Amador Amador v. Registrar of Property of Aguadilla

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Amador Amador v. Registrar of Property of Aguadilla

71 P.R. 927

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedDecember 21, 1950

DocketNo. 1271

StatusPublished

This text of 71 P.R. 927 (Amador Amador v. Registrar of Property of Aguadilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amador Amador v. Registrar of Property of Aguadilla, 71 P.R. 927 (prsupreme 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice De Jesús

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A deed executed on May 19, 1950 by the Marshal of the District Court of Aguadilla in favor of appellant Rosario Amador, of legal age and married to Diego G. González, was presented in the Registry of Property of Aguadilla for registration." By said deed the marshal, complying with an order issued by the District Court of Aguadilla, sold to Mrs. Ama-dor a condominium in a rural property which is described in the deed.

The Registrar recorded the document stating the fact that the husband of the purchaser had not consented to the deed. From this note Mrs. Amador took the present appeal, citing the cases of Giménez v. The Registrar, 21 P.R.R. 314; Peraza v. Registrar of Arecibo, 30 P.R.R. 496, and Sojo v. Registrar, 35 P.R.R. 785.

We concede that in the cases invoked by appellant it was decided that purchase of conjugal property by the wife was valid and that the Registrar should not record with the curable defect of the husband’s disagreement in the transaction. But in the more recent case of Pérez v. Hawayeck, 69 P.R.R. 46, we decided, after having examined.the foregoing cases, that although the purchase without the husband’s consent is not void it should be considered voidable at the instance of the husband or his heirs who should exercise their right within a reasonable term after becoming aware of the transaction. This doctrine was based mainly on the fact that the act of the wife in such case constitutes an undue intervention in the authority of the husband to manage the conjugal partnership. Since the transaction was voidable it was necessary to set forth said circumstance in the entry in order that it be known to any interested party. It was for that reason that we said in Pérez v. Hawayeck, supra, that although the Registrar should record without said curable defect, nevertheless, he should state the fact that the husband had not consented to the purchase

The note appealed from will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice De Jesús

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A deed executed on May 19, 1950 by the Marshal of the District Court of Aguadilla in favor of appellant Rosario Amador, of legal age and married to Diego G. González, was presented in the Registry of Property of Aguadilla for registration." By said deed the marshal, complying with an order issued by the District Court of Aguadilla, sold to Mrs. Ama-dor a condominium in a rural property which is described in the deed.

The Registrar recorded the document stating the fact that the husband of the purchaser had not consented to the deed. From this note Mrs. Amador took the present appeal, citing the cases of Giménez v. The Registrar, 21 P.R.R. 314; Peraza v. Registrar of Arecibo, 30 P.R.R. 496, and Sojo v. Registrar, 35 P.R.R. 785.

We concede that in the cases invoked by appellant it was decided that purchase of conjugal property by the wife was valid and that the Registrar should not record with the curable defect of the husband’s disagreement in the transaction. But in the more recent case of Pérez v. Hawayeck, 69 P.R.R. 46, we decided, after having examined.the foregoing cases, that although the purchase without the husband’s consent is not void it should be considered voidable at the instance of the husband or his heirs who should exercise their right within a reasonable term after becoming aware of the transaction. This doctrine was based mainly on the fact that the act of the wife in such case constitutes an undue intervention in the authority of the husband to manage the conjugal partnership. Since the transaction was voidable it was necessary to set forth said circumstance in the entry in order that it be known to any interested party. It was for that reason that we said in Pérez v. Hawayeck, supra, that although the Registrar should record without said curable defect, nevertheless, he should state the fact that the husband had not consented to the purchase

The note appealed from will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P.R. 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-amador-v-registrar-of-property-of-aguadilla-prsupreme-1950.