Availability of revision remedy in filiation cases after res judicataProcedencia del recurso de revisión en filiación tras cosa juzgada material

**FOURTH:** Ms. [Name1] brings a paternity investigation (investigación de paternidad) claim on behalf of her minor child [Placa1]. C. against Mr. [Name2], who in his answer, among other defenses, raised res judicata (cosa juzgada material), indicating that the plaintiff had already filed other proceedings to litigate the same issue. The judge deemed it proven that Ms. [Name1] had filed another paternity investigation proceeding against the defendant herein with the same claim sought herein, and in a final judgment (sentencia firme) issued at fourteen hundred hours on March twenty-second, two thousand two, the claim was dismissed. This Tribunal developed a stance on the issue of res judicata in filiation proceedings aimed at the effective protection of every person's constitutional right to know who their father is; numerous votes can be cited in that regard, among others, numbers 610-03 and 910-04 can be consulted. However, recently the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) took up the issue on the occasion of a constitutional consultation, and among the most important considerations for this matter, the following are transcribed: **"V.- RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHO ONE'S PARENTS ARE.** The fundamental right to know who one's parents are –especially when exercised together with the right to establish filiation ties– is connected to the principle of responsible parenthood stated in Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution when indicating that parents have obligations to their children –whether born within or outside of marriage–. Those obligations of the progenitors or procreators imply a series of personal and patrimonial rights vested in the procreated children for their adequate development and optimal upbringing, which the ordinary legislator must develop and establish. Responsible parenthood is also established by International Human Rights Law instruments; thus, Article XXX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provides, as relevant, that: *"Every person has the duty to assist, feed, educate, and shelter their minor children (…)"* , the Convention on the Rights of the Child in numeral 18, paragraph 1, rightly states that *"1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. Their basic concern shall be the best interests of the child."* For its part, numeral 16 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "Protocol of San Salvador" approved by Law No. 7907 of September 3, 1999, provides, as relevant, the following: *"Right of the Child. Every child, whatever their filiation, has the right to the protective measures required by their condition as a minor on the part of their family, society, and the State. Every child has the right to grow up under the shelter and responsibility of their parents (…)"* In sum, the fundamental right to know who one's parents are, when exercised concomitantly with the right to establish filiation relationships, and the procedural mechanisms of a legal nature to implement them constitute an instrument to make effective the principle of responsible parenthood stated both by the Political Constitution and the International Human Rights Law instruments, and which is also inherent to human dignity and to the constitutional and international imperatives of special protection, care, and assistance for minors due to their intrinsic condition of vulnerability (Articles 51 of the Political Constitution, 25, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 24, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 10, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). **VI.- APPARENT COLLISION BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KNOW WHO ONE'S PARENTS ARE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY EMBODIED BY RES JUDICATA.** While it is true that res judicata provides certainty and legal security to what is resolved in judicial courts (Article 42, paragraph 2, Constitutional), it must be considered that this latter principle apparently collides with the fundamental right enshrined in numeral 53, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution, that is, with the right to know the identity of the parents, which, eventually, activates or gives content to the concept of responsible parenthood. Indeed, ordinal 42, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution itself establishes, for reasons of material justice, a balance between the immutable or unmodifiable nature –for reasons of legal certainty– of res judicata and the justice demands of a litigant who has been affected by an unjustly won judgment (malice, fraud, procedural bad faith, violence, false evidence, or absence of definitive evidence) by contemplating the possibility of reopening a closed case through a final judgment passed with the authority of res judicata by means of the extraordinary review remedy (recurso extraordinario de revisión). Consequently, the original constituent power itself undertook to attenuate the rigor of the legal certainty that res judicata embodies, contemplating the possibility of reopening an already adjudicated proceeding through the filing of an extraordinary review remedy according to the grounds established by the infra-constitutional legal system or the ordinary legislator, in order to thereby modify or annul an inequitable judgment and ensure that material justice prevails... **VIII.- UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BY OMISSION OF ARTICLE 98 BIS, SUBSECTION M), OF THE FAMILY CODE. OVERCOMING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THROUGH THE DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 42, SECOND PARAGRAPH, OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION.** Although this Chamber observes that Article 98 bis, subsection m), of the Family Code, added by Law No. 8101 of April 16, 2001, enshrines the institution of res judicata, it is found to be remiss, since it makes no provision regarding the extraordinary review remedy, which, in turn, is enshrined in Constitutional numeral 42, as indicated. This normative gap is particularly serious given the exhaustive nature of means of challenge. By virtue of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the omission contained in said norm can be filled through a systematic interpretation and, above all, by resorting to the direct and immediate application of Article 42 of the Political Constitution. Thus, the foregoing means that any party interested in reopening a case in which the paternity of a person has been investigated may appeal to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), citing as grounds for the remedy, Article 619, subsection 1), of the Civil Procedure Code, insofar as it provides the following: *"Article 619.- Origin and grounds. The review remedy shall proceed only against a final judgment with the authority and effect of res judicata, in the following cases: 1) If the party requesting it demonstrates that, due to force majeure preventing them, or due to the act of the opposing party, they did not recuse the judge or could not present any document or other type of evidence, or appear at the act where any of it was adduced; such that in either case there was defenselessness and it was not possible during the course of the proceeding to request rectification of the defect. (…)."* Under this understanding, if filiation or paternity was litigated in a prior proceeding, a judgment having been issued with the authority and effect of res judicata, and it was impossible for the plaintiff, due to the state of development of technique and science, to have genetic marker evidence or some cause of force majeure prevented it, nothing precludes the possibility of filing an extraordinary review remedy before the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice so that the nullity of the final judgment is decreed. " ( see **Res. No. 2007-011158. CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at fourteen hours fifty-two minutes on August first, two thousand seven). The importance and transcendence of the previous vote for the specific case justify its extensive transcription. That pronouncement is binding erga omnes (doctrine of Article 11 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law) and therefore the person interested in litigating the filiation issue again when it has already been adjudicated in a prior proceeding must necessarily resort to the review proceeding. This Tribunal, in compliance with the constitutional precedent, has already so ordered recently: " Secondly, if the judgment is now final and, in accordance with recent constitutional case law, produces res judicata, the proceeding that must be resorted to is the review proceeding and not the present one, in accordance with the text of Article 619 of the Civil Procedure Code and the case law that has been illustrating the specific issue of due process. It is imperative, then, to confirm the appealed resolution" (see VOTE NUMBER 1053 - 07. FAMILY TRIBUNAL.- San José, at eight hours twenty minutes on August eighth, two thousand seven). Under these conditions, the grievances regarding the manner in which the res judicata defense was resolved are not admissible." The fundamental right to know who one's parents are—especially when exercised together with the right to establish filiation ties—is connected to the principle of responsible parenthood set forth in Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Political Constitution, which states that parents have obligations toward their children—both those born within and outside of marriage. Those obligations of the progenitors or procreators entail a series of personal and patrimonial rights vested in the procreated children for their proper development and optimal upbringing, which the ordinary legislator must develop and establish. Responsible parenthood is also established by international human rights instruments; thus, Article XXX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provides, as pertinent, that: *“Every person has the duty to assist, feed, educate, and shelter his minor children (…)”* , the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Article 18, paragraph 1, rightly points out that *“1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, shall have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. Their basic concern shall be the best interests of the child.”* In turn, Article 16 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "Protocol of San Salvador," approved by Law No. 7907 of September 3, 1999, provides, as pertinent, the following: *“Rights of the Child. Every child, regardless of parentage, has the right to the protective measures required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. Every child has the right to grow up under the shelter and responsibility of his parents (…).”* In short, the fundamental right to know who one's parents are, when exercised concomitantly with the right to establish filiation relationships, and the procedural mechanisms of a legal nature to enforce them, constitute an instrument to give effect to the principle of responsible parenthood enunciated both by the Political Constitution and by international human rights instruments and which is also inherent to human dignity and to the constitutional and international imperatives of special protection, care, and assistance for minors due to their intrinsic condition of vulnerability (Article 51 of the Political Constitution, Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 24, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

**VI.- APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KNOW WHO ONE'S PARENTS ARE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY EMBODIED BY RES JUDICATA.** While it is true that substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material) vests what has been resolved in judicial proceedings with certainty and legal certainty (Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Constitution), it must be taken into consideration that this latter principle appears to come into conflict with the fundamental right enshrined in Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution, that is, the right to know the identity of one's parents, which, eventually, enforces or gives content to the concept of responsible parenthood. Indeed, Article 42, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution itself establishes, for reasons of material justice, a balance between the immutable or unmodifiable character—for reasons of legal certainty—of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material) and the justice requirements of a party who has been affected by a judgment won unjustly (fraud (dolo), deceit, procedural bad faith, violence, false evidence or absence of definitive evidence) by contemplating the possibility of reopening a concluded case through a judgment having the authority of res judicata (cosa juzgada) by means of the extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión). Consequently, the original constituent power itself undertook to mitigate the rigor of the legal certainty embodied by substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), contemplating the possibility of reopening an already adjudicated proceeding through the filing of an extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) according to the grounds established by the infra-constitutional legal system or the ordinary legislator, in order to thereby modify or annul an inequitable judgment and ensure that material justice prevails...

**VIII.- UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BY OMISSION OF ARTICLE 98 BIS, SUBSECTION M), OF THE FAMILY CODE. OVERCOMING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THROUGH THE DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 42, SECOND PARAGRAPH, OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION.** Although this Chamber observes that Article 98 bis, subsection m), of the Family Code, added by Law No. 8101 of April 16, 2001, enshrines the institution of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), it is nevertheless silent, in that it provides nothing regarding the extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión), which, in turn, is enshrined in Article 42 of the Constitution, as indicated. That regulatory gap is particularly serious given the exhaustive (taxativo) nature of the means of appeal. By virtue of the foregoing, this Court considers that the omission contained in said provision can be filled through a systematic interpretation and, above all, by resorting to the direct and immediate application of Article 42 of the Political Constitution. Thus, the foregoing means that any interested party seeking to reopen a case in which the paternity of a person was investigated may appear before the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice, alleging as a ground for the appeal Article 619, subsection 1), of the Civil Procedure Code, in that it provides as follows: *“Article 619.- Admissibility and grounds. The appeal for review shall be admissible only against a final judgment with the authority and effectiveness of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), in the following cases: 1) If the party seeking it demonstrates that due to force majeure, or by act of the opposing party, they did not recuse the judge or could not present some document or other class of evidence, or appear at the proceeding in which any such evidence was produced; such that in either case there was lack of defense and it was not possible in the course of the proceeding to request rectification of the defect. (…).”* Under this understanding, if in a prior proceeding filiation or paternity was discussed, a judgment was issued with the authority and effectiveness of substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), and it was impossible for the plaintiff, due to the state of development of technique and science, to have genetic marker testing or some force majeure prevented it, nothing impedes the possibility of filing an extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) before the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice for the annulment of the final judgment to be decreed. " (see **Res. No. 2007-011158. CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-two minutes on August first, two thousand seven). The importance and transcendence of the preceding vote for the specific case justify its extensive transcription. That pronouncement is binding erga omnes (doctrine of Article 11 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law) and therefore the person interested in re-litigating the issue of filiation when it has already been adjudicated in a prior proceeding must necessarily resort to the review process. This Court, in compliance with the constitutional precedent, has already so ordered recently:

"In the second place, if the judgment is now final and in accordance with recent constitutional jurisprudence produces substantive res judicata (cosa juzgada material), the proceeding to which one must resort is the review proceeding and not the present one in accordance with the text of Article 619 of the Civil Procedure Code and the jurisprudence that, regarding the specific topic of due process, has been illustrating it. Therefore, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed decision" (see VOTE NUMBER 1053 - 07. FAMILY COURT.- San José, at eight hours and twenty minutes on August eighth of the year two thousand seven). Under these conditions, the grievances regarding the manner in which the exception of res judicata (cosa juzgada) was resolved are not receivable."

“CUARTO: La señora [Nombre1] promueve demanda de investigación de paternidad en representación de su hijo menor de edad [Placa1]. C. en contra del señor [Nombre2], quien al contestar, entre otras excepciones opuso cosa juzgad material indicando que la actora ya había presentado otros procesos para discutir el mismo tema. El señor juez tuvo por acreditado que la señora [Nombre1] había presentado otro proceso de investigación de paternidad contra el aquí demandado con la misma pretensión aquí solicitada y en sentencia firme dictada a las catorce horas del veintidós de marzo del año dos mil dos se declaró sin lugar la demanda. Este Tribunal desarrolló una postura en torno al tema de la cosa juzgada en los procesos de filiación tendiente a la tutela efectiva del derecho constitucional de toda persona a saber quien en su padre, numerosos votos se pueden citar en ese sentido, entre otros se pueden consultar los números 610-03 y 910-04. Sin embargo, recientemente la Sala Constituciona de la Corte Suprema de Justicia se avocó al conocimiento del tema con ocasión de una consulta de constitucionalidad, y entre las consideraciones más importantes para este asunto se transcriben las siguientes: "V.- PATERNIDAD RESPONSABLE Y DERECHO A SABER QUIENES SON LOS PADRES. El derecho fundamental a saber quienes son los padres –sobre todo cuando se ejerce junto con el derecho a establecer vínculos de filiación-, se encuentra conexo al principio de la paternidad responsable que enuncia el artículo 53, párrafo 1°, de la Constitución Política al indicar que los padres tienen obligaciones para con sus hijos –tanto los habidos dentro o fuera del matrimonio-. Esas obligaciones de los progenitores o procreadores suponen una serie de derechos de carácter personal y patrimonial en cabeza de los hijos procreados para su adecuado desarrollo y crianza óptima, los cuales debe desarrollar y establecer el legislador ordinario. La paternidad responsable, también es establecida por los instrumentos del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, así el artículo XXX, de la Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre dispone, en lo conducente, que: “Toda persona tiene el deber de asistir, alimentar, educar y amparar a sus hijos menores de edad (…)” , la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño en el numeral 18, párrafo 1°, señala, acertadamente, que “1. Los Estados Partes pondrán el máximo empeño en garantizar el reconocimiento del principio de que ambos padres tienen obligaciones comunes en lo que respecta a la crianza y el desarrollo del niño. Incumbirá a los padres o, en su caso, a los representantes legales la responsabilidad primordial de la crianza y el desarrollo del niño. Su preocupación fundamental será el interés superior del niño”. Por su parte, el numeral 16 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana Sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, "Protocolo de San Salvador" aprobado por Ley No. 7907 de 3 de septiembre de 1999, dispone en lo conducente, lo siguiente: “Derecho de la niñez. Todo niño sea cual fuere su filiación tiene derecho a las medidas de protección que su condición de menor requieren por parte de su familia, de la sociedad y del Estado. Todo niño tiene el derecho a crecer al amparo y bajo la responsabilidad de sus padres (…)”. En suma, el derecho fundamental a saber quienes son los padres, cuando es ejercido concomitantemente con el derecho a establecer relaciones de filiación, y los mecanismos procesales de carácter legal para actuarlos constituyen un instrumento para hacer efectivo el principio de la paternidad responsable que enuncia tanto la Constitución Política como los instrumentos del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y que, también, es consustancial a la dignidad humana y a los imperativos constitucionales e internacionales de protección, cuido y asistencia especiales de los menores por su intrínseca condición de vulnerabilidad (artículos 51 de la Constitución Política, 25, párrafo 2°, de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 19 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, 24, párrafo 1°, del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 10, párrafos 1° y 3°, del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales). VI.- COLISIÓN APARENTE ENTRE EL DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL A SABER QUIENES SON LOS PADRES Y EL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA ENCARNADO POR LA COSA JUZGADA. Si bien es cierto, la cosa juzgada material reviste de certeza y seguridad jurídica a lo resuelto en estrados judiciales (artículo 42, párrafo 2°, constitucional), debe tomarse en consideración que este último principio aparenta entrar en colisión con el derecho fundamental consagrado en el numeral 53, párrafo 2°, de la Constitución Política, sea, con el derecho a saber la identidad de los padres, el cual, eventualmente, actúa o da contenido al concepto de paternidad responsable. En efecto, el propio ordinal 42, párrafo 2°, de la Constitución Política establece, por razones de justicia material, un equilibrio entre el carácter inmutable o inmodificable –por razones de seguridad jurídica- de la cosa juzgada material y los requerimientos de justicia de un justiciable que ha resultado afectado por una sentencia ganada injustamente (dolo, fraude, mala fe procesal, violencia, prueba falsa o ausencia de prueba definitiva) al contemplar la posibilidad de reabrir una causa fenecida mediante sentencia pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada a través del recurso extraordinario de revisión. Consecuentemente, el propio constituyente originario se encargó de atenuar el rigor de la seguridad jurídica que encarna la cosa juzgada material, contemplando la posibilidad de reabrir un proceso ya fallado a través de la interposición de un recurso extraordinario de revisión según las causales que establece el ordenamiento jurídico infraconstitucional o el legislador ordinario, para de ese modo modificar o anular una sentencia inicua y lograr que impere la justicia material... VIII.- INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD POR OMISIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO 98 BIS, INCISO M), DEL CÓDIGO DE FAMILIA. SUPERACIÓN DE LA INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD A TRAVÉS DE LA APLICACIÓN DIRECTA E INMEDIATA DEL ARTÍCULO 42, PÁRRAFO SEGUNDO, DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA. Si bien esta Sala observa que el artículo 98 bis, inciso m), del Código de Familia, adicionado por la Ley No. 8101 de 16 de abril de 2001, consagra el instituto de la cosa juzgada material, el mismo resulta omiso, por cuanto, no dispone nada sobre el recurso extraordinario de revisión, el cual, a su vez, se encuentra consagrado en el numeral 42 constitucional, tal y como se indicó. Esa laguna normativa, resulta particularmente grave habida cuenta del carácter taxativo de los medios de impugnación. En virtud de lo anterior, este Tribunal estima que la omisión contenida en dicha norma, puede ser colmada a través de una interpretación sistemática y, sobre todo, acudiendo a la aplicación directa e inmediata del artículo 42 de la Constitución Política. De este modo, lo anterior significa que, cualquier parte interesada en reabrir una causa en la que se haya investigado la paternidad de una persona, podrá acudir ante la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia aduciendo como causal del recurso, el artículo 619, inciso 1°), del Código Procesal Civil, en cuanto dispone lo siguiente: “Artículo 619.- Procedencia y causales. El recurso de revisión procederá solamente contra una sentencia firme con autoridad y eficacia de cosa juzgada material, en los siguientes casos: 1) Si la parte que la pide demostrare que por impedírselo fuerza mayor, o por obra de la contraria, no recusó al juez o no pudo presentar algún documento u otra clase de prueba, o comparecer al acto en que se evacuó alguna de ella; de modo que en uno y otro caso haya habido indefensión y no haya sido posible en el curso del proceso pedir rectificación del vicio. (…).” Bajo esta inteligencia, si en un proceso anterior se discutió la filiación o paternidad, habiéndose dictado sentencia con autoridad y eficacia de cosa juzgada material, y le fue imposible a la parte actora, por el estado de desarrollo de la técnica y de la ciencia, contar con la prueba de marcadores genéticos o se lo impidió alguna causa de fuerza mayor, nada le enerva la posibilidad de interponer un recurso extraordinario de revisión ante la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia para que se decrete la nulidad de la sentencia firme. " ( ver Res. Nº 2007-011158. SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas y cincuenta y dos minutos del primero de agosto del dos mil siete). La importancia y trascendencia del anterior voto para el caso concreto justifican su extensa transcripción. Ese pronunciamiento es vincultante erga omnes ( doctrina del artículo 11 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) y por eso la persona interesada en discutir nuevamente el tema de la filiación cuando ya ha sido fallado en un proceso anterior tiene que acudir necesariamente al proceso de revisión. Este Tribunal, en acatamiento del precedente constitucional, ya lo ha dispuesto recientemente: " En segundo lugar, si la sentencia está hoy firme y de acuerdo con la reciente jurisprudencia constitucional produce cosa juzgada material, el proceso al que se tiene que acudir es al de revisión y no al presente de conformidad con el texto del artículo 619 del Código Procesal Civil y jurisprudencia, que en torno al tema especifico del debido proceso ha venid ilustrándolo. Se impone pues, confirmar la resolución recurrida" (ver VOTO NÚMERO 1053 - 07. TRIBUNAL DE FAMILIA.- San José, a las ocho horas veinte minutos del ocho de agosto del año dos mil siete). En estas condiciones, los agravios sobre la forma en que se revolvió la excepción de cosa juzgada no son de recibo.”