The Supreme Court accepted an appeal on the merits and gave rise to a restitutory injunction through which the owner of real state asked that the use of a passage adjacent to her property be restored and it belonged in common to all the neighbors. On this passage there was a transit easement that benefited the good in common and was established in the neighboring co-owners. The Court considered that the restitutory injunction is aimed at recovering the material possession of a registered real estate of which the plaintiff has been deprived. With a divided vote, the compensation for damages requested by the plaintiff was rejected, because the damages claimed were not proven.