The Supreme Court has not admitted the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and the appeal for cassation filed by Juan Antonio Rivera, S.L., against a judgment of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, which partially sided with one of the tenants of a home that the Church once sold to this company. The resolution is now final, without "any express pronouncement on procedural costs".
In this order, dated May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court recalls that the appealed judgment, in the Third Legal Basis, concludes on the existence of a title, a lease agreement signed in 1988, which "legitimizes the use of the home by the appellant, which inevitably entails, as a logical consequence, that eviction for precariousness is not possible".
The company alleged in these appeals an infringement of the jurisprudential doctrine of the Supreme Court, which declares the need to prove the payment of rent for the existence of a lease agreement. In this sense, the appellant understood that nothing had been proven in the procedure that would allow concluding that there was a commodatum agreement with this tenant.
However, the Supreme Court assures that this ground for appeal "incurs in the cause of inadmissibility of non-existence of cassational interest", since the application of the jurisprudence of the invoked chamber can only lead to a modification of the appealed judgment through the total or partial omission of the facts that the Provincial Court of Las Palmas considers proven.
And it is that the appellant, in "clear disagreement with the evidentiary assessment that the Provincial Court has made of the documents on record", maintains that the payment of rent that would determine the existence of a lease agreement excluding precariousness has not been proven. "These allegations cannot prosper because they clearly depart from the proven facts established by the appealed judgment", the Supreme Court affirms.
"As a logical consequence", eviction for precariousness is not possible
Regarding the second ground for appeal, the Supreme Court affirms that it also incurs in the cause of inadmissibility of non-existence of cassational interest. "These allegations cannot prosper, since attending to the Third Legal Basis, existing a lease agreement and, therefore, a legitimate title to use the home, eviction for precariousness is not appropriate", the Supreme Court affirms in this order, in which it insists that the "inadmissibility of the appeal for cassation determines that the extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement filed must be rejected".