Cassation appeal inadmissible in possessory information proceedingsCasación inadmisible en diligencias de información posesoria

II.Regarding the appellate regime applicable to possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria), it must be noted that, according to Article 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias—in force at the time this process was filed—: “The decision that approves or rejects the information and those that are subject to such appeal, according to the Civil Procedure Code, shall be subject to appeal before the corresponding Court.” Subsequently, the contentious-administrative procedural legislation itself provides that the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) shall be available against judgments and orders having the character of a judgment that produce the effect of material res judicata (cosa juzgada material), when they are contrary to the legal system (Article 134.1 of the CPCA). This provision, in turn, is supplemented by articles 64 and 69 of the CPC, which respectively provide: “(…) Final judgments issued in ordinary proceedings and decisions expressly indicated by law produce material res judicata, which makes the existence or non-existence of the legal relationship adjudicated indisputable in another process” and “The cassation appeal may be filed against judgments issued in ordinary proceedings of high value (mayor cuantía) or unquantifiable value, and in cases expressly indicated by law.”

III.In the specific case, the party promoting the possessory information proceedings appeals the decision of the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda that rejected the proceedings filed, a decision which, as indicated, is not susceptible to this extraordinary appeal—there is even an express rule providing for the appeal (apelación) as the challenging remedy. It is therefore noted that the admission of the cassation appeal ordered by decision of this Cassation Court at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, constitutes a significant anomaly that generates a clear procedural imbalance, insofar as the promoting Board would be allowed to formulate—and subsequently resolve—an appeal that is not admissible, according to the rules established in the applicable legislation on this matter. Given this scenario, it becomes imperative that this Cassation Body exercise its powers of procedural ordering and instruction, in order to safeguard equality, due process (debido proceso), and the right of defense of both parties, in full observance of the legislative design of the procedural pathway and, particularly, of the appellate phase, without granting undue advantages, without legal basis, to any of the parties. In this regard, it should also be highlighted that provision 2.1 of the CPC assigns to the Courts the duty to guarantee procedural equality, respecting due process; an order reiterated in precept 5.1. To this must be added the mandatory nature (indisponibilidad) of procedural rules, contemplated in provision 3.5 of the same code; in addition to the exhaustive list principle (taxatividad) of the means of challenge, according to which these only proceed in the cases expressly established (article 65.1 ibidem).

IV.By virtue of the foregoing, the admission decision issued in this file, at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, is hereby annulled. The cassation appeal filed by the Board promoting the present proceedings is hereby rejected outright, as the decision appealed is not susceptible to this extraordinary appeal.

It is therefore noted that the admission of the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) ordered by resolution of this Cassation Court (Tribunal de Casación) at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, constitutes a significant anomaly that generates a clear procedural imbalance, insofar as it would allow the petitioning Board (Junta promovente) to formulate - and subsequently resolve - an appeal (recurso) that is not admissible, according to the rules set forth in the applicable regulations on this matter. Faced with this scenario, it becomes imperative for this Cassation Body (Órgano casacional) to exercise its powers of procedural management and instruction, in order to safeguard equality, due process (debido proceso), and the right of defense of both parties, in full observance of the legislative design of the procedural path and, particularly, of the appeals phase, without granting undue advantages, without legal basis, to any of the parties. For this purpose, it must also be highlighted that mandate 2.1 of the CPC assigns to the Courts the duty to guarantee procedural equality, respecting due process; an order reiterated in precept 5.1. To this must be added the mandatory nature of procedural rules, contemplated in mandate 3.5 ibidem; in addition to the exhaustive list of means of challenge (medios de impugnación), according to which these only proceed in cases expressly established (article 65.1 ibidem).

IV.Based on the foregoing, the admission resolution issued in this case file (expediente), at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, shall be annulled. The cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed by the petitioning Board (Junta promovente) of these proceedings shall be summarily rejected (rechazado de plano), as the appealed resolution is not subject to this extraordinary appeal (recurso extraordinario).

Then, the administrative contentious procedural legislation itself provides that the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) shall be available against judgments and orders having the character of a judgment that produce the effect of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), when they are contrary to the legal system (article 134.1 of the CPCA). This provision is, in turn, complemented by articles 64 and 69 of the CPC, which respectively state: "(…) Final judgments rendered in ordinary proceedings and resolutions expressly indicated by law produce substantive res judicata, which makes the existence or non-existence of the adjudicated legal relationship indisputable in another proceeding" and "The cassation appeal may be filed against judgments rendered in ordinary proceedings of higher amount or unquantifiable value and in the cases expressly indicated by law."

III.In the specific case, the party promoting the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) appeals the resolution of the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court that rejected the proceedings filed, a resolution which, as indicated, is not subject to this extraordinary appeal—in fact, an express rule provides for appeal as an impugnation remedy. It is therefore noted that the admission of the cassation appeal ordered by resolution of this Cassation Court at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, constitutes a significant anomaly that generates an evident procedural imbalance, insofar as the promoting Board would be allowed to formulate—and subsequently resolve—an appeal that is not admissible, according to the rules set forth in the regulations applicable to this matter. Given this scenario, it becomes imperative that this Cassation Body exercise its powers of procedural ordering and instruction, in order to safeguard equality, due process, and the right of defense of both parties, in full observance of the legislative design of the procedural process and, particularly, of the appellate phase, without granting undue advantages, without legal basis, to either party. To this end, it must also be highlighted that mandate 2.1 of the CPC assigns the Courts the duty to guarantee procedural equality, respecting due process; an order reiterated in precept 5.1. Added to this is the mandatory nature of procedural rules, contemplated in mandate 3.5, ibidem; in addition to the exhaustive list of means of challenge, according to which these are only admissible in the cases expressly established (article 65.1, ibidem).

IV.By virtue of the foregoing, the admission resolution issued in this file, at 13 hours 19 minutes on January 29, 2025, will be annulled. The cassation appeal filed by the Board promoting these proceedings will be flatly rejected, as the appealed resolution is not subject to that extraordinary appeal.

"II. En lo que atañe al régimen recursivo aplicable a las diligencias de información posesoria, debe acotarse que, según el artículo 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias -vigente para el momento cuando se interpuso este proceso-: “La resolución que apruebe o impruebe la información y las que tuvieren ese recurso, según el Código de Procedimientos Civiles, tendrán apelación para ante el Tribunal que corresponda”. Luego, propiamente la legislación procesal contencioso administrativa, dispone que cabrá el recurso de casación contra las sentencias y los autos con carácter de sentencia que tengan efecto de cosa juzgada material, cuando sean contrarias al ordenamiento jurídico (artículo 134.1 del CPCA). Disposición ésta que, a su vez, se complementa con los ordinales 64 y 69 del CPC, que disponen por su orden: “(…) Producen cosa juzgada material las sentencias firmes dictadas en procesos ordinarios y las resoluciones expresamente indicadas por la ley, lo cual hace indiscutible, en otro proceso, la existencia o no de la relación jurídica juzgada” y “El recurso de casación podrá interponerse contra sentencias dictadas en procesos ordinarios de mayor cuantía o inestimables y en los supuestos que la ley señale expresamente”.

III.En el caso concreto, la parte promovente de las diligencias de información posesoria recurre la resolución del Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda que improbó las diligencias planteadas, resolución que, según se indicó, no es pasible de este recurso extraordinario -incluso existe norma expresa que dispone la apelación como remedio impugnaticio-. Se advierte entonces que la admisión del recurso de casación dispuesta mediante resolución de este Tribunal de Casación de las 13 horas 19 minutos del 29 de enero de 2025, comporta una trascendente anomalía que genera un evidente desequilibrio procesal, en el tanto se le estaría permitiendo a la Junta promovente la formulación -y posterior resolución- de un recurso que no resulta admisible, según las reglas dispuestas en la normativa aplicable a esta materia. Ante ese escenario, deviene imperativo que este Órgano casacional ejerza sus potestades de ordenación e instrucción procesal, en aras de resguardar la igualdad, el debido proceso y el derecho de defensa de ambas partes, en plena observancia del diseño legislativo del íter procesal y, particularmente, de la fase recursiva, sin conceder ventajas indebidas, sin fundamento legal, a ninguna de las partes. A propósito, debe resaltarse, además, que el mandato 2.1 del CPC asigna a los Tribunales, el deber de garantizar la igualdad procesal, respetando el debido proceso; orden que reitera en el precepto 5.1. A ello debe aunarse la indisponibilidad de las reglas procesales, contemplada en el mandato 3.5 ejúsdem; además de la taxatividad de los medios de impugnación, conforme a la cual éstos solo proceden en los casos expresamente establecidos (artículo 65.1 ibídem).

IV.En mérito de lo expuesto, se anulará la resolución de admisión dictada en este expediente, a las 13 horas 19 minutos del 29 de enero de 2025. Se rechazará de plano el recurso de casación incoado por la Junta promovente de las presentes diligencias, por no ser pasible de ese recurso extraordinario la resolución recurrida.