The Supreme Court prevents resolving a sale if one of the two sellers request...

nijhumnishita03

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has appreciated the lack of passive consortium litigation necessary in a dispute in which one of the two sellers sought, on its own, the resolution of a purchase and sale contract, without having the support or participation of the other . Whoever opposes jointly filing the lawsuit when their presence in the process is necessary in response to the legal relationship discussed, must be brought to the process as a defendant. The ruling, dated February 8, 2022, declares that, in order to protect all the interests at stake and to validly constitute the procedural relationship, “the other seller must necessarily be in the process as a passive party in order to obtain a ruling judicial that is inseparable.

” We put in context In February 1993, some parents executed a deed of sale by which they sold their son an industrial warehouse of a community nature. More than 20 years later, in February 2015, the father Phone Number Data sent his son a burofax in which, as he explained, due to the non-payment of the price and interest, he required him to proceed to reimburse the sellers. the aforementioned ship. "They executed a deed of sale by which they sold their son an industrial warehouse of a community nature." (Photo: Vallejo Properties) The following year, in June 2016, a Court of First Instance issued a ruling declaring the marriage of the selling parents dissolved by divorce.



Months later, in November 2016, the father filed a lawsuit against his son in which he requested that the aforementioned sales contract be declared terminated and that the defendant be ordered to return to the plaintiff the industrial warehouse that is the subject of said contract, as well as to the payment of interest owed and other amounts as expenses and compensation for damages. First instance: the father was legitimate The Court of First Instance No. 2 of Catarroja (Valencia) partially upheld the claim, declared the contract terminated and ordered the defendant to return the industrial warehouse to the sellers, with rectification of the registered ownership, as well as to pay interest on the price not paid as compensation.