En esta noticia
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) left standing the ruling allowing the eviction of Raúl, an 83-year-old man who faces losing the apartment he lived in in Iztapalapa, Mexico City.
The dispute began with 54 months of unpaid rent, the equivalent of four and a half years of missed payments. Although the tenant turned to different courts in an effort to block the move, the court dismissed his appeal on Oct. 29, 2026, after 17 years as a tenant.
Why was the 83-year-old man in Iztapalapa ordered to be evicted?
The case began on April 14, 2007, when Raúl and the property owner signed a lease agreement for him to occupy the apartment. However, on Oct. 29, 2024, the landlord filed a lawsuit seeking to end the lease, recover the home, and collect the unpaid monthly rent.
According to the case record, the owner claimed 54 months of unpaid rent, plus 6% annual interest, unpaid utilities, damage to the property, and court costs.
On May 20, 2025, a civil court ruled the lease terminated and ordered the tenant to vacate and surrender the apartment within five days. It also ordered notice to be sent to the Mexico City Institute for Dignified Aging and the National Institute for Older Adults (Inapam) so they could intervene within their authority.
However, the information published about the case does not confirm that Raúl has handed over the property.
How did the case reach the Supreme Court?
After losing the case, Raúl appealed the ruling, but on Dec. 9, 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City upheld the judgment.
The man later filed a direct amparo to try to avoid eviction. However, on April 15, 2026, a panel of judges denied him federal constitutional protection. Among its arguments, it said being 83 years old did not by itself prove a vulnerable condition that would justify changing the ruling.
The defense then took the case to the SCJN through Direct Amparo in Review 4705/2026. On Oct. 29, 2026, the full court dismissed the appeal by six votes to three, leaving in place the ruling ordering the property returned.
Why did three justices vote against the decision?
The ruling was approved on the proposal of Justice Arístides Rodrigo Guerrero García. However, Justices María Estela Ríos González and Yasmín Esquivel Mossa, along with Justice Irving Espinosa Betanzo, voted against dismissing the appeal.
The three said the case deserved a constitutional review of courts’ duty to apply an aging perspective when an older adult faces the risk of losing their home.
Justice Ríos González said that perspective should not be limited to recognizing vulnerability because of age, but should translate into effective measures to protect fundamental rights, such as access to housing.