The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently ruled on a significant property dispute involving Randie Hernández del Valle and the Municipio Autónomo de Caguas. The court's decision, issued on August 13, 2026, confirmed a lower court's ruling that dismissed the municipality's motion to dismiss Hernández's claims. This ruling is crucial as it addresses property rights and the legal responsibilities of municipal authorities in Puerto Rico.
Randie Hernández del Valle filed a lawsuit against the Municipio Autónomo de Caguas, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, and other parties, seeking damages for what he claimed were unlawful actions regarding his property. The case, docket number TA2026CE00918, revolves around allegations that the municipality improperly disposed of his property without legal authority. This ruling impacts Hernández directly, as it allows his claims to proceed in court.
The dispute began when Hernández alleged that he had a legitimate ownership interest in a property located in Urbanización Mansiones del Golf. He claimed that the Municipio de Caguas, lacking the authority to do so, sold or otherwise disposed of the property to a third party. Hernández argued that this action caused him significant economic harm, emotional distress, and a reduction in the property's value. He contended that the municipality's actions led to unjust enrichment for the other parties involved.
In response, the Municipio de Caguas filed a motion to dismiss Hernández's claims on May 12, 2026, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired on his claims. The municipality asserted that Hernández should have raised his claims during a previous legal proceeding regarding a public nuisance declaration that had been declared null. They contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Hernández's case due to alleged procedural defects in the service of process.
Hernández opposed the motion, maintaining that his claims were valid and not merely a re-litigation of previous issues. He argued that the damages he sought arose from the municipality's actions after the earlier court ruling, and thus the statute of limitations should not bar his claims.
On May 28, 2026, the lower court ruled against the municipality's motion to dismiss, stating that Hernández's claims were not time-barred. Following this, the municipality sought reconsideration, which was also denied. The municipality then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Romero García, reviewed the lower court's decision and ultimately confirmed it. The court stated, "the allegations of the complaint attribute to the Municipality continuous damages, allegedly suffered after the notification of the mandate related to the judgment that annulled the public nuisance declaration." This statement emphasizes the court's recognition of the ongoing nature of the damages claimed by Hernández.
In its ruling, the court clarified that the statute of limitations for continuous damages does not begin until the last act causing harm occurs. This means that as long as Hernández can demonstrate that the damages were ongoing, his claims can proceed. The court also noted that the principles of civil procedure support allowing claims to be heard unless it is clear that the plaintiff has no right to any remedy.
The ruling has significant implications for property rights in Puerto Rico, particularly concerning the responsibilities of municipal authorities. It reinforces the principle that municipalities must act within their legal authority and that property owners have the right to seek redress for unlawful actions affecting their property.
Moving forward, this ruling allows Hernández's case to continue in the lower court, where he can present his claims for damages. The decision also serves as a reminder to municipalities about the importance of adhering to legal protocols when dealing with property matters.
As for the possibility of appeal, the municipality may seek further review of this decision. However, details regarding any potential subsequent appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.