JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)January 30, 2003

T-052 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra

✓Claimant Maria Angelica Esquivel Lora Y Otro Vs. Municipio De Tolu

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Minimo Vital. Solicitud Pago Deudas Contractuales. Proceso Ejecutivo. Reestructuracion Pasivos De Ente Territorial. Ley 550 De 1999. Negada.
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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Improcedencia pago de créditos y deudas civiles o comerciales
  • Improcedencia pago de obligaciones pecuniarias derivadas de contratos
  • Inexistencia de perjuicio irremediable
4 topics · 7 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

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

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. PRIMERO. REVOCAR la sentencia proferida el 22 de julio de 2002 por el Juzgado Promiscuo Municipal de Santiago de Tolú , y en su lugar denegar el amparo de los derechos invocados por María Angélica Esquivel Lora y José Luis Navarro Morelo, con las consecuencias señaladas en la parte motiva de la presente sentencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. Dejar sin efectos las órdenes de pago ordenadas en la sentencia proferida el 22 de julio de 2002 por el Juzgado Promiscuo Municipal de Santiago de Tolú en favor de María Angélica Esquivel Lora y de José Luis Navarro Morelo.
  3. TERCERO. Para los efectos del artículo 36 del decreto 2591 de 1991, el juzgado de origen hará las notificaciones y tomará las medidas conducentes para el cumplimiento de esta sentencia.
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.

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.