Benet Colón v. Registrar of Property of San Juan

65 P.R. 460
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedDecember 14, 1945
DocketNo. 1172
StatusPublished

This text of 65 P.R. 460 (Benet Colón v. Registrar of Property of San Juan) 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
Benet Colón v. Registrar of Property of San Juan, 65 P.R. 460 (prsupreme 1945).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Todd, Jr.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

J osé Benet Colón, owner of a lot in Hato Rey, purchased a portion of another adjacent lot from Ignacio Delgado and consolidated both parcels so as to make a single property. In order to record this segregation and consolidation, Messrs. Delgado and Benet sought from the Planning Board the corresponding certificate for recordation. The Board approved report L-55 entitled “Approval of mere segregation in the [461]*461Military Road between Hato Rey and Río Piedras on February 23, 1945,” which in its pertinent part reads tlms:

“Since the purpose of this segregation is to improve the formation of, a lot, without prejudice to the area or to the formation of the lot from which the segregation is made, the provisions of Article Xo. 13 of the Subdivision Regulations as amended, are applicable to this ease.
“This Board wishes to inform that the Master Plan for the Major Thoroughfares for the Metropolitan Area of San Juan already adopted by this Board, includes a highway called in- said document, Express Highway, Southern Portion, which is planned along the sections where the lots, the subject matter of this subdivision, are situated. Even though at this time the drawing showing the precise location of the servitude of right of way needed for said highway has not yet been prepared, this Board recommends that before commencing any construction in the first 26 meters of these lots, that is, between the present military road and'the rear of said lots, the surveys or maps be consulted as to this particular.
"By virtue of the provisions of Article 13 of the Subdivision Regulations, as amended, the Planning, Urbanizing, and Zoning Board of Puerto Rico, hereby APPROVES the aforesaid subdivision, it being dispensed from the presentation of a registration plat.
"A copy of this decision should be presented by the interested party to the registrar of property in order that said officer may record this subdivision without the need of presenting a registration plat." (Italics ours.)

Upon presenting the deed of segregation, sale, and consolidation for recordation, the' registrar recorded it but stated that in view of the certificate of the Planning Board “said property was subject to ... a mention of projects of servitude of right of way for a public highway, still in preparation- by the Planning Board of Puerto Rico.” (Italics ours.)

When MT. .Benet sought the cancellation of the entries of servitude the registrar refused it on the ground that the report approved by the Planning Board “has the same effect as an entry of servitude, inasmuch as said Board is duly an-[462]*462thorizeif to do so under Act No. 155 of May 14, 1943. and the regulations approved September 5, 1944.” (Italics ours.)

Mr. Benet has taken the present appeal and prays thar the cancellation of the entry of servitude he ordered, alleging that such a lien has never been constituted inasmuch as the report approved by the Planning Board did not have the effect of constituting said lien and that, if such was its intention, the same was illegal.

The respondent registrar on the other hand argues that, according to §§ 8 and 9 of the Puerto Rico Planning, Urbanizing, and Zoning Act, as amended by Act No. 155 of May 14, 19431, the Planning Board is authorized to “ subordinate the approval of a subdivision to which the property is presumptively subject, to the right of way of a road branch” and the registrar is bound to state in the record thereof that condition, according to §§ 9 and 15 of the Mortgage Law and its Regulations, respectively. (Italics ours.)

The question to be decided seems to us very simple. Does a. mere recommendation included in the report approved by the Planning Board have the effect of authorizing the registrar to enter in the record sought a mention of servitude on appellant s property? In our opinion this question should be answered negatively.

[463]*463 Although §§ 8 and 9 of the Planning, Urbanizing, and Zoning Act of Puerto Bico, supra, confer on the Planning Board power to adopt a “Master Plan” and “Urbanizing, Zoning and Land Use Plans,” these Sections are not applicable, by themselves, to the situation before us, but § 11 of said Act must be also applied. It provides as follows:

“Plat or Map of Future Roads and Streets. — Making of an Official Map. — The Board may make, or request the Department of the Interior to make with funds properly transferred from its own appropriation for this purpose, surveys for the precise locations of the lines of new, extended, or ividened roads and streets of Puerto Bico, mid recommend to the Executive Council for adoption a plat or plats, indicating the precise locations of future road and street lines. For general convenience and information the Board in the same manner may establish an official map of the Island. Upon the official map there shall be shown:
“(a) All roads and streets existing and established by law as public roads or streets at the time of the adoption of the official map;
“ ('b) All read and street locations shown on recorded plats- of subdivisions approved by the Board in accordance with the provisions oí! Sections 10 and 24 of this Act;
“(c) All road and street line plats approved by the Executive Council in accordance with the provisions of this Section and Section [464]*46419 of this Act.2 The making or adoption of any such plat or the adoption oi an official map shall not, in and of itself, determine the construction of' any road or street or the taking or acceptance of lands for such road or street purposes.” (Italics ours.)

This statutory provision requires the fulfilment oi two conditions in the event that the Planning Board decides to establish lines of new, extended, or widened roads and streets, to wit: 1st., it may make or request the Department of the Interior to make “surveys for the' precise location” of said lines and 2d, to recommend, to the Executive Council, for adoption, a plat or plats, indicating the precise location of future road and street lines. And it further provides that in the event that the Executive Council should approve any such plat it shall not, in and of itself, determine the construction of any road or street, or the taking3 or acceptance of lands for such purposes. (Italics ours.)

Moreover, according to § 23 of the same Act it is provided, in so far as pertinent, that:

. . Nor shall a building, sanitary or use permit he issued for any building or structure, or any part thereof, on any land located within the lines of a road or street as shown on a road ■or street-line plat approved by the Executive Council, as provided in Section 11 of this Act . . . ” (Italics ours.)

It follows, therefore, that the Puerto Bico Planning, Urbanizing, and Zoning Act did not confer power on the board to [465]*465prepare by itself surveys for new roads or streets and that, according to the facts in this case, it has not pretended to do any such thing.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 P.R. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benet-colon-v-registrar-of-property-of-san-juan-prsupreme-1945.