Commonwealth v. Rosso

95 P.R. 488
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedDecember 7, 1967
DocketNo. AP-65-48
StatusPublished

This text of 95 P.R. 488 (Commonwealth v. Rosso) 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
Commonwealth v. Rosso, 95 P.R. 488 (prsupreme 1967).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Santana Becerra

delivered the. opinion of the Court.

. On December 5, 1963, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico instituted a condemnation proceeding for the use and benefit of the Land Administration, a governmental agency of the Commonwealth created by Act No. 13 of May 16, 1962. The [490]*490condemnation proceeding, addressed against properties belonging to the defendants-appellees, was instituted, pursuant to the authority conferred by said Act, and the General Condemnation Act in force.

It was stated in the complaint that the executive director of the Land Administration deemed it useful, necessary, and convenient in order to carry out the ends and purposes for which the Administration was created, to acquire the properties which were the subject of the same and specifically, for the purpose of devoting them to the preparation and efficient use of new areas for the necessities of the community, creating adequate reserves of land, to help the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to accomplish its public policy, as well as for any other purposes leading to the accomplishment of the purposes of the Act, which created the Land Administration; and that the acquisition of the properties which are the subject of the action is of public necessity and utility and complies with the purposes of the Administration. The absolute dominion of two properties of 137.70 and 118.26 cuerdas was condemned, as well as the absolute dominion of another of 25.519 cuerdas and of 62.8528 cuer-das formed by the consolidation of four smaller parcels, together with their respective structures and accessions.

Together with the complaint a declaration for the immediate taking and delivery of the property was filed, signed by the Governor of Puerto Rico, in which it was stated that the properties were being acquired by the Commonwealth for the use and benefit of the Land Administration and in order to enable it to accomplish the purposes for which it was created and specifically, for the preparation and efficient use of new areas for the necessities of the community of the metropolitan area of San Juan and in order to develop projects of the Administration in agreement with state or federal agencies, with the municipal government or with private persons and to create adequate reserves of land to aid the [491]*491Commonwealth to carry out its public policy and for the accomplishment of any programs in pursuit of the purposes of Act No. 13 of May 16, 1962, which created the Administration. The sum of $1,381,676.00 was deposited in the court as just and reasonable compensation for the property acquired.

By order of December 5, 1963, pursuant to law, the absolute dominion title became vested in the People of Puerto Rico and the defendants were granted a term of 30 days for delivery of the property. After several hearings, by order of February 24, 1964, the court stayed the order for the physical delivery of the property until the condemnation case could be decided on its merits. The situation since that time to the present is that the People of Puerto Rico has held the dominion title to the properties from December 5, 1963, but so far they have not entered into the possession, use, and enjoyment of the same.1

By judgment of July 2, 1964, the court dismissed the condemnation complaint and vacated the order of December 5,1963, vesting title. The Commonwealth filed the present appeal.

[492]*492—II—

The background of the foregoing proceedings was as follows:

On August 29, 1962, the Land Administration submitted to the consideration of the Planning Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Act creating it, a project for the integral development of the metropolitan area of San Juan, and requested the Board to approve said project for the acquisition of lands (Scope of Project) according to a plan which was attached. It stated that in the indicated geographical area the Administration proposed to carry out works of a public character or to carry out other programs germane to .the Land Administration Act and, as an integrated project, to make ready new areas for urban development of the Metro,-pdlitan Area under conditions that would secure the best balance with respect to .the necessities .of the future communities of the area, taking into consideration the standards of the Act,, especially its § 7(t), to secure for such area the hest conditions of. health,, safety,., comfort, .recreational,.far CÜities, and other essential services. All of this was projected in such a manner that the project for the development in this zone could be channeled so that the same would favor the use-of 'the lands indicated in the plan in a planned and efficient form. As "fundamental grounds for the said petition to the Board, the Land Administration submitted the information and the data contained in their consultation. As they are of fundamental importance in the'consideration of the issue,-the document and the plan are attached as-.Appendix (A) of this opinion. " '

. The Planning Board approved the Scope of the Project submitted by the Administration.2

[493]*493In doing so, the Board stated that conscious of its responsibilities under the law and exercising them with a general purpose of guiding the development of Puerto Rico in a coordinated, adequate, and economic way, which according to the present and future necessities and human re[494]*494sources, as well as physical and economical, would promote in the best way the health, safety, morale, order, convenience, prosperity, defense, culture, economic stability, and the general welfare of the present and future inhabitants, and such efficiency and economy in the process of development, [495]*495in the distribution of the population, in the use of the lands and of the public improvements as would tend to create conditions favorable to such ends, it considered the “implementation” of a program of development for the Metropolitan Area of San Juan indispensable. The program is to be based on the demand for lands which the stated population and economic growth heretofore mentioned will require in the Metropolitan Area of San Juan, which will permit the Planning Board to channel the growth of said area securing a development that is compact and contiguous to the areas already constructed, adequately provided with community facilities and services. Thus, the Board concurred with the Administration' and proceeded to approve the Scope of the Project of development submitted to it by the latter, according to the plan attached to Appendix (A). In consequence, the Board authorized the Land Administration to acquire by purchase, condemnation or in any other manner the vacant lands capable of subdivision comprised within the Scope of the Project for urban development, for making ready the necessary lands for a normal and compact development of this area.

[496]*496■ The approval took place on January 23, 1963. The Board made the following provisions: “The right to use any of the properties included within the scope of this project in conformity with the uses authorized by the regulations and orders of this Board shall remain unaltered until the action for the taking in any legal form of said property in particular shall have been formally instituted.”

On January 24, 1963, the Governing Board of the Land Administration, presided by the Governor, approved Resolution No. 5.3

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

Related

Kohl v. United States
91 U.S. 367 (Supreme Court, 1876)
Boom Co. v. Patterson
98 U.S. 403 (Supreme Court, 1879)
United States v. Jones
109 U.S. 513 (Supreme Court, 1883)
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States
148 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Adirondack Railway Co. v. New York State
176 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Bragg v. Weaver
251 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Green v. Frazier
253 U.S. 233 (Supreme Court, 1920)
United States v. New River Collieries Co.
262 U.S. 341 (Supreme Court, 1923)
Georgia v. City of Chattanooga
264 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1924)
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
268 U.S. 276 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States
269 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court, 1925)
United States v. Carmack
329 U.S. 230 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Berman v. Parker
348 U.S. 26 (Supreme Court, 1954)
People of Puerto Rico v. Eastern Sugar Associates
156 F.2d 316 (First Circuit, 1946)
Reter v. Davenport, Rock Island & North Western Railway Co.
54 N.W.2d 863 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1952)
Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown
156 So. 2d 572 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1963)
Little v. Loup River Public Power District
36 N.W.2d 261 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1949)
Eastern Sugar Associates v. Puerto Rico
329 U.S. 772 (Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 P.R. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-rosso-prsupreme-1967.