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

Abstract

Abstract: This study examines compliance with the constitutional guarantee regarding the reasoning of judicial decisions at the trial court level in Ecuador. The research is grounded in Article 76, numeral 7, letter (l) of the Constitution of the Republic, which mandates that judges justify their decisions by clearly setting forth the factual background, the legal grounds, and the relevance of their application to the dispute. Employing a qualitative methodology with an analytical-synthetic approach, the research analyzes the quality of the argumentation in civil case No. 23331-2021-XXXXX concerning the extraordinary acquisitive prescription of ownership. The evaluation is conducted based on the standard of sufficiency established by the Constitutional Court in Judgment 1158-17-EP/21 a technical tool used to verify the reasonableness, logic, and comprehensibility of the ruling, while ruling out defects such as non-existent, insufficient, or merely apparent reasoning. The judge coherently linked expert and testimonial evidence with the applicable legal provisions, thereby upholding legal certainty and property rights. The study concludes that proper reasoning legitimizes the judicial function and enables oversight.