The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled in a significant property dispute case, Colegio Mi Cuido Y Educación, Inc. Y Otros v. Raúl Antonio OrtÃz Dávila Y Otros (Docket TA2026CE00737). The court's decision allows the inclusion of witnesses and expert testimony that a lower court had previously excluded. This ruling affects the parties involved in the case and sets important precedents for future civil litigation in Puerto Rico.
The case began with Colegio Mi Cuido Y Educación, Inc. (the Colegio) filing a civil action against Raúl Antonio OrtÃz Dávila and his wife, Elizabeth Gómez Acevedo, along with Desiderata Realty LLC and others. The Colegio claimed that it had acquired a property that included a vital access strip to a public road. The Ortiz-Gómez couple allegedly acted in bad faith by trying to usurp this access strip, leading to a complex legal battle.
The dispute escalated after the Colegio accused the Ortiz-Gómez couple of presenting a possessory interdict that favored them in previous court proceedings. The Colegio argued that the Ortiz-Gómez had no rightful claim to the access strip, which was crucial for the Colegio's property. The Ortiz-Gómez couple countered by claiming that they had possessed the property since 1962, thus fulfilling the requirements for usucapión, a legal term for acquiring property through continuous possession.
After numerous procedural incidents, the case reached a critical point when the Ortiz-Gómez couple sought to include additional witnesses and an expert in their defense. However, the lower court ruled on May 27, 2026, that these witnesses could not be included, stating that the parties had known about the issues since the beginning of the case and that allowing new testimony would disrupt the judicial calendar.
In response, the Ortiz-Gómez couple filed a certiorari petition, arguing that the lower court had erred in its decision. The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Trigo Ferraiuoli and joined by Judges Sánchez Ramos and Pérez Ocasio, reviewed the case. The court found that the lower court had acted excessively by excluding the witnesses as a first sanction without prior warnings or lesser penalties.
The court ruled, "the TPI exceeded by imposing on the petitioners, as the first sanction, such a severe measure as the exclusion of the witnesses and expert proposed."
The Appeals Court emphasized that the right to present evidence is a crucial aspect of due process. The court stated that excluding essential witnesses could severely disadvantage the Ortiz-Gómez couple in their defense and that such a severe sanction should only be applied in exceptional circumstances.
As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision, allowing the Ortiz-Gómez couple to include their witnesses and expert testimony in the upcoming trial scheduled for August 2026. The Appeals Court also lifted the suspension of the case proceedings, allowing the legal process to continue.
This ruling has significant implications for future civil litigation in Puerto Rico. It reinforces the principle that parties have the right to present their evidence and that courts should exercise caution when imposing severe sanctions like witness exclusion. The decision also highlights the importance of timely communication regarding witnesses and evidence in legal proceedings.
Looking ahead, the case will proceed to trial with the inclusion of the Ortiz-Gómez couple's witnesses. The Appeals Court's ruling may also influence how lower courts handle similar disputes, particularly regarding the treatment of evidence and the imposition of sanctions.
Details about potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. However, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how courts in Puerto Rico manage witness testimony and the discovery process in civil litigation.