Una cura para la omisión de pronunciamiento en sentencias de primera instancia en el proceso civil peruano: Entre la integración y la nulidad
Date
2023-11-28
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El Código Procesal Civil peruano establece que los remedios de la omisión de
pronunciamiento que padece una sentencia de primera instancia son la nulidad y la
integración. Sin embargo, debido a las deficiencias legislativas que presentan las normas
jurídicas que regulan estos dos remedios, no queda claro cuándo corresponde aplicar cada
uno de ellos, lo cual favorece el empleo desmedido de la nulidad. En ese sentido, el
presente trabajo ofrece un análisis dogmático de las normas jurídicas que regulan la
nulidad y la integración con el fin de determinar cuándo corresponde aplicar cada una.
De este modo, se concluye que ello depende de, primordialmente, dos factores: (i) el tipo
de omisión de pronunciamiento que padece la sentencia de primera instancia, si se trata
de una omisión total o parcial de pronunciamiento, y (ii) el órgano jurisdiccional que se
encarga de “curarla”, si se trata del juez que emitió la sentencia (a quo) o del juez de
apelación (ad quem).
The Peruvian Civil Procedure Code provides two legal remedies to rectify situations where the judge has omitted a decision in a first-instance judgment: annulment and integration. However, the legal norms that govern these remedies are deficient, leading to an overuse of annulment. To address this issue, a dogmatic analysis of the legal norms governing nullity and integration has been conducted to determine the appropriate application of each remedy. The analysis has revealed that two factors influence primarily this decision: (i) the extent of the omission in the first instance judgment, whether it is partial or total, and (ii) the jurisdictional body responsible for remedying it, whether it is the judge who issued the sentence (a quo) or the appeal judge (ad quem).
The Peruvian Civil Procedure Code provides two legal remedies to rectify situations where the judge has omitted a decision in a first-instance judgment: annulment and integration. However, the legal norms that govern these remedies are deficient, leading to an overuse of annulment. To address this issue, a dogmatic analysis of the legal norms governing nullity and integration has been conducted to determine the appropriate application of each remedy. The analysis has revealed that two factors influence primarily this decision: (i) the extent of the omission in the first instance judgment, whether it is partial or total, and (ii) the jurisdictional body responsible for remedying it, whether it is the judge who issued the sentence (a quo) or the appeal judge (ad quem).
Description
Keywords
Sentencias--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Sentencias--Legislación--Perú, Nulidad (Derecho)--Legislación--Perú
Citation
Collections
Endorsement
Review
Supplemented By
Referenced By
Creative Commons license
Except where otherwised noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess