{"id":53295,"date":"2024-05-17T20:59:46","date_gmt":"2024-05-17T20:59:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/17\/ac146-2021-2020-00450-00\/"},"modified":"2024-05-17T20:59:46","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T20:59:46","slug":"ac146-2021-2020-00450-00","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/17\/ac146-2021-2020-00450-00\/","title":{"rendered":"AC 146 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>AC146-2021 (2020-00450-00)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>AC146-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00b0 11001-02-03-000-2020-00450-00 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Bogot\u00e1 &nbsp;D.C., primero (1\u00b0) de febrero de dos mil veintiuno (2021). &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Resuelve &nbsp;la Corte sobre la admisibilidad de la demanda en el recurso de &nbsp;revisi\u00f3n de Bertilia Bulla de Luque frente al fallo de 30 de &nbsp;julio de 2012, proferido por la Sala de Familia del Tribunal Superior &nbsp;de Bogot\u00e1, dentro del proceso de petici\u00f3n de herencia &nbsp;que adelant\u00f3 la recurrente contra Ana Mercedes Bulla, Matilde &nbsp;Bulla de Nari\u00f1o, Jos\u00e9 Noel, Carlos Eduardo y H\u00e9ctor &nbsp;Bulla Gonz\u00e1lez. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>I.-ANTECEDENTES &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>i. La &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;opugnadora acude a este medio de contradicci\u00f3n con amparo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en la causal octava de revisi\u00f3n, porque \u00abla &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sentencia de segundo grado pretermiti\u00f3 una instancia cual &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;es la acci\u00f3n ordinaria hoy declarativa de pertenencia (\u2026) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;omitiendo adem\u00e1s los requisitos que exige esa declaraci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de pertenencia a no haber elevado la respectiva demanda de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;reconvenci\u00f3n en su debida oportunidad\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(fls. 43 a 67).<\/p>\n<p>ii. Inform\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que la sentencia objeto del recurso \u00abqued\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ejecutoriada el d\u00eda tres (3) de diciembre de 2012, a las &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;6:00 pm.\u00bb; aunado a que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;interpuso este remedio con anterioridad, el cual fue terminado por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;desistimiento t\u00e1cito el 19 de diciembre de 2018 (CSJ &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AC5511-2018), sin que hubiera podido iniciarlo de nuevo dentro de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;los 6 meses siguientes, dada \u00absu &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;condici\u00f3n econ\u00f3mica, f\u00edsica y mental\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;como quiera que se encuentra en \u00abestado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de pobreza\u00bb, padece \u00abperiodos &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;largos de depresi\u00f3n\u00bb y &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de \u00abdemencia tipo Alzheimer\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(fls. 65 y 66). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>II.-CONSIDERACIONES &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1. El art\u00edculo 355 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;del C\u00f3digo General del Proceso consagra los motivos de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;revisi\u00f3n de las sentencias en firme, entre los cuales est\u00e1 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el \u00ab[e]xistir nulidad originada en la sentencia que puso &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;fin al proceso y que no era susceptible de recurso\u00bb (num. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;8). &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Por &nbsp;su parte el 356 ib\u00eddem, que fija el t\u00e9rmino para &nbsp;hacer uso de esa v\u00eda extraordinaria, se\u00f1ala en su &nbsp;primer inciso, respecto de esa raz\u00f3n, que \u00abpodr\u00e1 &nbsp;interponerse dentro de los dos (2) a\u00f1os siguientes a la &nbsp;ejecutoria de la respectiva sentencia\u00bb. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Dicho &nbsp;plazo es improrrogable y su fenecimiento es constitutivo de caducidad &nbsp;declarable de oficio, m\u00e1xime cuando el tercer inciso del &nbsp;art\u00edculo 358 ejusdem ordena &nbsp;que sin \u00abm\u00e1s tr\u00e1mite, la demanda ser\u00e1 &nbsp;rechazada cuando no se presente en el t\u00e9rmino legal\u00bb. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2. En esta oportunidad se pretende &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dejar sin efecto el fallo del ad quem proferido el 30 de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;julio de 2012, dentro del proceso con radicado 2011-00327, el cual, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;una vez aclarado, qued\u00f3 en firme el \u00abtres (3) de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;diciembre de 2012\u00bb, de modo que al haberse incoado la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;s\u00faplica extraordinaria el 12 de febrero de 2020 (fl. 68), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;refulge con fuerza la extemporaneidad de la impugnaci\u00f3n, como &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;quiera que para esta calenda ya transcurrieron 7 a\u00f1os y 2 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;meses, lo que sobrepasa el lapso m\u00e1ximo con el que se contaba &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;para ello. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Ahora bien, el panorama no muta &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por el hecho de que con anterioridad se haya intentado la revisi\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de la misma sentencia, toda vez que ese tr\u00e1mite concluy\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por el desistimiento t\u00e1cito de la actora, en tanto no &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;notific\u00f3 la totalidad de los convocados en el tiempo que le &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;confiri\u00f3 la Corte (CSJ AC5511-2018), de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;manera que se elimin\u00f3 el efecto que provoc\u00f3 la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;radicaci\u00f3n del libelo en esa oportunidad. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>No se pierda &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de vista que, con la presentaci\u00f3n de la demanda y la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;satisfacci\u00f3n de los presupuestos contemplados en el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;art\u00edculo 94 del C\u00f3digo General del Proceso, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;se impide la configuraci\u00f3n de la \u00abcaducidad\u00bb; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sin embargo, dicho fen\u00f3meno desaparece, entre otros &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;eventos, \u00ab[c]uando el proceso termine por desistimiento &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;t\u00e1cito\u00bb, seg\u00fan lo manda el numeral 6\u00ba &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;del precepto 95 de la obra en comento. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Quiere decir que, si bien con la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;demanda que Bertilda Bulla de Luque present\u00f3 para dar &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;inicio al remedio extraordinario en el a\u00f1o 2013, no oper\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la caducidad frente a la revisi\u00f3n de la sentencia &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;fustigada, dicho efecto se malogr\u00f3 cuando ese ritual &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;culmin\u00f3 por desistimiento t\u00e1cito, de modo que para &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el tiempo en que se reintent\u00f3 este mecanismo (12 feb. 2020) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la posibilidad de dar apertura al proceso se hab\u00eda &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;extinguido. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>De all\u00ed que la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;justificaci\u00f3n propuesta por la quejosa no pueda ser &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acogida, puesto que la oportunidad que ten\u00eda para proponer &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por v\u00eda de revisi\u00f3n la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;nulidad mencionada se aniquil\u00f3 con el auto de 19 de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;diciembre de 2018 (CSJ AC5511-2018), emitido en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la primera causa incoada de la misma \u00edndole (2013-02466), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en tanto con \u00e9l se estructur\u00f3 la caducidad de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;esta acci\u00f3n, sin que pudiera corregir su actuar con &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;posterioridad a ello. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>En s\u00edntesis, como la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;terminaci\u00f3n de la anterior revisi\u00f3n provoc\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la desaparici\u00f3n de cualquier efecto que haya suscitado su &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;inicio, es palpable que, desde la ejecutoria de la sentencia &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;emitida por el Tribunal Superior de Bogot\u00e1, hasta la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;radicaci\u00f3n de la demanda que aqu\u00ed se inspecciona, se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sobrepasaron los 2 a\u00f1os con los que se contaba para &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;examinar por esta v\u00eda la causal alegada. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>III.-DECISI\u00d3N &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>En &nbsp;m\u00e9rito de lo expuesto, la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de &nbsp;Casaci\u00f3n Civil, &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>RESUELVE &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Primero: &nbsp;Rechazar la demanda de revisi\u00f3n de Bertilia Bulla de Luque &nbsp;frente al fallo de 30 de julio de 2012, proferido por la Sala de &nbsp;Familia del Tribunal Superior de Bogot\u00e1, dentro del proceso de &nbsp;petici\u00f3n de herencia que adelant\u00f3 la recurrente contra &nbsp;Ana Mercedes Bulla, Matilde Bulla de Nari\u00f1o, Jos\u00e9 Noel, &nbsp;Carlos Eduardo y H\u00e9ctor Bulla Gonz\u00e1lez. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Segundo: &nbsp;Devolver los anexos, sin necesidad de desglose. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Tercero: &nbsp;Archivar las actuaciones. &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Notif\u00edquese &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>OCTAVIO &nbsp;AUGUSTO TEJEIRO DUQUE &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Magistrado &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AC146-2021 (2020-00450-00) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AC146-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00b0 11001-02-03-000-2020-00450-00 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Bogot\u00e1 &nbsp;D.C., primero (1\u00b0) de febrero de dos mil veintiuno (2021). &nbsp; Resuelve &nbsp;la Corte sobre la admisibilidad [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-febrero"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}