Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning behind judgments issued by first instance judges in Ecuador, using cases of acquisitive prescription of ownership as a reference. The study is based on the premise that judicial reasoning constitutes an essential constitutional and procedural guarantee, linked to the right to due process and effective judicial protection. Methodological tools such as Atienza's framework and questionnaires on the adequacy and correctness of reasoning were applied, which made it possible to evaluate the argumentative quality of judicial decisions. The results show that the judgments analyzed meet the parameters of sufficient and correct reasoning, connecting facts, rules, and reasoning in a coherent manner, avoiding serious flaws such as inconsistency or insufficiency. Similarly, limitations were identified in the depth of reasoning, especially in the lack of jurisprudential and doctrinal references that strengthen institutional legitimacy. The research concludes that adequate reasoning strengthens legal certainty, public confidence, and the legitimacy of the judicial system, consolidating itself as an indispensable tool for preventing arbitrariness and guaranteeing substantive justice.