Informe jurídico sobre la Sentencia del Pleno Casatorio Casación N°3006-2015-JUNIN
Cargando...
Fecha
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Resumen
Ante la problemática surgida por un proceso de nulidad interpuesto el fin de declararse nulas dos compraventas por las causales de simulación absoluta, fin ilícito y contravención a normas que importan el orden público, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República estableció, por mayoría, que la disposición de bienes sociales (aquellos que pertenecen a la sociedad de gananciales) por un solo cónyuge sin la intervención del otro es causa de nulidad, descartando para este supuesto el remedio de ineficacia; sin embargo se identificó que la sentencia de casación no cumplía con uno de los principios fundamentales de nuestro sistema de justicia: la debida motivación de las decisiones judiciales. Tras el empleo y análisis de doctrina y jurisprudencia nacional, se concluyó que, efectivamente, estamos ante un caso que, si bien no se discute el sentido que tomó la decisión judicial, motivó indebida e insuficientemente la misma, esto luego de detectar la falta de conceptualización brindada por la Corte Suprema respecto a conceptos y principios relevantes del derecho de familia como el interés familiar y la igualdad entre los cónyuges, y la indebida motivación de su sentido de interpretación normativa del artículo 315°, brindando al lector un vistazo innovador sobre el Pleno materia de nuestro análisis.
In response to the problems arising from a legal act nullity proceeding filed to declare two sales contracts void on the grounds of absolute simulation, unlawful purpose, and violation of public order regulations, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic established, by majority, that the disposition of joint property (those belonging to the community property) by only one spouse without the intervention of the other is grounds for the nullity of the legal act, ruling out the remedy of ineffectiveness of the legal act in this case. However, it was identified that the cassation ruling did not comply with one of the fundamental principles of our justice system: the due motivation of judicial decisions. After the use and analysis of national doctrine and jurisprudence, it was concluded that, indeed, we are faced with a case that, although the meaning of the judicial decision is not disputed, it was improperly and insufficiently motivated, this after detecting the lack of conceptualization provided by the Supreme Court with respect to relevant concepts and principles of family law such as the family interest and equality between spouses, and the improper motivation of its normative interpretation of article 315, providing the reader with an innovative look at the Plenary session that is the subject of our analysis.
In response to the problems arising from a legal act nullity proceeding filed to declare two sales contracts void on the grounds of absolute simulation, unlawful purpose, and violation of public order regulations, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic established, by majority, that the disposition of joint property (those belonging to the community property) by only one spouse without the intervention of the other is grounds for the nullity of the legal act, ruling out the remedy of ineffectiveness of the legal act in this case. However, it was identified that the cassation ruling did not comply with one of the fundamental principles of our justice system: the due motivation of judicial decisions. After the use and analysis of national doctrine and jurisprudence, it was concluded that, indeed, we are faced with a case that, although the meaning of the judicial decision is not disputed, it was improperly and insufficiently motivated, this after detecting the lack of conceptualization provided by the Supreme Court with respect to relevant concepts and principles of family law such as the family interest and equality between spouses, and the improper motivation of its normative interpretation of article 315, providing the reader with an innovative look at the Plenary session that is the subject of our analysis.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Nulidad (Derecho), Derecho de familia--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Bienes gananciales--Perú
