Procedural rules and Puerto Rico Supreme Court favor liberal allowance of amendment | The case was too far advanced to permit amendment | Time elapsed alone does not bar amendment; liberal amendment policy applies |
| Whether dismissal based on incomplete certification was appropriate | Certification referenced a plan not submitted; thus, dismissal was improper | Certification was sufficient to prove servitude and LUMA’s interest | Law does not require plan for validity before the court; dismissal allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera Marrero v. Santiago Martínez, 203 DPR 462 (P.R. 2019) (definition of indispensable party and its necessity for complete adjudication)
- Vega v. Alicea, 145 DPR 236 (P.R. 1998) (orderly progression of civil procedure stages)
- Soc. de Gananciales v. García Robles, 142 DPR 241 (P.R. 1997) (mandatory appellate review of final orders)
- Dorante v. Wrangler de PR, 145 DPR 408 (P.R. 1998) (courts must construe allegations most favorably to the plaintiff at the motion to dismiss stage)
- Colón v. Lotería, 167 DPR 625 (P.R. 2006) (a complaint should not be dismissed if it can be amended to cure defects)
- Cirino González v. Adm. Corrección, 190 DPR 14 (P.R. 2014) (amendment and indispensable parties; allow amendment to include omitted party)