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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning behind a judgment issued by a trial-level judge in Ecuador within ordinary civil proceeding No. 01333-2023-10799, concerning the extraordinary acquisitive prescription of ownership. The study is grounded in the constitutional importance of judicial reasoning as a guarantee of due process, the right to a defense, and effective judicial protection. Through an analysis of the judicial argumentation, the study examined the judgment's structure, the narrative of facts, the legal issue, the normative and factual questions, the *ratio decidendi*, the decision itself, and its coherence with the stated grounds. Additionally, criteria regarding sufficient and correct reasoning were applied. The findings indicate that while the judgment is not entirely devoid of grounds, it suffers from normative and factual insufficiency, "apparent reasoning" due to decisional incoherence, and partial legal irrelevance. The study s contribution lies in highlighting the need to strengthen the quality of argumentation in trial-level judicial decisions.