La unión de hecho impropia y los derechos establecidos en el artículo 326º del código civil de 1984”expediente 06572-2006-pa/TC Piura
Date
2024-03-27
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Científica del Perú
Abstract
La presente investigación tiene como objeto el análisis de la sentencia emitida por
el Tribunal Constitucional en el expediente Nº 06572-2006- PA/TC PIURA, sobre
agravio constitucional presentada por la señora Janet Rosas Domínguez contra la
sentencia emitida por la Sala Civil de la Corte superior de Justicia de Piura. El
agravio constitucional deviene de la demanda de amparo presentada ante el
Quinto Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil de Piura contra la Oficina de
Normalización Previsional (ONP) a fin de que se ordene a la demandada el
otorgamiento de una pensión de viudez. La demanda es declarada improcedente
en tanto que, a criterio del juez de primer grado, los procesos constitucionales no
tienen como fin otorgar derechos, sino proteger los derechos ya reconocidos; este
mismo criterio fue amparado por la Sala Civil para confirmar la sentencia.
El Tribunal Constitucional declara fundada la demanda ordenando a la ONP que se
abone la pensión de viudez a la demandante, con el argumento de que, desde la
perspectiva de la Constitución, el instituto de Familia no es exclusivo del
matrimonio y, por tanto, al negarse el otorgamiento de pensión de viudez a la
sobreviviente de la unión de hecho se está afectando el derecho a la igualdad,
pues se hace una diferenciación entre iguales. Pese a que la fundamentación del
Tribunal abona para que, en general, se reconozcan los mismos derechos
patrimoniales establecidos en el artículo 326º del Código Civil a todas las familias,
sin distinguir su origen (matrimonial o uniones de hecho), mantiene este trato
desigual que proscribe al negar el acceso de los mismos derechos a las familias
fundadas en uniones de hecho impropias.
The purpose of this research is to analyze the judgment issued by the Constitutional Court in case No. 06572-2006- PA/TC PIURA, on the constitutional grievance filed by Mrs. Janet Rosas Dominguez against the judgment issued by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Piura. The constitutional challenge arises from the amparo lawsuit filed in the Fifth Specialized Civil Court of Piura against the Oficina de Normalización Previcional (ONP) in order to order the defendant to grant a window’s pension. The claim was declared inadmissible since, according to the first-degree judge, the purpose of constitutional proceedings is not grant rights, but to protect already recognized rights, this same criterion was upheld by the Civil Chamber in order to confirm the sentence. The Constitutional Court declared the claim founded, ordering the ONP to pay the window’s pension to the plaintiff, arguing that, from the perspective of the Constitution the Family Institute is not exclusive to marriage and, therefore, by denying the window’s pension to survivor of the common-law union, the equality right is being affected, since a differentiation is being made between equals. Although the Court’s reasoning supports that, in general, the same patrimonial rights established in article 326 of the Civil Code to all families, without distinguishing their origin (marital or de facto unions), it maintains this unequal treatment that it proscribes by denying access to the same rights to families founded on improper de facto unions.
The purpose of this research is to analyze the judgment issued by the Constitutional Court in case No. 06572-2006- PA/TC PIURA, on the constitutional grievance filed by Mrs. Janet Rosas Dominguez against the judgment issued by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Piura. The constitutional challenge arises from the amparo lawsuit filed in the Fifth Specialized Civil Court of Piura against the Oficina de Normalización Previcional (ONP) in order to order the defendant to grant a window’s pension. The claim was declared inadmissible since, according to the first-degree judge, the purpose of constitutional proceedings is not grant rights, but to protect already recognized rights, this same criterion was upheld by the Civil Chamber in order to confirm the sentence. The Constitutional Court declared the claim founded, ordering the ONP to pay the window’s pension to the plaintiff, arguing that, from the perspective of the Constitution the Family Institute is not exclusive to marriage and, therefore, by denying the window’s pension to survivor of the common-law union, the equality right is being affected, since a differentiation is being made between equals. Although the Court’s reasoning supports that, in general, the same patrimonial rights established in article 326 of the Civil Code to all families, without distinguishing their origin (marital or de facto unions), it maintains this unequal treatment that it proscribes by denying access to the same rights to families founded on improper de facto unions.
Description
Keywords
Comunidad de bienes, Familia, Impedimento matrimonial, Matrimonio, Sociedad de gananciales, Unión de hecho impropio, Unión de hecho propio, Community of property, Family, Impediment to marriage, Marriage, Conjugal property, Improper facto union, Own de facto union
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