{"id":64594,"date":"2024-05-20T20:59:10","date_gmt":"2024-05-20T20:59:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/20\/stc7651-2022\/"},"modified":"2024-05-20T20:59:10","modified_gmt":"2024-05-20T20:59:10","slug":"stc7651-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/20\/stc7651-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"STC7651 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>STC7651-2022<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00b0 76111-22-13-001-2022-00056-01 &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>OCTAVIO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AUGUSTO TEJEIRO DUQUE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Magistrado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ponente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>STC7651-2022 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00ba 76111-22-13-000-2022-00056-01 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>(Aprobado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en sesi\u00f3n de quince de junio de dos mil veintid\u00f3s) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Bogot\u00e1, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;D.C., quince (15) de junio de dos mil veintid\u00f3s (2022). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>La &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Corte resuelve la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;impugnaci\u00f3n presentada por Quality Logistics Services S.A.S. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;frente a la sentencia proferida el 27 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de abril de 2022 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por la Sala Civil del Tribunal Superior del Distrito Judicial de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Buga, en la tutela que instaur\u00f3 contra la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Agencia de Carga Alessandra\u00b4s &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Freigh Forwarder S.A.S. extensiva &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;al Juzgado Segundo Civil del Circuito de Buenaventura en el proceso &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ejecutivo con radicado n\u00b0 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;76109-31-03-002-2021-00014-00. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>ANTECEDENTES &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1. La &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;accionante pretende, en s\u00edntesis: i) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ordene a la empresa accionada aportar al proceso ejecutivo el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;contrato suscrito entre las partes responsables del convenio &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;comercial. ii) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;deje sin efectos los actos procesales ejecutados. iii) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;vincule al gestor del tr\u00e1mite de env\u00edo de los &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;productos. iv) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;levante las medias cautelares decretadas y se retire la demanda en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;su contra. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Sostuvo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que, ante el Juzgado Segundo Civil del Circuito de Buenaventura, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;cursa proceso ejecutivo no. 2021-00014-00, de la Sociedad Agencia de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Carga Alessandra\u00b4s Freich Forwarder S.A.S. contra la empresa &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Quality Logistics Services S.A.S. donde se libr\u00f3 mandamiento &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de pago conforme las facturas no. 1297 y 1298. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Se\u00f1al\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que la demandada ejecut\u00f3 los t\u00edtulos valores con &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ocasi\u00f3n a la demora de los contenedores que trasportaban los &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;productos adquiridos por ella. Critic\u00f3 que el cobro debi\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;realizarse al gestor del tramit\u00e9 de env\u00edo y no a ella, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pues, su responsabilidad es notificar el estado de las mercanc\u00edas. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;El &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Juzgado defendi\u00f3 su actuaci\u00f3n, remiti\u00f3 copia &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;del expediente criticado e hizo un relato de los pormenores del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tr\u00e1mite procesal. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;El &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;a &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;quo desestim\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;improcedente el amparo por falta &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;subsidiariedad. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>4. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;La &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;auspiciante impugn\u00f3 el fallo de primera instancia con base en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;los mismos asertos iniciales e indic\u00f3 que no tiene reparos &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sobre las actuaciones realizadas por el Juzgado vinculado, sino que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;considera el quebrantamiento de sus derechos fundamentales, ante el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;cobro judicial realizado por la empresa Agencia De Carga Alessandr\u00e1s &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Feigg Forwarder S.A.S. sin tener en cuenta al directo responsable de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la demora en la entrega de la mercanc\u00eda comprada, por lo que, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;reiter\u00f3 las pretensiones. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>CONSIDERACIONES &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>El &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;fallo de tutela de primera instancia debe confirmarse por falta del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;presupuesto de subsidiariedad previsto en el art\u00edculo 6\u00ba, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;numeral 1\u00ba del Decreto 2591 de 1991, que le permita al Juez &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Constitucional proceder al estudio de fondo del caso planteado. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>En &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el presente asunto, es relevante se\u00f1alar que la actora tuvo a &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;disposici\u00f3n mecanismos de defensa que no utiliz\u00f3, como &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;era las excepciones de m\u00e9rito o el recurso de reposici\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;contra el auto que libro mandamiento pago, con los que pudo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;controvertir la postura asumida por la accionada en el proceso &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ejecutivo no. 2021-00014 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;y que ahora discute en el presente amparo constitucional. De ah\u00ed &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que si la interesada no atac\u00f3 por v\u00eda ordinaria su &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;inconformidad y dej\u00f3 vencer el t\u00e9rmino para proponer &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;las defensas que aqu\u00ed trajo, no puede ahora utilizar la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tutela como medio alternativo. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Lo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;anterior se constata de lo revisado en el expediente ejecutivo, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;donde se determina con claridad que notificado el mandamiento de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pago (2 jun. 2021) al correo \u00abfinanzas@gls.com\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la actora ejerci\u00f3 su derecho de defensa de forma &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;extempor\u00e1nea, es decir, con posterioridad a la orden que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dispuso seguir adelante con la ejecuci\u00f3n (9 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;agosto 2021), &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;como lo solvent\u00f3 el juez en auto que rechaz\u00f3 el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;recurso de alzada (14 dic. 2021). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>En &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;resumen, no &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;es posible, por esta v\u00eda, pretender enmendar la negligente y &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;despreocupada postura procesal que adopt\u00f3 el accionante en su &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;momento. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>As\u00ed &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;las cosas, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el car\u00e1cter excepcional de la acci\u00f3n de tutela, no se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;puede acudir a ella en reemplazo de los medios normales de defensa o &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;para plantear una controversia que se debi\u00f3 surtir en las &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;instancias correspondientes. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;las razones anotadas, dada la insatisfacci\u00f3n de los &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;lineamientos de subsidiariedad que enmarca la acci\u00f3n de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tutela, no &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;queda alternativa diferente en confirmar el fallo objetado. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>DECISI\u00d3N &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>En &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;m\u00e9rito de lo expuesto, la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en Sala &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de Casaci\u00f3n Civil, administrando justicia en nombre de la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rep\u00fablica y por autoridad de la ley, resuelve: CONFIRMAR &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pronunciamiento de naturaleza, procedencia y fecha conocidas. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Inf\u00f3rmese &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;a las partes e intervinientes por el medio m\u00e1s expedito y &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;rem\u00edtase el expediente a la Corte Constitucional para su &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;eventual revisi\u00f3n. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>NOTIF\u00cdQUESE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Y C\u00daMPLASE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>HILDA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;GONZ\u00c1LEZ NEIRA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Presidente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de Sala &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>MARTHA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;PATRICIA GUZM\u00c1N \u00c1LVAREZ &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>AROLDO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;WILSON QUIROZ MONSALVO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>LUIS &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ALONSO RICO PUERTA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>OCTAVIO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AUGUSTO TEJEIRO DUQUE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>FRANCISCO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;TERNERA BARRIOS &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>STC7651-2022 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00b0 76111-22-13-001-2022-00056-01 &nbsp; &nbsp; OCTAVIO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AUGUSTO TEJEIRO DUQUE &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Magistrado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ponente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; STC7651-2022 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n\u00ba 76111-22-13-000-2022-00056-01 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-junio-2022"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64594","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=64594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}