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

In the last part of the lawsuit, the royal audiencia rendered its final judgment in the case on September 17, 1610. It upheld the earlier ruling, condemning Bartolomé de Vigil to provide a full account and inventory of three-fifths of all assets of the Montes Vigil estate to Diego de Argüelles. Recall that Diego filed the original petition on May 4, 1602, so that means it took more than eight years to resolve the case! One wonders how Bartolomé could possibly deliver an accurate accounting of assets after so much time had passed. The third-party dispute brought by Juan de Vigil Valdéz and his wife, María de Belmonte was allowed to continue and in the meantime, Diego was given custody of any assets, which he was ordered to keep segregated. He was also prohibited from engaging in any transactions with the property until a final resolution was reached between the two parties.

The fact that two powerful and wealthy families, the Vigils and the Argüelles, spent such a great deal of time and money fighting over control of the Montes Vigil assets leads me to believe that the estate had significant value. Therefore, Bartolomé de Vigil’s statements about the elder Juan Montes Vigil being a poor man with few assets were false. Viewed through the lens of modern norms and laws regarding inheritance rights, the ruling appears incredibly unfair, depriving the younger Juan Montes Vigil of assets that had belonged to his parents. But the court’s decision appeared to conform to the laws of the time, and Diego managed to convince the court that he was the assignee of María de Estrada, acting in good faith on her behalf. Without reviewing all of the underlying testimony and evidence presented in the case, it is difficult to determine the legitimacy of his claim.

The year after the final resolution of the court case, Juan Montes Vigil reached the age of majority (25 years old) and received a license of passage to immigrate to New Spain. His parents and siblings were deceased, and Diego de Argüelles had assumed control of most of what remained of the Montes Vigil estate. Therefore, Juan likely felt the New World offered better prospects for his future.

Leave a comment below if you have thoughts on how the case was resolved!

---

And the said Pedro de la Vega, in the name of the said Diego de Argüelles, presented before our president and oidores another petition in which he stated that, since this lawsuit was concluded, in review, García del Corral, in the name of Juan de Vigil Valdéz, as the husband of María de Belmonte, had opposed this lawsuit and requested that evidence be admitted, asking for a review of the sentence and for certain assets to be given to him. He argued that such opposition should not impede the resolution of the lawsuit because, coming in as a third party, it should be taken in the state in which it was, and if he wanted to claim something by his own right, he had to do so through a new lawsuit without hindering the resolution of the present one.

For all these reasons he asked and appealed to us that denying the evidence and delays requested by the opposing party, we should order this lawsuit to be taken to the definitive chamber to determine, if necessary, for the plaintiff to offer guarantees of compliance with the law in this case, with said Juan Vigil and his wife. He asked for justice and asked that the court clerk bring the case to the chamber for provision (of a judgment).

This was notified and, having been seen by our president and oidores, and by reviewing writs of these judicial proceedings, they pronounced and ruled that Diego de Argüelles, upon providing sufficient and approved guarantees, would keep the disputed assets segregated and would not transfer them to any other person without the license and order of our president and oidores or another competent judge, and should receive them, and the lawsuit should proceed until its final resolution.

And on behalf of Juan de Vigil Valdéz, the ruling was appealed, alleging certain grievances, for which a judicial copy was ordered to be given. Within the established period, both parties, having been admitted to present evidence, submitted certain testimonies by witnesses and documents, which were published. Based on this, the lawsuit was concluded and reviewed by our president and oidores, who pronounced a final judgment between the said parties regarding the matter in question as follows.

In the lawsuit between Diego de Argüelles, a resident of the council of Siero, and Juan Pérez de Espinaredo, his legal representative, on one side, and Bartolomé de Vigil, a resident and regidor of the city of Oviedo, along with Ignacio de Fresno, his legal representative, and Juan de Vigil Valdéz, as the husband and joint person of María de Belmonte, his wife,  represented in this lawsuit by García de Corral, and Juan de Cenal de Vega in his absence and default, on the other side:

We find that the final judgment previously rendered in this lawsuit by some of the oidores of this royal audiencia of the King, Our Lord, for which Bartolomé de Vigil appealed—in regards to the condemnation of the above-mentioned and the said Juan de Cenal de Vega, to provide a full account to Diego de Argüelles by timely, legitimate inventory of three-fifths of all assets, rights, and claims that remained upon the death of Juan Montes and his wife, deceased within nine days as required with the execution order of this sentence— was a just and rightly pronounced ruling. Notwithstanding the reasons and grievances alleged against it, we must confirm and do confirm it.

And regarding the part of the ruling that stated that if the said sentence is not carried out and complied with, we defer to Diego de Argüelles damages in the amount of up to two thousand ducats, in light of the new evidence presented before us in this appeal stage, we revoke that part of the ruling, declaring it null and void. In the pursuit of justice, we reserve the right for proof of the damages after the accounts ordered between the parties have been completed.

We do not impose costs on either party. By this, our final judgment in this appellate stage, we pronounce and order: [Signed by] Licenciado Don Luis Abarca de Bolea, Licenciado Pedro de la Mora, and to be signed by Doctor Méndez de Puebla. This sentence, as inserted and incorporated above by our president and oidores, was rendered and pronounced in a public hearing in the city of Valladolid on the 17th day of September, 1610. Notification was sent to the legal representatives of the parties in person.

Now, before us, the representative of Bartolomé de Vigil appeared, and asked and appealed that we issue an execution order for the said final judgment, so that everything in it may be kept, complied with and enforced in accordance with our judgement. Which, upon review of our president and oidores, it was agreed that we should order the issuance of this execution order for you, and the said judges and justices in this matter, and we deemed it appropriate to do so.

Thus, we command that henceforth with this execution order or its duly signed copy, as required, by any representative of Bartolomé de Vigil, in your respective places and royal jurisdictions, you must comply with, enforce, and execute the ruling given in the lawsuit between the said parties regarding the matter in question, as pronounced by our president and oidores in review and appellate stage.

We order that it is fully complied with and executed in its entirety as stated therein, so that its provisions take full effect. You must not contravene or allow anyone to contravene it now or at any time, under penalty of our authority and a fine of fifty thousand maravedís.

This execution order is to be valid before any public notary who may be called upon for this purpose. It was issued in the city of Valladolid on the 22nd of September 1610.

[Signed by] Licenciado Pedro de la Mora, Licenciado Méndez de Puebla, Licenciado Don Luis Abarca de Bolea.