¿Se puede admitir la restitución "in integrum" en las causas matrimoniales?
Summarium Propositum habemus illustrandi quaestionem ali. quam lamentabili confusione adhuc mentionatam, scilicet num Tribunal Rotae Romanae applicaverit hoc remedium restitutionisin causis matrimonialibus. In variis articulis responsio dabatur affirmativa. Analysis vero multarum sententiarum rotali...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 1974 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Dadun. Depósito Académico Digital de la Universidad de Navarra |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dadun.unav.edu:10171/14674 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10171/14674 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Matrimonio Restitución "in integrum" Materias Investigacion::Derecho canónico |
| Sumario: | Summarium Propositum habemus illustrandi quaestionem ali. quam lamentabili confusione adhuc mentionatam, scilicet num Tribunal Rotae Romanae applicaverit hoc remedium restitutionisin causis matrimonialibus. In variis articulis responsio dabatur affirmativa. Analysis vero multarum sententiarum rotalium inducit nos ad conclusionem negativam. Unam tantum sententiam invenimus in qua realiter applicatum est hoc remedium ad causa m matrimonialem. Confusio fuit qUibusdam credere admittendum esse hoc remedium solo facto illud repellendi rationibus generalibus, qUibus repelli possit in illis causis, quibus hoc institutum •creatum fuerit. Maluissent quidam aspicere plane repulsum, nulla alia ratione attenta, nisi quod sit causa matrimonialis. Exponimus causas quae iustificant modum agendi sententiarum rotalium, non vera possumus dicere eas admittere hoc remedium in causis matrimonialibus.--------------------------------------------------- Abstract We have decided to answer a question which has been asked several times in a confused manner: Has the Court of the Roman Rota applied the remedy of restitution in matrimonial cases? In different articles on this question the answer was affirmative. However our analysis of a great number of rotal decisions has convinced us that the answer is a negative one. We have found only one decision in which this remedy was actually applied in a matrimonial case. Much of the confusion stems from the belief that the rejection of the remedy implies its possible admission in other cases for general reasons. It would have been better to reject it outright, without more ado, on the grounds that it was a matrimonial case. We state the motives behind the rotal decisions without being able to conelude that they recognize this remedy in matrimonial cases. |
|---|