Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Cynthia González Vera, Zusel Soto Vilchis, and Daniel Majewski del Castillo.
In this #ThesisFriday | May 16, 2025, the Semanario Judicial published 35 new rulings: 13 precedents and 22 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Chambers of the SCJN and the Collegiate Courts:
Abstracts
Digital registration: 2030391 / Thesis: 1st / J. 52/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The purpose of the Risk Atlas as a tool for protecting human rights.
The information obtained through this system serves as a framework for the development of public policies, programs, strategies, and procedures at all stages of comprehensive risk management. This means that this information must be taken into account in the formulation and implementation of civil protection programs, as well as in the planning and regulation of human settlements, which involves the authorization of building permits and licenses for land use, designation, or reservation.
Digital registration: 2030392 / Thesis: 1st/J. 53/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
It is unconstitutional for the period for calculating the statute of limitations in civil proceedings to begin when the defendant is served with the summons.
This is because it violates the principles of prompt and expeditious administration of justice by granting the plaintiff an unlimited period of time to fulfill the procedural obligations incumbent upon it prior to service of process; as well as the principle of legal certainty to the detriment of the defendant, who is left at the mercy of the plaintiff’s compliance with said procedural obligations for the statute of limitations to begin running.
Digital registration: 2030399 / Thesis: 1st/J. 57/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The time limits for asserting claims and defenses regarding the payment of all or part of the rent under a lease agreement, when a fortuitous event or force majeure occurs during its term [interpretation of Articles 1,162, 1,796 bis, 2,431, and 2,432 of the Civil Code for the Federal District (now Mexico City)].
In Mexico City, a tenant may request a reduction or waiver of rent for up to two months if an unforeseeable event or force majeure prevents them from using the property, either in whole or in part. This request must be made within 30 days, in accordance with Articles 2431, 2432, and 1796 Bis of the Civil Code. However, even if the tenant does not do so within that timeframe, they may invoke these circumstances as a defense in court if the impediment lasted longer than two months, since the judge must apply the doctrine of unforeseeability and assess whether there were extraordinary circumstances that affected the contract. Failing to act within the deadline does not mean that the original agreement is accepted, because the judge must seek a balance between the parties when events beyond their control occur.
Digital registration: 2030399 / Thesis: 1st/J. 54/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
When a transitional provision in a decree amending a law provides that certain amended provisions will continue to apply to proceedings initiated prior to the amendment, the courts may conduct a general review of their constitutionality.
When amending a legal framework, the legislature may provide in the transitional provisions of the relevant decree that certain provisions from the pre-amendment text remain applicable to specific matters. However, this does not shield them from the possibility that the relevant judicial authority may conduct a diffuse review of their constitutionality and, where appropriate, determine that they do not apply in a specific case. This is because the continued validity of those rules and their application to the cases provided for in the transitional provisions are contingent upon their compatibility with the standard of legality.
Digital registration: 2030393 / Thesis: 2nd/J. 17/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
Communications generated through various business tools that contain information from economic agents regarding activities and transactions related to their corporate purpose are not protected by the right to the privacy of private communications.
The concept of privacy implies that individuals have the right to enjoy a sphere of their lives that is protected from intrusion and the gaze of others, that concerns only them, and that provides them with the appropriate conditions for the expression of their individuality. With regard to the aforementioned Commission’s powers to verify compliance with competition law, communications generated through the various work tools provided by economic agents to their employees or to persons holding a position, mandate, or other legal title to carry out the activities and operations of their corporate purpose—which must be subject to compliance with the law—cannot be considered strictly private, but rather, at most, confidential information.
Digital registration: 2030389 / Thesis: (Region V) 4.2 C (11th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
When the beneficiary files a claim to request payment of death benefits under a policy, the statute of limitations for such a claim is five years, regardless of the type of transaction or line of business to which the claim pertains.
It is concluded that the two-year statute of limitations applies only when the claim concerns rights of a purely pecuniary nature. However, this does not apply when the claim concerns fundamental rights such as the right to life, which are of greater significance than those protected by the short-term statute of limitations. Therefore, if the policy is a package product that combines various types of coverage into a single contract, and the beneficiary requests payment of death benefits, the statute of limitations is five years, regardless of the type of insurance or transaction to which it pertains.
Digital registration number: 2030394 / Thesis: I.11o.C.36 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Where there is an express submission clause, territorial jurisdiction to hear a special mortgage proceeding lies with the court to which the parties have submitted in the document forming the basis of the action.
Pursuant to Articles 149(1), 151, and 152 of the aforementioned code, territorial jurisdiction may be extended provided that the litigating parties have expressly submitted to such jurisdiction, have clearly waived the jurisdiction granted to them by law, and have agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the judge to whom they have submitted. Therefore, even if an action in rem could arise from the agreement between the parties, the fact remains that they also expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of performance of the personal obligation.
Digital registration number: 2030395 / Thesis: I.11o.C.79 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
If the grounds for the appeal are well-founded but would have the effect of worsening the complainant’s situation or depriving her of what she already obtained in the original trial, they must be declared inoperative.
Pursuant to Article 77 of the Amparo Law, the purpose of the constitutional proceeding is to restore to the petitioner the enjoyment of the fundamental right that he or she believes has been violated by an act or omission of the authorities or by general regulations. This demonstrates that the amparo proceeding, as an extraordinary remedy, is intended to remedy the grievance or violation of fundamental rights suffered by the petitioner, not to worsen their situation in light of the act or omission of the authority against which they are bringing the claim.
Digital registration number: 2030400 / Thesis: XXI.2o.C.T.16 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
If the interpretation of the provisions contained in the general terms and conditions of the automobile insurance contract reveals ambiguity regarding who is responsible for providing formal notice of the release, the burden of proving such circumstances falls on the insurer.
If, when interpreting the terms of a vehicle insurance contract, there is ambiguity regarding who is responsible for notifying the insurer that the vehicle has been released by the authorities or for taking it to a repair shop for appraisal or repair, the burden of proof regarding these circumstances lies with the insurer. This is justified because, although the Insurance Contract Law does not provide for a supplementary rule, the insurance contract may be governed by the Commercial Code, which allows for the application of the Civil Code’s rules regarding contract interpretation. Thus, if the contract clauses are ambiguous, the insurer must bear the consequences for failing to be clear in its terms.
Digital record: 2030403 / Thesis: I.15o.C.18 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In oral commercial enforcement proceedings, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to accompany the court clerk when carrying out the procedure for issuing a demand for payment, attachment, and summons.
It is not essential for the plaintiff to be present during the proceedings; while their presence facilitates the process, a plaintiff who has decided not to exercise their right to accompany the court officer during the execution cannot be penalized with the forfeiture of their rights, since this is a right and not an obligation. In such cases, the judge, on his or her own initiative, must specify in the execution order the date and time so that, if the plaintiff so desires, he or she may go to the courthouse to accompany the court officer and so that they may travel together from the courthouse to the location of the proceeding, informing the plaintiff of the consequences of failing to appear.
Digital record: 2030404 / Thesis: I.15o.C.17 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In a commercial trial, it is the court’s responsibility to issue a summons; therefore, the plaintiff is not required to schedule an appointment with the court clerk to do so.
Pursuant to Article 1068 of the aforementioned code, personal service must be effected within three days of the date on which the process server receives the file. Therefore, in the event that personal service is ordered, it is the notifier’s obligation to receive the file or the notice and record it in the book authorized for that purpose, as well as to serve it within three days and return the file or notice, without the law requiring that notifiers maintain a schedule in which they schedule appointments with the litigants, even if this is done by custom or constitutes a judicial practice. Making the service of process contingent upon scheduling a prior appointment with the court clerk violates the right of access to justice.
Digital record: 2030414 / Thesis: X.C.6 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
An indirect appeal against the interlocutory ruling declaring the plea of lis pendens to be without merit in the commercial enforcement proceeding is inadmissible.
This is because the dismissal of the lis pendens objection is not an act that cannot be remedied, as it does not immediately and directly affect any fundamental right protected by the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States or by international treaties to which the Mexican State is a party, these being understood as those rights derived from provisions intended to govern protected interests beyond the scope of the proceedings, such as life, personal integrity, health, liberty, property, privacy, and dignity, among others.
Digital record: 2030418 / Thesis: XV.2.3 K (11th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Test to determine whether the requirement to prioritize the merits of the case over procedural matters has been met.
A test must be applied consisting of: a) analyzing the nature of the matter in relation to the parties (whether they belong to the public or private sector, or whether they belong to a vulnerable group); b) identifying the objective sought by the parties (whether it is to obtain benefits favorable to their interests or affects the rights of third parties); c) ensuring compliance with the essential procedural requirements; d) verifying compliance with procedural requirements; and e) analyzing the feasibility of enforcing the judgment’s effects.
Digital registration number: 2030420 / Thesis: I.11o.C.34 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
A preventive appeal is not admissible against a ruling dismissing a motion for revocation in an ordinary commercial proceeding.
A grammatical interpretation of Articles 1334 and 1335 of the Commercial Code reveals that no distinction is made between decisions that: (A) dismiss the appeal outright; or (B) rule on the merits of the appeal for revocation after it has been admitted. Nor was it specified that any appeal is inadmissible only against a decision rendered in the appeal for revocation after it has been admitted; for the last paragraph mentioned did not in any way exclude the scenario in which the appeal for revocation is dismissed on the grounds that it is inadmissible. This demonstrates the intent to preclude the admissibility of any ordinary appeal against the decision, in any of the aforementioned scenarios, that rules on the merits of the appeal for revocation.
Digital registration number: 2030421 / Thesis: I.11o.C.35 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The dismissal of an ordinary appeal in accordance with applicable law does not violate fundamental rights.
Although the parties, in accordance with the procedural rules governing the trial, have the right to challenge, during the course of the proceedings, any rulings they deem prejudicial to them, this does not extend to disregarding the law governing the proceedings in order to deem admissible an appeal against a ruling that is legally non-appealable. This does not deprive the parties of their rights of access to justice and of appeal, nor does it affect the essential formalities of the proceedings, since the inadmissibility of an appeal against a decision rendered through various ordinary means of defense does not result in the preclusion of the right to appeal.
Digital registration number: 2030422 / Thesis: I.11o.C.81 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Rulings issued by the appellate courts of the Mexico City Judiciary that conclude a proceeding must be issued by all the judges who make up the collegiate body.
Pursuant to Articles 46 and 55 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary of Mexico City, the Chambers of the Superior Court of Justice shall be specialized by subject matter and shall consist of three judges. Furthermore, they may act individually or as a panel. In family matters, the aforementioned Article 55 establishes that appeals filed against decisions rendered by judges in the same subject area shall be resolved collegially in the case of final judgments and decisions that conclude the proceedings, that is, by the three judges comprising the Family Chamber. This is to ensure that the appeals are reviewed by the Chamber as a collegiate body.
This publication was prepared by Cynthia González Vera, Zusel Soto Vilchis, and Daniel Majewski del Castillo.
