New Details About the Montes Vigil Family of Asturias (Part 3 of 4)

In the third part of the lawsuit between Diego de Argüelles (plaintiff) and Bartolomé de Vigil (defendant), the two parties reiterated their claims on the estate. We learn additional details about the Montes Vigil family’s deaths and other information that confirms the relationships among the various parties to the lawsuit. In summary:

• Bartolomé de Vigil claimed that he was the guardian only for Lucas (or did he mean Alonso?) and Juan Montes Vigil, two of the five children of Juan Montes Vigil. He also stated that three of the children had died only a few days after their parents had died. He didn’t name them, but they must have been Lucas, Mencía and Isabel, as earlier the document stated these were the ones who had died.

• He explained that since Juan Montes Vigil (the elder) and his wife had died during the worst part of the plague, nobody had been able to enter their home, leading to loss of some of their property. He also claimed that Juan Montes Vigil had operated his fabric business by trading on credit and that the family was relatively poor, with significant debts and few physical assets.

• He stated that one of the two children under his care had died (which must have been Alonso), that the other (Juan) continued to live in his care, and that he had given him everything that he needed, including providing him with an education.

• Diego de Argüelles was revealed to be the son of Juan de Argüelles, who was the son of Lope de Argüelles and his first wife, María de Váldez. We know this is the same Juan de Argüelles mentioned in the will of Lope de Argüelles and María de Estrada because the will specified that the couple’s estate was enhanced by one-third (mejora de tercio y quinto) in favor of the eldest son, Juan. It is clear from the lawsuit that Juan is now deceased and the mejora has passed to his son Diego. The mejora de tercio y quinto was a relatively common practice among large wealthy families. It enabled the majority of the estate to be granted to a single heir rather than divided equally among all the heirs, thus preserving the value of the estate.

• Juan de Vigil de Valdés and his wife María de Belmonte, granddaughter of María de Estrada, filed their own third-party suit against Diego de Argüelles, claiming that because María de Estrada had already enhanced her estate in his favor, he was prohibited from making any further claims on her estate. Therefore, they asked the audiencia to nullify Diego de Argüelles’ claims and instead award the assets to María de Estrada and all of her heirs.

Read on for additional details in the third part of the lawsuit.

---

And Hernando Arias, as the substitute of the said Luis de Astudillo, presented a petition before our president and oidores, in which he stated that the sentence given in this case by our president and oidores was final and should be declared as such. And in the event that it was not deemed final, it should be confirmed as just and lawfully pronounced. He argued that he had the right to pursue the said lawsuit, and that his grandmother, Doña María de Estrada, had the right to transfer it to him. Furthermore, he claimed that the defendant had no right to appropriate the inherited property against the rights of his minors and that there were many assets that could have been inventoried. He stated that Juan Montes de Vega had no outstanding debts except for a thousand reales and, therefore, the defendant could not have paid more. Accordingly, he requested and appealed to us to declare the said sentence as final or to confirm it, and he asked for justice.

Upon this, it was ordered to notify the defendant, and Pedro González de Villalón, as the substitute of Francisco de Oya, presented a petition for appeal on behalf of Bartolomé de Vigil before our president and oidores. He requested that everything be done according to his previous petitions, based on the following reasons.

First, because of the general arguments and those previously made by the defendant, which he affirmed, and because the plaintiff had no right to what was being claimed. He stated that the defendant had only acted as a guardian for Lucas and Juan Montes, two of the five children left by Juan Montes de Vega. As their guardian, he had made a legitimate inventory of the assets belonging to the said children from their deceased parents, which he had been prepared to present at the appropriate time. In this inventory, he had included all the movable assets, rights, and actions left by their parents without hiding anything.

He also argued that since Juan Montes and his wife had died during the plague, during the worst of it, and due to the circumstances, most of their beds and clothes had been lost. Since they had died in a very small village and there was no authority or person willing to enter their house, many assets and documents were lost. He claimed that the defendant was not obligated to account for those losses. Additionally, he pointed out that Juan Montes was a poor man with little property, and his business consisted of trading on credit rather than owning livestock farms or other substantial assets. If he had any livestock, they were not his, but belonged to others. He further claimed that at the time of Juan Montes’ death, he owed a large sum of money to Alonso de Bascones, a merchant from Medina de Rioseco, and other creditors, based on valid obligations and guarantees. The defendant had paid more than five hundred ducats from his own assets to prevent further losses due to legal costs and enforcement actions.

Furthermore, the defendant had taken care of the two minors, providing them with food and everything they needed for their sustenance, but one of them died, and the other continued living in his house. He had given him everything he needed and had taught him to read, write and count, spending a great sum of money. He also asserted that three of the minors, siblings of those under his care, had unfortunately died only a few days after their father. Meanwhile, the plaintiff, calling his brother, had entered and taken possession of all their real estate and other assets left by their parents, continuing to hold those assets, even carrying off the benefits of their property without the defendant having received anything. He argued that he had not been able to recover the amounts he had paid for the deceased's debts, and that because of not paying, this lawsuit was brought against him.

He claimed that the witnesses in the case were biased, as they were close relatives and friends of the plaintiff and capital enemies of the defendant. Therefore, he requested and appealed to us that the sentence be revoked and that everything be resolved in accordance with his arguments. Judicial documents were ordered sent to the plaintiff, who was notified, and the case was concluded, with both parties required to present their evidence within a specified period.

And in this state, García de Corral, in the name of Juan de Vigil Valdéz, as husband and joint person of Doña María de Belmonte, having knowledge of and opposing the said lawsuit, presented before our president and oidores a petition of opposition. In it, he stated that his party had learned of the lawsuit being handled in our royal audiencia between Diego de Argüelles and Bartolomé de Vigil concerning the accounting demanded from him for the guardianship and curatorship that had been under his charge for the children of Juan Montes, a resident of the Consejo of Siero. He opposed this lawsuit as a third-party opponent, with power and rightful claim on behalf of his party.

He stated that Diego de Argüelles should be denied what he sought because his (Juan’s) wife was the heir of Doña María de Estrada, her grandmother. Furthermore, he argued that Doña María de Estrada had many children, heirs, and descendants, among whom she had granted a mejora de tercio y quinto in favor of Juan de Argüelles, father of the plaintiff. Since she could not make any further mejora during her lifetime or after her death, the donation of her legitimate inheritance seemed to have  been granted in favor of the plaintiff. He argued that Doña María de Estrada was entitled to the inheritance from the children of Juan Montes and his wife because the assets had already become the property of Doña María, and she could not have alienated them in any way, nor could she have transferred them through a mejora in favor of the opposing party, as this would have deprived his party and the other co-heirs—grandchildren and descendants of Doña María—of their legitimate inheritance.

Furthermore, the donation upon which the plaintiff based his claim, supposedly authorized by a document, was not hers to give because it had been granted in the presence of Diego de Argüelles, son of Juan de Argüelles, who was the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was false, fabricated, and feigned, and he challenged it as such under civil law. He also argued that after the initial mejora, in addition to the inheritance to which the opposing party had succeeded as heir of his father, he had unlawfully taken possession of the assets and inheritance of Doña María de Estrada and those that rightfully belonged to her. Thus, no assets could be claimed through donation or any other means. Since these claims originated from Doña María, it was his party’s right to demand the accounting, and it was he and his fellow heirs who should receive it, not Diego de Argüelles.

For all these reasons, he petitioned and pleaded for the audiencia to admit his opposition and third-party claim, to annul and revoke the sentence previously issued in favor of Diego de Argüelles, to deny him everything he sought and claimed, ordering that regardless of the so-called donation, that we adjudicate to his party (María de Belmonte and her husband) the assets of the said minors as their rightful property and inheritance from her grandmother, alongside the other co-heirs. He requested that Diego de Argüelles be declared to have no claim or right to these assets and to be considered already compensated far beyond what he was entitled to. Consequently, he should not have had any standing to demand the said accounting. Finally, he requested full justice in the matter, swearing in good faith that he did not make the claim with malice and offering to provide necessary proof. Whereof, it was ordered that the judicial documents be sent to the plaintiff.

Continued in Part 4. Subscribe to the blog to receive email updates.