
    Fernandez et al v. Sepúlveda.
    Appeal in cassation from the District Court of Mayagüez.
    No. 49.
    Decided February 11, 1903.
    Appeals. — In the petition for an appeal by reason of error of law, in addition to stating the parag-raph of Article 1690 upon which it is based, the law or legal doctrine alleged to have been violated must be precisely and clearly cited, as well as the manner in which the error occurred.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ■
    On motion of Tomás del Carmen Sepúlveda, the District Court of Mayagüez under date of February 25, 1902, having ordered the institution of intestate proceedings in regard to the estate of María Sepúlveda, and that accordingly the books, papers and correspondence of deceased be secured, and an inventory and deposit made of her property, three farms were inventoried and placed in charge of Tomás del Carmen Sepúlveda as temporary trustee and administrator, until he had furnishéd the required bond. On the 10th of March of the same year, José Antonio Fernández and the mercantile firm of Fernández & Co., intervened in said action, and asked that the aforesaid three farms be excluded from the inventory, inasmuch as two of them belonged to. said Fernández and the other- to the firm of Fernández & Co., aforesaid, submitting in support of their claim, such documents as were deemed by them sufficient to establish the same. Notice of this intervention having been served on Tomás del Carmen Sepúlveda, he filed an answer thereto praying that it be dismissed, as being one of those that do not come under article 741 of the Law of Civil Procedure, and should therefore be dismissed by the court on its own motion as provided by article 742, and because, even on the supposition of its being admissible, the inventoried property belongs to the intestate proceedings of María Lucía Sepúlveda, as having been acquired during her marriage with José Rosario Cuevas. After hearing the evidence submitted by both parties, the District Court of Ma-yagüez, on the 7th of June, 1902, rendered judgment sustaining the complaint in intervention, and ordering the discontinuation of the administratorship provided for the properties in question, without- special imposition of costs, the right being reserved to the parties to proceed in the matter in the proper manner. Prom this decision an appeal in cassation was taken by José Ramón Freyre, Esq. on behalf of Tomás del Carmen Sepúlveda, based on paragraphs 1, 3, 6 and 7 of article 1690 of the Law of Civil Procedure, alleging the following grounds of appeal, to wit:
    I.' — Failure to pass upon the alleged, violation of articles 741 and 742 of the Law of Civil Procedure, since the complaint in intervention should have been dismissed, in view of the fact that neither Fernández & Co., nor José A. Fernández, have the necessary capacity to prosecute the same because they are not parties to the intestate proceedings of María Lucía Sepúlveda, nor are they her creditors or legatees, nor have they anything to do with the validity of the proceeding, nor with the main question, which circumstances are necessary for the prosecution of the incidental issue, and no decision having been made upon these points, it is evident that the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 1690 of the Law of Civil Procedure, have been violated.
    II. — Error in the judgment in assuming that Fernández & Co. and José A. Fernández are in possession of the farms in question, inasmuch as the heirs of María Lucía Sepúlveda are the ones who have been and-are still in actual possession thereof and in said possession they have been disturbed by the claim of José A. Fernández, who demands the judicial possession of said farms, which demand has been opposed by said heirs, as appears from the record, thereb}r justifying an appeal in cassation under paragraph 1 of article 1690 of aforesaid law and rule 79 of General Order No. 118, of 1899.
    III. — Violation of law, if the provisions of paragraph 3 of aforesaid article 1690 are taken into account, for the Mayagüez Court in its judgment orders the intervention and administration encumbering the farms, to be discontinued without its having been demanded by any of the parties while, on the other hand, it fails to pass upon the claims in the suit.
    Neither of the attorneys for the party appellant has presented any argument, in support of the appeal, either orally or in writing, before the Supreme Court.
    
      Messrs. Freyre (José Id.) and Palmer, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Alvarez Nava', for respondents.
   Mr. Associate Jiostice Hernández,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the Court.

According to article 1718 of the Law of Civil Procedure, in an appeal in cassation for violation of law, in addition to stating the paragraph of article 1690 upon which it is based, the law or legal doctrine alleged to have been violated must be precisely and clearly cited, as well as the manner in which the violation occurred. Although in the notice of appeal it is stated that the same is based upon paragraphs 1, 3, 6 and 7, of article 1690 of aforesaid Law, the meaning of said paragraphs 3 and 7 are confused with the meaning of paragraph 1, no allegation being made as to the want of jurisdiction to which paragraph 6 refers, nor are the laws alleged to- have been violated in connection with the various points presented by the appeal, cited with precision and clearness, thus affording the Court no ground upon which to discuss and pass upon the appeal.

We adjudge that we should declare, and do declare, that the appeal in cassation taken by Tomás del Cármen Sepúl-veda, does not lie, and tax the costs against him. The record is ordered to be returned, and this decision communicated to the District Court of Mayagüez, for compliance therewith.

Messrs. Chief Justice Quinones, and Associate Justices Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary, concurring.  