Miranda v. Padró

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Miranda v. Padró

66 P.R. 125

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedMay 20, 1946

DocketNo. 9273

StatusPublished

This text of 66 P.R. 125 (Miranda v. Padró) 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

Miranda v. Padró, 66 P.R. 125 (prsupreme 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice Teavieso

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint herein, filed on November 17, 1944, alleged that the plaintiff contracted marriage with the defendant [126]*126oil November 5, 1941; that on the following day, November 6, 1941, he separated from the defendant; and that since the latter date “he has never returned to live with her, and ever since that time there has existed, uninterruptedly, a complete separation between both spouses.” The defendant answered and denied that the separation between her and her husband had been uninterrupted and on the contrary alleged that they went on having “continuous intimate relations and maintaining the intimacies peculiar to spouses.”

' The defendant appeals from the judgment sustaining the complaint and decreeing the dissolution of the marriage. In support of her appeal she urges that the lower1 court erred in weighing the evidence.

The evidence introduced by the plaintiff, which was believed by the lower court, is sufficient to establish the essential averment of the complaint, namely, the separation of the spouses for an uninterrupted period of more than three years. The one introduced by the defendant tending to support her allegation that the separation had been interrupted, was not accorded credit by the trial judge. It was incumbent on the latter to resolve the conflict in the evidence, and he resolved it by expressly declaring in his statement of the case and opinion that from March 31, 1941, to the date of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff and the defendant have not maintained matrimonial relations.

Since it was proved to the satisfaction of the judge that the spouses had lived separate and apart for more than three years, the court a quo was bound to decree the divorce. Subdivision 9, § 96 of the Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 62 of 1942. Pérez v. León, 52 P.R.R. 496; Nuñez v. López, 62 P.R.R. 543.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

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

Me. Chief Justice Teavieso

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complaint herein, filed on November 17, 1944, alleged that the plaintiff contracted marriage with the defendant [126]*126oil November 5, 1941; that on the following day, November 6, 1941, he separated from the defendant; and that since the latter date “he has never returned to live with her, and ever since that time there has existed, uninterruptedly, a complete separation between both spouses.” The defendant answered and denied that the separation between her and her husband had been uninterrupted and on the contrary alleged that they went on having “continuous intimate relations and maintaining the intimacies peculiar to spouses.”

' The defendant appeals from the judgment sustaining the complaint and decreeing the dissolution of the marriage. In support of her appeal she urges that the lower1 court erred in weighing the evidence.

The evidence introduced by the plaintiff, which was believed by the lower court, is sufficient to establish the essential averment of the complaint, namely, the separation of the spouses for an uninterrupted period of more than three years. The one introduced by the defendant tending to support her allegation that the separation had been interrupted, was not accorded credit by the trial judge. It was incumbent on the latter to resolve the conflict in the evidence, and he resolved it by expressly declaring in his statement of the case and opinion that from March 31, 1941, to the date of the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff and the defendant have not maintained matrimonial relations.

Since it was proved to the satisfaction of the judge that the spouses had lived separate and apart for more than three years, the court a quo was bound to decree the divorce. Subdivision 9, § 96 of the Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 62 of 1942. Pérez v. León, 52 P.R.R. 496; Nuñez v. López, 62 P.R.R. 543.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 P.R. 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-padro-prsupreme-1946.