Vaillant Ugarriza, Annette v. Casanova Tirado, Pedro Rafael, KLCE202400387

The case involves a dispute over partition of inheritance, child support, and usufructuary widow’s share, following the liquidation of a hereditary community of assets.
The Court of First Instance (TPI), Bayamón Superior Division, held a hearing on November 29, 2023, where it adopted all recommendations made by the Special Commissioner, attorney Carlos Dávila Pérez.
On January 8, 2024, the court notified parties of the hearing's minutes. The defendant, Pedro Rafael Casanova Tirado, requested a formal amendment to clarify legal representation.
On March 1, 2024, an amended minute (nunc pro tunc) was issued and notified on March 4, 2024, clarifying only the representation issue.
Annette Vaillant Ugarriza filed a certiorari petition on April 3, 2024, contesting substantive findings and procedures, arguing errors in court determinations and the characterization of a contract versus a mortis causa donation.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the amended minute did not restart the appeal clock, thus the petition was untimely.

Issue	Ugarriza's Argument	Casanova's Argument	Held
Whether the certiorari was timely filed	The appeal window started from the amended minute's notification (March 4, 2024)	The appeal window should run from the original notification (January 8, 2024), since amendment was only clerical	Court held appeal was untimely; amended minute does not restart deadline
Characterization of a transaction as donation mortis causa vs. enforceable contract	Asserted the agreement was a valid, ratified contract enforceable between parties	Claimed it was a donation mortis causa, requiring testamentary formalities	Court did not address merits due to lack of jurisdiction
Adoption of Special Commissioner's recommendations without independent judicial review	Claimed court accepted recommendations without assessing legal/evidentiary grounds	No direct counter, focus remained on timeliness	Court did not address merits due to lack of jurisdiction
Impact of form corrections on parties' substantive rights and appeal deadlines	Claimed amending the record should affect appeal term	Maintained corrections were non-substantive and did not restart the clock	Nunc pro tunc corrections are clerical, do not restart deadline

RB Power, Inc. v. Junta de Subastas de la ASG PR, 213 DPR _ (jurisdiction is foundational, cannot be conferred by parties)
Pueblo v. Torres Medina, 211 DPR 950 (courts must always assess their own jurisdiction)
MCS Advantage, Inc. v. Fossas Blanco y otros, 211 DPR 135 (lack of jurisdiction is incurable and mandates dismissal)
Pueblo v. Rivera Ortiz, 209 DPR 402 (untimely appeals must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
Otero Vélez v. Schroder Muñoz, 200 DPR 76 (nunc pro tunc amendments are retroactive and do not affect appeal deadlines)
Vélez v. AAA, 164 DPR 772 (clerical corrections do not extend or toll statutory periods for appeal)