
    Polanco v. Franco.
    Appeal from the District Court of Arecibo.
    No. 16.
    Decided March 17, 1904.
    Damages. — The dismissal of a suit is not sufficient per se to create a cause of action in favor of the defendant so as to enable him to claim losses and damages from the plaintiff for the legal maintenance of an action.
    Obligations — Contracts.—Obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi contracts, and by illicit acts and omissions, or those into which fault or negligence enters.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is an action prosecuted in tlie District Court of Are-cibo by Juana Polanco de la Rosa, as plaintiff, represented before this Supreme Court by Attorney José de Guzmán Beni-tez, against Ignacio Franco y Alonso, as defendant, represented by Attorney Antonio Alvarez Nava, for the recovery of damages, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by Juana Polanco de la Rosa from the judgment rendered by aforesaid court, which reads as follows:
    “Judgment No. 4. — In Arecibo, January 31, 1903. An oral and public bearing was bad before this district court of the declaratory action of greater import, for the recovery of damages, prosecuted by Attorney José de Guzmán Benitez, on behalf of Juana Polanco de la Rosa, unmarried, of age, and a resident of Manatí, against Ignacio Franco y Alonso, a merchant, also a resident of Manatí, and represented by Attorney Antonio Alvarez Nava.
    “On June 16, 1902, Attorney José Guzmán Benitez, on behalf of Juana Polanco y de la Rosa, brought an action in this court against Ignacio Franco y Alonso, for the recovery of damages, alleging that said Franco Alonso had sued Juana Polanco in the District Court of the United States, and Judge Holt rendered a decision disposing of tbe question raised by tbe absence of exceptions, with costs against tbe former.
    “Tbe plaintiff further alleged that Franco’s proceedings against her bad been instituted at a most critical moment for plaintiff, not only on account of tbe deadly blow thereby leveled at her good credit and reputation, but also because she was obliged to protect her interests, thus seriously threatened, and incur expenses she was unable to meet under such circumstances; that she was consequently compelled to neglect the care and cultivation of her lands, and her plantations of coffee and other products had been so overrun with brambles and vines that they bad tbe appearance of waste lands, tbe last crop having been wholly lost, with no better prospects for tbe next; that these reverses bad entailed serious injuries upon Juana Polanco, both from tbe deficiency of tbe crops and tbe depreciation of tbe property, which she estimated at not less than fifteen hundred dollars, though really amounting to considerably more, as in due time would be shown.
    “As legal grounds, plaintiff cited articles 1089, 1092, 1093 et seq. of tbe Civil Code relating to indemnity for damages, as also General Orders No. 118, series of 1899, with regard to tbe payment of tbe costs of tbe present litigation, and with the documents accompanying tbe complaint she submitted tbe deeds showing her title as owner in common and a copy, with its translation in Spanish, of the decision rendered March 27, 1902, by the United States District Court, dismissing the action instituted by Franco, for want of exceptions or reply, with costs against him, as also a private memorandum, signed by José Eugenio Polanco, of the expenses incurred by him for account of Juana Polanco, by reason of her appearance in said United States Court, the same aggregating $538.70, American gold, $500 whereof was paid to Attorney José Guzmán Benitez, according to accompanying receipt, and $38.70 for traveling expenses to San Juan.
    “Notice of said complaint having been served upon Igpacio Franco Alonso, an answer thereto was filed by him through Attorney Alvarez Nava, who, among other things, stated: That after bringing aforesaid action against Nicanor Polanco and his sister Juana, counsel for his client in the United States District Court had omitted to file a replication and abandoned the action, which being tantamount to desisting from further prosecution thereof, it had been dismissed by the court, with costs against the plaintiff. This, however, did not imply an admission by the court of the validity and efficiency of the contracts in question nor a forfeiture or waiver on his part of the right of action to seek the annulment thereof, as being simulated and made to his prejudice, and he denied as groundless the claim set up by Juana Polanco. As legal grounds in the premises, he cited articles 1089 and 1291 of the Civil Code, referring to the origin and nature of contracts, and articles 1646 and 1656 of the Law of Civil Procedure referring to judgments in summary proceedings where losses and damages are expressly adjudged to be paid by one of the parties, and General Order of March 20, 1899, dealing with the simulation of contracts, and he attached to his answer a promissory note for one thousand pesos, endorsed to Franco Alonso, February 20, 1898, on behalf of Manuel Correa, by Everardo Cebollero.
    “At the proceedings for the taking of evidence both parties proposed documentary and oral evidence, in addition to which expert testimony was offered by Juana Polanco, all of which was declared pertinent and was taken and the oral trial proceeded with, José de Guzmán Benitez, on behalf of Juana Polanco, and Antonio Alvarez Nava, in representation of Ignacio Franco Alonso, being present.
    “In the conduct of this ease all the legal formalities have been complied with. Presiding Judge Felipe Cuchí Arnau prepared the opinion of the court.
    “From the evidence presented at this trial it does not appear that any damages were caused to Juana Polanco by the defendant, Ignacio Franco Alonso, as a result of the action instituted by the latter against the former, in the United States District Court, or that she has suffered thereby either in her good name or in her property.
    “But even granting that said Polanco had sustained damages from the mere fact that Franco Alonso had brought against her in the District Court of the United States an action which was not carried to judgment, but was dismissed in favor of said Polanco by reason of plaintiff’s failure*to prosecute same, tbe former could only be held to pay her the costs occasioned by the suit, which is the only thing adjudged against him.
    “Article 1089 of the Civil Code, according to which obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasi contracts and by illicit acts and omissions, or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence enters, clearly shows that Juana Polanco has no cause of action' to recover indemnity from Ignacio Franco, for fancied damages, simply because she was legally sued in the United States District Court in the matter of simulation of contracts, as otherwise this would be tantamount to 'maintaining that whenever a litigant in an ordinary lawsuit had obtained a favorable decision, he could institute another action for the recovery of damages against his opponent.
    “For the foregoing reasons the complaint brought by Juana Po-lanco should be dismissed, with costs against complainant.
    “In view of articles 1089, 1090 and 1092 of the Civil Code, articles 371, 1646 and 1656 of th'e Law of Civil Procedure, and rule 63 of General Orders No. 118, series of 1899, we adjudge that we should declare and do declare that the action brought by Juana Polanco y de la Rosa against Ignacio Franco y Alonso for the recovery of damages does not lie, and impose costs upon the plaintiff. 1
    “Thus do we pronounce, order and sign. Felipe Cuchí, Otto Schoenrich, Enrique González Darder.”
    Notice of this decision having been served upon Juana Polanco, she took an appeal therefrom, which was allowed, and the record was ordered to be forwarded to this court after citation of the parties within the legal period. Upon the appearance of the latter, the case was dealt with under the proper procedure and a day set for the hearing, at which the attorneys for the parties presented such arguments as were deemed pertinent to their respective contentions.
    
      Mr. Guzmán Benitez (José), for appellant.
    
      Mr. Alvarez Nava, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Sulzbacher,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of'fact and conclusions of law set forth in the judgment appealed from are accepted.

In view of the legal provisions therein cited, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment rendered Jannary 31, 1903, by the District Court of Arecibo, with costs against appellant. The record is ordered to be returned with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández, Figueras and MhcLeary concurred.  