In our legal system there are various documents that contain collection or payment obligations, called securities, such as checks, promissory notes and bills of exchange, whose main virtue is to provide agility and security to commercial traffic.
On March 13th 2024, the Supreme Court, in its cassation ruling RIT 287-2023, gave rise to a new criterion regarding securities, since it is related to the possibility of reviewing the obligations that precede or appear in the security that operates as an assumption in the context of an executive judgment.
Executive or collection trials are characterized by being considerably brief trials compared to others, because the obligations are “obvious.” Therefore, the defense possibilities are limited.
As a consequence of the aforementioned ruling, the obligations that give rise to an unpaid executive title such as the check could be questioned in brief trials such as the executive, and even more so, to the caused executive titles such as the promissory note and unpaid invoices, when it is assumed that their executive merit comes from the reliability and indubitable nature of the obligation expressed in them.
The above insofar as, whenever the “nullity of the obligation” is alleged, consideration must be given to the factual assumptions on which it is based, even if it is the nullity of a prior fact, taking charge of all evidence provided in judgment.
Raúl Vargas