Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Perez, L., Meza, Á. (2023). Incidencia de la carga de la prueba en el juzgamiento de los magistrados [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/671238
Perez, L., Meza, Á. Incidencia de la carga de la prueba en el juzgamiento de los magistrados [Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/671238
@misc{renati/411937,
title = "Incidencia de la carga de la prueba en el juzgamiento de los magistrados",
author = "Meza Vera, Álvaro Efraín",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2023"
}
Title: Incidencia de la carga de la prueba en el juzgamiento de los magistrados
Authors(s): Perez Nuñez, Lizeth Del Rosario; Meza Vera, Álvaro Efraín
Advisor(s): Torres Alvarez, Hernan Martin
Keywords: Código civil; Casación; Prueba de pago; Letras de cambio; Ley de Títulos Valores; Civil Code; Cassation; Proof of payment; Bills of exchange; Securities Law
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.01; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.05.00
Issue Date: 13-Nov-2023
Institution: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)
Abstract: La casación N° 4720-2018 LIMA NORTE interpuesta por la Constructora Inmobiliaria Dima Sociedad Anónima el dieciocho de junio del año dos mil dieciocho contra la sentencia de vista que había confirmado la sentencia de la primera instancia, que había declarado como infundada la demanda en contra de Felipe Isac Tapia Ramos y otra, acerca de resolución de contrato. La demanda buscaba resolver un contrato de compraventa por el incumplimiento de las 30 cuotas mensuales que debían realizar los demandados para hacer la entrega del bien, de las cuales solo cancelaron cinco de ellas, pese a que ya habían transcurrido más de dieciocho años y solicitaban que muestren las letras de cambio y puedan probar que habían cancelado el monto acordado. Frente a ello, los demandados afirman haber realizado el pago basándose en de modo contrario no se hubiera entregado el bien. Ante ello, la Sala Suprema evalúa el artículo 1229 del código civil, que menciona que quien pretende haber realizado un pago es quien debe encargarse de probar que lo hizo. No obstante, en lugar de este, aplican el artículo 17 de la Ley de Títulos Valores que menciona que es responsabilidad del vendedor el incumplimiento de una letra de cambio, siendo que prevalece la norma especial ante la general. En esa línea, nosotros discrepamos al respecto y en el presente trabajo se analiza dicha decisión, con el fin de demostrar que no es razonable inaplicar el artículo 1229.
Cassation No. 4720-2018 LIMA NORTE filed by Constructora Inmobiliaria Dima Sociedad Anónima on June 18, 2018 against the hearing ruling that had confirmed the ruling of the first instance, which had declared the claim against as unfounded by Felipe Isac Tapia Ramos and another, about contract resolution. The lawsuit sought to resolve a purchase and sale contract due to non-compliance with the 30 monthly installments that the defendants had to make to deliver the property, of which they only canceled five of them, despite the fact that more than eighteen years had already passed and they requested that show the bills of exchange and can prove that they had paid the agreed amount. Against this, the defendants claim to have made the payment based on the assumption that otherwise the goods would not have been delivered. Given this, the Supreme Chamber evaluates article 1229 of the civil code, which mentions that whoever claims to have made a payment is the one who must be in charge of proving that he did so. However, instead of this, they apply article 17 of the Securities Law, which mentions that the seller is responsible for non-compliance with a bill of exchange, with the special rule prevailing over the general rule. Along these lines, we disagree in this regard and in this work this decision is analyzed, in order to demonstrate that it is not reasonable to disapply article 1229.
Cassation No. 4720-2018 LIMA NORTE filed by Constructora Inmobiliaria Dima Sociedad Anónima on June 18, 2018 against the hearing ruling that had confirmed the ruling of the first instance, which had declared the claim against as unfounded by Felipe Isac Tapia Ramos and another, about contract resolution. The lawsuit sought to resolve a purchase and sale contract due to non-compliance with the 30 monthly installments that the defendants had to make to deliver the property, of which they only canceled five of them, despite the fact that more than eighteen years had already passed and they requested that show the bills of exchange and can prove that they had paid the agreed amount. Against this, the defendants claim to have made the payment based on the assumption that otherwise the goods would not have been delivered. Given this, the Supreme Chamber evaluates article 1229 of the civil code, which mentions that whoever claims to have made a payment is the one who must be in charge of proving that he did so. However, instead of this, they apply article 17 of the Securities Law, which mentions that the seller is responsible for non-compliance with a bill of exchange, with the special rule prevailing over the general rule. Along these lines, we disagree in this regard and in this work this decision is analyzed, in order to demonstrate that it is not reasonable to disapply article 1229.
Link to repository: http://hdl.handle.net/10757/671238
Discipline: Derecho
Grade or title grantor: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC). Facultad de Derecho
Grade or title: Abogado
Juror: Torres Álvarez, Hernán Martín; Quiroz Villalobos, Milton Ebert
Register date: 15-Jan-2024
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License