13. In actions of unlawful detainer or of redemption, the competent judge shall be the one of the place where the thing in litigation is situate, or the one of the domicile of the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff.

14. In summary proceedings to acquire possession of property the competent judge shall be the one of the place where the property is situate, or where the testamentary or intestate proceedings are instituted, or that of the last domicile of the deceased.

15. In summary proceedings to retain or recover possesion of property, to prevent the construction of a new work, or to secure the demolition or strengthening of a work, building, or tree about to collapse or fall, and in proceedings to settle boundaries, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be the one of the place in which the thing which is the object of the summary proceedings or settlement of boundaries is situated.

16. In proceedings for adoption or arrogation the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be the one of the domicile of the adopter or arrogator.

17. In the selection and appointment of guardians of persons and property, and excuses from accepting them, jurisdiction is vested in the judge of the domicile of the father or mother whose death gives rise to the appointment, and, in their default, that of the minor or incapacitated person, or that of any of the places where they may have real estate.

18. In the appointment and selection of guardians ad litem, jurisdiction is vested in the judge of the place where the minors or incapacitated persons have their domicile or that of the place where the action is to be instituted.

tion of the principal action, or as an issue of the same, and of cases of implied or express submission of the parties, to which are applicable articles 55 and 56, respectively, the competency to take cognizance of said attachments must be determined by rule 12 of article 63 of the said law. Consequently, if a cautionary attachment is requested before the institution of the principal action, and the submission has not been alleged, the judge of the district in which the property is situated shall be competent to take cognizance of the proceedings, no matter what judge may be competent to take cognizance of the action which may subsequently be instituted.--Decision of March 15, 1887.

a Interdicto de adquirir. These proceedings lie when no one possesses the property, whose possession is desired, as an owner or usufructuary, because the person possessing the same can not be deprived of his possession without having his right heard and determined in court; and it is furthermore necessary that a copy of the will giving him a right thereto be presented, or of the designation of heirship by virtue of which he claims the same.-Alcubilla, Diccionario de la Administración española.

Interdictos de retener y recobrar were different according to the law of 1855; but the present law has abolished the difference of procedure between the same. It lies when the person in possession of the thing has been disturbed therein by acts which show the intention of disturbing him or depriving him of possession, or when he has already been deprived thereof.-Alcubilla, Diccionario de la Administración española,

The Civil Code has abolished the difference between adoption and arrogation observed in the Roman law and which was retained in the Spanish laws, as may be seen in Law 7, Title VII, Partida Fourth, and in article 1830 of this law.

The Civil Code, besides having abolished the difference between guardianship of person and guardianship of property (tutela y curaduria), has made the provisions of rules 17 to 19 inapplicable by reason of having assigned the appointment and selection, as well as the removal and excuses of the same, to the family council. (Articles 239, 240, and 249.)

19. In actions based upon the conduct of the guardianship of person or property, in the resignations therefrom after having begun to perform the duties thereof, and in actions to remove suspicious guardians, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be that of the place where the principal part of the guardianship has been administered, or that of the domicile of the minor.

20. In proceedings for the custody of persons, jurisdiction shall be vested in the judge taking cognizance of the main action or cause which gave rise to said proceedings.

When there is no prior action pending, the competent judge shall be the one of the domicile of the person sought to be placed in custody. When special circumstances so require, the municipal judge of the place where the person sought to be placed in custody is found, may order such custody temporarily, and shall forward a statement of his action to the competent judge of first instance, subjecting the person in custody to the orders of said court."

21. In proceedings for maintenance, when collaterally requested in an action, or in proceedings for the custody of a person, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be that of the place of residence of the person of whom said maintenance is requested."

22. In proceedings for the reduction to public instruments of wills, codicils or bequests made verbally, or documents executed without the intervention of a notary public, and in proceedings instituted for the opening of sealed wills or codicils, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be that of the place where said documents may have been executed.

23. In authorizations for the sale of property of minors or incapacitated persons, the competent judge shall be that of the place where the property may be situated, or that of the domicile of the persons to whom it belongs.

24. In proceedings for the administration of the property of an absentee, whose whereabouts is unknown, jurisdiction is vested in the judge of the last place of residence of said absentee within Spanish territory.

25. In proceedings to dispense with the law, and in proceedings for authority to appear in an action, when required by law, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be the one of the domicile of the person requesting it.

If the person has been placed in charge of his mother, the judge of the domicile of the latter shall be competent to determine the custody and support of the minor.-Decision of July 2, 1878.

(a) Not this rule, but the first one of article 62 is applicable, to a suit for the reduction or release from the payment of maintenance, paid by virtue of a judgment. Decision of February 28, 1878.

(b) This rule does not make any distinction between a voluntary and contentious proceeding, nor between temporary and definite support.-Decision of October 29, 1879.

This rule is modifed by article 164 of the Civil Code, according to which the authorization to the father, or to the mother, in a proper case, to alienate or encumber the property of the child for proper causes of profit or necessity, and whose usufruct or management they enjoy, must be granted by the judge of the domicile. The authorization to the guardian to alienate or encumber property which constitutes the capital of the minors or incapacitated persons, etc., must at the present time be granted by the family council. (Civil Code, articles 269, 270, and 271.)

26. In proceedings to perpetuate testimony the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be that of the place where the facts occurred, or the one where the witnesses who are to testify may be, even accidentally. When these proceedings relate to the actual condition of real estate, the judge of competent jurisdiction shall be the one of the place where it may be situate.

27. In proceedings for surveying, for partition of foros, and for possession of property, by an act of voluntary jurisdiction, the competent judge shall be that of the place where the greater portion of the estate is situated.

ART. 64. The domicile of married women not legally separated from their husbands is that of their husbands.'

That of the children under the parental authority is the residence of their parents.

That of minors or incapacitated persons subject to guardianship is the residence of their guardians."

ART. 65. The legal domicile of merchants, in all that relates to commercial acts and contracts and the consequences thereof, shall be the town where their principal place of business is located.

Persons who have commercial establishments situated in different judicial districts may be made defendants in personal action in the place where their principal establishment is located or where the obligation was incurred, at the election of the plaintiff.

ART. 66. The domicile of civil and commercial corporations shall be the town designated as such in the articles of incorporation or in their by-laws.4

Should this circumstance not be apparent the provisions applicable to merchants shall be observed.

Joint-stock companies are excepted from the provisions contained in the foregoing articles in all that relates to litigation between the members, with regard to whom the general provisions of this law shall be observed.

ART. 67. The legal domicile of employees shall be the town where they discharged the duties of their employment. When the character of their employment is such as to require them to be traveling continuously from place to place, their domicile shall be considered the place where they most frequently reside.

ART. 68. The legal domicile of soldiers in active service shall be that of the town in which the corps to which they belong may be at the time when service of summons is made.

ART. 69. In cases in which the designation of the domicile is necessary in order to determine jurisdiction, if the defendant has no domicile in the islands of Cuba or Porto Rico, jurisdiction is vested in the judge where said defendant resides.

Those who have no fixed domicile or residence may be sued in the place where they may be, or in their last place of residence, at the election of the plaintiff.

a Emphyteutic rents.-Schm., C. L., 309.

The application of this rule is not affected by the fact that the wife resides in a town different from that of the residence of the husband, nor that she is registered in said town.-Decision of October 30, 1878.

See notes to rules 17 and 19 of article 63.

The fact of the establishment of a branch in a place not the domicile of the company, according to the articles of incorporation, does not affect said domicile. Decision of June 4, 1883.

ART. 70. The foregoing jurisdictional provisions shall be applicable to foreigners who may seek the aid of the Spanish courts in acts of voluntary jurisdiction, or who appear in an action as plaintiffs or defendants against Spaniards or against other foreigners, when the Spanish jurisdiction is authorized according to the laws of the Kingdom or by treaties with other powers.

ART. 71. The rules established in the foregoing articles shall be understood without prejudice to the provisions of law in special

cases.

SECTION III.-QUESTIONS OF COMPETENCY.

ART. 72. Questions of competency may be raised by inhibition or declinature.

The inhibition shall be presented to the judge or court considered competent, requesting that a writ be issued forbidding the court not considered as having jurisdiction to proceed in the cause and ordering it to transmit the record.

The declinature shall be submitted to the judge or court considered incompetent, requesting that he or it cease to act in the matter and to transmit the record to the judge or court considered competent."

ART. 73. The inhibition and the declinature may be interposed by the parties cited to appear before the incompetent judge, or by those who may be the legitimate parties in the action brought."

ART. 74. In no case shall questions of competency in civil matters be raised by the court on its own motion; but the judge who considers himself incompetent in the matter may abstain from taking cognizance thereof, after consulting with the department of public prosecution, admonishing the parties to submit their questions to the proper court.

This ruling of the court may be appealed from for review and for a stay of proceedings.

ART. 75. The litigant who has submitted himself expressly or impliedly to the court or judge before whom the matter is brought, can not interpose an inhibition or a declinature.

It is not sufficient to allege incompetency, but it is necessary to formally raise the question, and if this is not done the benefit of number 6 of article 1693 of the law in force can not be taken advantage of in order to base thereon an appeal for annulment of judgment. Decision of October 26, 1861.

When the differences between two judges do not involve any question of jurisdiction, but only the interpretation of a legal text, it is not a question of competency, and the parties may make use of their right before whom they wish and in the proper manner.-Decision of November 14, 1884.

In order that there may be a question of competency it is necessary that two judges allege that they desire to take cognizance of the same matter, believing themselves competent to do so; and this is not the case when each of the judges agrees that the cognizance of the case brought before him pertains to his colleague and they dispute only the validity of the attachment decreed by one of them with full powers in the suit which he is hearing.-Decision of July 12, 1887.

In civil matters questions of competency may be raised only by persons who appear as litigants, either having brought the actions or being defendants therein. Decision of August 30, 1866.

ART. 76. Neither can questions of competency be raised in judicial matters which have been closed by a final ruling or judgment.

ART. 77. He who interposes one of the pleas mentioned in article 72 can not abandon it and seek the other plea, nor take advantage of both simultaneously or successively, but must submit to the determination of the plea he may have preferred.

ART. 78. He who raises a question of competency by either of the pleas above mentioned, shall state in his plea that he has not interposed the other one.

If the contrary shall appear, he shall be taxed the costs of the issue, even though the question of competency be decided in his favor."

ART. 79. The practice prescribed for dilatory exceptions shall be followed in declinatures as prescribed in article 536.

The practice prescribed in the following articles shall be applicable to inhibitions.

ART. 80. The following may hear and determine questions of competency raised by the parties:

1. Municipal courts.

2. Courts of first instance.

3. Audiencias.

ART. 81. No judge or court can raise the question of the competency of his next hierarchical superior, but he may state, at the instance of the party and after hearing the department of public prosecution, his reasons for believing that the cognizance of the matter pertains to him.

The superior court or judge shall deliver the statement and data to the representative of the department of public prosecution, for a report thereon, and without further proceedings shall decide within three days what he or it may consider proper, communicating the decision to the lower court for its guidance.

ART. 82. When any judge or court is taking cognizance of a matter, jurisdiction over which belongs to his or its immediate hierarchical superior or to the supreme court, the latter shall confine themselves to order the former, also at the instance of a party, and after hearing the department of public prosecution, to abstain from proceeding in the matter and to forward the record to the same.

ART. 83. In the cases of the two foregoing articles, the judges and courts shall always comply with the order of their next hierarchical superior, without further remedy, when the latter is the supreme From the decisions of the audiencias, but without prejudice to their fulfillment, the parties who may consider themselves injured and the department of public prosecution, may appeal within eight

court.

a Although, according to this article, questions of competency can not be raised in judicial matters which have been closed by a final ruling or judgment, when the municipal judge who rendered the some received the writ of inhibition after doing so, and the defendant had requested it on the same day on which he was cited to appear, this article is not applicable, because the delay in the matter on account of said writ can not prejudice him.-Decision of January 10, 1883.

After a cautionary attachment has been ratified without the debtor having made use of his right, no question of competency can be raised with regard to the attachment, it being a closed judicial matter.-Decision of March 3, 1885.

When a declinature has been unsuccessfully interposed in an issue of poverty, an inhibition can not afterwards be interposed in the main action, and the person doing so must be taxed the costs in accordance with the provisions of this article. Decision of December 31, 1891.