The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently reversed a lower court's ruling in a construction dispute involving property owners in Guaynabo. The decision affects several residents who claimed that a neighbor's construction violated local zoning laws. This ruling is significant because it addresses how courts handle disputes over property rights and zoning regulations.
The case, Eva A. Meléndez Alvarado, Josécarlos Ortiz García, Joe Pérez Ayala, and others v. Mireya Mercedes Quiñones Fernández and Municipio Autónomo De Guaynabo, was filed on June 26, 2026, under docket number TA2026CE00724. The petitioners, a group of property owners, sought to challenge a construction project initiated by Quiñones Fernández, which they alleged was done without proper permits and in violation of restrictive conditions established in the property deeds.
The dispute arose when Quiñones Fernández began adding rental units to her property. The petitioners claimed that this construction was unauthorized and breached the conditions set forth in the servitude established in the Urbanization Villa Ávila. In response, Quiñones Fernández filed a counterclaim, arguing that the petitioners themselves had violated zoning restrictions with their own construction projects.
The case made its way to the Court of Appeals after the lower court, the Tribunal de Primera Instancia in Bayamón, denied the petitioners' request for a summary judgment regarding the counterclaim. The petitioners argued that the lower court's decision was flawed and that the counterclaim should be dismissed based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from taking contradictory positions in the same legal proceeding.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals stated, "We proceed to resolve the petitioners' claims, as the lower court failed to address the nature of the request for summary judgment properly." The court, led by Judge Rivera Marchand and joined by Judges Mateu Meléndez and Boria Vizcarrondo, found that the lower court did not adequately determine which facts were undisputed and which were in dispute, as required by procedural rules.
The court emphasized that the lower court's failure to follow the necessary legal procedures warranted a reversal. The ruling clarified that the petitioners' motion was indeed a request for summary judgment, which should have been evaluated under the appropriate standards. The court ordered the lower court to reassess the case based on this clarification.
This ruling has significant implications for property owners and developers in Puerto Rico. It reinforces the importance of adhering to zoning laws and the procedural requirements for legal motions in property disputes. The decision may also encourage property owners to be more vigilant in enforcing their rights against unauthorized construction that may affect their property values and living conditions.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The lower court will need to address the petitioners' request for summary judgment properly and determine the validity of the counterclaim made by Quiñones Fernández. This ruling does not preclude further appeals, and it remains to be seen how the lower court will handle the case after the Court of Appeals' guidance.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding the potential for further appeals or related cases pending. However, the outcome of this case could influence similar disputes in the future, particularly those involving property rights and zoning regulations in Puerto Rico.