KLAN202400592
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jan 14, 2025Background
- Francis Javier Santiago Maldonado purchased apartment 5-E in Condominio Isleta Marina, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, in May 2022.
- After purchasing, Santiago Maldonado undertook major renovations and resided temporarily in his daughter's nearby apartment, keeping his belongings and maintaining a lock on apartment 5-E.
- In early 2024, Ruth N. Alvelo Rivera, having acquired 5-E in a judicial sale following a foreclosure proceeding, entered the property with court officers and changed the locks, finding Santiago Maldonado’s possessions therein.
- Santiago Maldonado filed for a possessory injunction (interdicto posesorio), alleging unlawful dispossession due to the lock change and retention of possessions in the property.
- The trial court (Tribunal de Primera Instancia) denied the injunction, finding Santiago Maldonado lacked real possession of the apartment within the prior year because he was not residing there.
- On appeal, the appellate court was asked to review whether the trial court erred in denying the possessory protection based on the facts and applicable Puerto Rico law.
Issues
| Issue | Santiago Maldonado's Argument | Alvelo Rivera's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real Possession within Prior Year | He possessed the property via belongings, lock, and payments | He did not live there, so no real possession | Appellate court: Possession does not require residence; possession existed |
| Interruption of Possession (Dispossession) | Lock change and removal without notice disturbed possession | Actions were lawful through court process after auction | Appellate court: Actions, though from judicial process, disturbed possession |
| Proper Use of Possessory Injunction | Interdict addresses factual possession, not title or ownership | No unlawful act; process was legal—not a question for injunction | Appellate court: Injunction is about possession, not title; interference shown |
| Sufficiency of Evidence of Possession | Evidence: belongings, maintenance & CRIM payments, candado | Lack of direct evidence tying belongings to him; apartment uninhabitable | Appellate court: Satisfied by testimony and circumstantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Manrique v. Álvarez, 58 D.P.R. 74 (1941) (interdict concerns possession, not title)
- Ramos v. Puig, 61 D.P.R. 83 (1942) (purpose of injunction is protection of factual possession)
- Miranda Cruz v. SLG Ritch, 176 D.P.R. 951 (2009) (listing requirements and nature of possessory interdict)
- Buxeda Jr v. Escalera, 47 D.P.R. 647 (1934) (allegations of possession, disturbance, and dispossession suffice at pleading stage)