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

Abstract

Abstract: This research focuses on the issue of sufficient judicial reasoning. It evaluates the reasoning provided in a judgment regarding a *post-mortem* de facto union, issued by a Family, Women, Children, and Adolescents Judicial Unit in Ecuador, to determine whether the ruling meets the constitutional standards for reasoning required by due process. The analysis focused on assessing the quality of the legal and factual grounds cited by the judge when judicially declaring the existence of a de facto union following the death of one of the partners. The study employed a descriptive qualitative method, supported by an analysis of relevant legal, jurisprudential, and documentary sources. The results indicate that the judgment contains sufficient and adequate reasoning to support the judicial decision; however, it exhibits deficiencies regarding argumentative inconsistency and the inclusion of legal grounds that are only tangentially related to the dispute.