[ad_1]
The Supreme Court of Justice evaluated a case in which it took for granted that the only way to dissolve a union of this type is for there to be a definitive cessation of cohabitation (coexistence) between the parties.
The lawsuit of a woman who requested that the existence of a de facto marital union be declared, with the consequent patrimonial effects, because she no longer tolerated the infidelity of her ex-partner, was married in the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. In its analysis of the case, the high court made it clear that infidelity by one of the partners does not destroy the de facto marital union, since it can only be dissolved with the physical and definitive separation of the couple.
The case that served to clarify the matter is that of a woman who requested that a de facto marital union be declared with the defendant for more than 22 years (from September 28, 1988, to June 2011), with the patrimonial effects that this entails. The plaintiff listed the assets that made up the company and argued that the reason for ending the relationship was the breach of the duties of her partner.
The defendant, for his part, objected to his ex-partner claiming his fair share, claiming that the marital union ended in January 2007, but because she had been unfaithful to him. The situation was evaluated by the Third Family Court of Cúcuta, which, in the first instance, denied the woman’s claims. The same was defined by the Superior Court of Cúcuta when it considered that the requirement of “uniqueness”, essential to declare the de facto marital union, was not met.
The Court explained, in a judgment of March 31, 2014, that the plaintiff had confessed that her partner “lived together” in parallel with another person for four years, which led her to terminate the relationship. Dissatisfied with the decision of the firm, the plaintiff appealed for cassation. She stated that the Court had misinterpreted her statements, ignoring that she had explained that her partner “got lost” on Saturdays and returned on Sunday.
The foregoing, to show that her partner in no way had a relationship similar to that sustained with her for more than 22 years and that the scope of marital union could not be given to the superficial and sporadic encounters that her partner starred in. Thus, the Civil Chamber of the Court devoted itself to studying the case and the decisions of the judicial offices.
In its analysis, it considered that, in effect, the Superior Court of Cúcuta was wrong because “it misrepresented the statement made by the plaintiff in her interrogation on her part, by decontextualizing it and attributing to it a scope other than that of its objective content.” Furthermore, the Court said, the Court omitted the statements of the defendant who, with the scope of confession, denied a “cohabitation” with the other woman.
“I made the decision to sue him because I realized that he bought a house and not just a house, but many things, from a woman he has here in Cúcuta, as a lover (…) he has maintained that relationship for four years, to hidden (…) I discovered it last year, he has stopped giving to the children because it happens to her and her daughter has that it is from another relationship (…) when he comes down to the house he gets lost on Saturday afternoon and he returns home on Sunday, always with lies, ”the plaintiff said in questioning.
In that sense, the Court affirmed, the plaintiff never mentioned that her partner had a stable life community with the other woman, with the scope of a marital union, since “she said nothing about a permanent cohabitation of roof, table and bed; nor did he report that they had common projects or that they had formed a new family ”, but rather that it was a disloyalty that was limited to meetings of short periods, which lasted in time. That version was corroborated by the same defendant who said that “I do not live with her, we only visit each other.”
In this sense, the Court denied that the plaintiff had confessed the existence of a parallel marital relationship between her partner and another woman and, therefore, the requirement of “uniqueness” was not affected. At that point, the high court made it clear that affronts to marital loyalty by themselves do not end the community of life, since this effect will only be achieved when there is a definitive cessation of cohabitation, which did not happen in this case. Well, despite his encounters with another woman, the defendant kept the home made up of the plaintiff.
Then, finally, having shown that the plaintiff had a stable relationship with her partner for more than two years and that they met all the requirements to declare the de facto marital union, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court of Cúcuta and totally reversed the Judgment of the Family Court of Cúcuta. Instead, he declared the de facto marital union between the plaintiff and her ex-partner, and that between them a property patrimonial society was formed that is dissolved and that must be liquidated by legal means.
