Informe Jurídico sobre la Casación N.° 991-2016, Lima Sur – Divorcio por Causal de Separación de Hecho
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2021-08-19
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
El objetivo del presente informe jurídico es determinar qué técnica de apartamiento ha
utilizado la Corte Suprema en el caso materia de casación, así como establecer si
realmente puede aplicar alguna de estas y finalmente determinar si ello era necesario para
resolver la controversia o podía optar por una alternativa mejor, como pudieron ser:
prevalencia constitucional del derecho a la defensa, hacer una interpretación extensiva de
la primera y tercera regla del Tercer Pleno Casatorio o haber hecho overrulling. Con este
fin, nos servimos del uso de las normas de nuestro ordenamiento, jurisprudencia y
doctrina especializada en la institución del precedente y habiendo analizado estas,
concluimos que la Corte Suprema ha realizado distinguising implícito; sin embargo, lo
realizo de una manera deficiente, lo cual contribuye con el caos en la forma como se
vienen tratando los precedentes civiles en nuestro país y que, al momento aplicar o
inaplicar un Pleno Casatorio, se requiere de mayor atención en la motivación de estas,
para evitar la incertidumbre y otorgar mayor seguridad jurídica.
The objective of this legal report is to determine which separation technique the Supreme Court has used in the cassation case, as well as to establish if it can really apply these and finally determine if this was necessary to solve the controversy or could opt for a better alternative , as it could be: constitutional prevalence of the right to defense, making an extensive interpretation of the first and third rules of the Third Plenary Assembly or having done overrulling. To this end, we make use of the norms of our legal system, jurisprudence and specialized doctrine in the institution of the precedent and having analyzed these, we conclude that the Supreme Court has made an implicit distinguishing; However, the court did it in a deficient way, which contributes to the chaos in the way in which civil precedents are being treated in our country and when applying or not applying a Plenary Assembly, greater attention is required in the motivation of these, to avoid uncertainty and provide greater legal security.
The objective of this legal report is to determine which separation technique the Supreme Court has used in the cassation case, as well as to establish if it can really apply these and finally determine if this was necessary to solve the controversy or could opt for a better alternative , as it could be: constitutional prevalence of the right to defense, making an extensive interpretation of the first and third rules of the Third Plenary Assembly or having done overrulling. To this end, we make use of the norms of our legal system, jurisprudence and specialized doctrine in the institution of the precedent and having analyzed these, we conclude that the Supreme Court has made an implicit distinguishing; However, the court did it in a deficient way, which contributes to the chaos in the way in which civil precedents are being treated in our country and when applying or not applying a Plenary Assembly, greater attention is required in the motivation of these, to avoid uncertainty and provide greater legal security.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Perú--Legislación, Divorcio--Legislación--Perú, Bienes gananciales--Legislación--Perú, Derecho civil--Perú
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess