Bibliographic citations
Tolentino, M., (2024). La posibilidad de discusión de derecho de alimentos en un proceso de desalojo por ocupante precario entre familiares [Trabajo académico, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27301
Tolentino, M., La posibilidad de discusión de derecho de alimentos en un proceso de desalojo por ocupante precario entre familiares [Trabajo académico]. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27301
@misc{renati/16753,
title = "La posibilidad de discusión de derecho de alimentos en un proceso de desalojo por ocupante precario entre familiares",
author = "Tolentino Zelarayan, Marisol Caroline",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
The present article takes as its starting point cases of eviction due to precarious occupation among family members and the possibility of discussing issues of alimony in such proceedings. This is because, currently, the Supreme Court has stated that such discussion is not possible; however, through the following doctrinal, jurisprudential, and normative analysis, we will aim to prove otherwise. In this way, in a first section, we will establish that when the defendant is in a state of necessity, they have a right to housing that should be provided by the plaintiff when they are relatives. To do this, we will first establish the relationship between the right to alimony and the right to housing. Then, we will analyze the relationship between the right to alimony and the state of necessity. In the second section, we will specifically address the arguments that would allow us to discuss the right to alimony in a process of eviction due to precarious occupation among family members. This includes considering the Constitutional State of Law, the current procedural design of the eviction process due to precarious occupation, and other procedural issues such as the use of the principle of iura novit curia and the opening of a new adversarial process. Finally, we will examine examples of comparative law in Argentina and Spain, which will help reaffirm our position that such discussion is possible in the considerative part of the judgment, and that, based on all the analysis in this article, the stance taken by the Supreme Court may not be the fairest.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License