Santos Camacho, Ivan v. Ortiz Marrero, Pablo
KLAN202500199
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Apr 30, 2025Background
- Iván Santos Camacho (the plaintiff) owns a property (Lote Núm. 7) in Corozal, Puerto Rico, acquired in 2014, bordering land owned by neighbor Pablo Ortiz Marrero (defendant, Lote Núm. 8).
- Santos alleged that part of Ortiz's metal-and-wood structure encroached onto his land, supported by a surveyor's expert report confirming that most of the structure was on Santos's property.
- Santos took steps to resolve the boundary dispute extrajudicially (including repeated surveys involving antagonistic neighbors) before filing suit in 2023 for a declaratory judgment, boundary determination, and permanent injunction.
- Ortiz argued the case was time-barred and raised several procedural and factual issues, including an alleged need for additional discovery and the supposed involvement of other parties.
- The Trial Court granted Santos summary judgment, finding the surveyor’s evidence dispositive and ordering Ortiz to remove the encroaching structure at his own expense; Ortiz's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was prescribed (time-barred) | Not a contract nullity action, but a boundary suit, which is imprescriptible. | Claimed suit was untimely, citing four-year limit for contract attacks. | Not time-barred; boundary actions are imprescriptible. |
| Accuracy of boundary determination | Expert’s survey confirms encroachment; expert testimony unchallenged. | Survey was incorrect; needed more discovery, expert rebuttal. | Court found for plaintiff; defendant failed to submit contrary evidence or timely discovery. |
| Inclusion of necessary parties and procedure | All relevant parties properly joined; issue purely boundary and possession. | Department of Natural Resources was needed; procedural defects. | Not pertinent; only boundary and possession at issue; no prejudice shown. |
| Validity of order to remove structure | Structure was illegally on plaintiff’s property; entitled to removal. | Should not have to remove without further proceedings. | Court upheld order for removal at defendant's cost. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meléndez González v. M. Cuebas, Inc., 193 DPR 100 (Puerto Rico 2015) (articulating the standard for summary judgment and the requirements for opposing parties)
- Ramírez Quiñones v. Soto Padilla, 168 DPR 142 (Puerto Rico 2006) (discussing the nature of boundary (deslinde) and reivindicación actions, including imprescriptibility and proper accumulation of claims)
- Ramos Pérez v. Univisión, 178 DPR 200 (Puerto Rico 2010) (defining what constitutes a material fact in summary judgment proceedings)
- Zalduondo v. Méndez, 74 DPR 637 (Puerto Rico 1953) (explaining the purpose and effects of deslinde actions)
- Pérez Cruz v. Fernández, 101 DPR 365 (Puerto Rico 1973) (outlining the requirements for a reivindicatory action)