# Jurisdictional Statement — Sociedad De Mario Mercado E Hijos v. Puerto Rico > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0753%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 383 U.S. 412 ## Text $b 2 ov. ee | Office-Supreme Court, Te Rug j - > ? » . F I L E D Toppy = V3 0196 : a JOHN: F. DAVIS, CLERK - IN THE Supreme Court of the Vuited States OcTOBER TERM, 1965 No. . 7 86 fe ‘Sociedad de Mario Mercado e Hijos, Appellants na Vv. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, etc., Appellee a Appeal. From the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT: _ —_—_—— Prepro M. Porrata and ss CuarLes R. CupPBILL, Attorneys for Appellant P. O. Box 1124, Ponee, P. R. * - - Press or Byron S. ADAMS, WASHINGTON, D. Cc: EE a * SUBJECT INDEX | . . Page JURISDICTIONAL NG ii kc vicaveacccdccs ae | APPENDIX a ee van tee , oe os INTHE | | Supreme Court of the United States.” -* . (ee CommonwEaLTH or Pusrto Rico, erc., Plaintiff-Appellee | Ia | _Socrepap Marto Mercavo E H1sos, Defendants-Appellants ’ ConpeMNaTion PRocEEDINGS zs _ Appeal From the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT pe ee \ To THE HonoraBie Court: This case involves an appeal from the decision and opin- ion of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto . Riecc.in the case of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,. et als. v. Sociedad Mario Mercado e Hijos, case-number. 64-24 not yet reported in the official reports of the said court. The jurisdiction of this Honorable Court i is invoked under > the provisions of section 1258, paragraph 2, Title 28 U.S.C.A. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in con- Octoser TERM, 1965 ¢ tx : 2 demnation. proceedings in which the- constitutionality of Law No. 99. of April 18, 1952 (Laws of Puerto Rico An- notated, Vol. 23, sec. 278 (g) and (n); Appendix hereto, Exhibit 1, p.,1a) which authorizes the condemnation of . private property by the governor of Puerto Rico on behalf of the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company to be sold or leased to private individuals for the purpose of __ establishing factories (tax exempted) on such properties, is ‘assailed as repugnant té the Constitution of the United * States of America, and the proceedings conducted in the case.. . ae _In this. case, the. ennhinnbicaiti of ‘Puerto Rico. con- ie demned 70.8397 cuerdas of land on behalf of the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company in 1959 of which, 68.3353 cuerdas were the property of defendant-appellant herein. The Commonwealth government deposited with the Clerk of the Court. the sum of $121,827.40. This land was to be used by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company as an industrial site for tax exempted plants. ‘The government filed a motion for inimediate reer f and acquisition which was granted by the Court o Domain by order dated September 11, 1959. Appellant - herein raised several constitutional issues minent under the Federal constitution in the trial court (‘Type- written record on Appeal, pages 15-18; Appendix, Exhibit A, p. 5a) alleging that the propesed use was not a public one, as it is contemplated i in the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the selection of the land .con- demned was done arbitrarily. It was also alleged that the amount deposited did not constitute the fair and just com- pensation contemplated in the Constitutions of the. United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Appellant operates a sugar. factory in the town of Guaya- nilla, Puerto Rico under the name of Central Rufina .and is. the owner and cultivates land in the southern part of» —Puerto Rico on which it raises-its raw material (sugar i 3 ° . e? e cane). The land condemned was dedicated totally to the production of this raw material. The appellant claimed before the trial equrt and states before this Honorable. Court, that to deprive it of land where it raises its raw material for its factory and to give this land to private in- dividuals for their own private use, is not constitutionally valid and is a clear abuse of the be an to epndemn private property. The: Constitutional issues were disposed of by the Court . 6f Eminent Domain (Superior Court. of Puerto Rico) by order of March 23, 1960 signed by P. Santos Borges, Judge. (Typewritten Record on Seeand page <2; Appendix, Ex-* hibit B, p. 8a). Defendant-appellant filed an answer ,to the coniplaint dated April 16, 1960 in which, among other defenses, it _stated that the compensation deposited did not constitute — fair and reasonable compensation. under the law. As spe- -. cial defenses it. raised the following: _ (1) The use was not a public use as ‘conbeeaiain’ in the Fifth Amendment to the United _— Constite- tion. (2) Thé use of the power to condemn to: deprive an established industry of land where it raised its raw material for the purpose of delivering the said land to private enterprises is an illegal and unconstitutional exercise of that power. st (3) The determination and selection of the land to be condemned was arbitrary and prejudicial. _ (4) The order of. the court depriving defendant of _ its property prior.ta the determination of the fair and . reasonable compensation was void as it violated the : ‘provisions of.the U. S. Constitution and the Constitu- . - tion of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rice. ¢Appen- dix, Exhibit C, P. lla). On March 17, 1961 defendant filed. an vemeaas answer to the complaint i in which it raised the following defenses: | (1) Neither the statutory provisions cited in para- graph 1 of the complaint nor any other statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico authorize this expro- priation.. (2) The satis sited in shania 1 of. the com- 3 plaint as applied to this land and this defendant in this proceedings deprive defendant of property without due process of law in violation of: Article II, Section 7 of the Constitution of Puerto Rico and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States ip that this expropriation is not for a public. purpose. ‘ (3) The expropriation in this case of this particular tract of land is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and irrational and thus deprives defendant of its property | -without.due process of law in violation of article II, -. section 7 of the Constitution of Puerto Rico and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. of the United States. _ (4) The expropriation in this~ case eonstituies a taking of private property for a non-public use in violation of article II, section 9 of the Constitution of Puerto Rico and in violation of the-Fifth and Four- teenth Amendments to ne Constitition of the United _ States. (5) Lew number 99 of April 18, 1952, éintaine in- sufficient standards to guide the administrative exer- cise of the power to acquire land by expropriation and thus constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power in violation of article III, section 1 of the Con- stitution of Puerto Rico. (6) So much of Law Number 99 of: April 18, 1952, _ as authorizes expropriations of property by or on be- / j Pe ANIM LEER SS ORD IPD ILL ODER LEN RANA ACR ALU ENN, Set ges DHE Seton han taeaeaen a i ca th a css Bie ca say bx owe aeind ° 5 ‘ half-of.the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Com- pany is unconstitutionally vague, and thus its applica- °. tion to this land and this defendant deprives defend- ant of property without due process of law in violation of article II, section 7 of the Constitution of Puerto. Rico and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (7).The land expropriated in this case is an integral part of a larger tract of land owned by the defendant devoted to agriculture and industréal use. This expro- priation has.caused damage to defendants remaining land and to the agricultural, ‘commercial and industrial enterprise ‘connected therewith. Copy of said amended. answer is attached to this State-. ment in the Appendix as Exhibit DD (p. 16a): Prior to the hearing of the case on the merits, defendant- appellant submitted an interrogatory upon plaintiff under the Rules of Civil Procedure of Puerto Rico (Appendix, Exhibit E, p. 19a), to which. plaintiff raised several. ob- jections (Appendix, Exhibit F, p.“2la) that were sus- tained by tlie Court of Eminent Domain. The questions were directed to discover evidence as to the alleged arbi- trary selection of the land. Upon Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (Appendix, Exhibit G, p. 26a), that court by order issued July 14, 1961 (Appendix, _ Exhibit H, p. 31a), ordered Plaintiff to answer certain questions but sustained the objections related to the arbi- trary selection of the land, holding that it is not for the courts ... to sort and choose among the various parcels selected for condemnation and that the. rights of property - owners are satisfied when they receive that just compensa- tion which the Fifth Amendment exacts as the price ‘of taking. The court held that this case concerned ‘‘a con- demnation undertaken by a public agency for obvious public purposes, that is, for industrial development.’’? It based this affirmation on‘a previous case decided by it, Common- an ss .wealth v. Fajardo Sugar Co., 79 P.R.R. 303 (1956), and People v. Eastern Sugar Associates, 156 F. 2d 316. (C.C.A. 1, 1946), cert. denied in 329 U.S. 772. _The court further stated that defendant-appellant was - in estoppel to raise the said defense, since it had with- . drawn the amount deposited by the State, and that the acceptance of the said sum precluded defendant from argu- ing any other issue which does not relate exclusively to the amount of the compensation. The court: in so ruling, accepted as. established, facts not present in the case, be- cause the ‘‘motion for withdrawal of funds’’ (Appendix, | Exhibit D, p. 14a) very clearly states in its paragraph 2, ‘‘that defendant wishes to withdraw the aforesaid sum without. prejudice to its allegations in this case.’’ The . _ Court overlooked the contents of the motion and the fact that defendant had been already deprived ofthe use and benefit of the property by the order of the Court of Emi- nent Domain transfering immediate’ title and possession to plaintiff. Defendant moved for reconsideration of the said order « on May 11, 1962 (Appendix, Exhibit J, p. 39a), stating that the situation in this case.was not sjmilar to the facts of Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26. and thatthe court had power to set aside the selection when the officials had acted in a capricious manner as had been proved in this.case. United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 67 S. Ct. 252; Umited States v. Willis, 211 F. 2d 1, and United States v. Certain Real Estate, etc., 217 F. 2d 920. The motion was denied by Order dated May 29, 1962. (Appendix, Exhibit - K, p. 41a). The case came up for Suiits on Jantiary 31, 1963 and the case extended throughout February 1, 26, 27 and 28 and March 1, May 13, 14, 15 and 16. The Court of Eminent Domain entered judgment on September’ 11, 1963 and in a __ long opinion determined that the best use of the condemned _ land at the time of the condemnation ‘‘was agricultural, but 7 with an increased value for these purposes in view of the possibility that within & reasonable period of time it could be dedicated to industrial or residential development pur- poses.’? The Court then proceeded to dismiss the allega- tions of. value made by defendant-appellant $409,250.00 as against the $121,827.40 deposited by the. Plaintiff. The Court did not determine the value of the condemned prop- erty at all. It is presumed in‘ the judgment that the amount deposited could be the amount adjudged. Copy of the Find- ings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of the Superior Court. of Puerto Rico, Eminent Domain Section, - is attached herewith in the Appendix as Exhibit L, pp. 42a-60a), and is also found in the Typewritten Record on Appeal at pages 86-109. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Puerto © Rico on October 3, 1963 by filing its Notice of Appeal (Appendix, Exhibit M, p. 61a) and in the said Notice of | _ Appeal raised the following question of law: (1): The judgment deprived appellant of its prop- erty without due process of law. (2) The court in determining that the best use was — ‘‘agricultural’’ did so against the evidence introduced, without any basis therefore in the record, in an arbi- trary and capricious manner thus depriving appellant _ of a fair and impartial trial under both the Constitution of ‘the United States and the Constitution of the Com- monwealth of Puerto Rico. (3) The court in disbelieving appellant’s evidence without justification denied it the due process of law and deprived it of its property in violation of the Fed- eral Constitution and the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico. | : * (4) The condemnation in this ease does not consti- © _ tute a public use as contemplated in the Fifth Amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States of S. America incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment of that same Constitution. (5) Tlie use of the power of condemnation to deprive an established industry of its source of raw material in order to later deliver the lands in question to private enterprises for the operation of industrial establish- ments, is an unlawful exercise of the power of .con- demnation and the action-of the Industrial Develop-: ment Company constitutes a violation of the restric- tion included i in the Act authorizing it to expropriate. The Supreme Court of Puerto. Rico, on May 13, 1965 entered judgment affirming the judgment of the Court of Eminent Domain (Typewritten Record on Appeal, pages - 112-113; Appendix, Exhibit-N, p. 63a). "The court de- cided that the first three errors had been adversely de- cided against defendant-appellant in the Certiorari filed previously (Appendix, Exhibit G, p. 26a), and the court again made reference to the fact that the funds deposited | + had been withdrawn by appellant, and that therefore, appel- lant could not raise the issue of thé illegality of the taking. As to the other two errors assigned to the Court of Emi- nent Domain, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico affirmed the determination of ‘‘agricultural’’ use made by that court, but made no ruling as to the fourth and fifth assignments of errors pointed out in the Notice of Appeal, that is, the use of the power to condemn in this case for a use not public and the use of that power to deprive an established industry of its source of raw material and give that land.. to another private enterprise for its own private use. The judgment entered by the Supreme Court failed to decide the issues in the order and manner presented to that court. In so doing, the Supreme Court deprived appellant of its right to a fair and impartial appraisal - its case. a | 9 A motion for reconsideration filed on May 24, 1965 was denied by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on May 27; 2 1965. : Appellant filed its Notice of’ Agee ra this Supreme Court of the United States with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on June 4, 1965 stating in the said . Notice of Appeal the a for the same, (Appendix, . Exhibit O, p. 66a). :, The Supreme — of Puerto Rico by wile of J une 1l,. - ‘1965: (Appendix, Exhibit P, p. 7la) considering the Notice of Appeal filed, recalled trom the trial court the original ~~ yeeord for the preparation of the record on | appeal and-———_—— granted appellant by. order-dated ‘September 30, 1965, till ~-November 1, 1965 to file the record on appeal before this Honorable Court (Appendix, Exhibit Q, p. 71a). In this case sufficient constitutional issues under the Con- ‘stitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Puerto Rico were raised at the trial _ court and before the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and are raised in this Statement to give jurisdiction to this . Honorable Court. Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Inde- pendent School District (Tex. 1960), 80 S. Ct: 474; 361 US. 376, 4. L. Ed. 383; Brown Shoe Co. v. U. 8S. (Mo. 1962), 82 S. Ct. 1502; 370 U.S..294, 8 L: Ed. 2d°510; Brantff Air- ways v. Nebraska State Bd. of Equalization and Assess- ment, 74S. Ct. 757; 347 U.S. 590, 98 L. Ed. 970. WHEREFORE, it is prayed from this Honorable Court to review the judgment - the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in this case. — Ponee, Puerto Rico, this 80th day of November, 1965. . Respectfully submitted, ‘Pzpro M. Pokiura and Cuartes R. Cupriit, Attorneys for Appellant: ; me oA 0. Box 1124, Ponce, P. R. = By: Cranes R. Currii OpENHEIMER --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0753%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.