You are on page 1of 7

SENTENCE

PROCESS:
CONTESTED DIVORCE
PLAINTIF:
MARTHA LUCERO IBARRA CARDONA
DEFENDANT:
CARLOS ALBERTO PALACIO CALLE
1
RAD
2000-043
CONTINUATION ON HEARING
SECOND FAMILY PROMICOUS2 COURT
Dosquebradas, Risaralda, february the fifteenth of the year two thousand and one.

At this date, being five o’clock in the afternoon (5:00PM) time and date previously
appointed, to continue further in this referred procedure, the subscribing Judge, in
conformity with the article 123 from Civil Procedural Code, constitutes public
hearing in this precinct where the court works, in order indicated and declares the
act opened.
In this state (of the procedure), depleted as they are, the previous stages to dictate
Sentence, the court proceed to it:
FACTS
In contentious demand who corresponded this office, it is said via and attorney that
Mr. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle and Mrs. Martha Lucero Ibarra Cardona, got
married by the catholic ritual without making any nuptial agreement, which is
inscribed at the Fifth Notary from Pereira’s Circuit, with serial number: 2731556.
That the couple is separated since March 1998, and their marriage partnership has
not been liquidated yet, and it is claimed as a cause of divorce the “de facto”
separation from more than two years, adding to this case that their last marital
home was in this municipality.
During his marital union both parts procreated Mariangel Palacio Rivera (minor),
who must continue under care of her maternal grandmother, Blanca Stella Cardona
1

2

Number of the case file

The term “ family promiscuous court” in this case indicates the competency of the
court in several matters (criminal law, labor law, civil law and family law)

education and settlement. receiving visits from the father every eight days a week on Saturdays from 8:00am to 6:00pm. (That) Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle will give. that amount must be delivered to Mrs. as alimony the amount of $20. The divorce. 6. the ceasing of civil effects of catholic marriage celebrated between Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle and Martha Lucero Ibarra Cardona. 3. Cardona Quintero and increase every year in the same percentage of the minimum legal salary.000 weekly. who will stay in custody of her maternal grandmother Blanca Stella Cardona Quintero and will be receiving visits from her father every Saturdays from eight o’ clock in the morning to six o’clock in the afternoon. in august 28 2000. and at the same schedule on Sundays every fifteen days. 2. That Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle will keep his parental rights over his daughter Mariangel Palacio Ibarra. That they will have separate home and each of them will look after their own sustenance. for a total of $80. the alimony regulated in the same conciliation hearing consists in $20. for her upbringing. for a total of . 4.Quintero. Pretentions: Based on the related facts it is pretended to be decreed: 1.000 a month. and at the same schedule on Sundays every fifteen days as it was regulated from the Northeastern Special Family Commissariat.000 weekly. education and settlement. Dissolved and in liquidation state the marital partnership formed between them in marriage. 5. That will be ordered the inscription of this providence in the civil marriage registration which corresponds to the Fifth Notary from Pereira’s Circle. also for her upbringing.

PROCEDURE The admission of the demand had place on November 28 th of next past year. and it was appointed today’s date to continue with it. and citing the Family Defender. On January 31st in this year.000 a month that will deliver to Blanca Stella Cardona Q.$80. not having any vices which affect with total or partial nullity of the proceedings and all the procedural requirements to ruling a sentence have been accomplished integrally. On this date. the stipulated on the number 8 in article 6 from Law 25th from 1992. to serve notice to the defendant Luis Ariel Navarro Zuluaga. It is called. there was any statement on the demand libel since everyone remained silent. because the legal and procedural relationship was settled between the espousals. in the pleading. it will be proceeded according to the following: CONSIDERATIONS Attending to the subject’s matter (a divorce) the cause’s legitimacy is clearly established. whose tie was accredited with the authentic photocopy of the civil marriage registry added to the lawsuit. which literally says: “…8 The judicial corporal separation or de facto which has lasted more than two years…” . in date that was not possible any conciliation despite the defendant insistence. procedural stage in which both parts made use of it. and increase every year in the same percentage of the minimum legal salary. facts and pretentions were fixed and the proof was decreed and also included in the same date. from it was commanded to notify the Public Ministry. as a cause of the divorce of civil marriage and its collateral consequences. was initiated the public hearing based on the article 432 from the Civil Procedural Code. the final arguments notices was served. having done this.

y Lida Cardona de Sánchez. are clear. the attitude assumed by the defendant during the course of the procedure.Not going to the conciliation hearing (Law 446 1998) carries to be declared confessed about the facts in the lawsuit susceptible of confessional proof. in spite the kinship with the plaintiff. responsive. " We can also join to the cited. which was not undermined by him. for which could considered that in circumstances affecting impartiality. in reading them not bias can be found and they weren’t l dismissed as false. which brings certainty to the Court over the factual fundaments of the lawsuit. that Mr. María Nelly Cardona de Rendón. it is mandatory to analyze the evidence directed to obtain the pretention’s success through demonstration of factual assumptions which is supported on. The witnesses: Blanca Stella Cardona Ibarra. the father’s supplies are sporadically. therefore. have the merit of credibility. For this matter is relevant to bring the following jurisprudential paragraph: “Even if one of the witnesses can be a relative of the plaintiff. It should be noted that. do not live together as a couple. in these cases are the relatives of the spouses generally found closer to the development of their married life and which therefore can better perceive the events as they occurred. Palacio leave and come back. the witnesses’ statements.Annotated the above. let’s see: 1. precise. Also stated that Mrs. but since almost three years approximately was the last time he left without coming back without any possibility of reconciliation between them. informed to the court how the espousals Carlos Alberto Palacio y Martha Lucero Ibarra. . Martha Lucero whom has been in charge of her daughter’s care. it is taken for granted that the de facto separation from his wife since March 1998. this Court’s doctrine has said "cannot be underestimated.

this Court finds it appropriate because since they don’t share any of it for over more than two years. missing his obligations. not having made any statement on its facts and pretentions or any other affirmations or negations contraries to reality. the divorce ceasing of civil effects of their marriage will be decreed in fulfillment of the article 444 from C. where guidelines were drawn according to residency and alimony between the espousals as their minor daughter’s care.The disinterested conduct during the process by Mr. As a piece in autos3 an authentic copy of the diligences of conciliation from alimony and visits regulation in favor of the minor Mariangel Palacio Ibarra and doesn’t exists during the procedure any evidence that credits a change in the original circumstances of this agreement between both parts in favor of their daughter. but they won’t be granted in this case because it is not known the economic capacity of the defendant. and specially a grave indication over him. approved by the Northeastern Family Commissioner’s Office. having also in account that actually still persists the separation between the couple. according to article 95 Ibídem. due to not having answered to the plead. C. To the subject of separate residency between the espousals. that is to say. P. C.. doesn’t happen the same with the alimony because those are irrevocable and the spouse who hasn’t originated the cause of divorce has the right to it. the pretentions from the plaintiff will thrive. Thus things. and does not exist any evidence that this has affected them or the minor. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle. which this court will receive totally. 3 Autos: Procedural Court Orders . getting way from his home. whom was the one who led to the divorce lawsuit.2. P. constitutes an indication against him according to the article 242 from C. that can be found in the third folio from this file. whose existence is demonstrated by the civil certificate of birth.

administrating justice in the name of the Republic Of Colombia and by authority of the law RULES: FIRST: Declaring Mr. SECOND: Decreeing the divorce from the marriage ceasing the civil effects from the marriage celebrated between Mr.as accorded in the by the Northeastern Family Commissioner’s Office on august 28. EIGHT: Costs will be condemned against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. in the parish of San Antonio de Padua inscribed at the Fifth Notary from Pereira’s Circuit. this ruling. THIRD: Declaring dissolved and in liquidation state the marital partnership formed between the espousals Mr. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle and Martha Lucero Ibarra Cardona. according to was stated in the motive part of the sentence. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle confessed of all the facts susceptible of confession proof. which will be liquidated according to the law. according to article 392 from Civil Procedural Code. must keep supplying his daughter Mariangel Palacio Ibarra with the alimony. 2000. . with serial number: 2731556. SIXTH: It will be denied the solicited regarding the alimony. FOURTH: Mr. The Second Family Promiscuous Court from Dosquebradas. Those shall be assessed. proceedings in the file that can be seen at folios 4 to 7 FIFTH: The espousals will have separate residency. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle. Risaralda. SEVENTH: Officiate to the civil status functionary to inscribe in the marriage and birth folio of each of the espousals and also in the “various” book. Carlos Alberto Palacio Calle and Martha Lucero Ibarra Cardona in marriage. As exposed.The defendant will be condemned in favor of the plaintiff. and visiting her .

The Judge MARIA VICTORIA VALENCIA MARTINEZ The plaintiff’s Attorney. Dr. identified with ID number 24.The previous decision is notified on hearing.044 from Pereira and Professional Card 17.181 from the Superior Council of Judiciary. For the record. María Norma Ángel Zapata. after being read and approved in each and any of its components.927. MARIA NORMA ÁNGEL ZAPATA . to this diligence appeared the plaintiff’s attorney. Not being other the object of the present hearing it is extended the subscribed this act by the intervening.