Javier Sanchez explodes with the unexpected twist in the trial against Julius IglesiasMaría Edit Santos, mother of the son of Julio Iglesias: “there is Still war,”
The lawyer of the singer Julio Iglesias has filed an appeal against the ruling, made public on the 10th of July, in which the Court of First Instance number 13 in Valencia attributed the paternity of the valencian Javier Sanchez Santos , of 43 years.
As has informed the lawyer of the counterparty (the plaintiff), the defense of the singer has hastened the statutory period for filing an appeal that has already announced after meeting the judgment. In this pronouncement, the judge considered that the evidence that had been met in this case were sufficient to appreciate that paternity .
Among the signs he cited the refusal of the defendant “to enable the practice of the biological test”, despite the “no proof in the record that, at the time approximate to the conception of the plaintiff, there were certain contacts and treatment between the mother and the defendant.”
Those contacts occurred in July of 1975, in a festival hall located in the town of girona to Sant Feliu de Guixols, “and make it not implausible or far-fetched the possibility of having existed sex between them,” argued the magistrate.
executed before
Other signs were the testimony of the mother of the plaintiff, who brought during the trial, “concrete figures on the ownership, location and internal layout of the chalet” where Julio Iglesias was staying these days, and the “evidentísimo physical resemblance” between the singer and the plaintiff himself.
On this last point, the ruling notes that, “if it may well be the result of chance, however, it would be excessive and improbabilísima chance , taking the actor that strong resemblance and having been conceived precisely in the days approximate” in that her mother and Julio Iglesias agreed on the same party room, “his father was a third-party.”
The appeal of the lawyer of the singer continues in the wake of the application submitted by the Prosecutor’s office Provincial de Valencia on July 30, on the grounds that the matter had already been judged and that, therefore, only could be dismissal.
The Public prosecutor’s office argued that the mother, Maria Edite Santos, acted on behalf of his son, in previous legal claims of paternity which did not prosper, and that the plaintiff claimed in the appeal and filed the appeal and the amparo, “without the pretension to be different”.
“there is, therefore, true, or real change in the subjects of both processes, so that there is the identity of subjective required for the assessment of the res judicata material between them”, as noted by the Prosecution in its appeal.
