Petition for Writ of Certiorari — H. P. Y., Inc. v. Puerto Rico
Supreme Court brief2000
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
992017 JUN 15 2000
No.——— OFFICE OF THE CLERK
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States
H.P.Y., INC.,
Petitioner,
Vv.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al.
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Of Counsel: SHELDON S. TOLL
(Counsel of Record for
JUAN J. RAMIREZ-R. Petitioner H.P.Y., Inc.)
PEDRO E. ORTIZ-ALVAREZ GREGORY J. DEMARS
JOSE F. RAMIREZ HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
AND COHN
2290 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
June, 2000 (313) 465-7582
WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. - (202) 789-0086 - WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
THE COMMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; Luis A.
Acevedo Santiago; Oscar Acevedo Vega; Carmen M. Acosta;
David Acosta Cruz; José A. Acosta Cruz; Iris Acosta
Santiago; Rail Albizu Cruz; Andrés Albizu Rosado; Tomas
Albizu; Antonio Alc4zar Cruz; Antonio Alcdzar Martinez;
Antonio Alc4zar Martinez; Carmen Alcd4zar Martinez; Maria
Mercedes Alers; Alfredo L. Alfonso Mujfioz; Alfredo L.
Alfonso Mufioz; Alfredo L. Alfonso Mufioz; Daniel Alicea
Cossoles; Rigoberto Alicea Dapena; Mariano Alicea Davila;
Mariano Alicea Davila; Carmen Almodévar; Carlos
Almodévar Diaz; Jaime Almodévar; Maria Almodévar; Luis
Almodévar Montes; Francisco Almodévar Vega; Francisco
Almodévar Vega; Miguel Alvarez; Reymundo Alvarez
Torres; Carmen Antonetti; Eddie Aponte Alicea; Harry
Aponte Alicea; Miguel Aponte Alicea; Luis Aponte Davila;
Roberto Aponte Rangel; Ramén Aponte Torres; Luis Arce
Almodévar; Luis Arce Almodévar; Maritza Alvarado; Miguel
Alvarez Quiles; Elizabeth Arce Borraro; Lilliam M. Arce
Diaz; Roberto Arce Irizarry; Jaime Arciliares Hernandez;
Pedro J. Arroyo Rivera; Luis G. Arroyo Santiago; Mercedes
Arroyo Santiago; Carmen Dalic Astacio; Carmen D. Astacio
Cornier; Juan Aviles; Edgar L. Aviles Rodriguez; Gilberto
Ayala Mufioz; Marisol Ayala Rivera; Julio Ayala Rodriguez;
Angel Badillo Figueroa; Eleuterio Béez Lépez; Luz C.
Bajanda; José E. Barbora Vega; Elfas Batista Gonz4lez; Félix
Batista Gonzdlez; Santos Batista; Gilberto Batiz Irizarry;
Adelaida Batiz Rivera; Maria Bauza; Maria M. Belfort
Rodriguez; Milagros Belfort Rodriguez; Francisco L. Bello
Ortiz; Carmen I. Bernazard Méndez; Carmen I. Bernazard
Méndez; Juanita Blanco; Daniel Boffil Santana; Daniel Boffil
Santana; Jaime Burgos; Justino Caballero Miura; Wilfredo
Caban Aroche; Librado Cadiz; Wilfredo Camacho Rivera;
Edgardo Campos; Ramén Campos Morales; Agustina
Candelaria; Sandra Candelaria SAnchez; Ramén L. Candelaria
ii
Vega; Nahir Cappa Rupert; Edwin Cappello Santos; Carmen
E. Caraballo; Carmen Nolia Caraballo; Madeline Caraballo
Pabén Generoso Caraballo Rodriguez; Walter Carablanca
Vargas; Angel Carlo Semidey; Awilda Carrero Estrada;
Angela Carrillo Pagan; Luis A. Carriédn Santos; Domingo
Cartagena Colon; Ana M. Cartagena Padilla; Walter
Casablanca Vargas; Angel Casiano; Julio Castillo Veitia; Luis
Castro de Hoyos; Elba Castro Leén; Edwin Castro Torres:
Edwin Castro Torres; Edith Cadeno Cadeno; Francisco
Cadeno; Francisco Cadeno; Eric Chigliotty Rodriguez;
Francisco Cintrén Arroyo; Moisés Cintrén Diaz; Carlos
Cintron Ferrer; Enrique Cintrén Rivera; Angel L. Class; Eric
Collazo Colon; Fernando Collazo Colon; Gerardo Collazo
Negrén; Rafael Collazo Torrea; William Colon Albino;
Aurelia Colon; Roberto Colon Camacho; Roberto Colon
Camacho; Candida Colon Cruz; Jorge A. Colon Garcia;
Aurelia Colon Leén Daniel Colon Marrero; Ernestino Colon
Medina; Roberto Colon Medina; Alberto Colon Negrén;
Néstor R. Colon; Isidro Colon Ramos; Nelson Colon
Sanchez; Carmelo Colon Serrano; Nilda Colon Serrano; Luz
A. Colon Torres; Luz A. Colon Torres; Miguel A. Colon
Torres; Roberto Colon Vargas; Héctor Colon Vega; Haydee
Conde; José Cordero Rios; Jestis M. Cordero Rosado; Ariel :
Cornier Gracia; Pablo Correa Cedefio; Luis Genaro Correa;
Reynaldo Correa; Luis Correa Rodriguez; José A. Costas
Pagan; Edwin Cruz Arce; Juanita Cruz Bonaparte; Victor M.
Cruz Bonilla; Fabiana Cruz Cortes; Santiago Cruz Garcia;
Héctor M. Cruz; Juan F. Cruz; Obed Cruz; Juan R. Cruz
Mercado; Minerva Cruz Robles; Samuel M. Cruz; Juan
Cuevas Cortez; Carmelo Cuevas Ramos; Ramén Cuoscut
Figueroa; Nancy Custodio Santos; Gilberto Davila; Luis A.
Davila Martinez; Edwin Davila Ortiz; Edwin Davila Ortiz;
Orlando Davila; Orlando Davila Ramos; Rafael Declet Mas;
Gerardo de Hoyo; Evelyn de Hoyo Santiago; Alberto de Jestis
Castro; Héctor L. de Jestis La Torre Wilfredo de Jestis La
Torre; Héctor L. de Jestis; Héctor L. de Jestis Pacheco; Lewis
ili
de Jestis Rivera; Félix de la Cruz Alvarez; Juan de la Cruz
Santiago; Celestino Delgado; Milagros Delgado; Celestina
Delgado Rivera; Marie del Valentin; Luz E. del Valle;
William del Valle; Basilio Diaz; Marta Yolanda Diaz
Baergas; Mirta Yolanda Diaz Bauza; José S. Diaz Colon;
Félix Diaz; Félix Diaz; Inés Echevarria; Lidia Echevarria
Gandia; Nilda Echevarria Lugo; Noemf Echevarria; Conrado
Echevarria Rosado; Inés Echevarria Santiago; Noemf —
Echevarria Santiago; Norman L. Escébales Pérez; Divina
Vargas Torruellas; Edwin Febles Cruz; Margarita Febus;
Adalfredo A. Feliciano; Radames Feliciano Cruz; Pedro
Fern4ndez; Carlos A. Figueroa Aponte; Gilberto Figueroa
Colon; Esmeraldo Figueroa Costa; Julio Figueroa Lépez;
Heriberto Figueroa Ortiz; Gilberto Figueroa Pabén; Juan
Figueroa Payon; Josefa Figueroa Plaza; Ram6én Figueroa
Plaza; David Figueroa Torres; Wanda Figueroa; Rudy Flores
Mufiiz; Ram6én Flores V4zquez; Angel Fraticelli Santiago;
Esther Fuentes: Esther Fuentes Hernandez; José A. Galarza
Feliciano; Cesar A. Gandia; Cesar A. Gandia; Cesar A.
Gandia; Cesar A. Gandia; Elsa Gandia Cruz; Elsa Gandia
Cruz; Ilia L Gandia Cruz; Jorge Gandia Cruz; Luis Garcia
Astacio; Noel Garcia Astacio; Francisco Garcia Burgos;
Domingo Garcia; Eneida Sidis Garcia; Aurea Garcia
Rodriguez; José L. Garcia Santiago; Migdalia Garriga Alers
Oscar Garriga Alers; Juan A. Garriga Rodriguez; Zulma
Garriga; Ennie Gigleotty Rodriguez; Ana Girod Nazario;
Félix Gémez Mangual; Pablo Gonzalez Almodévar;
Armando Gonz4lez; Maria M. Gonzalez Belfort; Erin
Gonzalez Cruz; Lucinda Gonzélez Dominguez; José
Gonz4lez Hernandez; Johnny Gonzdiez; José A. Gonzalez;
José L. Gonzdlez; Magda Gonzdlez; Maria Gonz4lez; Maria
R. Gonz4lez; Melvin Gonzdlez; Jeannette Gonzdlez
Martinez,, Maria L. Gonzdlez Mercado; Ramén Gonzalez
Mercado; Pedro Gonzdlez Montero; Noelis Gonzélez; Pedro
Gonzalez; José Gonzalez Rivera; Jorge Gonzalez Santiago;
Eliseo Gonzélez Santos; Hernan Gonzdlez Torres; Martin
iv
Gonzalez Torres; Miguel Gonzalez Torres; Jarry Gotay
Borrero; Jorge E. Gracia Martinez; José A. Green Marrero;
Ramén Guelmi Martinez; Hortencio Gutierrez Bizardi;
Gilberto Gutierrez Rivera; Angel L. Hernandez; Justino
Hernandez; Alfredo Hernandez Pacheco; Edgardo L.
Hernandez Rivera; Modesto Hernandez Torres Modesto
Hernandez Vargas; Palmira Iglesia; Roberto Irizarry
Betancourt; Antonio Irizarry Delgado; José L. Irizarry
Justino; Luz M. Irizarry; Ral Irizarry Montalvo Luis Irizarry
Natal; Nicolin Irizarry Rodriguez; Reinaido Irizarry
Rodriguez; Andrés Irizarry Yambo; Andrés Laboy; Elba
Leén; Efrain Le6n Oquendo; Sergio Leén Rios; Sergio Leén;
Digna Elia Leén Torres; Maria Leiro Ramos; Maria Leyro
Ramos; Benjamin Lépez Ada Mirta Lépez Caraballo; Oscar
Lépez Caraballo; Luis Lépez de Haro; Maria Lépez; Carmen
Lépez Gonzalez; Rail Lépez Quiles; Juan A. Lépez
Rodriguez; Maria M. Lépez; Concepcién Lugo Alicea; Daniel
Lugo; Jaime Lugo Echevarria Francisca Lugo Gonzalez; José
Lugo Gonzalez; Marta Lugo Rivera; Maria Lugo Rodriguez;
Miguel A. Lugo Vazquez; Angel Rafael Machiavelo; Carmen
Malave Diaz; Carlos Maldonado; Carlos J. Maldonado; Luz I.
Maldonado Marti; Luz I. Maldonado Marti; Naida Maldonado
Netron; Carmen Maldonado Pérez; Rafael Maldonado;
Eliezer Maldonado Torres; Rubén Marcucci Rivera; Alfonso
L. Mariel Arenas; Pedro Marrero Cedefio; Gladys Martinez
Alcazar; Noel Martinez Alc4zar; Felicita Martinez Barreto;
Maritza Martinez de Cedefio; Rafael Martinez Diaz; Rail |
Martinez Lugo; Maria M. Martinez; Elisa Martinez Pinedo
Rafael Martinez; Luis Martinez Rodriguez; Rosa Julia
Martinez; Rene Martinez Torres; Alberto Martinez Vega;
Justiniano Martinez Villalobos; Luis Martino Velez; Luis
Martino Velez; Francisco Mattei; Luis Mattel; Ramén Matos
Pérez Benjamin Medina Acosta; Franklin Medina Arena;
Basilio Medina Delgado; Gloria Medina Echevarria;
Benjamin Medina; Benjamin Medina Lépez; Gilberto Medina :
Pises; Edward Medina Rodriguez; Gilberto Medina |
:
q
7
" :
Rodriguez; José L. Medina Rodriguez Miguel Medina
Rodriguez; Luz Maria Mejias; Luz M. Mejias; Inés Mejias
Rodriguez; Juan R. Meléndez Colon; José Manuel Meléndez;
Manuel Meléndez; Raymond Meléndez Torres; Emilio
Mercado Almodévar; Ana Delia Mercado Pedro Mercado de
Jestis; Efrain Mercado Gonzalez; Jorge L. Mercado; Justino
R. Mercado Leén; Justino R. Mercado Leén; Maribel
Mercado Martinez; Nelson W. Mercado; Nelson W. Mercado;
Adelina Mercado Pérez; Ferdinand Mercado Rodriguez;
Gilberto Mercado Rodriguez; Juan Mercado Rodriguez;
Angela Merlo; Jestis Millan Colon; José Miranda Montes;
Héctor Molina Rodriguez; Javier Molina Rodriguez; Vidal
Montalvo Martell; Humberto Montalvo Ramos; Ricardo
Montalvo Rodriguez; Reinelia Montalvo; Sonia Montero
Alvarado; Israel Montero Cruz; Heriberto Montero; Manuel
Montero: William Montero; José A. Montes Garcia Feliciano
Montijo Garcia, Jr.; Aquilino Morales; Rafael Morales
Arroyo; Gilberto Morales Blanco; Santos Morales Echevarria;
Lazaro Morales; Heriberto Morales Maldonado; Arleene
Morales Marquez; Charlie Morales Martinez; Humberto
Morales Pagan; Juan Morales Rodriguez; Migdalia Morales
Rodriguez; Raymond Morales Santiago; Juan Morales
Villarini; Jorge Mufiiz Almodévar, Eugenio Muiiiz
Echevarria; Luis E. Mufiiz; Eugenio Mufiiz Mufiiz; Gelson
Mufiiz Mufiiz; Heriberto Mufioz Vazquez; Jaime Nadal Bove;
Harry Nadal Cruz; Wilfredo Nazario Rodriguez; Reyes
Nazario Santiago; Julio E. Negrén Gonzdlez; Hiram Negron
Ortiz; Juan Negrén Negrén; Ursulina Negr6n Rios; Grisell
Negrén V4zquez; Griselle Negr6én Vazquez; Juan Nieves
Guevara; Walter Nieves Madera; Blanca Nieves Nieves; John
V. Nieves Pérez; Roberto Nieves Velazquez; Antonio Nunez
Santos; Catalina Ocasio Carrero; José E. Ocasio; Héctor
Olavarria Figueroa; José Olavarria Figueroa; José Olavarria
Figueroa; Isaac Oliver; Néstor Olivera Olivera; Juan Oliveras
Figueroa; Francisco C. Oliveras; Lesbia Oliveras; Félix
Oquendo Figueroa Angel L. Orenge; Carlos Orengo;
vi
Marcelino Orengo; Luis H. Orengo Ruiz; Fernando Orsini
Bonet; Porfirio Orta Zayas, Julio C. Ortiz Alvarez Félix Ortiz
Arroyo; Juan A. Ortiz Arroyo; Claudio Ortiz Carrasquillo
Crucita Ortiz; José D. Ortiz Cruz; Félix Ortiz; Luis Julio
Ortiz Delgado; Félix J. Ortiz; Enrique Ortiz Figueroa Carmen
Ortiz Garcia; Eidel F. Ortiz Garcia; Heriberto Ortiz; José A.
Ortiz; Julian Ortiz L6épez; Migdalia Ortiz Morales; Francisco
Ortiz Oquendo; He iberto Ortiz Oquendo; Fernando Ortiz
Ortiz; Ram6én Ortiz Pabén; Rigoberto Ortiz; Rigoberto Ortiz;
Angel Ortiz Rivera Cristino Ortiz Rivera, Ana Ortiz
Rodriguez; José Ortiz Rodriguez; José Ortiz Rodriguez;
Octavio Ortiz Rodriguez; Angel L. Ortiz Torres; Elias Ortiz
Torres; Juan Ortiz Torres; Modesto Ortiz Torres; Modesto
Ortiz Torres; Rosa Ortiz Torres; Roberto Ortiz Vega; Maria
L. Pacheco Arroyo; Maria Luisa Pacheco Arroyo; Confesor
Pacheco; Miguel A. Pacheco Cruz; Maria Pacheco Montalvo;
Roberto Pacheco Montalvo; Milagros Pacheco Negrén
Andrea Pacheco Rivera; Angel M. Pacheco Rodriguez; José
A. Pacheco Vega; José Padilla Mufioz; Gabriel Padilla
Rosado; Abbedavi Padilla Vargas; Abbedavi Padilla Vargas;
Augusto Pagan Collazo; Delia I. Pagan,- Luz E. Pagan Diaz;
Milka Pagan Diaz; Elsie Pagan Miguel Pagan Garcia; Héctor
L. Pagan; Salvador Pagan Ramos, Elsie Pagan Rivera; Crucita
Pagan Roman; Carlos Pena Mercado; Héctor L. Pena Pérez;
José E. Pérez Batista; Ricardo Pérez Bermejo; José A. Pérez
Cruz; Carlos Pérez de Jesiis; Maria E. Pérez Feliciano;
Orlando Pérez Ferrer; Maria Pérez Hernandez; José A. Pérez;
Delvis Pérez Martinez; Orlando Pérez Oquendo; William
Pérez Padilla; José Pérez Rivera; Juan Pérez Rivera; Nelson
Pérez Rodriguez; Rosa Pérez Rodriguez; Rosa Pérez
Rodriguez; Luis A. Pérez Rosado; Marla Pérez Rosado;
Miguel A. Pérez Santos; Julio Pérez Torres; Leopoldo Pietri;
Gladys Piri Colon; Maria Plaza Cartagena; Miguel Plaza
Cartagena; Maria Plaza Maldonado; Jesiis Pratts; Francisco
Quintana Caraballo; Rafael Quintana Caraballo; Héctor L.
Quintana Ramos; Haydee Quifiédnez Hernandez; Josué
vii
Quifiénez Marquez; Néstor L. Quifiénez Rodriguez; Eliezer
Quifiénez Sotomayor; Lucia Quifiénez Vega; Angel L.
Quirindongo Vega; Edwin Ramirez; Alberto Ramos; Angel L.
Ramos Aponte; Angel Ramos Camacho; Juan Ramos Cruz;
Carmelo Ramos Gonzélez; Javier Ramos; Angel L. Ramos
Jusino; Maritza Ramos Jusino; Luis Ramos Martinez; Luis
Ramos Martinez; Heriberto Ramos Morales; Olga M. Ramos;
Orlando Ramos; Juan A. Ramos Rivera; Leocadio Ramos
Rivera; Rafael Ramos Roche; Rosa N. Ramos; Elison Ramos
Rosado; Ramén Ramos Rosa; Edwin Ramos Ruiz, Edwin
Ramos Santiago; Maria E. Ramos Torres; Basilio Ramos
V4zquez; Rafael Renta Garcia; Rigoberto Renta; Julia Renta
Soba; Luis H. Reyes Cruz; Maria Dolores Reyes; Maria
Dolores Reyes; Dominga Reyes Rivera; Esther Reyes Rivera;
Milagros Reyes Rivera; Salvador Rimola Monjes; José L.
Rios Delgado; Victor Rfos Echevarria; Milagros Rios Lépez;
Jaime Rios Martell; Jorge Rfos Medina; Jorge Rfos Molina;
Luis A. Rios Pérez; Maria Rios Rosa; Orlando Rivera Blasini;
Ana Rosa Rivera; Angel Rivera; Marta Rivera; Samuel
Rivera Caban; Annette Rivera Caraballo; Axtonio Rivera;
Carmen L. Rivera; Hipdélito Rivera Rafael Rivera Cruz;
Edberto L. Rivera; Hipdlito Rivera Feliciano Wilfredo
Rivera Feliciano; Carmen Rivera Gonz4lez; Manuel Rivera
Gonzalez; Juan J. Rivera Jiménez; José Rivera; José A.
Rivera; José A. Rivera; José A. Rivera Le6n; Luis Alberto
Rivera; Angel M. Rivera Martinez; Moisés Rivera Martinez;
José Rivera Mercado; Juana Rivera; Ana Rosa Rivera
Miranda; Daniel Rivera Morales; Jorge Wilson Rivera; Rosa
Rivera Negr6én Miguel Rivera Nieves; Norma Rivera Nieves;
Norma A. Rivera; Angel Rivera Oliveras; David Rivera Ortiz;
Melvin Rivera Ortiz, Pedro Rivera Ortiz; Roberto Rivera
Ortiz; Maria Rivera Pérez; Rosa M. Rivera Pérez; Edwin J.
Rivera Rios; Jorge Rivera Rodriguez; Alfredo Rivera Roman;
Rubén Rivera; Ana M. Rivera Rodriguez; Luis Rivera Saez;
Cecilia Rivera Sdnchez; Gabriel Rivera Santana; Cerafina
Rivera Serrano; Ana Celia Rivera Torres; Yolanda Rivera;
viii
Dimas L. Robles Ruiz; Andrés Robles Torres; Bernardo
Rodriguez Alicea; Alba Nerida Rodriguez; Ana Elba
Rodriguez; Bienvenido Rodriguez; Brenda L. Rodriguez
Aponte; José Rodriguez; Rafael Rodriguez Camacho; Ramén
Rodriguez Cedefio; Edelmira Rodriguez Cintrén; Pedro Juan
Rodriguez; Pedro Rodriguez Colon; Luis Rodriguez Cruz;
Pedro A. Rodriguez Cruz; Erasto C. Rodriguez; Maria
Rodriguez Diaz; José L. Rodriguez Escobar; Peter Rodriguez
Figueroa; Pedro Rodriguez Hernandez; Luis A. Rodriguez La
Torre; Luis Rodriguez; Manuel Rodriguez Luciano; Maria
Teresa Rodriguez; Iris Yolanda Rodriguez Maldonado;
Héctor Rodriguez Martinez; Héctor Rodriguez Martinez;
Nelson Belén Rodriguez; Norma Rodriguez; Rene Rodriguez
Ortiz; Pedro Rodriguez; Eduardo Rodriguez Quifiénez;
-Heriberto Rodriguez Rodriguez; Ramén Rodriguez
Rodriguez; Rosa Rodriguez; Rude) Rodriguez; Reinaldo i
Rodriguez Sabater; Angel Rodriguez Santos; Dionisio |
Rodriguez Torres; Luis Rodriguez Torres; Miguel Angel
Rodriguez Torres: Wandelin Belén Rodriguez; Lidia Rojas
Ramos; Lidia Rojas Ramos; Ana Roman; Iris M. Roman
Davila; Iris Milagros Roman; Iv4n Rosado Alicea; Ivan
Rosado Alicea: Carmelo Rosado Alvarado; Carmen Rosado
Carmen M. Rosado; Tito Rosado Alverio; Luis A. Rosado
Gallardo; Maria E. Rosado; Antonio Rosado Mendoza;
Alberto Rosado Rivera; Luis Rosado Rosado; Emilio Rosado
Vargas; Carmen Rosario Alicea; Eugenio Rosario Alicea;
Leonides Rosario Berrios; José L. Rosario; Rosa Rosario;
Rafael Ruiz Carcai; Elving Ruiz Colon; Emesto Ruiz; Maria
Ruiz Pacheco; Basilisa Ruiz Rodriguez; Cesar Ruiz
Rodriguez; Luis Sa4ez Toledo; Pedro J. Salcedo; Maria E.
Salinas Torres; Maria M. Salvedo Torres; Mildred Sanabria;
Francisca Sdnchez Garcia; Francisco Sanchez Garcia; Jorge
L. Sanchez Garcia; José Sanchez Garcia; Santiago Sanchez
Rivera; Josué Santana Caraballo; Agapita Santiago; Jorge
Santiago; Susana Santiago Alicea; Jorge Santiago Alvarado;
Jorge Santiago Gloria Santiago Artruz; William Santiago
_
EOE ore ————
ix
Borrero; William Santiago Casiano; Alberto Santiago Cruz;
William Santiago Delgado; Esteban Santiago; José A.
Santiago Figueroa; Julio Santiago Figueroa; Janira Santiago
Gandia; Waldek Santiago Gonzd4lez; Hernan Santiago;
Alfredo Santiago Irizarry; Jestis A. Santiago José A. Santiago;
José L. Santiago; Julio Santiago; Braulio Santiago Mejias;
José Santiago Mejias; José Santiago Meléndez; Ivan Santiago
Narvaez; Neftali Santiago; Rafael Santiago Pérez; William
Santiago Pérez; Lilliam Santiago Ramfrez; Carlos Santiago
Santiago; Julio Santiago Toledo; Milagros Santiago Vega;
Wilfredo Santiago Vidro; William Santiago; Edelmildo
Santiago Soto; Ivan Santiago Torres; Wilfredo Santiago
Vidro Zoraida Santini Plumacher; Marangely Santos
Camacho; Wolfrand Santos Camacho; David Santos Medina;
Edith Santos Medina; Migdalia Santos; Luis M. Santos
Molina; Juan Santos Santiago; Orlando Santos Santiago;
Roberto Santos Santiago; William Santos Vélez; José
Schmidt Sanjurjo; Maria Seda Oquendo; José A. Seda
Rodriguez; Arcadio Segarra Maldonado; Arcadio Segarra
Maldonado; José A. Serrano Borrero; Walberto Serrano
Borrero; Eulalia Serrano; Edwin Serrano Negrén; Ivan
Serrano Rivera; Eneida Sides Garcia; Ricardo Sierra Torres;
Ramén L. Silvagnoli Alfonso; Ram6n L. Silvagnoli Alfonso;
Gabriel Sosa Rivera; Wilfredo Soto Centeno; Héctor Soto
Gonzélez; Miriam Soto Gonzdlez; Jaime Soto V4zquez;
Jaime Soto V4zquez; Edith Soto Vega; Edith Soto Vega; Luis
A. Tiré Soto; William Toledo Medina; Norberto Toro
Méndez; Efrain Torres Acevedo; Juan E. Torres Archeval;
Emilia Torres Arroyo; Justiniano Torres Bonilla; German
Torres Caquias; Carlos M. Torres; Luis Torres Colon; Luz
Torres Colon; Wilfredo Torres Colon; Miguel Torres Cortes;
Manuel Torres Diaz; Miguel Torres Dfaz; Luis A. Torres
Diaz; Olga Torres Echevarria; Edwin Torres; Aurel Esther
Torres Feliciano; Zenaida Torres Gardenas; Félix Torres
Gonz4lez; Edwin Torres Guzman; José Torres Irizarry; José
L. Torres; Efrain Torres Lépez; Lupercio Torres; Idalis Torres
X
Marcucci; Idalis Torres Marcucci; Franklin Torres Marreiro;
Aitsa Torres Ortiz; Miguel Torres Ortiz; Nelson Torres Ortiz;
Orlando Torres Ortiz; Francisco Torres Otero; Angel Torres
Pagan; Alfredo Torres Pérez; Jackeline Torres Pérez; Jakeline
Torres Pérez; José Torres Pérez; Jekson Torres Quifiones;
Emilia Torres Ramos; Héctor L. Torres Ramos; Blanca Torres
Rodriguez; Ana L. Torres Rosado; Domingo Torres Torres;
Johnny Torres Torres; Nelson Torres Torres; Néstor L. Torres
Torres; Ram6én Torres Torres; Rosa Torres Torres; Angel
Torres Valentin; Miguel A. Torres Valentin; Virginia Torres;
Benjamin Torres Zayas; José D.C. Torres Zayas; Hiram
Torruellas Rivas; Ana Trias Pacheco; Aurea Troche Ruiz;
Miriam Troche Ruiz; Sara Troche Ruiz; Juan Tull Arroyo;
Anselmo Valentin; Ladislao Valentin Cora; Ladislao
Valentin; Ram6n Valentin Lao; Luis Valladares Jorge; Victor
Vargas Cantilares; José Vargas Cruz; Mercedes Vargas Cruz;
Ramon Vargas; Ramén Vargas Cruz; Héctor Vargas; Ismael
Vargas; José A. Vargas; Pedro A. Vargas Mercado; Pedro A.
Vargas Mercado; Miguel Vargas; Francisco Vargas Pagan;
Francisco Vargas Pagan; Victor Vargaz Canizares; Wilfredo
Vazquez Aguirre; Emildo Vazquez de Jestis; José M.
Vazquez; Wilfredo Vazquez Montalvo; Santos Vazquez
Mufiiz; Norma I. V4zquez; Alexander Vazquez Rivera;
Joaquin Vazquez Rivera; Alexis Vazquez Rodriguez; Edwin
Vazquez Rodriguez; Edwin Vazquez Rodriguez; Rafael
Vazquez Romero; Julio I. Vega; Miguel Vega Lugo; José M.
Vega Martinez; Ramén L. Vega Martinez; Mayra E. Vega;
Ismael Vega Ramos; Ismael Vega Ramos; Andalicio
Velazquez; Carmelo Velazquez Feliciano; Daisy J. Velazquez
Flores; Luis A. Velazquez; José R. Velazquez Mercado; José
R. Velazquez Mercado; Maribel Velazquez Rosado; Walter
Velazquez; Ismael Vélez Acevedo; Carlos M. Vélez; Dernis
Vélez Figueroa; Edelmira Vélez; Gloria I. Vélez; Noel Vélez
Rivera; Orlando Vélez Ruberte; Wanda Vélez Ruberte; Ana
E. Vera Colon; Eufemia Eileen conocida por Eileen Mercado
Parra; Adriana Luisa Mercado Parra; Eileen Maria Coffey
xi
Mercado; David Mario Coffey Mercado; Maria Luisa Wilson
Mercado; Margarita Maria Wilson Mercado; Richard Wilson
Mercado; Manuel Vidro Diana; Israel Vidro Zayas; Mercedes
Vidro Zayas; Juan Vila Castillo; José E. Villoch Ocasio;
Angel Zapata, ESTATE OF MARIO MERCADO RIERA -
composed by: (a) Eufemia Eileen a/k/a Eileen Mercado
Parra, (b) Adriana Luisa Mercado Parra, (c) Eileen Maria
Coffey Mercado; (d) David Mario Coffey Mercado, (e) Maria
Luisa Wilson Mercado, (f) Margarita Maria Wilson Mercado,
y (g) Richard Wilson Mercado; Maricely Zapata Ruiz; the
parties known as Fulano de Tal y Mengano de Cual, also all
other citizens that acted in concert or in accord with the above
mentioned codefendants and have joined in the land invasion
and have built structures in the property or reside therein; in
relation to the married defendants, whose spouses are
unknown are hereby identified and designated as Fulana de
Tal, John Doe; Fulano de Tal representing all the unknown
defendants; FULANO DE TAL and MENGANO DE TAL,
representing all those natural or judicial or legal parties whose
addresses and domicile are unknown and who may have
interest in the case; to the parties that were brought to the
jurisdiction of the courts by the public notice published in the
Puerto Rico newspaper El Dia on March 20,1986, in the
present judicial proceedings; as well as the certified class
whose default was noted on January 19, 1988; As well as all
those parties, natural and/or legal who may have an interest,
and who may have erected structures and/or had squaterred
and/or had caused damages to the property HPY, INC. (Case
Number CS851459)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the rule of law prevails in Puerto Rico?
2. Whether denial, on grounds of unjust enrichment, of
property owners’ right to “just compensation” for structures
built by bad faith trespassers violates the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution?
3. Whether the Puerto Rico appellate court, lacking
statutory jurisdiction, erred in interfering with a final, binding,
and unappealable judgment, and disregarding a settled
stipulation of the parties?
(xiii)
XiV
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
There are no other parties to this proceeding besides those
listed in the caption. Pursuant to Rule 29.1 of this Court,
Petitioner states that it is a Delaware corporation that is not
publicly traded, and it has neither a parent nor a subsidiary.
Petitioner is owned by United States citizens who reside in
the continental United States
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED..............s.scssccsccscssessecsesserees Viii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING. ............:cccccesseeeeeteee ix
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............ccsccsssssssseereeeeeeeens xi
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI................++ |
OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW .............:cccseesseeees 1
FU TN a ocssevcascencececeesssnssocacsesecveneceveansesneshenssnnes 2
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STAT-
UTES DIVE VED oiniciseccsescscctccsisssccvesscssecssncesnencoves 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE............:ccsccssseesseseeseereees | 4
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT................0+. 13
CE IIIS asesiicintencensinnnesnsedsinnecincssesasaninensaistiqnmnenste 19
(xv)
XVi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Amezquita v. Hernandez-Colon, 518 F.2d 8 (Ast Cir.
PPE Dvn ciscicrscdeesmnatahiumdiassiasian ch iaaapaehcadaaadamianiaaes me
Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) ........... 14
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey,
Eg Tae WO es TE CE chive aictenvciedahianetesienesnsnaes 14, 18
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) ............0. 16
First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987)............. 14, 17
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458
Sib SEED CRE brntniinvnsienircaciaddnheniaaiioiaeiabb sian >
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393
CTE ss siicninirevisinipiniccaesiliialilieai dala neaimtaai a aie aa 16
Riviera-Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 45%
Riuiie 9: CI PMED <snsesnciceniaicensntatelinaiaihisielenanrenimndansuanas 14
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Torres-Massa, 342 F.Supp.
FAP LA as AD siicvuinieceetesascbcsisunbaditanbancinmniteians itgatiaess 4
United States v. Zenon,711 F.2d 476 (ist Cir. 1983)..... 17
STATUTES
ee Wee Asae Sb Ra cievinnsionsniecieiecdaenmatciealdepnicidbiiamanninen a
OD GE ae Re 0 Tie nrviscnncsnincsencieveadataantiohaibemieon 7
C2. CAIRO... SEY is inisssinteaniinnsinieicnembansaniodines 2
Jt CORRE... AE, FAO cctanicsstnisicncaineinisinnnaien 2
PUERTO RICO STATUTES
Article 4.002 of the Judiciary Act of Puerto Rico,
© UE Mc Ba sscinincvissvcnstecniniiciiaicapeacinaadithaliaee 4, 16
Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. § 1165.....3, 8, 14
Article 1204 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31
ed bts 1h OPED scseincisinassiniansiialeinidantianaliibataninas 4, 16
Puerto Rico Const., Article II, Sec. 7................0. 3
Puerto Rico Const., Article II, Sec. 9.0.0.0... 3
XVii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Rule 32 of the Rules of the Circuit Court of
Appeals of Puerto Rico 4 L.P.R.A. App. XXII,
Pi BR. SD vccciccocsciessssonsesscvisorenccesscccbetesssovensieccnoneses
OTHER
Callies, D. L., “Regulatory Takings and the
Supreme Court: How Perspectives on
Property Rights Have Changed from Penn
Central to Dolan, and What State and Federal
Courts Are Doing About It,” 20 Whittier L.
Rev. 181, 209 (1998) .............cccsscsssrcssrcceersrenses
Lazer, Hon. Leon D., “The Supreme Court's
Land Use Decisions,” 11 Touro L. Rev. 421
(1995) nceeccasscccessasesessensccscorconsesesssssnesneccassscoesasooess
Watson, M. S., “The Scope of the Supreme
Court’s Heightened Scrutiny Takings Doc-
trine,” 28 Stetson L. Rev. 523, 526 (1999)........
Page
4, 16
13
13
13
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner, H.P.Y., Inc., ("Petitioner"), respectfully petitions
for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Puerto Rico, denying a writ of certiorari to review
the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico,
Ponce Regional Circuit, rendered on August 27, 1999.
OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW
The following opinions and orders are not reported, and are
reprinted, in translation, in the Appendix to this Petition:
Decision of the Court of First Instance, Ponce
Superior Division, rendered on June 4, 1991 (App. at
la);
Decision of the Court of First Instance, Ponce
Superior Division, entered on January 22, 1997 (App. at
25a);
Decision of the Court of First Instance, Ponce
Superior Division, entered on August 5, 1998 (App. at
31a);
Decision of the Court of First Instance, Ponce
Superior Division, entered on August 14, 1998 (App. at
34a);
Decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ponce
Regional Circuit, rendered on August 27, 1999 (App. at
~ 50a);
' All documents included in the Appendix are originally in Spanish.
For convenience of the Court, these documents have been translated into
English.
? This Order was entered based upon a Stipulation on the Designation
of a Special Commissioner, executed by the parties on January 17, 1997
(App. at 18a)
2
Decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico,
rendered on January 21, 2000 (App. at 95a);
Decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto P'co,
rendered on February 25, 2000 (App. at 96a); and
Decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico,
rendered on March 17, 2000 (App. at 97a).
JURISDICTION
On January 21, 2000, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
declined to issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of
the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico, Ponce Regional
Circuit. On February 25, 2000, the Supreme Court of Puerto
Rico denied Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. On
March 17, 2000, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico denied
Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration. This Court
has jurisdiction to review the judgments and orders of the
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and Circuit Court of Appeals
of Puerto Rico under 28 U.S.C. § 1258.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES
INVOLVED
1. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides in relevant part that:
“No person shall. . .be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States”
Constitution provides in relevant part that:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
3
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.”
3. Article I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides in relevant part that:
“It is recognized as a fundamental right. . the right to
life, liberty and the enjoyment of property. No person
shall be deprived of his liberty or property without due
process of law, and no person in Puerto Rico shall be
denied equal protection under the law. No laws shall
be enacted that undermine contractual obligations.”
4. Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides in relevant part that:
“No private property shall be taken for public use
without just compensation and in the manner
prescribed by law.”
5. The Statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 31
L.P.R.A. § 1165, provide in relevant part:
“He who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith on
another’s land, loses what he has built, planted or
sown, without having any right to indemnity.”
6. Article 4.002 of the Judiciary Act of Puerto Rico, 4
L.P.R.A. § 22K, provides in relevant part:
The writ of certiorari shall be executed by filing a
petition to such effects within thirty (30) days
following the date the copy of the notice of resolution
is filed of record in the case. This term is
jurisdictional.
3 Translation of this statute Appears in Amezquita v. Hernandez-Colon,
581 F.2d 8, 13 (1st Cir. 1975).
4
7. Rule 32 of the Rules of the Circuit Court of Appeals of
Puerto Rico 4 L.P.R.A. App. XXII, A, R.32, provides in
relevant part:
The writ of certiorari shall be executed by filing a
petition to such effects within thirty (30) days
following the date the copy of the notice of resolution
is filed of record in the case. . . . The term provided
herein shall be of strict compliance except when there
are special duly-grounded circumstances in the writ of
certiorari.
8. Article 1204 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico, 31
L.P.R.A. §3343, provides in relevant part:
In order that the presumption of res adjudicata may be
valid in another suit, it is necessary that, between the
case decided by the sentence and that in which the
same is invoked, there be the most perfect identity
between the things, causes, and persons of the
litigants, and their capacity as such.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case should be of great interest to this Court. It in;
volves the largest land invasion in the history of Puerto Rico*
* The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico observed nearly 30 years ago in Santiago- Rodriguez ' v.
Torres-Massa, 342 F.Supp. 1152, 1153 (D.P.R. 1972):
Due to many and various reasons which we need not elaborate
but which include overpopulation, unfulfilled expectations, and
the need of many to have a home of their own, together with the
unavailability of housing at a cost which the poor of Puerto Rico
can afford, Puerto Rico has experienced during the past year or
so a series of incidents which have become known as land
invasions. These are characterized mainly by a group of
homeless persons accompanied in some occasions by a sprinkling
:
and certain outrageous” conduct in the ensuing litigation by
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The trespassers usurped
an area of more than three hundred (300) cuerdas® of real
estate, where more than three thousand (3,000) families
invaded the land and built houses. Among the owners of the
illegally occupied land is the Petitioner, H.P.Y., Inc., a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Winter Park, Florida. H.P.Y.,
Inc. has been litigating for 15 years to receive just
compensation for what this Court has recognized as the
“special kind of injury [that an owner suffers] when a stranger
directly invades and occupies the owner’ s property.”
The invasion began in 1985, when a group of squatters
commenced their trespass, in bad faith, on Petitioner’s land
and other adjacent land owners. The invasion spread rapidly,
and had the potential of becoming a problem of public order.
In response, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
Regulations and Permits Administration (ARPE, as known by
its Spanish acronym) filed a motion in the Superior Court of
Ponce for provisional injunction against the squatters and the
owners of the land. They alleged in the motion that the
of speculators, who will occupy a parcel of rural land and build
their homes on the land. . . .
5 The Court of First Instance held (App. at 36a, 43a, 48a) that the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was responsible for “assuming an unlaw‘ul
position and causing procedural confusion. . . . {T]he Government is
accused of bad faith in the circumstances of this case... . [The] conduct
. . of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico] can be categorized as reckless,
obtuse and intransigent.” On Appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals of
Puerto Rico stated that “we respect the decision of the Court of First
Instance that the procedural conduct shown by the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico in this case was reckless and contradictory.” (App. at 84a).
6 A cuerda is 3930.396 square meters in area, slightly less than an acre.
7 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 436
(1982).
6
buildings constructed by the squatters were violating ARPE
laws and that the construction was being carried out in
common agreement with the landowners and with the
approval of same. The landowners strenuously denied these
allegations.
In view of these events, that same year, both H.P.Y., Inc.
and the Mario Mercado Estate filed a lawsuit against the
squatters in the Superior Court of Ponce, in which they
requested that the squatters be certified as a class of
defendants, that a injunction for possession be issued, and that
an order for precarious eviction be entered against the
squatters.® The Court certified the defendants as a class.
While the litigation was pending, the number of squatters
rapidly increased.
In 1988, three years after the invasion began, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed in the Expropriations
Court a Petition of Expropriation of 199 cuerdas of land
belonging to the Mario Mercado Estate. H.P.Y., Inc. tried to
intervene in that case on three separate occasions, alleging
that the Commonwealth had included a large part of its land
in the plan submitted to the Court with the Petition for
Expropriation. The Commonwealth opposed the intervention
of H.P.Y., Inc., and the Court of Expropriations denied the
requests for intervention finding that the Commonwealth did
not have any intention to expropriate land belonging to
.c. Gee. The Expropriations Court ordered the
Commonwealth to correct the plan to reflect that the land of
H.P.Y., Inc. was not part of the expropriation, but the
Commonwealth never made the correction.
® The government’s lawsuit and Petitioner’s lawsuit were consolidated
into a single case. However, one land owner in the consolidated action,
Alfonso A. Hernandez Ortiz, was successful in evicting approximately 32
squatters in 1997 and Mr. Hernandez Ortiz was removed from the case.
7
Also during 1988, incredibly, three public corporations (the
Electric Power Authority, the Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
and the Rural Housing Administration), using federal funds.?
Started to build infrastructure on the land belonging to the
Mario Mercado Estate, which had been expropriated, and the
land belonging to H.P.Y., Inc., which had not been
expropriated. In other words, while the Commonwealth
refused to grant H.P.Y., Inc. just compensation for its plots of
land, these public corporations were invading H.P.Y., Inc.’s
land, and taking the land from H.P.Y., Inc. without just
compensation, with the approval of the Commonwealth.
Due to the actions of the government through these public
corporations, H.P.Y., Inc.'° had no other remedy'! than to
continue with its lawsuit for Possessory injunction, precarious
eviction and accession. On June 4, 1991, the Superior Court
of Ponce entered judgment in the consolidated action,
ordering the squatters to cease and desist from disturbing the
plaintiffs in the possession of the property in question, and to
vacate the property of the plaintiffs, leaving it free and clear
in favor of the legitimate owners.'2 The Court also
” Petitioner's Puerto Rican counsel has received documents showing
that several million dollars were spent on infrastructure by the Electric
Power Authority, a government owned corporation.
'° The Mario Mercado Estate also remained a plaintiff in the
consolidated action because it owned 17 cuerdas of land that had not been
expropriated by the government, but were usurped nonetheless.
' H.P.Y., Inc. filed a civil action in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Electric
Power Authority, the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, and the
Rural Housing Administration, alleging that these public agencies aided
and abetted the squatters. This suit was dismissed and the dismissal was
affirmed by the First Circuit in 1993 (App. at 98a).
2 It is important to remember that in a different case in the
Expropriations Court, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had expropriated
199 cuerdas of land belonging to the Mario Mercado Estate, which was
8
determined that, since the squatters never acted in good faith
in illegally possessing the invaded land, they lost ownership
in the buildings and infrastructure in accordance with the
statutes of Puerto Rico.'* This judgment was duly noticed to
all the parties, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and in order to give notice to the squatters, it was published in
a newspaper of general circulation in Puerto Rico. No one
made a timely request for reconsideration of the judgment or
filed a timely notice of Appeal or petition for certiorari.
Hence, the judgment became final, binding, and not subject to
appeal.
At the moment the Court of First Instance was ready to
execute the judgment to evict the trespassers, the
Commonwealth filed an objection alleging that there was a
discrepancy in the boundaries and, therefore, the eviction
should not be carried out. H.P.Y., Inc. replied that the
government’s position was contrary to positions it had taken
in the expropriation suit, in which the government had stated
that the property to be expropriated did not include any land
belonging to H.P.Y., Inc. In order to resolve the dispute, the
Court of First Instance appointed a court expert, Julio Rios, a
professor of surveying at the University of Puerto Rico. On
part of the land covered by the invasion. Therefore, on July 2, 1991, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico requested a nunc pro tunc amendment to
the judgment that had been handed down so that the judgment would
exclude from execution of the judgment the 199 cuerdas of land
expropriated by the Commonwealth from the Mercado Estate. On April
10, 1992, the Superior Court issued an order to execute the judgment
which excluded the 199 cuerdas of land already expropriated by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. However, another 17 cuerdas of land
belonging to the Mario Mercado Estate, and the 90 cuerdas of land
belonging to H.P.Y., Inc. were not excluded, and were thus covered by the
Judgment.
'3 See Statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A.
§1165, cited above.
9
July 28, 1992, the expert submitted his report which
confirmed the position of H.P.Y., Inc. that the
Commonwealth had included its land in the petition for
expropriation.
However, the Commonwealth ignored the expert’s report.
The position of the Commonwealth was not based on the rule
of law, but on political considerations. The more than 3,000
bad faith trespassers represented a substantial voting bloc in
the upcoming 1992 elections. Pre-election opinion polls
showed the election was a dead heat. The ruling party feared
a loss of power. Thus, the government continued to oppose
the eviction of the squatters and requested that the Court of
First Instance at Ponce stay the eviction order until the
Expropriations Court could determine the boundaries of the
expropriated property. The Court of First Instance stayed the
eviction order on the grounds that the Expropriations Court
had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the boundaries of an
expropriated property. On December 8, 1995, the Ex-
propriations Court entered a judgment providing that the -
government had expropriated 199 cuerdas of land belonging
to the Mario Mercado Estate and that the property of H.P.Y.,
Inc. was not included in the expropriated area.“
Because the judgment of the Expropriations Court clarified
the boundaries of the expropriated property, on February 22,
1996, H.P.Y., Inc. again requested the Court of First Instance
at Ponce, in the consolidated action, to immediately evict
those who had usurped its property. Surprisingly, the
government once again opposed the eviction request, arguing
that when it filed its petition for expropriation in 1988, its
intention was to expropriate all of the invaded land for the
benefit of the squatters, reversing its earlier positions in an
'* The judgment was based on a settlement between the Commonwealth
and the Mario Mercado Estate.
10
apparent attempt to deny Petitioner’s rights. Thus, the
Commonwealth continued to make _ self-contradictory
arguments, for it had consistently argued in_ the
Expropriations Court that it had no intention of expropriating
any land belonging to H.P.Y., Inc. and the only expropriation
was 199 cuerdas of land belonging to the Mario Mercado
Estate.
There were long hearings in the consolidated action in the
Court of First Instance at Ponce during March to May 1996.
Then, on May 14, 1996, Mr. Leandro Pefia, Assistant
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Executive
Director of the Housing Development and Improvement
Administration, made an institutional commitment and a
formal promise, in open court, on behalf of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to acquire the physical
improvements and the invaded land that had not been
expropriated in accordance with applicable law as determined
by the Court of First Instance at Ponce (the 17 cuerdas of land
belonging to the Mario Mercado Estate and the 90 cuerdas of
land belonging to H.P.Y., Inc.).'> As discussed below, the
Court of First Instance at Ponce later concluded that the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agreed to acquire the private
properties, with all the consequence of accession,
compensation and appraisal derived from judgment and the
law.'°
'S This commitment is discussed in the decision of the Circuit Court of
Appeals of Puerto Rico dated August 27, 1999, at p. 25 (App. 74a). The
Commonwealth made a partial payment of compensation of $2,000,000 to
Estate of Mercado and H.P.Y., Inc., which was divided equally among
them.
'© Decisions of the Court First Instance, Ponce Superior Division
entered on August 5 and 14, 1998, App. at 31a and 34a.
11
On January 22, 1997, the Court of First Instance at Ponce
issued an order,'’ based upon a stipulation’® between the
Commonwealth and H.P.Y., Inc., designating Domingo
Raffucci, a former judge of the Expropriations Court, as
Special Commissioner to settle the following disputes: (a) the
value of the land as of the date of May 15, 1996; (b) the value
of the buildings located on the land, subject to determination
by the Court on the appropriateness of compensation; and (c)
the value of the infrastructure, subject to determination by the
Court on the appropriateness of compensation. Incredibly,
the Commonwealth reneged on its formal commitment to
acquire the land invaded by the squatters (including the
houses and the infrastructure). The Commonwealth’s
commitment had been embodied in a stipulated order, and the
order had become final, binding, and not subject to appeal.
However, the Commonwealth reversed its position, and took
the opposite position that its commitment was only to
compensate the owners for the land per se, not for the houses
or the infrastructure.
In July, 1997, the Special Commissioner submitted his
report on the appraisal of the 90 cuerdas of land belonging to
H.P.Y., Inc., determining that the value per cuerda of the 90
cuerdas of land (not including the illegally built structures)
was $37,982.16, for a total of $3,418,508.80. The Court of
First Instance, in its ruling of August 5, 1998,'° approved the
report submitted by the Special Commissioner, and in its
ruling of August 14, 1998, reiterated that the owners had the
right to just compensation for the invaded land and also for
the structures erected on the land, since these lands and
'7 App. at 25a.
'8 App. at 18a.
* App. at 3la.
20 App. at 34a.
12
structures belonged to them by accession,”’ as the trespassers
had acted in bad faith.
The Commonwealth appealed these rulings in a Petition of
Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico on
October 5, 1998. Both H.P.Y., Inc. and the Mario Mercado
Estate opposed the appeal. On August 27, 1999, the Circuit
Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico issued a decision”, in which
it purported to set aside, without jurisdiction to do so, the
final and binding judgment of June 4, 1991, and improperly
amended the stipulation signed by the Commonwealth and
H.P.Y., Inc. more than two years previously. This decision
stated that the landowners, for reasons of unjust enrichment,
did not have a right to compensation for the trespassers’
buildings or infrastructure erected on their land (theirs by
accession). The Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico also
changed the stipulated date to determine the value of the
expropriated land to November 3, 1988, some 8 years earlier,
setting aside the date of May 15, 1996, which date H.P.Y.,
Inc. and the Commonwealth had stipulated to as the date to
determine the value.“ The Court did this unilaterally,
because the government, as appellant, never asked the date to
be changed. In addition, the Court of Appeals altered or
modified the contract of the parties as an appellate court and
not as a court of equity deciding the issue as a court of first
instance.
On December 2, 1999, Petitioner filed a timely petition for
appeal or certiorari in the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico from
?! This was the ruling in the final judgment dated June 4, 1991, App. at
16a. .
22 App. at 50a.
3 Stipulation dated January 17, 1997 (App. at 18a)
4 App. at 27a.
13
the decision of the Circuit Curt of Appeals of Puerto Rico.
On January 21, 2000, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
dismissed Petitioner’s petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed two timely motions for reconsideration, the last of which
was denied by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on March
17, 2000.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I. The Opinion Below Conflicts With Decisions of
This Court and the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, and Raises Important
Questions Concerning Fair Play, Protection of
Constitutional Rights, and Whether the Rule of
Law Prevails in Puerto Rico
Since 1987, this Court has been moving in the direction of
greater protection of property rights.*> Property rights, and, in
particular, rights in land, have always been fundamental to,
and part of, the preservation of liberty and personal freedom
in the United States.” In its recent decisions, this Court has
been taking a pro-privatist stance and strengthening the Fifth
Amendment’s takings clause.”” As a result, heightened
scrutiny must be applied to the decision of the Circuit Court
of Appeals of Puerto Rico in this case.
This case involves the largest known land invasion in
Puerto Rican history. The decisions of the appellate courts in
Puerto Rico, as they pertain to the facts of this case, raise
25 Hon. Leon D. Lazer, “The Supreme Court’s Land Use Decisions,” 11
Touro L. Rev. 421 (1995).
6 Callies, D. L., “Regulatory Takings and the Supreme Court: How
Perspectives on Property Rights Have Changed from Penn Central to
Dolan, and What State and Federal Courts Are Doing About It,” 28
Stetson L. Rev. 523, 526 (1999).
27 Watson, M. S., “The Scope of the Supreme Court’s Heightened
Scrutiny Takings Doctrine,” 20 Whittier L. Rev. 181, 209 (1998).
14
serious questions about whether the rule of law prevails in
Puerto Rico.” The right to just compensation for homes and
infrastructure built by bad faith trespassers contained in a
final, binding and unappealable judgment was abrogated by
an appellate court without jurisdiction. This decision
abrogated 100 years of statutory law in Puerto Rico.” In
addition, an appellate court freed one party from a contractual
Stipulation even though neither party sought a reformation in
equity before the lower court or the appellate court. The
result of the decision, if left unreviewed and unchanged, will
be that the Puerto Rican appellate courts have decided the
compensation question inconsistently with the requirements
of the Fifth Amendment,” First Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304,
311 (1987)(California courts decided the compensation
question inconsistently with the requirements of the Fifth
Amendment).
Government action that works a taking of property rights
necessarily implicates the “constitutional obligation to pay
just compensation,” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40,
49 (1960), quoted with approval in First Evangelical
Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482
U.S. 304, 315 (1987). When the government initiates
8 Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, in a speech on the Senate floor
last year, referring to trespassers who built houses at the U.S. Naval base
on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, in a similar manner to this case, criticized
the “unrestrained civil disobedience, in defiance of law” in Puerto Rico, as
quoted in The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA, October 30, 1999.
9 See Statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A.
§1165, cited above.
°° The Due Process Clause and other constitutional provisions are
Applicable in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the same manner as
they Apply to the States. Riviera-Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party,
457 U.S. 1, 7 (1982).
15
condemnation proceedings, it concedes the landowner’s right
to receive just compensation and seeks a mere determination
of the amount of compensation due, City of Monterey v. Del
Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 712 (1999).
H.P.Y., Inc. had acquired ownership of the buildings and
infrastructure built on invaded land by statute*' and by the
right of accession set forth in the final, binding and
unappealable judgment dated June 4, 1991.7 The Circuit
Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico disregarded the law of the
case, the statutes of Puerto Rico,” and, more importantly, the
stipulation of the parties to conclude, improperly, that the
doctrine of unjust enrichment prevented the Petitioner from
being compensated for structures built by bad faith
trespassers.
For Fifth Amendment and due process reasons, the Court
of Appeals of Puerto Rico could not revoke the rights to just
compensation for the buildings and infrastructure that had
already been acquired in a final and binding judgment. The
decision of the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals to deny
31 See Statutes of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A.
§1165, cited above.
32 App. at 16a. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto
Rico dated August 27, 1999, at pp. 15-16, recognized that the Court of
First Instance on Jurs 4, 1991 “concluded that the properties had been
subject to illegal invasion and that the squatters did not have title to the
properties. It determined that the occupants were builders in bad faith,
since they did not have any right whatsoever to continue in possession of
their homes. The Court ordered eviction of the squatters from the
property.” (App. at 65a). However, the Court of Appeals chose to ignore
that ruling because of “the imposition on the Government of a payment of
millions of dollars for these items,” ibid., p. 38 (App. at 86a), clearly
violating Petitioner’s constitutional rights.
33 See text accompanying footnote 3, supra.
™ App. at 18a.
Re
16
Petitioner’s right to compensation for the buildings and
infrastructure also conflicts with the ruling of the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Amezquita v.
Hernandez-Colon, 518 F.2d 8, 13 (1* Cir. 1975)(Puerto Rican
trespassers do not own homes built on invaded land,”® and
thus have no protected property or privacy interests). In that
case, it should be noted that the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico had argued that squatters dc not own homes built on
invaded land, a position directly at odds with the
Commonwealth’s position in this case.
In addition, the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico did not
have jurisdiction to review the judgment of June 4, 1991, for
reasons set forth in Article 4.002 of the Judiciary Act of
Puerto Rico” and Rule 32 of the Rules of the Circuit Court of
Appeals of Puerto Rico,’ because there must be a timely
appeal. There was no timely appeal by the Commonwealth of
the earlier judgment and, hence, the Circuit Court of Appeals
of Puerto Rico could not intervene in that judgment. It also
violated the principle of res judicata established in Article
1204 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico.*®
The Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico seized on the
doctrine of unjust enrichment, because it thought that the
government’s obligation to pay Petitioner for, ithe buildings
and infrastructure would cost too much money.” ° Apparently,
5 See text accompanying footnote 3, supra, citing the statute “He who
builds. ..in bad faith on another’s land, loses what he has built...”
4 LP.R.A. § 22K.
*74 L.P.R.A. App. XXII, A, R.32.
%31 L.P.R.A. § 3343.
* The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico dated
August 27, 1999, at p. 38, expresses concern about “the imposition on the
Government of a payment of millions of dollars...” (App. at 86a).
17
-
the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico thought it was
protecting the public purse strings. However, such a purpose
runs counter to the constitutional requirement of just
compensation. This Court has made it clear that “a strong
public desire to improve the public condition [will not]
warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the
constitutional way of paying for the change.” Pennsylvania
Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 416 (1922), quoted with
approval in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 396
(1994).
The Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico, exceeding its
jurisdiction, also improperly changed the date of determining
the value of the expropriated land to November 3, 1988, some
8 years earlier, setting aside the date of May 15, 1996, which
date H.P.Y., Inc. and the Commonwealth had stipulated to as
the date to determine the value.” This decision was
erroneous for several reasons. This issue was not before the
court because the Commonwealth did not raise it on appeal.
The Commonwealth never sought to change the 1996 date.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth would have been precluded
from raising this issue on appeal by the doctrine of cases such
as United States v. Zenon, 711 F.2d 476, 478 (1" Cir.
1983)(Breyer, J.)(we hold appellants to the basic rule that an
issue not presented to the district court cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal). Here, the decision was more
egregious because the appellate court raised and applied this
theory sua sponte and without jurisdicticn.
A settled stipulation to use the 1996 date is a contract
between the parties, which obligates them to comply with
same. Thus, once the parties have consented, the stipulation
cannot be changed by an appellate court. Here, the stipulation
was not only an agreement of the parties, it was also approved
” App. at 27a.
18
by an order of the Court of First Instance in Ponce.*’ That
order became final, binding and not subject to appeal.
Finally, the valuation of property which has been taken
must be calculated as of the time of the taking, First
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los
Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 320 (1987). Between 1988 and 1996,
the Commonwealth maintained in the expropriation
proceedings involving Estate of Mercado’s 199 cuerdas of
land that it had no intention to expropriate the land of H.P.Y.,
Inc. Therefore, use of the 1988 date for a government taking
is inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s position in the
expropriation litigation.
Throughout the 15 years of litigation over this land
invasion, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has tolerated and
encouraged the illegal actions of the squatters, and obstructed
legal proceedings brought by the property owners, in effect
protecting the squatters for political reasons, in total disregard
of the law and Petitioner’s constitutional rights. It is highly
unusual for a government to protect trespassers. Thus,
Petitioner was treated in an unfair and irrational manner by
the government. See, e.g. City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 699 (1999)(Del
Monte Dunes emphasized the shifting and sometimes
inconsistent positions taken by the city throughout the
process, and argued that it had been treated in an unfair and
irrational manner by the government). Add to this the fact
that the Circuit Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico modified a
final and binding judgment and amended a stipulation
between the parties, which had the approval of the Court of
First Instance at Ponce. These events violated the rule of law
that governs Puerto Rico in terms of property law, final and
binding judgments, and settled stipulations, resulting in
*! App. at 25a.
19
Petitioner’s constitutional rights being ignored and violated.
They raise troubling questions about fundamental fairness and
due process of law, which cry out for review by this Court.
CONCLUSION
Because the decision of the court below raises serious
questions about whether the rule of law prevails in Puerto
Rico and whether the question of compensation for a taking
was decided inconsistently with the requirements of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments, a writ of certiorari should issue
to review the decision below. If left unreviewed, legal chaos
will continne in Puerto Rico with respect to property rights,
and whether appellate courts on appeal may interfere with
final, binding, and unappealable judgments, and disregard, or
modify and alter, settled stipulations of the litigants. This is
an opportunity for the Court to send a clear message that land
invasions will not be tolerated in Puerto Rico or elsewhere in
the United States.
Respectfully submitted,
Of Counsel: SHELDON S. TOLL
(Counsel of Record for
JUAN J. RAMIREZ-R. Petitioner H.P.Y., Inc.)
PEDRO E. ORTIZ-ALV AREZ GREGORY J. DEMARS
JOSE F. RAMIREZ HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
AND COHN
2290 First National Building
| Detroit, Michigan 48226
June, 2000 (313) 465-7582
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.