The Supreme Court of Justice determined that the relationship between the policeman and the priest was not a marital union

On August 3, we knew that the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has the case of a police officer in its hands requesting the declaration of a de facto marital union with his partner, a priest who died on November 15, 2012.

Although the second promiscuous Facatativá Family Court initially recognized the de facto marital union, the Superior Court of Cundinamarca overturned this decision, alleging that the legal requirements for it to be rendered were not met.

The court assured that there was evidence in the file which proved that the policeman and the priest coexisted and others which proved the opposite. In addition, it was possible to show that the uniformsAfter being transferred to another city, he frequently visited the priest and had access to the house, where they shared a room and paid the expenses together.

Despite this, the court said it was a case, arguing that there had been an obvious attempt to make the union visible, what was contradicted by the witnesses, and that on the photos which are attached to the file, the couple was always accompanied.

According to El Tiempo, the case reached the Supreme Court of Justice, where the case was investigated from a gender perspective, but they concluded the same as the tribunal, as no evidence of a union de facto marital was found, but rather an engagement.

According to the newspaper, the Court analyzed testimonies which indicate that the patroller lived with the priest during the holidays and the Christmas periods, as well as when I had permits. He clarified that the man in uniform did not want to go into details of the intimate aspects of the relationship as well as routine activities or financial management.

There are few details about a family’s experiences, such as household dynamics, special meetings or events, relevant conflicts, how to deal with differences, etc. ; There are also no goals or objectives mentioned that were set or achieved by the spouses, which gave a different identity to that of sporadic encounters.

On analyzing other evidence, the newspaper found that the High Court ruled that, “It shows a love bond, typical of a court, without contributing to the demonstration of a collective project inherent in the idea of ​​family.”

With this case, the Court recalled that the periodic coexistence or love, sex or dating does not constitute a marital union.

The spouses’ decision to disclose their relationship in front of strangers, contrary to the instructions they provided to the support staff of the house, invites us to reflect on the veracity of the declarants, without the other evidence allowing to clarify the point. .

Likewise, the few photographic and documentary evidence attached to the archives have been criticized.

“The Court misses the brevity of the files close to the file, because, faced with a relationship supposed to have lasted more than 9 years, a few photos limited to precise data were collected; Common sense indicates that, if there was a bond of coexistence, the couple had to go through various events, celebrations and, in general, relevant moments, from which graphic memories are expected, hence the absence indicates that the bond no has not reached the contours of a stable link “, concluded the Supreme Court.

KEEP READING