Original article: “Evidente ardid” y “manifiesto fraude legal”: Suprema da portazo a arriendo de 99 años sobre tierra mapuche

Supreme Court Declares 99-Year Lease on Mapuche Land as «Evident Trickery» and «Manifest Legal Fraud»

The Supreme Court has definitively resolved a decades-long legal dispute by declaring inadmissible the appeal regarding the legal validity of a lease for Mapuche territory, affirming the lower court’s ruling and labeling the contract as having its origin in a «vicious act» and an «evident trickery».

The decision, rendered unanimously by the Fourth Chamber, which included Judge Ricardo Blanco and Ministers Jessica González and Sylvia Pizarro, as well as attorneys Leonor Etcheberry and Irene Rojas, brings an end to the attempt to sustain a lease established in 1983 for a duration of 99 years.

The case involves a complex legal scenario surrounding a 4.03-hectare plot located in Maitenal, Rio Bueno commune. The plaintiff, P.E.G.P., owns this land which is part of a legally protected indigenous reserve. In August 1983, a lease was signed by S.M.C., extending until 2082.

Following the death of the original lessee in 1995, his daughter, who is also recognized as indigenous, continued as the lessee, which added another layer of discussion regarding the application of indigenous protection laws.

Upon reviewing the case, the lower court determined that the core issue lay in the validity of the contract in light of the laws in effect at the time of its signing and subsequent legislation. The court established that the applicable law in 1983, Law No. 17,729, contained an explicit prohibition against transferring these properties for a period of 20 years, with exceptions not applicable here.

Although this legal provision was later repealed by Law No. 19,253, its protective spirit persisted by also prohibiting leasing, lending, and ceding of indigenous lands under the new regulations. The ruling stressed that upholding the validity of this contract would mean legitimizing a legal fraud, as it aimed to circumvent the legal protections guarding these territories.

When examining the appeal, the Supreme Court carefully analyzed the recourse arguments presented and identified serious flaws. The court noted that the defense relied on the indigenous status of the original lessee, a claim that was not substantiated during the proceedings, and paradoxically argued that the plaintiff was aware of both the lessee’s characteristics and the existing legal prohibitions.

However, the justices found these arguments irrelevant to the final decision, as the fundamental reason for ruling in favor of the plaintiff lay in the indigenous nature of the land and the inherent limitations regarding its protection, transfer, and encumbrance. The Court reiterated that acts prohibited by law are null and without value, and cannot produce any legal effects, thus the plaintiff is not barred from filing for nullity.

The Supreme Court further emphasized its jurisdiction, recalling that its role is not to review the facts of the dispute unless a breach of evidentiary regulations has been reported, which was not the case here. The lower court properly identified the facts and applied the relevant legal provisions without legal error, making them unchangeable for the appellate court under Article 785 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Supreme Court: Defective Lease Agreement is an «Evident Trickery» and «Manifest Legal Fraud»

The Supreme Court characterized the original lease as an «evident trickery designed to evade imperative and public order legal norms, resulting in a manifest legal fraud.«

The justices supported the conclusion of the appeals court that stated the contract cannot persist as it is «defective from its spurious origin.«

They also established that defects in agreements regarding indigenous lands cannot be remedied by the passage of time or the parties’ will, due to the absolute restrictions affecting these properties.

This judicial rejection of the 99-year lease reaffirms the inviolability of protective legal norms and the obligation of courts to declare nullity ex officio when there is evidence of fraud against special legislation protecting indigenous property.

Below you can review the Supreme Court’s ruling: