
    Santos v. Administration of the State.
    Appeal from 2nd Section of the Supreme Court of Justice.
    No. 1.
    Decided November 6, 1899.
    “Litigative Administrative” Jurisdiction. — Questions dealing with the manner of satisfying executory judgments rendered by the Council of State and responsibilities incurred by the administration through noncompliance therewith, appertain to “litigative-administrative” jurisdiction when they have been the object of an order of an administrative character constituting res judicata, and from which an appeal has been taken within the period and in the manner prescribed by law.
    Products of Properties Under Attachment. — The restitution having been ordered, of an estate attached by the Intendencia General de Hacienda (Treasury), together with the sums received as products or income thereof, during the time the attachment continued in force, it should be understood that the Treasury is obliged to make payment of only such sums as were actually received as products or income, it not being liable for any income that might have been •produced by said property, or for such as were not covered into the Treasury.
    Judgments of the Council of State. — The Treasury, is not liable for damages by reason of non-compliance with a decision of the Council of State, when it has acted in strict and literal conformity to the terms thereof.
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    This is a “litigative-administrative” action prosecuted by Felipe Santos, in his own right, as heir of José María Santos, against the Administration of the State (Government) represented by the Fiscal, in the matter of a decision rendered by the late Intendencia General de Hacienda (Treasury), on August 22, 1893, ordering that the liquidation made be corrected and that inasmuch as the products of the attached farm belonging to José María Santos, from the time the attachment was levied, had been enjoyed by himself and his heirs, the judgment of the Court of Litiga-tive-Administrative matters had been complied with, which judgment is now pending before this Supreme Court on appeal taken' by Felipe Santos from the decision rendered by Section 2 of the former Supreme Court of J ustice, reversing the judgment objected to, and ordering that the liquidation made by the Intendencia be corrected, and that there be included therein the products of the farm attached and in the hands of a trustee from April 8, 1868, to June 10, 1892, when it was restored, at the rate of one hundred pesos per annum, to be included in the next budgets, which judgment contains the following statement of facts:
    1. — The Treasury, on April 8, 1868, levied an attachment upon properties belonging to José María Santos, to meet subsidiary liabilities incurred as surety on a bond (testigo.de abono), said attachment including a farm situated within the. municipal district of Trujillo-Alto, Cuevas ward, which property was at first placed under the custody and administration of Facundo Morales; and afterwards, of Ramón Sánchez López, until June 19, 1892, when it was restored to him.
    2. — The estate of José María Santos having instituted “litigative-adminis-trative” proceedings against the public Treasury, the Council of State by Royal Decree of August 81, 1878, affirmed the decision appealed from and declared that the obligation of José María Santos was limited to the difference resulting between the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged farm and the sum of seven thousand five hundred pesos secured by a mortgage thereon in favor of the Treasury; it further ordered that a liquidation be made of the sums covered into the Treasury, proceeding from the attached property and property rights belonging to Santos, including therein the wages that might have been earned by the slaves from the time the property was seized to the date when, by reason of the abolition of slavery, their compulsory work ceased; should the obligation thus be covered, the attachment was immediately to be dissolved and the overplus returned, otherwise the indemnity accruing from the attached slaves, in the portion that should have been received by the estate, was to be applied, so far as necessary, to the satisfaction of the aforesaid obligation.
    3. — The Intendencia thereupon proceeded to effect a liquidation of the sums covered into the Treasury, derived from Santos’ attached property and property rights, but excluding the products of the attached farm, from April 8, 1868, when it was occupied by the custodian and administrator of the Intendencia and a new “litigative-administrative” action having been instituted by the estate of Santos, another'decision was delivered by the Council of State, May 8,1890, reversing the judgment appealed from, and directing that the liquidation made by the Intendencia General de Hacienda be corrected by including therein the sums received by the custodian and administrator, Ramón Sánchez López, as products or income of the attached farm.
    4. — Pursuant to this second decision the “Intendencia” instituted an administrative inquiry for the purpose of determining the fair net value of the annual income of the attached farm, the third expert appraiser estimating said income at six hundred and seventy-three pesos and thirty-seven centavos, the Treasury’s appraiser, at one hundred and nine pesos, and the plaintiff’s .at one thousand and seventy-three pesos per annum. With this result of the appraisement, the Intendencia, taking into consideration that the products of the farm, if any, had been collected and enjoyed by the estate of José María Santos: that the wages of the slaves, amounting to one thousand and thirty-seven pesos and eighty-four centavos had been paid in cash, and that moreover, said sum had been applied to the satisfaction of his indebtedness; that according to the record of the ratification of the attachment levied on the farm, had on May 14, 1868, Santos had declared that the property consisted of seventy-five cuerdas of brush and pasture land; and -that the appointment of expert appraisers cannot lead to the fulfillment of the judgment which, as to this particular, only says that the sum received by Ramón Sánchez López as products or earnings shall be -included in the liquidation, said Intendencia decided that as the liquidation had been corrected, and the products of the attached farm, from the moment the attachment was levied, had been enjoyed by Santos and his successors, the judgment of the Court of “Litigative-Administrative” matters had been complied with, and the necessary corroborative documents should be forwarded to said Court.
    5. — From this decision the estate of Santos applied for the remedy of administrative proceedings which, being refused by the local Court of the Island, said estate appealed to the Court of “Litigative-Administrative” matters, which ordered that the administrative proceedings be had and the case disposed of according to law.
    6. — The expediente gubernativo (papers connected with the administrative prooeedings) having been called for, upon receipt thereof it was shown to the plaintiff, who instituted a “litigative-administrative” complaint against aforesaid resolution, substantially reproducing, as to the points of fact, all that had been set forth and appeared in the administrative proceedings, and as legal authority he invoked Articles 1 and 2 of the Law of “Litigative-Administrative” matters and also Articles 4 and 32 thereof; alleging further that judgments should be literally complied with; that the evasion of the obligation imposed by the judgment of May 8, 1890, had not been an involuntary error; that the Intendencia should have abided by the result of the expert opinion it had proposed, and that damages caused must be indemnified. He closed with the prayer that the decision of the Intendencia General de 
      
      Haaienda, of August 24, 1893, be reversed, and declared null and void, and tliat the liquidation effected by said Intendencia pursuant to aforesaid decision, be consequently ordered to be corrected, and that the products of the attached farm, from the day when the attachment was levied to the date when it w7as returned to the estate of José María Santos, be included among the items of said liquidation, in accordance with the annual amount fixed by the third expert, namely, six hundred and seventy-three pesos and thirty-six centavos, at the same time ordering that the amount of thediquidation be included in the next budgets of expenses of the government for the Island of Porto Rico, and furthermore that the Treasury be adjudged to indemnify damages and to pay the costs.
    7.- — -Notice of the complaint having been served upon the Fiscal, he pleaded a want of jurisdiction, which exception was overruled in the first and second instances, the Court of “Litigativé-Administrative” matters ordering aforesaid complaint to be prosecuted according to law, and a new hearing having been accorded the representative of the Administration for the purpose of answ'ering as to the subject-matter- of the complaint, he alleged as facts: that he did not admit that the Intendencia had failed to effect the liquidation, as'ordered, inasmuch as the plaintiff himself has recognized the fact in ' statements 2 and 3 of his complaint; that the liquidation was effected and notice thereof served upon the estate; that the Intendencia, complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 1890, had corrected its previous liquidation and did not include the products of the attached farm, because, the estate of Santos and not the Intendencia had received them, the former paying the taxes and enjoying what little product it had yielded; that the exper appraisement did not imply any obligation on the part of the Treasury as to products it had not received; that no authority of this class could compel the Treasury to go against its decision without a previous competent declaration of the right of the estate of Santos to the amount of the products claimed; and he admitted the other facts set forth by the plaintiff. As legal authority he invoked Articles 48, 4, and 46 of the law of “litigative-administrafive” matters and the judgments of the “litigative-admi-nistrative” court, of April 9, February 18 and December 18, 1890, July 9, 1891, and March 18,. 1892, as also the judgment of the Supreme Court of May 5, 1892. He closed praying that final judgment be rendered for the Administration with costs against plaintiff
    8. — On motion of the parties the introduction of evidence was proceeded with, only that proposed by plaintiff being heard, which consisted of a certi- ' fied copy of a document showing that Trujillo-Alto had never been the domicil of the Succession of Santos and another certificate of one of the papers of the Administrative proceedings containing the writ of attachment of the farm of José María Santos duly returned as having been served upon Ramón Sánchez López, Custodian and Administrator by order of the Inten-dencia, report of the delivery of the property on June 19, 1892,' and of other proceedings in connection with said attachment.
    9. — The aforementioned (documental) evidence having been attached to the record, a hearing of this case was had, at which counsel for the plaintiff and the Fiscal made such arguments in support of their respective claims as they deemed proper.
    10. — The better to serve the ends of justice the Alcalde of Trujillo-Alto was requested to furnish a statement showing what the products of the said farm were calculated to be, in assessing the same for taxation from the year 1867 to the present day, and although in complying with this request said Alcalde had not strictly adhered thereto, it appears that from the year 1867 to the year 1899, the maximum of net income was calculated to be one hundred and twenty-five pesos and the minimum, forty-six pesos.
    
    11. — The result of the foregoing inquiry having been submitted to the parties the period of three days elapsed without anything being alleged as to the scope and importance thereof.
    12. — In the prosecution of this suit all the rules of procedure have been observed.
    The foregoing statement of facts is accepted.
    And, furthermore:
    In the administrative proceedings instituted upon the claims of Felipe Santos, for the purpose of correcting the liquidation made and to secure the inclusion therein of the products of the attached farm, the administrator, Ramón Sánchez López, was required to render an accounting, and on the 30th of January, 1891, he filed a communication stating that he had been appointed custodian of the farm belonging to the estate of Santos,, situated in barrio “Cuevas”, within the municipal district of Trujillo-Alto; that said appointment had been made some twenty-one years ago; that he had never cultivated the farm, nor had he been ordered to do so by the Administration; that the appointment had been made under the new rule; that the Santos estate had continued to enjoy the usufruct thereof as before; that the taxes had been paid by said estate, and that otherwise he would have been called upon to render an accounting from time to time.
    In the course of said investigation, Facundo Morales testified, March 2, 1901, that during five or six years he had seen Hermenegildo Santos', son of Santiago of the same surname, cultivating the farm; and on the 18th of the following April, Emilio and Vicente Betancourt, the former being an adjoining owner, testified that they knew of their own knowledge that the said farm had been cultivated by its owner for about fourteen years, more or less.
    On June 1, of the same year, Felipe Santos testified that nobody had cultivated those lands, because since the death of his father when the custodian Sánchez López took away the laborers from the farm, Escolástico Castro had been placed there as watchmen to prevent the property from being destroyed, and afterwards, Julián Ríos and Emeterio Zayas were appointed for the’ same purpose. The death of his father having occurred on November 2 of the year 1868 and, as the farm was under attachment it had not been cultivated, he paying the taxes so as not to lose the right of ownership, it having produced absolutely nothing, and if some minor plantation was cultivated it must have been for the maintenance of the watchman.
    After these proceedings, and for the purpose of throwing more light upon'the subject so that there might be a sure basis for the decision to be rendered, a proposition that an appraisement by experts be had, was made to the Intendencia and accepted by the latter on December 12, 1891, reference to which appears in the record.
    Section 2 of the Supreme Court of Justice rendered judgment, June 2, of the current year, reversing the decision of the Intendencia and ordering • that the liquidation be corrected including therein the products of the attached farm, from April 8, 1868, to June 19, 1892, at the rate of one hundred pesos per month, the'amount of the liquidation to be included in the next budget of expenses of the Island prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, the latter (the Treasury) being adjudged to pay the costs.
    From this judgment Felipe Santos took an appeal on June 9, on the ground that it impaired his rights as derived from the merits of the proceedings, not only as regarded the amount due, but also as to the damages and losses claimed, which appeal was allowed for review and stay of proceedings by an order dated 15th July following, the parties being duly notified.
    The record having been received in this Supreme Court, Felipe Santos entered an appearance, the Administration being represented by the Fiscal, and the proper proceedings having been had the parties were cited for judgment and the hearing was set for the 25th day of October, when Rafael López Landrón, counsel for the appellant, and the Fiscal on behalf of the Administration, made their respective arguments.
    
      Mr. López Landrón, for appellant.
    
      Mr. Romeo, Fiscal, for respondent.
   Mr. Ealo, Acting Associate Justice,

after malting the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinión of the court.

As to the exception of lack of jurisdiction pleaded by the Fiscal in his answer to the complaint, considering the nature of the claims set out therein, in which no question of ownership is raised, but merely the manner of carrying out the executory judgment rendered' by the Council of State, and the responsibilities that may have been incurred by the Administration for non-fulfilment thereof, according to the plaintiff, the decision of said questions falls within the litigative-administrative jurisdiction, when, as in the present case, they have been the object of an order of administrative character constituting res judicata, which order has been appealed from within the period prescribed by law.

As to the substance of the complaint, the subject-matter of this “litigative-administrative” action, lies in the fulfillment of the judgment rendered by the “Litigative-Administra-tive” Court, May 8, 1890, the terms of whose decision should therefore be strictly and literally complied with.

By said judgment it is ordered only that the amounts received by the custodian and administrator Ramón Sánchez Ló-pez, as products or income of the attached farm, be included in the liquidation, and as it appears, even from the statement of the plaintiff himself, that the Trujillo farm did not produce anything, no earnings could have been received by the custodian and none should be included in the liquidation.

The action taken by the Intendencia, in ordering an appraisement of the products of said farm, could not alter the form of the aforesaid decree,,nor did said order create or declare any right in favor of the estate of Santos, the action having been taken for the purpose of throwing more light upon the matter, and that it might serve as a basis for the decision subsequently to be reached.

If in failing to include in the liquidation! the alleged products of the attached farm, there has been no disregard of the executory judgment on the part of the Administration, the latter could not have incurred any responsability for the damages and losses claimed by the plaintiff by reason of a non-compliance with said judgment, nor is there any ground for annulling the decision of the Intendencia G&-neral de Hacienda, which is the object of the present appeal.

In view, of the manner in which the appeal was taken and allowed, the higher court has full jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action, according to the terms of the complaint and of the answer thereto.

In view of articles 1, 2 and 48 of the Law of “Litigative-Administrative” matters in force, and articles 1, 3 and 319 of the Regulation for the execution thereof,

We adjudge: That we should reverse, and do reverse, the judgment appealed from, overruling the exception of lack of jurisdiction alleged by the Riscal, as also the complaint, and the Administration is hereby relieved of all responsibility thereunder and the decision of the Intendencia of August 22, 1893, declared to be final, without special imposition of costs.

Messrs. Chief Justice Quiñones and Associate Justices Hernández, Morera and Acuña (Francisco de P.), concurring.  