Partial nullity of municipal property appraisal for using cadastral area instead of registered areaNulidad parcial de avalúo municipal de bienes inmuebles por uso de área catastral en lugar de área registral

III- Regarding the Object of the Proceeding: The plaintiff indicates that through administrative resolution BI-006-2010 at 3:00 p.m. on March 18, 2010, the Department of Real Estate and Valuation of the Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia modified appraisal 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, for farm 158482-000, giving it a value of C 46,513,200. The plaintiff alleges that for this valuation, the Municipal entity took erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and did not apply other necessary ones such as the land's topography, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), as well as the legal limitations weighing on the property, according to the cantonal regulatory plan, and therefore attacks the administrative act as exaggerated, disproportionate, and outside reality, which constitutes illicit enrichment for the municipal corporation. Technical criteria per square meter were applied, when the correct method would be its valuation per hectare or manzana of land. And the municipal entity imposes the burden of proof on the administered party, with the aggravating factor of the economic costs that this entails. The defendant rejects the claim, arguing that appraisal 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, was carried out with all the elements required by Law 7509 and its amendments, and that the technical criteria by which the appraisal was performed were issued and established by the directives and tools dictated by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance, therefore the valuation is not exaggerated or disproportionate, and since the Municipality took the parameters established by the regulatory entity in accordance with Law 7609 and its amendments in Article 12, the act is not illicit as indicated by the plaintiff, and that in matters of valuations, it can only take into account the criteria established by the Technical Standardization Body of the Ministry of Finance.

III- Legal Aspects:

The real estate tax (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) was established by Law No. 7509 in favor of the Municipalities, whose object is the land, installations, or fixed and permanent constructions that exist there. Regarding its nature, the Constitutional Chamber has stated: "a municipal tax by reason of its destination –only–, but it is not so by virtue of its origin or promulgation procedure, given that it was not born from the initiative of local governments, but from the exercise of the taxing power granted to the Legislative Assembly, by virtue of the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, that is, it is a product of ordinary legislative work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Legislative Assembly is sovereign, regarding the use of the taxing power, to establish the taxes that are required, be they national or municipal." (Voto 5669-2009). Although it emanates from the exercise of the State's normative and taxing power, the Municipalities have the competence over collection, taking into account the location of the property within the municipal territory as a point of connection. Likewise, the municipalities also have the administrative power to manage the tax, without this preventing coordination with the State Tax Administration, which, as will be explained, is currently manifested in the existence of the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) introduced by Article 2, subsection c) of Law 7729. The tax base for calculating the tax shall be the value of the property registered with the Tax Administration, as of January 1 of the current year, which means that every property must be valued, a task that corresponds to each Municipality. As already indicated, for the management of this tax, the law grants the municipalities the character of Tax Administration, therefore they are responsible for withholding and collecting the tax. The law also attributes prerogatives and duties to them in order to fulfill the management of this tax, among them: "(...) carry out valuations of real estate, bill, collect, and process judicial collection and administer, in their respective territories, the taxes generated by this Law. (...)." (Article 3). Regarding the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica), its foundation is in section 12 of the cited Real Estate Tax Law, creating it as a body of minimum deconcentration (órgano de desconcentración mínima) attached to the Ministry of Finance, called the Technical Standardization Body. This body is of a specialized technical nature and an advisor to the municipalities. Its purpose is to guarantee greater precision and homogeneity when determining the values of real estate throughout the national territory; in addition, to optimize the administration of the tax, it must establish the general provisions of valuation for the common use of the municipalities and supply them with depreciation methods, total and estimated useful life rates, building values according to types, methods for valuing land, technical and economic factors to be considered regarding topography, location, description, urban equipment, and public services of the land. It supplies the Municipalities with the necessary inputs for the valuation of real estate, among which can be mentioned, the Valuation Program (Programa de Valoración), the Unit Base Value Manual by Constructive Typology (Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva), and the Platform of Land Values by Homogeneous Zones (Plataforma de Valores de Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas), as imposed by Article 19, subsection a) of the Regulation to Law No. 7509, Executive Decree No. 27601-H. These are used to prepare a specific valuation program for each of the farms within a specific canton, and they constitute valuation parameters or guidelines, prepared according to a technical study, and which must obligatorily be used by local governments when carrying out appraisals (avalúos) – through competent appraisers in accordance with the Law – to be able to determine the value of a property located in a specific zone. Section 10 of the Real Estate Tax Law states regarding the valuation of real estate: "…For tax purposes, every property must be valued. Properties shall be valued upon agreeing to a general valuation and upon the occurrence of any of the causes that determine the modification of registered values, in accordance with this Law. The general valuation shall be that which covers, at least, all properties of a district in the respective canton, in accordance with the provisions of the following articles and when the circumstance mentioned in Article 15 of this Law occurs. The general or individual valuation shall be carried out once every five years. New valuations may only be carried out when this period has expired. (Thus amended this final paragraph by Article 1, subsection d), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)". Section 10 bis imposes that "...For the purposes of this Law, an appraisal (avalúo) is defined as the set of calculations, reasoning, and operations, which serve to determine the value of a property of an urban or rural nature, taking into account its use. This appraisal must be prepared by a professional incorporated into the College of Agronomists (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos) or the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), with extensive experience in the matter, referred to in the official currency of the country and issued on a specific date. Valuation (valoración) shall be understood as any modification of the tax base of properties carried out by the municipalities following the technical criteria of the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). (Thus added by Article 2, subsection b), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)". It is essential to indicate that the cited Platform of Values (Plataforma de Valores) has its foundation in section 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: "…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the preceding article, the Tax Administration shall be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of undeclared properties. In this case, the Tax Administration may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period contemplated in this Law has expired. The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of properties with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…" The foregoing citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district are compiled, the zone is shown through maps and plans, and samples of property values are taken, thus determining which are the homogeneous zones by similarity of development and use; and the type lots or modal farms (fincas modales) that will be applied to that valuation program. It must be indicated that a type lot or farm shall be considered that whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone.

IV- In the specific case.

The Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the cited canton. In this proceeding, it was demonstrated that the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledges in the conclusions stage, had not fulfilled its formal duty to make the declaration of its assets, prior to the Municipality proceeding with the tax collection. The valuations office - Property Appraisal, proceeded on February 10, 2010, to perform appraisal 1067-2009 on farm number 158482, property of the plaintiff company, establishing through prior inspection, that the farm is located in homogeneous zone Z01-U14, presenting an area according to cadastral plan H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, had public services of water, electricity, lighting, and telephone, without sidewalk, curb and gutter (cordón y caño), with a slope of 15%, its use, type of road, elements which were analyzed for the appraisal carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed, with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation degree of 6, to which a value of c 44,100 per square meter was granted, for a total construction valuation of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed in administrative proceedings a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was denied through an administrative act at three p.m. on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the claim are, specifically, first that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the land's topography, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration imposed the burden of proof on it. Regarding this last aspect, section 33 of the Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes: "Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration performs a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers themselves affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) before the Valuations Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following its respective notification. If the motion is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following the notification from the Valuations office. In both resources, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or the construction, with which they do not agree, and must compulsorily provide the evidence supporting their claim." A rule that puts an end to any doubt or discussion about who bears the burden of proof. The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which their claim is based. The foregoing has its genesis in that what the interested party questions is a technical test carried out based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (fundo enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal, an argument that is disproved in the same trial, since the Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez himself mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was via an easement (servidumbre de paso), finding such condition supported within the same appraisal. Note that it is carried out according to plan H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality had in its possession and from which the demarcation of the property and its access via an easement is clearly observed, even though it is not registered as such. The plaintiff mentions that the easement is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plan, it was taken into account for the appraisal due to the same condition claimed by the plaintiff of a landlocked property (fundo enclavado), which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by the Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning, the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone, in which a type lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as can be deduced from folio 83. A situation which is similarly appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the case file. Regarding the constructions, it indicates that they were not appropriately considered, being given a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this particular topic, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, stated in the oral and public trial that he assigned no value to the constructions because he considered them removable, in contrast the municipal appraisal contemplates their existence without providing them with such characteristic. Such statements should not lead to confusion, which in the opinion of this chamber are not contradictory; while the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not translate into them not existing, since even if that were the case, the plaintiff did not provide, as is its obligation, greater evidence demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, the precise conditions thereof, as it is the technical factor questioned by him. The proceeding lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this chamber the cited constructions; although some were provided in the judicial expert report, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that under the same arguments, the appraisal was attacked in the administrative proceedings, and the Administration clearly warned it about this topic of the constructions, that it is its obligation to provide the evidence to challenge the appraisal, a situation that is repeated in this proceeding, since note that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that challenges or technically demonstrates the contrary. Likewise, its argument that the land's topography was not considered lacks evidentiary support, as the contrary can be deduced from the appraisal as well as from the statements in the oral trial of the municipal official, that in the inspection they appreciated the condition of the land and its conclusion was reflected in the appraisal. Although expert evidence was produced in the case file, it lacks the necessary evidentiary force to invalidate the appraisal carried out by the Municipal Administration. In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method he had used for the valuation, to which he responded; first that he took into account that the valuation was for fiscal aspects without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal for that purpose, a commercial one, or for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly his second response, when indicating that the method he had used for the valuation he had learned outside the country, and he adapted it to an Excel table into which the information is entered and it yields the result, but that he did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located. In this regard, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible on folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unit Base Values by Constructive Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance to carry out land appraisals, which describes the valuation methods to be used, among these the comparative method, the foregoing in accordance with the determination of the type lot in the established homogeneous zone, rules that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out his examination, conclusion, and valuation of the land. The municipal appraisal was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unit base values by constructive typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality attributes the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and that it is the latter that must, prior to the appraisal, carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also not admissible. The Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes to this effect in its section "Article 13.—On individual valuation. The Tax Administration may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient after verifying the omission in the presentation of the real estate declaration, which the taxpayer is voluntarily obliged to submit, or that the five-year statute of limitations period has expired and there being no general valuation", for its part "Article 14.—On the modification of the tax base. Any modification of value that affects the tax base shall be considered for the purpose of calculating the tax, only once it is final in administrative proceedings after the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation has concluded, and shall take effect as of January first of the year following that in which it was notified. Except for the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect as of January first of the year following that in which they are registered in the tax administration." The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, upon the taxpayer's failure to comply with its formal duty to declare its property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets it, that the Municipality must previously conduct a topographical survey in order to determine the area to be valued. On the contrary, the owner of the farm is the one to whom the obligation first corresponds to declare their property in the terms established in section 26 of the Regulation, and if they do not fulfill this obligation, the Municipality shall carry out the appraisal in order to determine the value of the property and the tax base for the tax calculation. And even more so, if they had declared, the Municipality is empowered, through the performance of the appraisal, to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported in the cadastral plan and that indicated in the Public Registry, and that such circumstance prevented it from making its asset declaration, this, for not knowing which area to record, an argument that in the opinion of this Court is totally fallacious. The farm is its property, it must know its area, and if it considers that there are differences as indicated regarding the property area, it has technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to carry out, through existing legal instruments, the corrections, modifications of the property's size (cabida), but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not the Municipal entity. Finally, in its conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated in the cadastral plan, even though this benefits him, since the legal regulations establish that it must be according to the registry area. Section 17 of the already cited Regulation imposes in what is relevant: "(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property inscribed in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of property with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use." From the review of the Municipal appraisal, it is deduced that it was carried out based on the area measurement registered in cadastral plan H-470483-82, which indeed, as the plaintiff's representative rightly points out, contravenes the provision of the previously transcribed norm, which shows that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal, and consequently constitutes a defect (vicio) in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out supra, the appraisal in the remaining technical elements was performed in accordance with what is established by the law, the regulation, and the rules of the Technical Body, which could not be invalidated by the plaintiff company. Therefore, in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient that, due to the defect of a single technical element, the administrative act be annulled in its entirety. For the foregoing reason, as it is a technical datum that must be used and analyzed in accordance with the provisions of section 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral plan as a basis and not what is provided for in section 17 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles). Therefore, it is remitted to the defendant Municipality so that it makes the necessary adjustment as established by law.

V- Regarding the substantive requirements:

No exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive requirements of right, standing, and interest, proceed to be reviewed ex officio. This thesis is supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (among others, Voto 48 of 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Court of Cassation number 34 of 10:20 a.m. on March 22, 1961, which requires the ex officio review of the requirements for an estimatory judgment, such as interest, standing, and right. In this way, having performed the indicated analysis ex officio, and in light of the substantive study carried out, it is determined that the right partially does not assist the plaintiff, even though they maintain the interest in their claim, as it was partially granted.

In accordance with this, there is clear legal standing (legitimación), both active and passive, by reason of the substantive legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions by the defendant regarding the plaintiff in her capacity as a Taxpayer." **III— Regarding the Object of the Proceeding:** The plaintiff indicates that through administrative resolution BI-006-2010 of 15:00 hours on March 18, 2010, the Department of Real Estate and Valuation of the Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, modified appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, regarding property 158482-000, giving it a value of C 46,513,200. The plaintiff alleges that for such valuation, the Municipal entity took erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and did not apply other necessary ones such as the topography of the land, its extension, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), as well as the legal limitations that weigh on the property, according to the cantonal regulatory plan (plan regulador cantonal), for which reason he attacks the administrative act as exaggerated, disproportionate and out of touch with reality, which constitutes illicit enrichment (enriquecimiento ilícito) for the municipal corporation. Technical criteria were applied per square meter, when the correct approach would be its valuation per hectare or block (manzana) of land. And the municipal entity imposes the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) on the administered party, with the aggravating factor of the economic costs that this entails. The defendant party rejects the claim, arguing that appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, was carried out with all the elements required by Law 7509 and its amendments, and that the technical criteria through which the appraisal (avalúo) was performed were issued and established by the directives and tools dictated by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance, so the valuation is not exaggerated or disproportionate and, by the Municipality taking the parameters established by the regulatory body pursuant to Law 7609, and its amendments in Article 12, the act is not illicit as the plaintiff indicates, and that in valuation matters, it can only take into account the criteria established by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance.

**III— Legal Aspects:** The tax on real estate (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) was ordered by Law No. 7509 in favor of the Municipalities, whose object is the land, the installations or the fixed and permanent constructions that exist there. Regarding its nature, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has stated: "a municipal tax by reason of its destination –only–, but it is not so by virtue of its procedure of origin or enactment, given that it did not arise from the initiative of local governments, but from the exercise of the taxing power granted to the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa), by virtue of the provisions of Article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), that is, it is the product of ordinary legislative work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) is sovereign, regarding the use of the taxing power, to establish the taxes that are required, whether these are national or municipal." (Voto 5669-2009). Although it emanates from the exercise of the State's normative and taxing power, the competence for collection lies with the Municipalities, taking into account the location of the property within the municipal territory as the connection point. Likewise, the administrative power of tax management also lies with the municipalities, without this preventing coordination with the State Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), which, as will be explained, is currently manifested in the existence of the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) introduced by Article 2, subsection c) of Law 7729. The taxable base (base imponible) for the calculation of the tax will be the value of the property registered with the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as of January 1 of the current year, which means that every property must be valued, which corresponds to each Municipality. As already indicated, for the management of this tax, the law grants the municipalities the character of Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), so they are responsible for withholding and collecting the tax. The law also attributes prerogatives and duties to them in order to comply with the management of this tax, among them "(…) carry out valuations of real estate, bill, collect and process judicial collection and administer, in their respective territories, the taxes generated by this Law. (…)." (Article 3). Regarding the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica), its basis is found in article 12 of the cited Real Estate Tax Law, creating it as a body of minimum deconcentration (órgano de desconcentración mínima) attached to the Ministry of Finance, called the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). This body is of a specialized technical nature and an advisor to the municipalities. Its purpose is to guarantee greater precision and homogeneity when determining the values of real estate throughout the national territory; in addition, to optimize the administration of the tax, it must establish the general valuation provisions for the common use of the municipalities and supply them with depreciation methods, total and estimated useful life rates, building values according to types, methods for valuing land, technical and economic factors to be considered regarding topography, location, description, urban equipment and public services of the land. It supplies the Municipalities with the necessary inputs for the valuation of real estate, among which may be mentioned, the Valuation Program (Programa de Valoración), the Manual of Unitary Base by Constructive Typology (Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva) and the Platform of Land Values by Homogeneous Zones (Plataforma de Valores de Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas), as imposed by Article 19, subsection a) of the Regulation to Law No. 7509, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 27601-H, are used to prepare a specific valuation program for each of the properties within a given canton, and constitute valuation parameters or guidelines, prepared according to a technical study, and which must obligatorily be used by local governments when carrying out appraisals (avalúos) – through competent appraisers in accordance with the Law – to be able to determine the value of a real estate located in a specific zone. Article 10 of the Real Estate Tax Law refers regarding the valuation of real estate: "…For tax purposes, every property must be valued. Properties will be valued upon agreeing a general valuation and upon the occurrence of any of the causes that determine the modification of the registered values, in accordance with this Law. The general valuation will be that which covers, at least, all the properties of a district of the respective canton, in accordance with the provisions of the following articles and when the circumstance mentioned in Article 15 of this Law occurs. The general or individual valuation will be carried out once every five years. New valuations may only be carried out when this period has expired. (Thus amended this final paragraph by Article 1, subsection d), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)", Article 10 bis imposes that "...For the purposes of this Law, an appraisal (avalúo) is defined as the set of calculations, reasoning and operations, which serve to determine the value of an urban or rural real estate, taking into account its use. This appraisal (avalúo) must be prepared by a professional incorporated into the College of Agronomists (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos) or the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), with extensive experience in the matter, referred to in the official currency of the country and issued on a specific date. Valuation (valoración) shall be understood as any modification of the taxable base (base imponible) of the properties carried out by the municipalities following the technical criteria of the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). (Thus added by Article 2, subsection b), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)". It is essential to indicate that the cited Platform of Values has its basis in article 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: "…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the previous article, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) will be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of the undeclared real estate. In this case, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period contemplated in this Law has expired. The general valuation will be carried out considering the land and construction components, if both are present in the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of real estate with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…" The preceding citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district is compiled, the zone is shown through maps and plans, and samples of the values of the real estate are taken, thus achieving the determination of which are the homogeneous zones by similarity of development and use; and the type lots or modal properties that will be applied to that valuation program. It must be indicated that a type lot or property shall be considered that whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone.

**IV- In the specific case.** The Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the cited canton. In this process, it was demonstrated that indeed the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledges in the conclusions stage, had not fulfilled its formal duty to make the declaration of its assets, the foregoing so that the Municipality could proceed with the tax collection. The valuation office - Property Appraisal, proceeded on February 10, 2010, to carry out appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 on property number 158482 owned by the plaintiff company, establishing through prior inspection that the property is located in homogeneous zone Z01-U14, presenting an area according to cadastral plan H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, it had public services of water, electricity, lighting and telephone, without sidewalk, curb and gutter (cordón y caño), with a slope of 15%, its use, type of road, elements which were analyzed for the appraisal (avaluó) carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed (galerón), with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation degree of 6, same to which a value of c 44,100 per square meter was given, for a total valuation of the construction of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal (avalúo) that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed it in administrative headquarters with a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was rejected through an administrative act at fifteen hundred hours on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the claim are, specifically, first that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the topography of the land, its extension, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration imposed the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) on it. Regarding this last aspect, article 33 of the Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law establishes: " Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) carries out a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers himself affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) before the Valuation Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following its respective notification. If the appeal is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal for reconsideration (recurso de apelación) before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following the notification of the Valuation Office. In both appeals, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or construction, with which he does not agree, being forced to provide the evidence that supports his claim." A rule that puts an end to any doubt or discussion about who bears the burden of proof (carga de la prueba). The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal (avalúo) or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which they base their claim. The foregoing has its genesis in that what the interested party questions is a technical proof carried out based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal (avaluó), an argument that is refuted in the same trial, since the Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez himself mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was by way of an easement (servidumbre) of passage, finding such condition support within the appraisal (avaluó) itself. Note that it is carried out according to plan H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality had in its possession and from which the demarcation of the property and its access by way of an easement (servidumbre) of passage is clearly observed, even if registrally this is not declared. The plaintiff mentions that the easement (servidumbre) is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plan, it was taken into account for the appraisal (avalúo) for the very condition of landlocked property (fundo enclavado) claimed by the plaintiff, which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by the Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone, in which a type lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as is evident from folio 83. A situation that is likewise appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the case file. Regarding the constructions, he indicates that they were not appropriately considered, giving them a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this topic in particular, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, indicates in the oral and public trial that he did not assign any value to the constructions because he considers them removable, on the contrary, the municipal appraisal (avalúo) contemplates their existence without providing them with such characteristic. These statements should not lead to confusion, which in this Chamber's opinion are not contradictory, although the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not mean they do not exist, because even if that were the case, the plaintiff did not provide, as is its obligation, greater evidence demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, their precise conditions, as it is the technical factor questioned by him, the process lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this Chamber the cited constructions, although some were provided in the judicial expert opinion, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that the appraisal (avalúo) was attacked under the same arguments in administrative headquarters, and the Administration clearly warns it about this issue of the constructions that it is its obligation to provide the evidence to combat the appraisal (avalúo), a situation that is repeated in this process, since it is noted that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that combats or technically demonstrates the contrary, likewise its argument that the topography of the land was not considered lacks evidentiary support, since the contrary is evident from the appraisal (avalúo) as well as from the statements in the oral trial, of the municipal official, that in the inspection they appreciated the condition of the land and its conclusion was reflected in the appraisal (avalúo). Although expert evidence was produced in the case file, it lacks the necessary probative force to invalidate the appraisal (avalúo) carried out by the Municipal Administration. In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method he had used for the valuation, to which he responded; first that he took into account that the valuation was for fiscal purposes without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal (avalúo) for that purpose, a commercial one or one for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly his second response, when indicating that the method he had used for the valuation he had learned outside the country, and he adapted it to an Excel spreadsheet in which the information is included and it yields the result, but that he did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located, regarding this, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible on folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unitary Base Values by Constructive Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance to carry out the appraisals (avalúos) of the land, which describes the valuation methods to use, among these the comparative method, the foregoing in accordance with the determination of the type lot in the established homogeneous zone, standards that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out his examination, conclusion and valuation of the land. Since the municipal appraisal (avalúo) was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unitary base values by constructive typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality attributes the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) to the taxpayer, and that it is the Municipality itself that must, prior to the appraisal (avaluó), carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also not admissible. The Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law establishes in this regard in its article " Article 13.—Of the individual valuation.

The Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient after verifying the omission in the filing of the real estate declaration, which the taxpayer is obligated to file voluntarily, or that the five-year period of the statute of limitations (prescripción) has elapsed and no general valuation exists," for its part, "Article 14.—Modification of the taxable base (base imponible). Any modification of value that affects the taxable base (base imponible) will be considered for the purpose of calculating the tax, once it is final in the administrative channel after the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation is concluded, and it will take effect from January first of the year following the one in which it was notified. Except for the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect from January first of the year following the one in which they are registered with the tax administration (administración tributaria)." The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, upon the taxpayer's failure to comply with its formal duty to declare its property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets, that the Municipality must first perform a topographical survey to determine the area to be valued; on the contrary, the owner of the property is the one who first has the obligation to declare its property under the terms established in numeral 26 of the Regulation, and if it fails to comply with this obligation, the Municipality will conduct the appraisal (avalúo) to determine the value of the property and the taxable base (base imponible) for calculating the tax. Moreover, even if it had been declared, the Municipality is empowered, by conducting the appraisal (avalúo), to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) and the one indicated in the Public Registry, and that this circumstance prevented him from filing his property declaration, because he did not know which area to record, an argument that, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is completely fallacious. The property is his, he must know its area, and if he considers that there are differences such as those noted regarding the area of the property, he has technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to make corrections or modifications to the size (cabida) of the property through existing legal instruments, but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not to the Municipal entity. Finally, in his conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal (avalúo) is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated in the cadastral map (plano catastrado), even though this benefits him, since the legal regulations establish that it must be according to the registered area. Numeral 17 of the already cited Regulation imposes, in what is relevant: "(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of real estate with similar characteristics in terms of its development and specific use." From the review of the Municipal appraisal (avalúo), it is clear that it was carried out based on the measurement of the area registered in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) H-470483-82, which indeed, as the plaintiff's representative correctly points out, contravenes the provisions of the aforementioned regulation, evidence that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal (avalúo), and consequently constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out above, the appraisal (avalúo) in the remaining technical elements was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law, the regulation, and the rules of the Technical Body, which could not be disproved by the plaintiff company, so in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient for the administrative act to be annulled in its entirety due to the defect of a single technical element. Therefore, because it is a technical fact that must be used and analyzed in accordance with the provisions of numeral 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral map (plano catastrado) as a basis and not what is provided by numeral 17 of the Law on Real Estate Tax, for which it is remanded to the defendant Municipality so that it may make the necessary adjustment in accordance with the provisions of the law.

V- On the Substantive Prerequisites:

No exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive prerequisites of right, standing (legitimación), and interest are examined ex officio. This thesis is supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) (among others, Voto 48 of 14:00 hours of July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Chamber of Cassation number 34 of 10:20 hours of March 22, 1961, which requires the ex officio review of the prerequisites of a favorable judgment, such as interest, standing (legitimación), and right. In this way, having carried out ex officio the indicated analysis, and in light of the substantive study conducted, it is determined that the right does not partially assist the plaintiff, even though it maintains an interest in its claim, as it was partially granted. Accordingly, there is clear active and passive standing (legitimación) by reason of the material legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions by the defendant regarding the plaintiff in its capacity as Taxpayer." (Así adicionado por el artículo 2º, inciso b), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”.   It is essential to note that the aforementioned Value Platform is based on numeral 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: “…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the preceding article, the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) shall be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of undeclared real estate assets. In this case, the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period established in this Law has expired. The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For these purposes, a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) shall be understood as the set of real estate assets with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…” The foregoing citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district are gathered, the zone is shown through maps and plats, and samples of the real estate asset values are taken, thus determining which are the homogeneous zones (zonas homogéneas) by similarity of development and use; and the standard lots or modal properties (fincas modales) that will be applied to that valuation program. It should be noted that the standard lot or property type (lote o finca tipo) shall be understood as the one whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea).

**IV- In the present case.** The Municipality (La Municipalidad) of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the said canton. In this process, it was demonstrated that, indeed, the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledged during the conclusions stage, had not complied with its formal duty to file a declaration of its assets, prior to the Municipality proceeding with tax collection. The valuation office - Property Appraisal (Avaluó de inmuebles), proceeded on February 10, 2010, to perform appraisal 1067-2009 on property number 158482 owned by the plaintiff company, establishing through a prior inspection that the property is located in homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) Z01-U14, having an area according to cadastral plat H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, had public utilities of water, electricity, street lighting, and telephone, without sidewalk, curb, and gutter, with a slope of 15%, its use, road type, these elements having been analyzed for the appraisal carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed, with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation grade of 6, which was assigned a value of c 44,100 per square meter, for a total construction valuation of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed in the administrative venue a motion for reconsideration, which was rejected by administrative act at three o'clock in the afternoon on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the lawsuit are, specifically, first, that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the topography of the land, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration (la Administración) imposed the burden of proof upon it. Regarding this last aspect, numeral 33 of the Regulation to the Law of Real Estate Tax (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes: "Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) performs a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers themselves affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration before the Valuation Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following their respective notification. If the appeal is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal for hearing before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following notification by the Valuation office.<br> In both appeals, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or construction with which they disagree, and must necessarily provide the evidence supporting their claim." A rule that ends any doubt or discussion regarding who bears the burden of proof. The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which their claim is based. The genesis of the foregoing lies in the fact that what the interested party questions is a technical test performed based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (fundo enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal, an argument that is disproven in the trial itself, since the same Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez, mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was via an easement (servidumbre de paso), finding such condition support within the appraisal itself. Note that it is carried out in accordance with plat H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality (la Municipalidad) had in its possession, and from it, the demarcation of the property and its access via an easement (servidumbre de paso) are clearly observed, even though this is not recorded in the registry. The plaintiff mentions that the easement is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plat, it was taken into account for the appraisal due to the very condition the plaintiff claims of a landlocked property (fundo enclavado), which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning, the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone (zona homogénea), in which a standard lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as derived from folios 83. A situation likewise appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the proceedings. Regarding the constructions, it indicates that they were not considered appropriately, being given a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this particular topic, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, indicates in the oral and public trial that he assigned no value to the constructions for considering them removable; on the contrary, the municipal appraisal contemplates their existence without attributing such characteristic to them. Such affirmations, which in this Chamber's opinion are not contradictory, should not lead to confusion; although the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not mean they do not exist, because even if that were the case, the plaintiff, as is their obligation, did not provide greater proof demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, their precise conditions, as it is the technical factor questioned by them; the process lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this Chamber the cited constructions, although some were provided in the judicial expert report, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that under the same arguments the appraisal was challenged in the administrative venue, and the Administration (la Administración) clearly warned them about this topic of the constructions, that it is their obligation to provide evidence to challenge the appraisal, a situation that is repeated in this process, as note that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that rebuts or technically demonstrates the contrary, likewise their argument that the topography of the land was not considered lacks evidentiary support, since the contrary is derived from the appraisal as well as from the statements in the oral trial of the municipal official, that in the inspection they assessed the condition of the land and their conclusion was reflected in the appraisal. Although expert evidence was taken in the proceedings, it lacks the necessary evidentiary force to disprove the appraisal carried out by the Municipal Administration (la Administración Municipal). In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method they had used for the valuation, to which they responded; first, that they took into account that the valuation was for fiscal purposes without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal for that purpose, a commercial one, or one for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly, their second response, indicating that the method they had used for the valuation, they had learned outside the country, and they adapted it to an Excel spreadsheet in which the information is included and it yields the result, but that they did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located; regarding this, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible at folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unit Base Values by Construction Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standardization Body of the Ministry of Finance for carrying out land appraisals, which describes the valuation methods to be used, among them the comparative method, in accordance with the determination of the standard lot in the established homogeneous zone (zona homogénea), rules that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out their examination, conclusion, and valuation of the land. For the municipal appraisal was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unit base values by construction typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality (la Municipalidad) attributes the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and that it is the latter that must, prior to the appraisal, carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also without merit. The Regulation to the Law of Real Estate Tax (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes to such effect in its numeral "Article 13.—On individual valuation. The Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient, after verifying the omission in the filing of the real estate asset declaration, which the taxpayer is voluntarily obligated to file, or when the five-year statute of limitations period has expired and a general valuation does not exist."; for its part, "Article 14.—On the modification of the taxable base. Any modification of value that affects the taxable base shall be considered for the purpose of tax calculation only once it is firm in the administrative venue, upon conclusion of the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation, and shall take effect from January first of the year following the one in which it was notified. Excepting the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect from January first of the year following the one in which they are registered with the Tax Administration." The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, given the taxpayer's non-compliance with their formal duty to declare their property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets, that the Municipality must previously conduct a topographical survey in order to determine the area to be valued; on the contrary, it is the property owner who first has the obligation to declare their property in the terms established in numeral 26 of the Regulation, and if they fail to comply with this obligation, the Municipality (la Municipalidad) will perform the appraisal to determine the property's value and the taxable base for the tax calculation. And even more, if the Municipality had been declared to, it is empowered, through the completion of the appraisal, to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported on the cadastral plat and the one indicated in the Public Registry, and that such circumstance prevented them from filing their asset declaration, this, because of not knowing which area to record, an argument that in this Court's opinion is completely fallacious. The property is theirs, they must know its area, and if they consider that there are differences as indicated regarding the property's area, they have technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to carry out, through existing legal instruments, the corrections and modifications of the property's boundaries (cabida del inmueble), but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not to the Municipal entity. Finally, in their conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated on the cadastral plat, even though this benefits them, since the legal regulations establish that it must be in accordance with the registered area. The previously cited numeral 17 of the Regulation imposes, in what is of interest: "(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For these purposes, a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) shall be understood as the set of real estate assets with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use. " From the review of the Municipal appraisal, it is evident that it was carried out based on the area measurement registered in cadastral plat H-470483-82, which, as the plaintiff's representative correctly points out, contravenes the provision of the previously transcribed rule, which shows that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal, and consequently constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out above, the appraisal in the remaining technical elements was performed in accordance with what is established by law, the regulation, and the norms of the Technical body, which could not be disproven by the plaintiff company; therefore, in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient for the administrative act to be annulled in its entirety due to the defect of a single technical element. By reason of the foregoing, given that it is a technical piece of data that must be used and analyzed as established by numeral 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral plat as a basis and not what is provided for by numeral 17 of the Law of Tax on Real Estate (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles), for which reason the defendant Municipality is referred so that it may make the necessary adjustment as established by law.

**V- On the substantive requirements:** No exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive requirements of right, standing (legitimación), and interest are examined ex officio. A thesis supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) (among others, Voto 48 at 14:00 hours on July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Chamber of Cassation number 34 at 10:20 hours on March 22, 1961), which requires the ex officio review of the requirements for an estimatory judgment, such as interest, standing (legitimación), and right. In this way, having carried out the indicated analysis ex officio, and in light of the substantive study conducted, it is determined that right does not partially assist it, even though it maintains the interest in its claim, as it was partially granted. In accordance with this, there is a clear active as well as passive standing (legitimación) by reason of the material legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions of the defendant regarding the plaintiff in their condition as Taxpayer.”

“III- Sobre el Objeto del Proceso: Indica el actor que mediante resolución administrativa BI-006-2010 de las 15:00 horas del 18 de marzo de 2010, el Departamento de Bienes inmuebles y Valoración de la Municipalidad de San Pablo de Heredia, modificó el avalúo 1067-2009 del 10 de febrero de 2010, sobre la finca 158482-000, dándole un valor de C 46.513.200. Alega el actor que para tal valoración el ente Municipal tomó criterios técnicos erróneos, impropios, inadecuados, y no aplicó otros necesarios tales como la topografía del terreno, su extensión, anegamiento, antigüedad de las construcciones, fundo enclavado así como las limitaciones legales que pesan sobre el inmueble, conforme el plan regulador cantonal, por lo que ataca el acto administrativo por exagerado, desproporcionado y fuera de la realidad, lo cual constituye un enriquecimiento ilícito para la corporación municipal. Se aplicaron criterios técnicos por metro cuadrado, siendo lo correcto su valoración por hectárea o manzana de terreno. Y le impone el ente municipal la carga de la prueba al administrado con el agravante de los costos económicos que ello implica. La parte accionada rechaza la demanda, argumenta que el avalúo 1067-2009 del 10 de febrero de 2010, se realizó contando con todos los elementos que exige la ley 7509 y sus reformas, y que los criterios técnicos mediante los cuales se realizó el avalúo, fueron emitidos y establecidos por las directrices y herramientas dictadas por el Órgano de Normalización Técnica del Ministerio de Hacienda, por lo que la valoración no es exagerada ni desproporcionada y al tomar el Municipio los parámetros establecidos por el ente regulador conforme la Ley 7609, y sus reformas en el artículo 12, por lo que el acto no es ilícito como lo indica el accionante, y que en materia de valoraciones solo puede tomar en cuenta los criterios establecidos por el órgano de Normalización Técnica del Ministerio de Hacienda.

III- Aspectos jurídicos:

El impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, fue dispuesto por Ley No. 7509 en favor de las Municipales, cuyo objeto son los terrenos, las instalaciones o las construcciones fijas y permanentes que allí existan. Respecto a su naturaleza, la Sala Constitucional ha dicho “tributo de orden municipal en razón de su destino –únicamente–, pero no lo es en virtud de su procedimiento de origen o promulgación, dado que no nació de la iniciativa de los gobiernos locales, sino del ejercicio de la potestad tributaria otorgada a la Asamblea Legislativa, en virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política, es decir, que es producto de la propia labor legislativa ordinaria. Cabe reiterar que la Asamblea Legislativa es soberana, en cuanto al uso del poder tributario, para establecer los impuestos que se requieran, sean estos nacionales o municipales.” (Voto 5669-2009). Si bien emana del ejercicio de la potestad normativa y tributaria del Estado, la competencia sobre la recaudación la tienen las Municipalidades, tomando en cuenta la ubicación del inmueble dentro del territorio municipal como punto de conexión. Asimismo, la potestad administrativa de gestión del impuesto también la tienen los municipios, sin que ello obste para que exista una coordinación con la Administración Tributaria Estatal, misma que, como se explicará, a la fecha se manifiesta en la existencia del Órgano de Normalización Técnica introducido por el artículo 2, inciso c) de la Ley 7729. La base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto será el valor del inmueble registrado en la Administración Tributaria, al 1 de enero del año que curse, lo que significa que todo inmueble debe ser valorado, lo que le corresponde a cada Municipio. Como ya fuera indicado, para la gestión de este impuesto, la ley le otorga a las municipalidades el carácter de Administración Tributaria, por lo que son los responsables retener y percibir el impuesto. Le atribuye también la ley prerrogativas y deberes a fin de poder cumplir con la gestión de este tributo, entre ellas “(…) realizar valoraciones de bienes inmuebles, facturar, recaudar y tramitar el cobro judicial y de administrar, en sus respectivos territorios, los tributos que genera la presente Ley. (…).” (Artículo 3). En lo referente al Órgano de Normalización Técnica, tiene su fundamento en el ordinal 12 de la citada Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, creándolo como un órgano de desconcentración mínima adscrito al Ministerio de Hacienda, denominado Órgano de Normalización Técnica. Este órgano es de carácter técnico especializado y asesor de las municipalidades. Tiene por objeto garantizar mayor precisión y homogeneidad al determinar los valores de los bienes inmuebles en todo el territorio nacional; además, optimizar la administración del impuesto, debe establecer las disposiciones generales de valoración para el uso común de las municipalidades y suministrarles los métodos de depreciación, las tasas de vida útil totales y estimadas, los valores de las edificaciones según los tipos, los métodos para valorar terrenos, factores técnicos y económicos por considerar en cuanto a topografía, ubicación, descripción, equipamiento urbano y servicios públicos del terreno. Suministra a las Municipalidades lo insumos necesarios para la valoración de bienes inmuebles, entre las que pueden mencionarse, el Programa de Valoración, el Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva y la Plataforma de Valores de Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas, conforme lo impone el artículo 19 inciso a) del Reglamento a la Ley No 7509, Decreto Ejecutivo No.27601-H, son utilizados para elaborar un programa de valoración específico para cada una de las fincas dentro de un determinado cantón, y constituyen parámetros o lineamientos de valoración, elaborados de acuerdo a un estudio técnico, y que obligatoriamente deberán ser utilizados por los gobiernos locales al realizar los avalúos – a través de los valuadores competentes de conformidad con la Ley – para poder determinar el valor de un bien inmueble ubicado en una determinada zona. El numeral 10 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre bienes Inmuebles, refiere respecto a la valoración de los bienes inmuebles, “…Para efectos tributarios, todo inmueble debe ser valorado. Los inmuebles se valorarán al acordarse una valuación general y al producirse alguna de las causas que determinen la modificación de los valores registrados, de acuerdo con esta Ley. La valoración general será la que abarque, por lo menos, todos los inmuebles de un distrito del cantón respectivo, de acuerdo con lo previsto en los artículos siguientes y cuando ocurra la circunstancia mencionada en el artículo 15 de la presente Ley. La valoración general o individual se realizará una vez cada cinco años. Solo podrán efectuarse nuevas valoraciones cuando haya expirado este plazo. (Así reformado este párrafo final por el artículo 1º, inciso d), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”, el 10 bis, impone que "...Para los efectos de esta Ley, se define como avalúo el conjunto de cálculos, razonamientos y operaciones, que sirven para determinar el valor de un bien inmueble de naturaleza urbana o rural, tomando en cuenta su uso. Este avalúo deberá ser elaborado por un profesional incorporado al Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos o al Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, con amplia experiencia en la materia, referido en la moneda oficial del país y emitido en una fecha determinada. Se entenderá por valoración toda modificación de la base imponible de los inmuebles realizada por las municipalidades siguiendo los criterios técnicos del Órgano de Normalización Técnica. (Así adicionado por el artículo 2º, inciso b), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”. Resulta esencial indicar que la citada Plataforma de Valores, tiene su fundamento en el numeral 17 de la citada Ley No. 7509 que, informa “…Cuando no exista declaración de bienes por parte del titular del inmueble, conforme al artículo anterior, la Administración Tributaria estará facultada para efectuar, de oficio, la valoración de los bienes inmuebles sin declarar. En este caso, la Administración Tributaria no podrá efectuar nuevas valoraciones sino hasta que haya expirado el plazo de cinco años contemplado en la presente Ley. La valoración general se hará considerando los componentes terreno y construcción, si ambos estuvieren presentes en la propiedad, o únicamente el terreno, y podrá realizarse con base en el área del inmueble inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad y en el valor de la zona homogénea donde se ubica el inmueble dentro del respectivo distrito. Para tales efectos, se entenderá por zona homogénea el conjunto de bienes inmuebles con características similares en cuanto a su desarrollo y uso específico…” Las anteriores citas nos permite concluir que esta plataforma se obtiene mediante un estudio de campo donde se recopilan los datos básicos del cantón o distrito, se muestra la zona a través de mapas y planos y se toman muestras de los valores de los bienes inmuebles, logrando así determinar cuáles son las zonas homogéneas por similitud de desarrollo y uso; y los lotes tipos o fincas modales que serán aplicados a ese programa de valoración. Debe indicarse que se tendrá por lote o finca tipo, aquella cuya características son más frecuentes en una zona homogénea.

IV- En el caso concreto.

La Municipalidad de San Pablo de Heredia, en sustento al Acuerdo Municipal 09-08-E del 28 de mayo de 2008, procedió a realizar las valoraciones en el citado cantón. En este proceso quedó demostrado que efectivamente la empresa actora Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., como su mismo representante lo reconoce en la etapa de conclusiones, no había cumplido con su deber formal de realizar la declaración sobre sus bienes, lo anterior a fin de que el Municipio procediera al cobro de los impuestos. La oficina de valoraciones - Avaluó de inmuebles, procedió el 10 de febrero de 2010, a realizar el avalúo 1067-2009 en la finca número 158482 propiedad de la empresa actora, estableciéndose mediante inspección previa, que la finca se encuentra ubicada en la zona homogénea Z01-U14, presentando un área según plano catastrado H- 470483-84 de 3198 metros cuadrados, un frente de 11,80 metros, con una regularidad de 080, contaba con servicios públicos de agua, electricidad, alumbrado y teléfono, sin acera, cordón y caño, con una pendiente de un 15%, su uso, tipo de vía, elementos éstos que fueron analizados para el avaluó realizado a la propiedad, además de las construcciones existentes en la propiedad, a saber un galerón, con un área de 112 m2, con una edad aproximada de 20 años, vida útil de 40 años, con un grado de depreciación 6, misma a la cual se le otorgó un valor de c 44.100 por metro cuadrado, para un valoración total de la construcción de c 4.939,200. Respecto al terreno como tal fue valorado en la suma de c 13.000 por metro cuadrado, para un total de c 41.574.000, para un total en terreno y construcción de c 46.513.200, avalúo que fue puesto en conocimiento a la actora, quien opuso en sede administrativa recurso de revocatoria, mismo que le fue rechazado mediante acto administrativo a las quince horas del 18 de marzo de 2010. Los argumentos del actor en la demanda, son en concreto, primero que el ente Municipal utilizó criterios técnicos erróneos, impropios, inadecuados, y que fue omiso respecto a otros criterios técnicos, como la topografía del terreno, su extensión, anegamiento, antigüedad de las construcciones, fundo enclavado, y que la Administración le impuso la carga de la prueba. Sobre éste último aspecto, el numeral 33 del Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, establece: " Artículo 33.—Recursos contra las valoraciones generales o individuales. Cuando la Administración Tributaria practique una valoración general o individual, el contribuyente que se considere afectado por el valor establecido, tendrá derecho de interponer recurso de revocatoria ante la Oficina de Valoraciones de la respectiva Municipalidad, dentro de los quince días hábiles siguientes, contados a partir del día siguiente a su respectiva notificación. Si el recurso fuere declarado sin lugar, el contribuyente podrá presentar formal recurso de apelación para ante el Concejo Municipal, dentro de los quince días hábiles siguientes a la notificación de la oficina de Valoraciones. En ambos recursos, el contribuyente debe señalar el factor o factores de ajuste aplicados a las características físicas del terreno o la construcción, con los cuales no está conforme, debiendo aportar forzosamente, las pruebas que fundamentan su reclamo." Norma que pone fin a cualquier duda o discusión sobre a quien le corresponde la carga de la prueba. La norma es clara al establecer que si el contribuyente no se encuentra de acuerdo con el avalúo o alguno de sus factores o ajustes, deberá aportar la prueba en que fundamente su reclamo. Lo anterior tiene su génesis, en que lo que cuestiona el interesado es una prueba técnica realizada en fundamento a elementos y parámetros ya establecidos por un órgano técnico especializado, y el estudio de las zonas del cantón. El actor argumenta que la falencia de algunos elementos que no fueron tomados en cuenta; que el fundo era enclavado y no se consideró en el avaluó, argumento que es desvirtuado en el mismo juicio, pues el mismo funcionario Municipal Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez, mencionó que efectivamente cuando se realiza la valoración, se considera su ubicación y acceso, el que fue mediante servidumbre de paso, encontrando tal condición sustento dentro del mismo avaluó. Nótese que el mismo se realiza conforme al plano H-470483-82, visible a folio 17 del expediente administrativo, documento que tenía en su poder la Municipalidad y del mismo se observa claramente la demarcación de la propiedad y su acceso mediante servidumbre de paso, aún cuando registralmente ésta no se encuentra declarado. El actor menciona que la servidumbre es de hecho, porque no se encuentra inscrita, sin embargo al ser un elemento evidente dentro de la inspección y el plano de la Municipal, fue tomada en cuenta para el avalúo por la misma condición que reclama el actor de fundo enclavado, lo cual de forma evidente es un condición que debe ser valorada por los funcionarios Municipales, como así se hizo. Nótese que desde el inicio el lote, es ubicado en la zona homogénea la cual corresponde, misma en la cual a un lote tipo, se le da un valor de c 65.000 el metros cuadrado, como así se desprende folios 83. Situación de igual forma que es apreciada por el perito judicial nombrado en autos. Respecto a las construcciones, indica que no fueron consideradas apropiadamente dándoles un valor mayor por parte de los funcionarios Municipales. Sobre este tema en particular el señor Carlos Guillén Ruiz Perito judicial, indica en el juicio oral y público, que no asignó valor alguno a las construcciones por considerar que pueden removibles, por el contrario el avalúo municipal contempla la existencia de las mismas sin que les proporcione tal característica. No debe dar a confusión tales afirmación, que en criterio de esta cámara no son contradictorios, si bien el perito judicial indica que las construcciones puede ser removibles por su condición, no se traduce en que no existen, pues aun cuando así lo fuera, no aportó la actora como es su obligación mayor prueba que demuestra el tipo de construcciones, sus dimensiones, su edad, las condiciones precisas de las mismas, por ser el factor técnico por él cuestionado, no se cuenta en el proceso con prueba mínima como fotografías que muestren a esta cámara las citadas construcciones, si bien en el peritaje judicial se aportaron algunas, no permiten apreciar las construcciones. No pierde de vista este Tribunal que bajo los mismo argumentos se atacó el avalúo en sede administrativa, y la Administración le advierte claramente sobre este tema de las construcciones que es su obligación aportar la prueba para combatir el avalúo, situación que se remite en este proceso, pues nótese que el actor no aporta prueba que combata o demuestre técnicamente lo contrario, de igual forma carece de sustento probatorio su argumento de que la topografía del terreno no se consideró, pues lo contrario se desprende el avalúo como de las manifestaciones en el juicio oral, del funcionario municipal, que en la inspección apreciaron la condición del terreno y su conclusión se reflejó en el avalúo. Si bien se practicó prueba pericial autos, la misma carece de la fuerza probatoria necesaria para desvirtuar el avalúo realizado por la Administración Municipal. En el juicio, al perito se le preguntó en varias ocasiones cual era el método que había utilizado para la valoración, a lo que respondió; primero que tomo en cuenta que la valoración era para aspectos fiscales sin poder comercial o bien sea para la compra o venta de la propiedad y más importante su segunda respuesta, al indicar que el método que había utilizado para la valoración, lo había aprendido fuera del país, y él lo adapto a una tabla de excel en la que se incluye la información y ésta le arroja el resultado, pero que si tomó en cuenta los c65.000 en que se encuentra valorado el metro cuadrado en la zona ubicada la propiedad, al respecto, de la prueba documental presentada por el ente Municipal visible a folios 33 a 48, Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva, mismo emitido por el órgano de Normalización Técnica del Ministerio de Hacienda para realizar los avalúos de los terrenos, en donde se describen los métodos de valoración a utilizar, entre estos el método comparativo, lo anterior conforme a la determinación del lote tipo en la zona homogénea establecida, normas que no consideró el perito judicial al realizar su examen, conclusión y valoración del terreno. Pues el avalúo municipal se realizó mediante la ejecución del método de valoración comparativo y se le aplicaron los factores de corrección para el terreno. Para las construcciones fijas y permanentes e instalaciones se aplicó el manual de valores base unitarios por tipología constructiva, así como las tablas de depreciación. El representante del actor de forma insistente, reitera que la Municipalidad atribuye la carga de la prueba al contribuyente, y que es ésta, la que debe realizar previo al avaluó las mediciones correspondientes para determinar que se valora, el área correcta, argumento que tampoco es de recibo. El Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, establece al efecto en su numeral " Artículo 13.—De la valuación individual. La Administración Tributaria podrá efectuar valuaciones individuales, de oficio o a petición de parte, cuando lo estime conveniente previa verificación de la omisión en la presentación de la declaración de bienes inmuebles, que de carácter voluntario está obligado a presentar el contribuyente o que haya cumplido el plazo de cinco años del término de prescripción y no existiendo una valoración general", por su parte el "Artículo 14.—De la modificación de la base imponible. Toda modificación de valor que afecte la base imponible, será considerada para efecto del cálculo del impuesto, hasta que esté en firme en vía administrativa una vez concluido el proceso de notificación que señala el artículo 32 de este Reglamento, y entrará a regir a partir del uno de enero del año siguiente al que fue notificada. Exceptuando las modificaciones automáticas señaladas en el artículo 21 de este Reglamento, que rigen a partir del uno de enero del año siguiente al que se registran en la administración tributaria." Las anteriores citas reflejan que si bien la Municipalidad ante el incumplimiento del contribuyente de su deber formal de declarar su propiedad, deberá realizar las valoraciones correspondientes, lo que no implica, como lo interpreta el actor que el Municipio debe realizar previamente un levantamiento topográfico a fin de determinar el área a valorar, por el contrario el propietario de la finca es a quien le corresponde primero la obligación de declarar su propiedad en los términos establecidos en el numeral 26 del Reglamento, y si éste, no cumple tal obligación la Municipalidad practicará el avalúo a fin de determinar el valor de la propiedad y la base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto. Y más aún, si hubiera declarado la Municipalidad se encuentra facultada mediante la realización del avalúo, a fin de dar revisisión al valor declarado. El actor argumenta que existe una diferencia en el área reportada en el plano catastrado y la indicada en el Registro Público, y que tal circunstancia le impedí realizar su declaración de bienes, ésto, por no saber que área consignar, argumento en criterio de éste Tribunal totalmente falaz. La finca es de su propiedad, debe conocer su área, y si considera que existen diferencias como las señaladas respecto al área de la propiedad, tiene mecanismos técnicos para determinar el área real, y realizar mediante los instrumentos legales existentes las correcciones, modificaciones de la cabida del inmueble, pero tales actuaciones son exclusivas del actor no del ente Municipal. Finalmente en sus conclusiones el representante del actor argumenta que el avalúo es nulo porque se realizó con base en la área indicada en el plano catastrado aún cuando esto le beneficie, pues la normativa legal establece que debe ser conforme el área registral. El numeral 17 del Reglamento ya citado impone en lo que interesa: "(...) La valoración general se hará considerando los componentes terreno y construcción, si ambos estuvieren presentes en la propiedad, o únicamente el terreno, y podrá realizarse con base en el área del inmueble inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad y en el valor de la zona homogénea donde se ubica el inmueble dentro del respectivo distrito. Para tales efectos, se entenderá por zona homogénea el conjunto de bienes inmuebles con características similares en cuanto a su desarrollo y uso específico. " De la revisión del avalúo Municipal, se desprende que el mismo se realizó con fundamento en la medida del área registrada en el plano castrado h- 470483-82, lo que efectivamente como bien lo apunta el representante del actor contraviene lo dispuesto en la norma anteriormente transcrita, lo que evidencia que ese elemento influyó en el resultado final del avalúo, y constituye en consecuencia un vicio en el acto administrativo de valoración. No obstante, del análisis realizado supra, el avalúo en los restantes elementos técnicos fue practicado conforme lo establece la ley, el reglamento y las normas del órgano Técnico, lo cual no pude ser desvirtuado por la empresa actora, por lo que en criterio de este órgano colegiado resulta innecesario e inconveniente, que por el vicio de un solo elemento técnico, el acto administrativo sea anulado en su totalidad, en razón de lo anterior, por ser un dato técnico que debe ser utilizado y analizado conforme lo establece el numeral 17 en su párrafo segundo, se declara la nulidad parcial del acto valorativo, sólo en cuanto a que tomo como base el plano catastrado y no lo dispuesto por el numeral 17 de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles, por lo que se remite a la Municipal demanda a fin de que realice el ajuste necesario conforme lo establece la ley.

V- Sobre los presupuestos de fondo:

No habiéndose opuesto excepción alguna por la parte demandada, procede de oficio de las los presupuestos de fondo el derecho , la legitimación y el interés. Tesis que se sustenta en la reiterada jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (entre otros el Voto 48 de las 14:00 horas del ocho de julio de 1994, así como el fallo de la antigua Sala de Casación número 34 de las 10:20 horas del 22 de marzo de 1961, que impone el revisar de oficio los presupuestos de una sentencia estimatoria, como lo son el interés, la legitimación y el derecho. De este modo, realizado de oficio el análisis indicado, y a la luz del estudio de fondo efectuado, se determina que no le asiste parcialmente el derecho , aún cuando mantiene el interés en su pretensión, como se acogió parcialmente. Acorde a ello, existe una clara legitimación tanto activa como pasiva en razón de la relación jurídica material aquí discutida, que versa sobre actuaciones municipales de la demandada respecto a la actora en su condición de Contribuyente.”