JurídicoESEN
Constitutional review ruling (C)August 14, 2013Full bench

C-529 de 2013

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Nilson Elías Pinilla Pinilla

✓Claimant Carlos Gandhi Tarazona Rojas·Respondent Codigo Civil Articulo 1133

✓
Topic · hard data
Cosa Juzgada Constitucional En Condicion Para Ser Beneficiario De Asignacion Testamentaria, El Permanecer En Estado De Viudez, Cuando Se Tengan Hijos De Matrimonio Anterior
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Demanda de inconstitucionalidad contra parte del artículo 1133 del Código Civil.

Considera el actor que el aparte normativo demandado infringe las disposiciones contenidas en los artículos 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 42 y 44 de la Constitución Política.

La Corte constata la existencia de una cosa juzgada constitucional absoluta, en virtud de que el segmento normativo acusado fue retirado del ordenamiento jurídico por la declaratoria de inexequibilidad realizada por la Corporación en pronunciamiento anterior.

La Sala decide ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO en la sentencia C-513/13.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

Holdings on Ley 57/87. Hard data, verified against the operative part — citable.

Art. 1133Ley 57/87ESTARSE A LO RESUELTO
1 holding · source: operative part of the ruling
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. en nombre del Pueblo y por mandato de la Constitucion
  2. RESUELVE
  3. ESTARSE a lo resuelto en la sentencia C-513 de julio 31 de 2013, que declaro INEXEQUIBLE el aparte acusado del articulo 1133 del Codigo Civil.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Separate opinions — text available2
ConcurrenceNilson Pinilla PinillaConcurrenceGabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.