On this occasion, we will see three decisions of great procedural interest. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through a ruling dated September 29, 2023 (Sentence SCJ-PS-23-2046), heard the appeal filed against the decision that, within the framework of a real estate seizure promoted by The Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank), declared Nelson Antonio Tejada Sánchez the winner of the property and ordered the eviction of those seized.
During the course of the process, the respondent requested reconsideration of the defect pronounced against him, alleging irregularities in the summons, since it was notified at the request of a person with no connection to the case or authorization to do so.
The Court verified that the summons did not comply with the legal formalities, declared its nullity and retracted the resolution that had pronounced the defect. Subsequently, it examined the expiration incident raised by Scotiabank and verified that there was no valid summons within the thirty-day period established by the previous law 3726-53 on Cassation Procedure. Consequently, the appeal was declared void and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
In a second case, we will see that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, by ruling dated November 27, 2019 (1286/2019), heard the appeal filed against ruling no. 681-2013, issued by the Second Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Chamber of the Court of First Instance of La Vega, on the occasion of a real estate embargo promoted by Banco Popular Dominicano under Law 189-11.
The property was awarded to the bank for the first bid price, after completing the auction formalities. The appellants alleged violations of due process, non-retroactivity of the law, non-observance of article 159 of Law 189-11 and distortion of the facts, mainly because their privilege was not included in the auction price. The Court determined that the procedure was in accordance with current regulations, that the procedural rules are of immediate application and that the incidents should have been raised in a timely manner before the embargo judge. Consequently, it rejected the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the costs.
The decision had a dissenting vote from Judge Napoleón R. Estévez Lavandier, who understood that the judge should have verified ex officio the inclusion of the credit registered in the first rank in the first bid price. In a third case for study, we will see that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic, in a public hearing on July 24, 2020 (Sentence 0854-2020), heard the appeal filed against civil ruling 578 of the Court of First Instance of Santo Domingo, which declared Kiyosi Arai Uda the winner of an auctioned property and ordered the eviction of its occupants. The appellant alleged violations of due process, the Constitution, the Civil Code and Law 189-11, arguing that the incidents presented during the embargo were not resolved before the adjudication.
After analyzing the case, the Court concluded that the first instance judge proceeded to award the property without deciding all the incidental claims, violating the right of defense and affecting the regularity of the auction process. For this reason, the contested ruling was reversed, returning the case to the natural judge of the seizure so that the procedure could continue after correcting the procedural irregularities, and the costs of the trial were compensated. The decision guarantees that the principles of due process and effective judicial protection in forced execution procedures are respected. To be continued…
The author is the presiding judge of the Second Chamber of the Civil Court of the National District
