Protection of national creditors prevails over share transfer in foreign bankruptcyTutela de acreedores nacionales prevalece sobre traspaso de acciones en quiebra extranjera

**III.-** The Court of Appeals confirmed the first-instance judgment, which denied the claim through which enforcement is sought of an agreement for the acquisition of shares of a national corporation (sociedad anónima), executed in Germany between the representative of the bankruptcy (quiebra) of an estate (sucesión) and the claimant, because this is not a simple contractual situation between transferor and transferee, but rather a more complicated matter, as the assets involved are first estate assets (bienes sucesorios) and then insolvency assets (bienes concursales), for in these cases, for the agreement to take effect in Costa Rica, domestic procedures established for the protection of national creditors must be fulfilled. The Court of Appeals states that in the case of the estate, it is possible to enforce adjudications made abroad after obtaining the exequatur provided for in Articles 705 and 708 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Código Procesal Civil) and subsequently completing, in a Costa Rican court, a procedure for the protection of national creditors. And in the second case (of liquidation of insolvency assets), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 864 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) and 980 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), since national assets will first and foremost respond to creditors residing in Costa Rica, the provisions of Article 813 of the aforementioned Procedural Code are applicable; prior to the exequatur, a procedure for the protection of potential national creditors must also be completed before placing the surplus—or the totality of the assets if none of those creditors appear—at the disposal of the foreign insolvency estate (masa extranjera). As can be seen, in essence, the basis of the Court of Appeals' decision lies in denying effectiveness to the transfer executed abroad, because the stated requirement of protecting national creditors was not fulfilled.

**IV.-** The appeal criticizes the Court of Appeals' decision insofar as it required the exequatur procedure as a condition for the effectiveness of the share transfer entered into between the trustee in bankruptcy (curador de la quiebra) of the estate of Mr. [Nombre1] and the claimant, which contradicts judgment number 032-E-96.CON of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of this Court, issued at 2:17 p.m. on June 28, 1996, in which the relevant application was denied, on the grounds that exequatur is granted only for the enforcement in our country of judgments, orders of that nature, and awards, as well as garnishment orders, summonses, evidentiary matters, and other procedural actions pronounced by foreign courts. Although no violation is alleged of the legal rules on which the court directly relied to deny standing (legitimación) to the claimant, as indicated in the preceding recital (considerando), as was required under Article 596 of the repeatedly cited Procedural Code, in order to facilitate an analysis in that regard and to better understand the situation that has arisen, it is appropriate to make the following two clarifications: first, although it is true that an estate is involved, which was declared bankrupt in Germany, the matter raised does not constitute the enforcement of any adjudication, transmission, or legal act carried out in the domicile of the estate as part of its administration, but rather the enforcement of a disposal act performed by the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate. Thus, Articles 905 and 906 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable; instead, Articles 865 of the Commercial Code, 980 of the Civil Code, and 813 of the Civil Procedure Code apply. And second, the purpose of insolvency proceedings (ejecución concursal) (bankruptcy (quiebra) or insolvency, according to the distinction still made in Costa Rica) is the pursuit of the attachable estate of the debtor, in order to distribute it among his creditors, pro rata where applicable (Article 982 of the Civil Code). It has several perfectly distinguishable phases: the declaration; the determination of the estate; the liquidation; and the distribution. With the declaration, the bankrupt individual is barred from disposing of and administering his assets, powers that pass to whomever is appointed as trustee (Article 899 of the Civil Code—for Costa Rica—). This effect gives rise to what is known as dispossession (desapoderamiento), which translates into the seizure, inventory, and deposit of the assets, thereby determining the estate to be executed (Article 763, subsection d) of the aforementioned Procedural Code), which is accomplished through liquidation. In insolvency proceedings (procesos concursales) initiated abroad, existing assets in the Republic may be affected and liquidated; however, since those assets constitute a preferential guarantee for national creditors, as a necessary condition, a partial insolvency proceeding (concurso parcial) must first be conducted in Costa Rica, in which those creditors must be summoned, and only if they do not appear (or whatever remains after paying them, in the opposite case), the assets shall be placed at the disposal of the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero). Article 980 of the Civil Code states that *"Assets existing in the Republic, belonging to a person declared in a state of bankruptcy or insolvency (quiebra o de concurso) in another country, may be executed upon and subjected to insolvency proceedings by creditors residing in Costa Rica, and only whatever remains of the assets after the conclusion of the partial insolvency proceeding or after the executing creditors have been satisfied shall belong to the estate (masa) of the insolvency or bankruptcy pending abroad."* In principle, that rule grants standing to national creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings in Costa Rica preferentially over the foreign estate, which is reiterated in Article 864 of the Commercial Code, which states: *"The declaration of bankruptcy outside the country cannot be invoked against the creditors the bankrupt has in the Republic, nor to dispute their rights over assets existing within the territory, nor to annul the acts or contracts they may have entered into with the bankrupt. Once bankruptcy is declared abroad, matters relating to assets existing in the country shall be governed in accordance with Article 980 of the Civil Code."* Now, regarding the dispossession (desapoderamiento) or claim of those assets existing in the country, the procedure is set forth in Article 813 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which: *"If the representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding claims assets of the debtor existing in the Republic, the requested authority, for that purpose, shall give notice by edict (edicto), which shall be published once in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) and in a nationally circulating newspaper, of the claim made, and if no creditor from the Republic appears within the two months following the last publication, the claimed sums shall be placed at the disposal of the foreign insolvency proceeding. Creditors residing in the Republic may demand collection of their credits and execute upon his assets existing therein, or open an insolvency proceeding to distribute them among themselves. In the first case, the judgment debtor shall be represented by a trustee appointed by the judge. Whatever remains, after national creditors have been satisfied, shall be remitted to the estate (masa) of the insolvency proceeding pending abroad. No title of transfer made by the foreign insolvency proceeding shall be registered if proof is not presented that the summons referred to in the first paragraph has been made."* From the foregoing, it is relevant that dispossession (desapoderamiento) must be managed by the representative of the foreign insolvency proceeding. When the law speaks of the requested authority, it assumes the existence of a petition made by the authority handling the insolvency proceeding abroad, to process which exequatur would be required, in the terms explained. The rule does not deal with the enforcement of transfers made in the foreign insolvency proceeding according to the laws of the respective country, whether of specific assets or ongoing businesses; but the fact is that, pursuant to the regulations under discussion and particularly the final paragraph of Article 813 as transcribed, no transfer may be enforced in Costa Rica unless the procedure for the protection of national creditors is complied with, as the Court of Appeals correctly understood.

**V.-** The appellant alleges violation of Articles 318, 351, 368, 369, and 370 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the Court of Appeals did not conduct any analysis of the evidence produced, thereby denying it value, which led it to infringe Articles 1022 and 1023 of the Civil Code, according to which contracts have the force of law between the parties and bind them to what is expressed therein, in accordance with equity, custom, and the law, as well as Article 1011 of that same body of law, which permits the assignment (cesión) of any right or action concerning a thing that is in commerce. The Court of Appeals incurred in none of those violations, because it denied the claim not because the shares to which the proceeding refers could not be assigned, but because the procedure for national creditors referred to was not complied with. For that same reason, the Court of Appeals could not have incurred in the violation of Articles 1049 and 1103 of the Civil Code either.

**VI.-** As already stated, the appellant objects to the requirement of an exequatur in the terms appreciated by the Court of Appeals, because it is compelling the claimant to do something impossible, given that no judgment, judicial command, or request exists. It has already been stated that the reference was made with the assumption of adjudications made in estates abroad that must be enforced in Costa Rica (Article 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure), which is not applicable in this case; but it is obvious that any foreign judgment or pronouncement that must be enforced in Costa Rica, issued in a foreign insolvency proceeding, related to assets existing in the Republic, and that entails dispossession (desapoderamiento) or enforcement, also requires exequatur in order to initiate the judicial protection procedure for creditors indicated above.

**VII.-** Based on all the foregoing, the appeal must be dismissed, with costs (costas) borne by the party who brought it, because none of the claimed violations exist (Article 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

**III.-** The Court confirmed the first-instance judgment, which denied the claim, through which one seeks to enforce an agreement for the acquisition of shares (acciones) of a national corporation (sociedad anónima), made in Germany, between the representative of the bankruptcy of an estate (sucesión) and the plaintiff, because this is not a simple contractual situation between transferor and transferee, but rather a more complicated matter, as it involves assets that are first estate assets (bienes sucesorios) and later insolvency assets (bienes concursales), since in these cases, for the agreement to have effect in Costa Rica, internal procedures established for the protection of national creditors (acreedores nacionales) must be followed. The Court states that in the case of the estate (sucesión), it is possible to enforce the adjudications (adjudicaciones) made abroad, after obtaining the exequatur provided for in articles 705 and 708 of the Código Procesal Civil and subsequently completing a procedure for the protection of national creditors (acreedores nacionales) in a Costa Rican court. And in the second scenario (the liquidation of insolvency assets (bienes concursales)), in accordance with the provisions of articles 864 of the Código de Comercio and 980 of the Código Civil, since the national assets shall be answerable first and foremost to creditors residing in Costa Rica, the provisions of numeral 813 of the aforementioned Código Procesal Civil apply, and prior to the exequatur, a procedure for the protection of possible national creditors (acreedores nacionales) must also be completed before placing the surplus—or the totality of the assets if none of those creditors appears—at the disposal of the foreign estate (masa extranjera). As can be seen, in essence, the basis of the Court's decision lies in denying effect to the transfer made abroad, because the stated requirement of protection of national creditors (acreedores nacionales) was not fulfilled.

**IV.-** In the appeal (recurso), the decision of the Court is criticized insofar as it required the exequatur procedure as a requirement for the effectiveness of the share transfer made between the bankruptcy trustee of the estate (sucesión) of Mr. [Name1] and the plaintiff, which contradicts judgment number 032-E-96.CON of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of this Court, issued at 14:00 and 17:00 hours on June 28, 1996, in which the request made in that regard was denied, on the grounds that the exequatur is granted only for the enforcement in our country of judgments, orders having that character, and awards, as well as attachment orders, citations, evidence, and other proceedings issued by foreign courts. Although the violation of the legal norms on which the court directly based its denial of standing to the plaintiff, as indicated in the preceding considerando, is not alleged, as was required pursuant to article 596 of the repeatedly cited Código Procesal Civil, in order to facilitate an analysis in that sense, to better understand the situation that has arisen, it is appropriate to make the following two clarifications: first: while it is true that an estate (sucesión) is involved, which was declared bankrupt in Germany, the issue raised does not constitute the enforcement of any adjudication (adjudicación), transmission, or legal act carried out at the domicile of the estate (sucesión) as part of its substantiation, but rather the enforcement of an act of disposition carried out by the bankruptcy trustee of the estate (sucesión). Thus, numerals 905 and 906 of the Código Procesal Civil do not apply, but rather articles 865 of the Código de Comercio, 980 of the Código Civil, and 813 of the Código Procesal Civil; and second: the purpose of insolvency enforcement (ejecución concursal) (bankruptcy (quiebra) or insolvency (insolvencia), according to the distinction still made in Costa Rica) is the pursuit of the attachable assets (patrimonio embargable) of the debtor, in order to distribute them among his creditors, on a pro rata basis if applicable (article 982 of the Código Civil). It has several perfectly distinguishable phases: the declaration; the ascertainment of the assets; the liquidation; and the distribution. With the declaration, the bankrupt person is barred from disposing of and administering his assets, powers which pass to whoever is designated as trustee (curador) (article 899 of the Código Civil -for Costa Rica-). This effect gives rise to what is known as dispossession (desapoderamiento), which translates into the seizure, inventory, and deposit of the assets, thereby determining the assets to be executed (article 763, subsection d) of the aforementioned Código Procesal Civil), which is done through liquidation. In insolvency proceedings filed abroad, assets existing in the Republic can be affected and liquidated; but, since those assets constitute a preferential guarantee for national creditors (acreedores nacionales), as a necessary condition, a partial insolvency proceeding (concurso parcial) must first be carried out in Costa Rica, in which those creditors must be summoned, and only if they do not appear (or the surplus after paying them in the contrary case), shall the assets be placed at the disposal of the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero). Article 980 of the Código Civil states that *"Assets existing in the Republic, belonging to a person declared in a state of bankruptcy (quiebra) or insolvency (concurso) in another country, may be executed and subjected to insolvency proceedings (concursados) by creditors residing in Costa Rica, and only the surplus remaining from the assets after the conclusion of the partial insolvency proceeding (concurso parcial) or after the executing creditors have been satisfied, shall correspond to the estate (masa) of the insolvency proceeding (concurso) or bankruptcy (quiebra) pending abroad."* In principle, this rule grants standing to national creditors (acreedores nacionales) to initiate insolvency proceedings in Costa Rica preferentially to the foreign estate (masa extranjera), which is reiterated in article 864 of the Código de Comercio, which states: *"The declaration of bankruptcy (quiebra) outside the country cannot be invoked against the creditors that the bankrupt may have in the Republic, nor to dispute their rights over the assets existing within the territory, nor to annul the acts or contracts they may have entered into with the bankrupt. Once bankruptcy (quiebra) is declared abroad, matters relating to assets existing in the country shall be governed in accordance with article 980 of the Código Civil."* Now then, regarding the dispossession (desapoderamiento) or claim of those assets existing in the country, the procedure is set forth in numeral 813 of the Código Procesal Civil, according to which: *"If the representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero) claims assets of the debtor existing in the Republic, the requested authority, for such purpose, must give notice by edict to be published once in the Boletín Judicial, and in a newspaper of national circulation, of the claim made, and if no creditor from the Republic appears within the two months following the last publication, the sums claimed shall be placed at the disposal of the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero). Creditors residing in the Republic may demand the collection of their credits and execute their assets existing therein, or open an insolvency proceeding (concurso) to distribute them. In the first case, the judgment debtor shall be represented by a trustee (curador) appointed by the judge. The surplus, after the national creditors (acreedores nacionales) have been satisfied, shall be remitted to the estate (masa) of the insolvency proceeding (concurso) pending abroad. No title of transfer made by the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero) shall be registered, if proof of having made the summons mentioned in the first paragraph is not presented."* It is relevant from the foregoing that the dispossession (desapoderamiento) must be managed by the representative of the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero). When the law speaks of the requested authority, it presupposes the existence of a petition made by the authority handling the insolvency proceeding (concurso) abroad, to process which an exequatur would be required, in the terms explained. The rule does not deal with the enforcement of transfers made in the foreign insolvency proceeding (concurso extranjero) according to the laws of the respective country, whether of specific assets or of ongoing businesses; but the truth is that according to the regulations under discussion and particularly the final paragraph of the copied article 813, no transfer may be enforced in Costa Rica if the procedure for the protection of national creditors (acreedores nacionales) is not complied with, as the Court correctly understood.

**V.-** The appellant (recurrente) alleges violation of articles 318, 351, 368, 369, and 370 of the Código Procesal Civil, because the Court did not make any analysis of the evidence presented, thereby denying it value, which led it to infringe numerals 1022 and 1023 of the Código Civil, according to which contracts have the force of law between the parties and oblige them to what is expressed in them, in accordance with equity, custom, and the law, as well as numeral 1011 of that same body of laws which permits the assignment (cesión) of any right or action over a thing that is in commerce. The Court did not incur in any of those violations, because it denied the claim not because the shares involved in the process could not be assigned, but because the procedure for national creditors (acreedores nacionales) referred to was not complied with. For that same reason, the Court could not have incurred in the violation of numerals 1049 and 1103 of the Código Civil either.

**VI.-** As already stated, the appellant (parte recurrente) objects to the requirement of an exequatur in the terms assessed by the Court, because it is forcing the plaintiff to do something impossible in view of the fact that there is no judgment, mandate, or judicial request whatsoever. It has already been said that the reference was made in connection with the scenario of adjudications (adjudicaciones) made in estates (sucesiones) abroad that must be enforced in Costa Rica (article 905 of the Código Procesal Civil), which is not applicable in this case; but it is obvious that any foreign judgment or ruling that must be enforced in Costa Rica, issued in a foreign insolvency proceeding (proceso concursal extranjero), related to assets existing in the Republic, which implies dispossession (desapoderamiento) or enforcement, also requires an exequatur in order to be able to initiate the aforementioned procedure for the judicial protection of creditors.

**VII.-** Based on all of the foregoing, the appeal must be declared without merit, with costs to be borne by the party who brought it, because none of the claimed violations exist (article 611 of the Código Procesal Civil).

“III.- El Tribunal confirmó la sentencia de primera instancia, denegatoria de la demanda, a través de la cual se pretende hacer valer un convenio de adquisición de acciones de una sociedad anónima nacional, realizado en Alemania, entre el representante de la quiebra de una sucesión y el demandante, porque no se está en presencia de una simple situación contractual entre cedente y cesionario, sino de una cuestión más complicada, por tratarse de bienes primero sucesorios y luego concursales, pues en estos casos, para que el convenio surta efectos en Costa Rica debe cumplirse con trámites a nivel interno previstos en tutela de los acreedores nacionales. Dice el Tribunal que en el supuesto de la sucesión, es posible hacer valer las adjudicaciones hechas en el extranjero, después de obtener el exequátur previsto en los artículos 705 y 708 del Código Procesal Civil y luego cumplirse en un juzgado costarricense un procedimiento de tutela de los acreedores nacionales. Y en el segundo supuesto (de liquidación de bienes concursales), de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en los artículos 864 del Código de Comercio y 980 del Código Civil, como los bienes nacionales responderán en primer término ante los acreedores residentes en Costa Rica, resulta de aplicación lo que dispone el numeral 813 del Código Procesal antes citado, debe cumplirse también, de previo al exequátur, con un procedimiento de tutela de los posibles acreedores nacionales antes de poner el sobrante -o el total de los bienes si no se presentare ninguno de esos acreedores- a disposición de la masa extranjera. Como puede verse, en esencia, el fundamento de la resolución del Tribunal radica en negarle eficacia al traspaso realizado en el extranjero, por no haberse cumplido con el expresado requisito de tutela de los acreedores nacionales. IV.- En el recurso se critica el fallo del Tribunal en cuanto exigió el trámite de exequátur como requisito de eficacia del traspaso de acciones celebrado entre el curador de la quiebra de la sucesión del señor [Nombre1] y el actor, lo cual contraría la sentencia de la Sala Primera de esta Corte número 032-E-96.CON de las 14 y 17 horas del 28 de junio de 1996, en la cual se denegó la solicitud que se hizo al respecto, con el argumento de que el exequátur se concede únicamente para la ejecución en nuestro país de sentencias, autos con ese carácter y laudos, así como mandamientos de embargo, citaciones, pruebas y otras actuaciones pronunciados por tribunales extranjeros. Aunque no se acusa la violación de las normas jurídicas en que en forma directa se fundó el tribunal para negarle legitimación al demandante, indicadas en el considerando anterior, como era obligación hacerlo de acuerdo con el artículo 596 del Código Procesal de repetida cita, para propiciar un análisis en ese sentido, para entender mejor la situación que se ha presentado, conviene hacer las siguientes dos precisiones: primera: si bien es cierto está de por medio una sucesión, la cual fue declarada en quiebra en Alemania, la cuestión planteada no constituye la ejecución de ninguna adjudicación, trasmisión o acto legal realizado en el domicilio de la sucesión, como parte de la substanciación de esta, sino de la ejecución de un acto de disposición realizado por el curador de la quiebra de la sucesión. De esta manera, no tienen aplicación los numerales 905 y 906 del Código Procesal Civil, sino los artículos 865 del Código de Comercio, 980 del Código Civil y 813 del Procesal Civil; y segunda: la ejecución concursal (quiebra o insolvencia, según la distinción que todavía se hace en Costa Rica) tiene como objeto la persecución del patrimonio embargable del deudor, con el fin de distribuirlo entre sus acreedores, a prorrata si fuere del caso (artículo 982 del Código Civil). Tiene varias fases perfectamente distinguibles: la declaratoria; la constatación del patrimonio; la liquidación; y la distribución. Con la declaratoria la persona fallida queda inhibida de disponer y administrar sus bienes, facultades que pasan a quien se designe como curador (artículo 899 del Código Civil -para Costa Rica-). Este efecto da lugar a lo que se conoce como el desapoderamiento, que se traduce en la ocupación, inventario y depósito de los bienes, quedando así determinado el patrimonio a ejecutar (artículo 763, inciso d) del mencionado Código Procesal), lo que se hace a través de la liquidación. En los procesos concursales radicados en el extranjero se pueden afectar y liquidar bienes existentes en la República; mas, como esos bienes constituyen una garantía preferente para los acreedores nacionales, como condición necesaria debe hacerse en Costa Rica en forma previa un concurso parcial, en el que se ha de citar a esos acreedores y solo si no se presentaren (o lo que sobre después de pagarles en el caso contrario), se pondrán los bienes a disposición del concurso extranjero. El artículo 980 del Código Civil, señala que “Los bienes que existan en la República, pertenecientes a una persona declarada en estado de quiebra o de concurso en otro país, pueden ser ejecutados y concursados por los acreedores residentes en Costa Rica, y únicamente lo que sobrare de los bienes después de concluido el concurso parcial o de satisfechos los ejecutantes, corresponderá a la masa del concurso o quiebra pendiente en el extranjero”. En principio, esa norma le concede legitimación a los acreedores nacionales para concursar en Costa Rica en forma preferente a la masa extranjera, lo cual se reitera en el artículo 864 del Código de Comercio, que dice: “La declaración de quiebra fuera del país no puede invocarse contra los acreedores que el fallido tenga en la República, ni para disputarles los derechos sobre los bienes existentes dentro del territorio, ni para anular los actos o contratos que hubieren celebrado con el fallido. Declara la quiebra en el exterior, lo referente a los bienes existentes en el país se regirá conforme al artículo 980 del Código Civil”. Ahora bien, en lo que toca al desapoderamiento o reclamación de esos bienes existentes en el país el procedimiento está señalado en el numeral 813 del Código Procesal Civil, según el cual: “Si el representante de un concurso extranjero reclamare bienes del deudor existentes en la República, la autoridad requerida, con tal objeto deberá dar aviso por edicto que se publicará por una vez en el Boletín Judicial, y en un periódico de circulación nacional, de la reclamación hecha, y si ningún acreedor de la República se presentare dentro de los dos meses siguientes a la última publicación, las sumas reclamadas se pondrán a disposición del concurso extranjero. Los acreedores residentes en la República podrán demandar el cobro de sus créditos y ejecutar sus bienes existentes en ella, o abrir un concurso para distribuírselos. En el primer caso, el ejecutado se hará representar por un curador de nombramiento del juez. Lo que sobrare, satisfechos los acreedores nacionales, se remitirá a la masa del concurso pendiente en el extranjero. No se inscribirá título de trasmisión hecha por el concurso extranjero, si no se presentare la constancia de haberse hecho el llamamiento de que habla el párrafo primero”. De lo dicho resulta relevante que el desapoderamiento debe gestionarlo el representante del concurso extranjero. Cuando la ley habla de autoridad requerida, supone la existencia de una petición hecha por la autoridad que conoce del concurso en el extranjero, para tramitar la cual se requeriría del exequátur, en los términos explicados. No se ocupa la norma de la ejecución de trasmisiones realizadas en el concurso extranjero según el ordenamiento del respectivo país, ya sea de bienes particulares o de empresas en marcha; pero lo cierto es que conforme a la normativa de comentario y particularmente el párrafo final del artículo 813 copiado, es que ninguna transmisión podrá hacerse valer en Costa Rica si no se cumple con el procedimiento de tutela de los acreedores nacionales, como con acierto lo entendió el Tribunal. V.- El recurrente acusa violación de los artículos 318, 351, 368, 369 y 370 del Código Procesal Civil, pues el Tribunal no hizo ningún análisis sobre las pruebas evacuadas, negándoles entonces valor, lo que lo llevó a infringir los numerales 1022 y 1023 del Código Civil, según los cuales los contratos tienen fuerza de ley entre las partes y obligan a lo que se expresa en ellos, de acuerdo con la equidad, los usos y la ley, así como el numeral 1011 de ese mismo cuerpo de leyes que permite la cesión de todo derecho o acción de una cosa que se halle en el comercio. En ninguna de esas violaciones incurrió el Tribunal, porque denegó la demanda no porque las acciones a que se refiere el proceso no pudieran cederse, sino por no haberse cumplido con el procedimiento de los acreedores nacionales a que se hizo referencia. Por esa misma razón, tampoco pudo haber incurrido el Tribunal en el quebranto de los numerales 1049 y 1103 del Código Civil. VI.- Como ya se dijo, la parte recurrente protesta la exigencia de un exequátur en los términos apreciados por el Tribunal, porque está obligando a la parte actora a algo imposible en vista de que no existe ninguna sentencia, mandato o solicitud judicial alguna. Ya se dijo que la referencia estuvo hecha con el supuesto de las adjudicaciones realizadas en las sucesiones en el extranjero que deban ejecutarse en Costa Rica (artículo 905 del Código Procesal Civil), lo cual no es aplicable en este caso; pero es obvio que cualquier sentencia o pronunciamiento extranjero que deba ejecutarse en Costa Rica, emitido en un proceso concursal extranjero, relacionado con bienes existentes en la República, que implique desapoderamiento o ejecución, también requiere del exequátur a los efectos de poder iniciarse el trámite de tutela judicial de acreedores antes indicado. VII.- Con fundamento en todo lo expuesto, debe declararse sin lugar el recurso, con sus costas a cargo de quien lo promovió, porque no existe ninguno de los quebrantos reclamados (artículo 611 del Código Procesal Civil).”