There is no such violation,that is causing the unconformity and the request about the consideration of the decision by German

Vega Miranda, who admitted that he had a verbal deal with Epitacio Martinez Velazquez, on a area of a field without actual proof to sustain their claim, confession that is detrimental to the sale because the sale has no effect. Certainly in the contested decision is that the effect of invalidity was supported by the other defendants joining in an improper manner the deed which revocation is demanded, the area of land that was material to adjudication in favor of the actor in the proceedings, arguing that the legal act of sale was held orally to the author of the succession, therefore, arbitrarily, incorporating their property to the deed mentioned. in accordance with Article 1305 of the Civil Procedure Code in force in the state. Hence, contrary to the concepts of violation sustained, the dismissal of the proof was right that the court of appeals did, because the expert advise is suitable evidence to prove the occupation of someone else's premises and the alteration of its boundaries. Consequently, there is no violation in the following statement : "GRIEVANCES IN THE APPEAL, IF ALLEGED ILLEGAL PROOF EVALUATION, IT MUST PRECISE THE VALUE OF EVIDENCE OF SUCH ." But that was fulfilled with the provisions of Article 196 of the under law and its existence was verified, because the truth is precisely that if the grievances are alleged lack of proper analysis of evidence.It was appropriate to revoke the decision of the appeal material and to resume meticulously the analysis addressed.

On the other hand the concepts of violation which claimed that the ruling dismissed the expertise in topography offered by the complainant and well off by the expert Armando Aguilar. The study of documents of the parties with precision measures, adjacencies and areas of land in conflict , reflecting the realization of technical work in surveying and referral system,in order to make the case sufficient to produce certainty regarding the event to prove, the requirements were in any form filled by the expert of the plaintiff. The expert notes that within the estate of eighteen thousand and sixty-three meters to nine inches square, the contractors of the deed in dispute included the portion of land forming part of the property that was owned by the author of the succession and subsequently accounted for awarding Mario Martinez Martinez, though this opinion is based in any way with exhaustive analysis, and especially, illustrative that would rely on the decision to issue the law because the expert failed to explain with solid proof the elements to support this conclusion. the appreciation, It is therefore insufficient the appointment of identification data, measurements and boundaries of the property described in the titles that present the parties have to justify the unlawful incorporation of an estate, since the opinion was not diligent and stopped explain the fundamentals that led the expert to give their concluciones, hence that the opinion was not considered suitable or appropriate to create conviction on the point of dissent.