Succession of Garcia v. Hernandez

• Decision Date: 21 December 1920
• Docket Number: 1442.
• Citation: 270 F. 455
• Parties: SUCCESSION OF GARCIA v. HERNANDEZ et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

270 F. 455

SUCCESSION OF GARCIA v. HERNANDEZ et al.

No. 1442.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

December 21, 1920

Frank Martinez and Howard L. Kern, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Hugh R Francis, of San Juan, Porto Rico (Francis & de la Haba, of San Juan, Porto Rico, on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON Circuit Judge.

This is an action of revindication or ejectment brought in the District Court of Humacao, on January 5, 1916, by the heirs and widow of Jacinto Rivera Garcia, constituting the 'succession' of said Garcia, to recover about 25 acres of land (and mesne profits therefrom) owned by Garcia during his lifetime, alleged to be unlawfully in the possession of the defendants Hernandez and Martinez.

Garcia died on February 27, 1895, leaving-- including one posthumous child--nine children and a wife. Some of these children were minors. Hernandez was named in Garcia's will as protutor for some of the minor children. Whether he ever acted in that capacity does not definitely appear.

The chief defenses set up by Hernandez, the principal defendant were that he bought 14 of the 25 acres from Garcia during his lifetime, and that he obtained title to, or at any rate beneficial ownership and right of possession of, the balance by assignments or conveyances from the heirs or some of them.

On trial in the District Court of Humacao, it was found that the plaintiffs constituted the succession of Garcia; that the land in question belonged to Garcia in his lifetime; that it was worth approximately $1,200; that the mesne profits amounted to $4,000; that the defendants were in actual possession and enjoyment of the land without title; that therefore the succession was entitled to possession and to recover the mesne profits of $4,000.

The defenses above mentioned were disposed of in the District Court by a finding that Hernandez's claim of purchase of 14 of the 25 acres from Garcia during his lifetime was not proved; as to the alleged acquisition of right or title from heirs after the death of the ancestor the finding was as follows:

'True as it is that several members of the plaintiff succession assigned their rights in the estate to the defendant Gregorio Hernandez, nevertheless no division of the estate was ever made, notwithstanding the allegation thus made by the defendants in their answer to plaintiffs' complaint. And until the liquidation of the estate and the allotment of their corresponding share in the estate to each heir be made the said heirs have no title to the real property left by the testator sufficient to make a valid alienation of such property. On the other hand, several assigning heirs were minors at the time of the assignment and this circumstance renders the act made by them null and void, and it should be taken into account that the defendant Gregorio Hernandez was the protutor of the minor heirs and that he had a share in the estate of Rivera Garcia.' This finding does not attempt to conclude the question as to what rights, if any, Hernandez obtained in the estate of Garcia through his dealings with the heirs. The decision of the District Court goes upon the theory that the succession or estate of Garcia was an entity, and that until it was settled or liquidated, that succession or estate could, as an entity, recover, as against the grantee or assignee of any of the heirs, possession of the decedent's land. On this theory the judgment ordered was 'without prejudice of the rights that Gregorio Hernandez might have to be substituted in the personality of those members of the succession having made a valid transfer of their undivided interest (condominios) in favor of said Gregorio Hernandez.'

The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. The opinion of the Supreme Court recites, inter alia, that Hernandez brought suit in the Municipal Court against several of the heirs of Garcia to recover $600, which resulted in an 'act of conciliation' by which, in payment of this admitted debt, these heirs transferred to Hernandez all their rights to two lots of land, one of them of 40 acres, and another of 6 acres. But it does not clearly appear whether these lands included the lands the subject-matter of the revindication suit.

Some of these heirs are stated in the opinion to have made formal deeds which were recorded, although in part attacked because of the alleged minority of the grantors; others were not recorded; the record is said to be silent with relation to the rights of Alberto, the posthumous child. The opinion does not refer at all to the alleged purchase of 14 acres by Hernandez from Garcia during Garcia's lifetime. But the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that that court erred in holding:

'That during the time the liquidation of an inheritance of property is taking place, and until there is a distinct adjudication to such heir, the heirs lack sufficient title to make a valid alienation of such property.'

The Supreme Court held, as we construe the opinion, that Hernandez as the grantee or assignee of the rights of some of the heirs, had or might be found to have all the rights that such heirs would have had, including the right of possession in common, that is, as co-owner; and that therefore an action of revindication did not lie against him. The conclusion stated was that because the plaintiffs did 'not unite in themselves the whole title to the property in question, and because the adults have no claim at all, judgment must be reversed and the complaint dismissed, without costs.'

The case comes here on writ of error with two assignments of error:

'First. The Supreme Court of Porto Rico erred in holding that the assignment and transfer made by some heirs of Jacinto Rivera Garcia, to wit, Josefa, Graciano, Abad, Eduarda, Cristina, Prudencia and Regalada Rivera Delgado, of their interest in the inheritance estate herein involved, to Gregorio Hernandez, was valid.

'Second. The Supreme Court of Porto Rico also erred in holding that Gregorio Hernandez is entitled to the possession of the property herein sought to be recovered and consequently that an action of revindication (ejectment) was not the proper remedy.'

We deal with these assignments in reverse order. The second is merely to the effect that an action of revindication or ejectment is not the proper remedy. This question of procedure is manifestly one of a purely local law on which the decision of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico should not be...