182 P.R. Dec. 803
P.R.2011Background
- Married in Feb 2002; child A.Y.V.C. born Oct 10, 2005 while married; registration of paternity occurred with husband as father.
- June 2006 divorce by mutual consent; July 2006 biological testing showed 0% DNA compatibility between husband and child.
- Sept 1, 2006 husband filed action to impugn paternity against wife, child, and a third party based on alleged extramarital paternity.
- Wife moved to dismiss, claiming the action caducidad under Art. 117, and that the matter was res judicata.
- Lower courts held the action had expired under the old law; before resolution, Law 215-2009 amended Art. 117 to extend and redefine caducidad; law was enacted while the case was pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Law 215-2009 scales retroactively to pending cases. | Vázquez Vélez argues for retroactive application to pending actions. | Caro Moreno contends law does not apply retroactively; prior caducidad stands. | Law 215-2009 retroactively applies to pending cases. |
| How the new Art. 117 computes the caducidad period. | Vázquez Vélez supports starting from knowledge of inaccuracy or law’s approval, what’s greater. | Caro Moreno defends old three-month limit from birth registration or six months from knowledge, as applicable. | Caducidad computation now depends on knowledge of inaccuracy or law’s effective date, whichever is later. |
| Does the transitional provision apply to pending actions, allowing new six-month/one-year terms. | Vázquez Vélez relies on Art. 6 to apply the new terms to pending cases. | Caro Moreno argues no retroactive extension for pending actions. | Transitional provision applies; pending case may utilize new terms. |
| Should the case be remanded for continuation under new law. | Case should continue under the amended regime. | No remand or de novo proceeding needed if law’s retroactive application is rejected. | Remand to Trial Court for proceedings consistent with Law 215-2009. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sánchez v. Sánchez, 154 D.P.R. 645 (2001) (definition of filiación and its purposes (biological basis and legal reflection))
- Álvarez-torre Muñiz v. Sorani Jiménez, 175 D.P.R. 398 (2009) (filiación realista y formalista; origin and impact on presunción de paternidad)
- Castro v. Negrón, 159 D.P.R. 568 (2003) (filiación, derechos y distribución; role of biological truth)
- González Rosado v. Echevarría Muñiz, 169 D.P.R. 554 (2006) (caducidad de impugnación de filiación y disidencias sobre inicio del plazo)
- Calo Morales v. Cartagena Calo, 129 D.P.R. 102 (1991) (constitutionality and start of caducidad in paternity actions)
- Mayol v. Torres, 164 D.P.R. 517 (2005) (filiación extramatrimonial y límites temporales)