 |
| Dominican lawyers |
The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic ruled that a person married under the legal community of property regime does not need judicial authorization or to have sued previously in partition to lock conservatory measures in order to preserve the assets acquired in the marriage.
This decision was issued through Judgment Number 772/2019, dated September 25, 2019, on the occasion of an appeal in a referral process to lift the retention embargo.
According to this Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice:
In the event of a possible distraction of the assets that make up the estate between spouses or ex-spouses married under the matrimonial regime of the legal community of assets, the interested party may take the measures that it considers appropriate with the purpose of preserving said assets, whose action is enabled as long as there is common property during the divorce process or co-owned property as a result of the divorce.
It also pointed out that the conservatory measures on the assets that have entered the community, either because they were acquired jointly by the spouses or only by one of them, verified the conditions provided by law for that purpose; that, since such conditions were not verified in the species, because the opposition was made on property not belonging to the community or to any of the ex-spouses, as has been seen, the erroneous interpretation of the rule of Article 24 of Law Number 1306- bis of 1937, made by the Court a qua constitutes an overabundant motivation. It is necessary to remember that the regulations contained in Articles 24 and 25 of Law 1306-Bis dated May 21, 1937. Official Gazette Number 5034, establish the following:
Article 24.- The common woman in assets, plaintiff or defendant in divorce, may in any state of cause -from the demand-, require for the conservation of their rights, the affixing of stamps the movable effects of the community. These seals will not be lifted except by making an estimated inventory, leaving the husband obliged to present the inventoried effects, or to answer for her value as judicial guardian. Article 25.- Any obligation in charge of the community, any alienation of common real estate, made by the husband after the date of the demand, will be annulled if it is proven that they have been contracted in fraud of women's rights.
Article 24.- The common woman in assets, plaintiff or defendant in divorce, may in any state of cause -from the demand-, require for the conservation of their rights, the affixing of stamps the movable effects of the community. These seals will not be lifted except by making an estimated inventory, leaving the husband obliged to present the inventoried effects, or to answer for her value as judicial guardian. Article 25.- Any obligation in charge of the community, any alienation of common real estate, made by the husband after the date of the demand, will be annulled if it is proven that they have been contracted in fraud of women's rights.
He also indicated that he has no influence to make the contested decision marry; that, it has been considered as superabundant reasons those that are not essential to support the criticized decision, for which it proceeds to dismiss the examined means of appeal.
