One of the winning results of the litigation team led by Mar\u00eda Mercedes Gonzalo Garachana’s firm included an advance in jurisprudence. Below, we quote the relevant parts:<\/p>\n\n
\nJudgment No. 52-2019, issued on January 30, 2019, by the Third Chamber of Labor, Land, Contentious-Administrative, and Contentious-Tax Matters.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
It has been established that during an appeal in which the Superior Land Court hears a case concerning the nullification of a boundary demarcation of registered land, it is the duty of the judges to state in their judgments their decision regarding the requesting party’s petition for a history of the property, as well as a site visit.<\/p>\n\n
In this regard, jurisprudence has held that: \u201c… judges are obligated to respond to all points in the parties’ conclusions, either admitting or rejecting them, providing the pertinent reasons, and this applies to both principal and subsidiary conclusions, as well as to conclusions containing a claim, a defense, an exception, a plea of inadmissibility, or a request for an investigative measure; therefore, by not responding to the request for a history of Parcels No. 66 and 66-A, of the Cadastral District No. 12, of the municipality and province of Santiago, nor to the request for a site visit to said parcels, its omission entails a violation of the appealing party’s right to a defense, which translates into a lack of grounds, a deficiency that this Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice remedies ex officio; for these reasons, the present appeal is upheld, and the challenged judgment is overturned.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the winning results of the litigation team led by Mar\u00eda Mercedes Gonzalo Garachana’s firm included an advance in jurisprudence. Below, we quote the relevant parts: Judgment No. 52-2019, issued on January 30, 2019, by the Third Chamber of Labor, Land, Contentious-Administrative, and Contentious-Tax Matters. It has been established that during an appeal in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":881,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"slim_seo":{"title":"Lack of Grounds in Plot History Appeal | GGFG","description":"Analysis of the ruling that qualifies failure to respond on a plot history request as a lack of grounds."},"iawp_total_views":3,"_slim_seo_primary_term_category":0,"_slim_seo_primary_term_post_tag":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=882"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/882\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1061,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/882\/revisions\/1061"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gonzalo.com.do\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}