Sports complex built with public funds on municipal land belongs to public domainPolideportivo Griego construido con fondos públicos en terreno municipal pertenece al dominio público

"IVo.- REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY (HACIENDA PÚBLICA) TO THE SPECIFIC CASE. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in various rulings, among them, ruling number 2004-002199 of twelve hours fifty-nine minutes of February twenty-seventh, two thousand four, has considered:

“IV.- SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY (HACIENDA PUBLICA). In the preceding recital, it was indicated that the ‘Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)’ is an indeterminate concept whose specification corresponds, among others, to the legislator. Thus, regarding the subjective scope of the concept, the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), in its article 4, indicates that this body exercises its competence ‘(...) over all the entities and bodies that make up the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)’ –taxable subjects of its control or oversight–, thereby including every public entity or body and public enterprises, extending even to subjects of Private Law when they administer, safeguard public funds or receive public transfers (article 8, paragraph 3, of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic). Regarding the objective aspect of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), article 8 of the aforementioned law stipulates that ‘(...) it shall be constituted by public funds, the powers to collect, administer, safeguard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds, and the administrative and financial legal norms related to the budget process, administrative contracting, internal and external control, and the responsibility of public officials (...) (the italics are not in the original). Additionally, article 10, paragraph 1, of the repeatedly cited legal text provides that the system of upper control and oversight includes, among other aspects, ‘(...) the set of norms that regulate (...) the procedures, responsibilities, and sanctions derived from that oversight or necessary for it’ (the italics are not in the original)…” (the underlining is not in the original) Now then, in accordance with the provisions of article 9 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the “…Public funds are the resources, values, goods, and rights owned by the State, by bodies, by enterprises or by public entities …” (the underlining is not in the original). By reason of the foregoing and regarding subjects of private law, paragraph 2 of article 8 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic establishes that only those resources that they administer or dispose of, by any title, to achieve their purposes and that have been transferred or made available to them, by norm or budget allocation, by the Powers of the State, their dependencies and auxiliary bodies, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the decentralized administration, state universities, municipalities, and state banks shall form part of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública). In accordance with the provisions of articles 183 and 184 of the Political Constitution; 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, subjects of private law that receive public funds shall be subject to the optional oversight of the Comptroller General of the Republic. In summary, “…the public patrimony shall be the universe constituted by public funds and the liabilities chargeable to the component subjects of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública). The component subjects of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) shall be, the State and the other public entities or bodies, state or non-state, and public enterprises, as well as the subjects of Private Law, insofar as they administer or safeguard public funds by any title, with the established exceptions…” regarding resources of distinct origin (article 8, paragraph 3 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic). Pursuant to the foregoing, the rules governing the subjective and objective components of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) are applicable to the Polideportivo Griego, for the following reasons: i) According to articles 17 of the Law on Community Development (Ley 3859); 11 and 12 of the Regulation to Law 3859 (Executive Decree No. 26935-G of March 26, 1998), Integral or Specific Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral o Específico) “…are entities of public interest, although governed by the norms of private law, and as such, are authorized to promote or carry out a set of plans necessary to socially, economically, and culturally develop the inhabitants of the area in which they coexist, collaborating for this purpose with the Government, the municipalities, and any public and private organisms…”; ii) The declaration of public interest made in favor of the Communal Development Associations (Integral or Specific), given the purposes they pursue, has the consequence of granting them a series of benefits of a fiscal nature and privileges, which are stipulated in Law 3859; however, this does not have the virtue of modifying their legal nature as subjects of private law.

**IVo.- REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY (HACIENDA PÚBLICA) TO THE SPECIFIC CASE.** The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in various rulings, including ruling number 2004-002199 of twelve hours fifty-nine minutes of February twenty-seventh, two thousand four, has considered:

"**IV.- SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY (HACIENDA PUBLICA).** In the preceding recital, it was indicated that the '*Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)*' is an indeterminate concept whose specification corresponds, among others, to the legislator. Thus, regarding the subjective scope of the concept, the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), in its Article 4, indicates that this body exercises its competence '(...) over all the entities and organs that make up the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)' – passive subjects of its control or oversight –, thereby including every public entity or organ and public enterprises, even extending to subjects of Private Law when they administer, have custody of public funds, or receive public transfers (Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the República).

In that sense, the fact that there is oversight by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) *(articles 4, 5, 6 and 8 of its Organic Law)*, **does not distort the private legal nature of the Associations for Integral or Specific Development, since the oversight occurs as a consequence of them being custodians or administrators, by any title, of public funds, or due to the fact of receiving them** *(article 19 of the Law on Community Development)*, **and not due to the fact of their legal nature**; **iii)** <span style='color:#010101'>Whenever the budget of the development associations includes funds from subsidies, donations or contributions originating from the State, public institutions or municipalities - meaning, transfers or specific budget allocations - *(article 19 of the Law on Community Development),* **the Comptroller General of the Republic may exercise its powers of control and supervision in accordance with the Law** *(article 61 of the Regulation to the Law on Community Development, Executive Decree number 26935-G); **iv)**</i> Due to all the foregoing, and contrary to what the appellant claims, the monies that were granted to the Asociación de Desarrollo Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia *(files 31 to 35 of the judicial record)*, for the fulfillment of the purpose for which it was established *(files 14 to 30 of the judicial record)*, **are not the own funds of that subject of private law, but rather constitute public funds,** that are </span> allocated –in this case– to an Association for Integral Development<span style='color:#010101'>; **v)** That consequently, said public funds that they administer, have custody of, or dispose of, by any title, to achieve their purposes and that have been transferred or made available to them, through a rule or budget allocation by the Branches of State, **constitute part of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)** </span> **and their use is subject to the controls exercised by the Comptroller General of the Republic; vi)** <u>Therefore, it is inadmissible to claim that, having assigned public funds to the appellant Association through the corresponding budget allocations, said resources as well as the sports facilities that were built with those funds, constitute property owned by it</u><span style='color:#010101'>. This is because said allocations assigned to the appellant Association through the Budget Law **were directed to a specific purpose**, namely, **the construction and maintenance of the Polideportivo Griego** *(see files 31 to 35 of the judicial record*), that is, <u>they have a public purpose</u> *(file 12, 508 and 509 of the judicial record)*, which is why **the Association cannot validly claim any ownership over said funds, or, over the sports facilities for whose construction and maintenance they were budgeted and assigned to the appellant, since those are assets of public domain (bienes de dominio público), as will be analyzed in recital V of this resolution**. </span> <u>In summary:</u><span style='color:#010101'> **a)** Regardless of whether they are municipal funds or not, the fact is that the appellant Association was assigned public funds for a specific purpose: the construction on a property of the Municipality of Grecia -as the aggrieved party itself acknowledges-, of a Polideportivo destined for public use; **b)** The fact that these transfers were made to it does not confer any right whatsoever to arrogate ownership of the sports facilities, since having been built with public funds, this converts them into part of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública); **c)** The monies transferred through the Budget Law had the sole purpose of carrying out the construction works of the Polideportivo, a reason why, contrary to what the appellant maintains, the budget allocations are not creators of administration rights over the property and much less of ownership rights over the sports facilities that are the object of the proceeding; **d)** Consequently, although by accession (accesión) the facilities of the Polideportivo Griego were incorporated into the land owned by the Municipality of Grecia, this circumstance does not convert the appellant Association into the holder of any right over the sports facilities, and even less into their owner, for it is reiterated, they were built with public funds to be destined for common use, a circumstance that converts them into part of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública). <u>For all the reasons stated, the challenged agreement is not contrary to the provisions of articles 183 of the Political Constitution; 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic; 19 of the Law on Community Development (Law 3859); 61 of the Executive Decree number 26935-G</u>. </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:36.85pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:36.85pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Vo.- </span></b><b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'>ON PUBLIC SPORTS AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND THEIR FORMS OF INCORPORATION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (DOMINIO PÚBLICO). </span></b><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>A public asset (bien público) can be natural or artificial, depending on whether they are assets declared public by the legislator considering them in the state in which nature presents or offers them (a river, for example), or assets declared public by the legislator but whose creation or existence depends on a human act (construction of a street or a public park). Now, in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 44 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), </span><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>“...the municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks or <b><u>other open spaces for general use</u></b>, is constituted by that same use and its registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with, if it appears in the Official Map...” (highlighting is not from the original)</span></i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language: EN'>.</span><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'> For its part, article 76 of Law 7800, provides that <i>“…</i></span><b><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'> <u>Public sports and recreational facilities financed with funds from the State administration</u></span></i></b><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>, must be planned and built in such a way that their multipurpose sports use and recreational activities are favored, taking into account the different sports disciplines, maximum availability, and the different levels of practice of the citizens. These facilities must be made available to the community for public use…” (highlighting is not from the original).</span></i><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'> From the norms partially transcribed above and from the parameters established in article 261 of the Civil Code, it follows that <u>sports and/or recreational facilities built with state financing and destined for public use constitute public domain assets (bienes demaniales), whose essential purpose, according to the provisions of article 50 of the Political Constitution, is to provide persons –in this case, of a determined Canton– with recreational areas, as a way to guarantee them the enjoyment of spaces that allow them a good quality of life and therefore, to develop fully as human beings in freedom</u>. **In the specific case**, this Court considers that **the Polideportivo Griego constitutes an asset incorporated into the public domain (dominio público)** , given that it involves <u>sports and/or recreational facilities built with state financing, on a property that belongs to the Municipality of Grecia and that is destined for public use,</u> as can be deduced from the following evidence: ***1)*** In the “Lease Contract for a Municipal Land” signed on April third, nineteen ninety, by the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia and the Municipal Executive of that Canton, it is established –in what is relevant– that <i>“</i></span><i><span lang=EN style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:150%;color:#010101; mso-ansi-language:EN'>…A plot of land located behind the Escuela Eulogia Ruiz where a Polideportivo is being built, is leased to the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de Grecia, for the symbolic sum of one hundred colones per month and for ten renewable years. The same was constituted by a firm agreement approved unanimously by the Municipal Council…”</span></i><i><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'> (files 12, 508 and 509 of the judicial record; highlighting is not from the original). </span></i><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Said agreement is supported by the Municipal Council agreement contained in article II, subsection 9), of Act number 20 of March 22, nineteen ninety *(files 12, 508 and 509 of the judicial record)*, issued in accordance with the powers conferred by articles 2, 9, 13 subsection e) and 62 paragraph 1 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), in relation to numeral 154 of the General Law of Public Administration; ***2)*** Likewise, from the documents visible on files 31 to 35 of the judicial record, it can be deduced that **the public funds destined for the construction and maintenance of the Polideportivo Griego**, granted to the appellant Association through Budget Laws of the Republic, **are of State origin** *-circumstance that it itself acknowledges (file 398 of the judicial record)-*, an aspect that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 76 of Law 7800 and 66 of Executive Decree number</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'> 28922-C, <span style='color:#010101'>does acquire relevance in order to determine the incorporation of said facilities into the public domain (dominio público), since one of the conditions provided for in article 76 of Law 7800 and its Regulation, is that they be *“...* *financed with funds from the State administration...”*; ***3)* The facilities of the Polideportivo Griego are available to the community of the Canton of Grecia for its public use**, so much so, that the Municipal Council of Grecia, through the challenged agreement, decided to void the Contract signed with the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia and temporarily assume its administration, although subsequently it granted its administration to the Comité Cantonal de Deportes. The foregoing, with the aim not only of preserving, but of guaranteeing that they fulfill the public purpose for which they were destined, which finds support in the provisions of articles 76 in fine of Law 7800, 44 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), 171 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and 67 of the Executive Decree number 28922-C *(files 331 to 332, 348 to 355, 379 to 381, 395 of the judicial record)*. **Consequently, although by accession (accesión) the facilities of the Polideportivo Griego were incorporated into the land owned by the Municipality of Grecia, this circumstance does not convert the appellant Association into the holder of any right over the sports facilities, and even less into their owner, for it is reiterated, they were built with public funds to be destined for common use, a circumstance that converts them into part of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública).** Both the land and the public sports facilities built there are imbued with **the characteristics of** **inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unattachability**. <u>Consequently and for all the reasons stated, this Court considers that the challenged agreement is not contrary to the provisions of articles 44 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana); 261 of the Civil Code (Código Civil); 76 in fine of Law 7800; 2, 9, 13 subsection e) and 62 paragraph 1, 171 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) and 67 of the Executive Decree number 28922-C</u><span style='color:#010101'>.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:36.85pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> </body> </html> Regarding the objective aspect of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), Article 8 of the aforementioned law stipulates that ‘(...) it shall be constituted by public funds, the powers to collect, administer, safeguard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds, and the administrative and financial legal norms relating to the budget process, administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), internal and external control, and the responsibility of public officials (...) (emphasis not in original). Additionally, Article 10, paragraph 1, of the repeatedly cited legal text provides that the superior control and oversight system (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superior) comprises, among other aspects, ‘(...) the set of norms regulating (...) the procedures, responsibilities, and sanctions derived from that oversight or necessary for it’ (emphasis not in original)…” (underlining not in original).

Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), the “...Public funds are the resources, securities, assets, and rights owned by the State, organs, companies, or public entities…” (underlining not in original). By reason of the foregoing and regarding subjects of private law, paragraph 2 of numeral 8 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic establishes that only resources they administer or dispose of, under any title, to achieve their purposes and that have been transferred or placed at their disposal, by legal norm or budget allocation (partida presupuestaria), by the Branches of Government, their dependencies and auxiliary organs, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), the decentralized administration, state universities, municipalities, and state banks, shall form part of the Public Treasury. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 183 and 184 of the Political Constitution; 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, subjects of private law that receive public funds shall be subject to the optional oversight of the Comptroller General of the Republic. In sum, “...the public patrimony shall be the universe constituted by public funds and the liabilities for which the component subjects of the Public Treasury are responsible. The component subjects of the Public Treasury shall be the State and other public entities or organs, state or not, and public enterprises, as well as subjects of Private Law, insofar as they administer or safeguard public funds under any title, with the established exceptions…” regarding resources of a different origin (Article 8, paragraph 3 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic). In accordance with the foregoing, the norms regulating the subjective and objective components of the Public Treasury are applicable to the Polideportivo Griego, for the following reasons: i) According to Articles 17 of the Community Development Law (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad, Law 3859); 11 and 12 of the Regulation to Law 3859 (Executive Decree No. 26935-G of March 26, 1998), Integral or Specific Development Associations (Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral o Específico) “...are entities of public interest, although governed by the norms of private law, and as such, are authorized to promote or carry out a set of plans necessary to develop the inhabitants of the area in which they coexist socially, economically, and culturally, collaborating for this purpose with the Government, municipalities, and any public and private organisms...”; ii) The declaration of public interest made in favor of Community Development Associations (Integral or Specific), given the purposes they pursue, has the consequence of granting them a series of fiscal benefits and privileges, which are stipulated in Law number 3859; however, this does not have the virtue of modifying their legal nature as subjects of private law. In that sense, the fact that there is oversight by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Articles 4, 5, 6, and 8 of its Organic Law) also does not distort the private legal nature of the Integral or Specific Development Associations, since the oversight occurs as a consequence of their being custodians or administrators, under any title, of public funds, or by the fact of receiving them (Article 19 of the Community Development Law), and not by the fact of their legal nature; iii) Whenever the budget of development associations includes funds from subsidies, donations, or contributions from the State, public institutions, or municipalities—understood as transfers or specific allocations (partidas específicas)— (Article 19 of the Community Development Law), the Comptroller General of the Republic may exercise its control and supervision powers in accordance with the Law (Article 61 of the Regulation to the Community Development Law, Executive Decree number 26935-G); iv) For all the foregoing reasons, and contrary to what the appellant claims, the monies that were granted to the Asociación de Desarrollo Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia (folios 31 to 35 of the case file), for the fulfillment of the purpose for which it was established (folios 14 to 30 of the case file), are not the own funds of that subject of private law, but rather constitute public funds, which are allocated – in this case – to an Integral Development Association; v) That consequently, those public funds that they administer, safeguard, or dispose of, under any title, to achieve their purposes and that have been transferred or placed at their disposal, by legal norm or budget allocation by the Branches of Government, constitute part of the Public Treasury and their use is subject to the controls exercised by the Comptroller General of the Republic; vi) Therefore, it is improper to maintain that, having assigned public funds to the appellant Association through the corresponding budget allocations, said resources, as well as the sports facilities that were built with those funds, constitute assets owned by it. This is because said allocations assigned to the appellant Association through the Budget Law were directed to a specific purpose, namely, the construction and maintenance of the Polideportivo Griego (see folios 31 to 35 of the case file), that is, they have a public purpose (folio 12, 508, and 509 of the case file), for which reason the Association cannot validly claim any ownership over said funds, or over the sports facilities for whose construction and maintenance they were budgeted and assigned to the appellant, since those are assets of the public domain (bienes de dominio público), as will be analyzed in Considerando V of this resolution. In summary: a) Regardless of whether they are municipal funds or not, the fact is that the appellant Association was assigned public funds for a specific purpose: the construction, on a property of the Municipality of Grecia - as the aggrieved party itself acknowledges -, of a Sports Complex destined for public use; b) The fact that these transfers were issued to it does not confer any right on it to arrogate ownership of the sports facilities, since having been built with public funds, it converts them into part of the Public Treasury; c) The monies transferred through the Budget Law had the sole purpose of carrying out the construction works of the Sports Complex, which is why, and contrary to what the appellant maintains, budget allocations do not create administration rights over the property, much less ownership rights over the sports facilities that are the subject of the proceeding; d) Consequently, although by accession the facilities of the Polideportivo Griego were incorporated into the land owned by the Municipality of Grecia, this circumstance does not convert the appellant Association into the holder of any right over the sports facilities and even less so into their owner, as it is reiterated, they were built with public funds to be destined for common use, a circumstance that converts them into part of the Public Treasury. For all the foregoing reasons, the challenged agreement is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 183 of the Political Constitution; 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic; 19 of the Community Development Law (Law 3859); 61 of Executive Decree number 26935-G.

**Vo.-** **REGARDING PUBLIC SPORTS AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND THEIR FORMS OF INCORPORATION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.** A public asset (bien público) may be natural or artificial, depending on whether it concerns assets declared public by the legislator considering them in the state in which nature presents or offers them (a river, for example), or assets declared public by the legislator but whose creation or existence depends on a human act (construction of a street or a public park). Now, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), “...the municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks, or other open spaces for general use, is constituted by that very same use and its inscription in the Property Registry may be dispensed with, if it appears on the Official Map...” (emphasis not in original). For its part, Article 76 of Law 7800 provides that “… Public sports and recreational facilities financed with funds from the State administration, must be planned and constructed in such a way as to favor their multi-purpose sports use and recreational activities, taking into account different sports disciplines, maximum availability, and the different levels of practice of citizens. These facilities must be made available to the community for public use…” (emphasis not in original). From the norms partially transcribed above and the parameters established in Article 261 of the Civil Code, it follows that sports and/or recreational facilities built with state financing and destined for public use constitute public domain assets (bienes demaniales), whose essential purpose, according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, is to provide people – in this case, from a specific Canton – with recreational areas, as a way to guarantee their enjoyment of spaces that allow them to have a good quality of life and, therefore, to develop fully as human beings in freedom. In the specific case, this Tribunal considers that the Polideportivo Griego constitutes an asset incorporated into the public domain, since it concerns sports and/or recreational facilities built with state financing, on a property belonging to the Municipality of Grecia, and which is destined for public use, as is evident from the following evidentiary elements: 1) In the “Lease Contract for a Municipal Land” signed on April third, nineteen ninety, by the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia and the Municipal Executive of that Canton, it is established – in what is relevant – that “...A plot of land located behind the Eulogia Ruiz School where a Sports Complex is being built is leased to the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de Grecia, for the symbolic sum of one hundred colones monthly and for ten years, extendable. This was constituted in a firm agreement approved unanimously by the Municipal Council...” (folios 12, 508, and 509 of the case file; emphasis not in original). Said agreement is based on the Municipal Council agreement contained in Article II, subsection 9), of Minute number 20 of March 22, nineteen ninety (folios 12, 508, and 509 of the case file), issued in accordance with the powers conferred by Articles 2, 9, 13 subsection e), and 62 paragraph 1 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), in relation to numeral 154 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 2) Likewise, from the documents visible on folios 31 to 35 of the case file, it is evident that the public funds destined for the construction and maintenance of the Polideportivo Griego, granted to the appellant Association through Budgetary Laws of the Republic, are of State origin - a circumstance that it itself acknowledges (folio 398 of the case file) -, an aspect that, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 76 of Law 7800 and 66 of Executive Decree number 28922-C, does acquire relevance for the purpose of determining the incorporation of said facilities into the public domain, since one of the conditions provided for in Article 76 of Law 7800 and its Regulation is that they be “...financed with funds from the State administration...”; 3) The facilities of the Polideportivo Griego are available to the community of the Canton of Grecia for their public use, so much so that the Municipal Council of Grecia, through the challenged agreement, decided to render null and void the Contract signed with the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia and temporarily assume their administration, although it subsequently granted their administration to the Cantonal Sports Committee (Comité Cantonal de Deportes). The foregoing, with the aim not only of preserving, but of guaranteeing that they fulfill the public purpose for which they were destined, which finds support in the provisions of Articles 76 in fine of Law 7800, 44 of the Urban Planning Law, 171 of the Municipal Code, and 67 of Executive Decree number 28922-C (folios 331 to 332, 348 to 355, 379 to 381, 395 of the case file). Consequently, although by accession the facilities of the Polideportivo Griego were incorporated into the land owned by the Municipality of Grecia, this circumstance does not convert the appellant Association into the holder of any right over the sports facilities and even less so into their owner, as it is reiterated, they were built with public funds to be destined for common use, a circumstance that converts them into part of the Public Treasury. Both the land and the public sports facilities built there are vested with the characteristics of inalienability, imprescriptibility, and immunity from seizure. Consequently and for all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the challenged agreement is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 44 of the Urban Planning Law; 261 of the Civil Code; 76 in fine of Law 7800; 2, 9, 13 subsection e) and 62 paragraph 1, 171 of the Municipal Code, and 67 of Executive Decree number 28922-C.”

“IVo.- EN CUANTO A LA APLICACIÓN DE LOS COMPONENTES SUBJETIVO Y OBJETIVO DE LA HACIENDA PÚBLICA AL CASO CONCRETO. La Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en diversas sentencias, entre ellas, la número 2004-002199 de las doce horas cincuenta y nueve minutos del veintisiete de febrero del dos mil cuatro, ha considerado:

“IV.- COMPONENTES SUBJETIVO Y OBJETIVO DE LA HACIENDA PUBLICA. En el considerando precedente se indicó que la ‘ Hacienda Pública’ es un concepto indeterminado cuya concreción le corresponde, entre otros, al legislador. Así, en lo referente al alcance subjetivo del concepto, la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, en su numeral 4º, indica que ese órgano ejerce su competencia ‘(...) sobre todos los entes y órganos que integran la Hacienda Pública’ –sujetos pasivos de su control o fiscalización–, con lo cual incluye a todo ente u órgano público y empresas públicas extendiéndose, incluso, a sujetos de Derecho privado cuando administren, custodien fondos públicos o reciban transferencias públicas (artículo 8º, párrafo 3º, de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). En lo tocante a la vertiente objetiva de la Hacienda Pública el artículo 8º de la supracitada ley estatuye que ‘(...) estará constituida por los fondos públicos, las potestades para percibir, administrar, custodiar, conservar, manejar, gastar e invertir tales fondos y las normas jurídicas administrativas y financieras, relativas al proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control interno y externo y la responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos (...) (la cursiva no es del original). Adicionalmente, el artículo 10º, párrafo 1º, del pluricitado texto legal dispone que el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superior comprende, entre otros aspectos, ‘(...) el conjunto de normas que regulan (...) los procedimientos, las responsabilidades y las sanciones derivados de esa fiscalización o necesarios para éste’ (la cursiva no es del original)…” (el subrayado no es del original) Ahora bien, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, los “…Fondos públicos son los recursos, valores, bienes y derechos propiedad del Estado, de órganos, de empresas o de entes públicos …” (el subrayado no es del original). En razón de lo anterior y respecto a los sujetos de derecho privado, el párrafo 2º del numeral 8 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, establece que únicamente formarán parte de la Hacienda Pública los recursos que administren o dispongan, por cualquier título, para conseguir sus fines y que hayan sido transferidos o puestos a su disposición, mediante norma o partida presupuestaria, por los Poderes del Estado, sus dependencias y órganos auxiliares, el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, la administración descentralizada, las universidades estatales, las municipalidades y los bancos del Estado. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 183 y 184 de la Constitución Política; 4, 5, 6 y 8 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, los sujetos de derecho privado que reciban fondos públicos, estarán sujetos a la fiscalización facultativa de la Contraloría General de la República . En síntesis, “…el patrimonio público será el universo constituido por los fondos públicos y los pasivos a cargo de los sujetos componentes de la Hacienda Pública. Serán sujetos componentes de la Hacienda Pública, el Estado y los demás entes u órganos públicos, estatales o no, y las empresas públicas, así como los sujetos de Derecho Privado, en cuanto administren o custodien fondos públicos por cualquier título, con las salvedades establecidas…” en cuanto a los recursos de origen distinto (artículo 8 párrafo 3º de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). Conforme a lo expuesto , al Polideportivo Griego le son aplicables las normas que regulan los componentes subjetivo y objetivo de la Hacienda Pública, por las siguientes razones: i) De acuerdo a los artículos 17 de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Ley 3859); 11 y 12 del Reglamento a la Ley 3859 (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26935-G del 26 de marzo de 1998), las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral o Específico “…son entidades de interés público, aunque regidas por las normas del derecho privado, y como tales, están autorizadas para promover o realizar un conjunto de planes necesarios para desarrollar social, económica y culturalmente a los habitantes del área en que conviven, colaborando para ello con el Gobierno, las municipalidades y cualesquiera organismos públicos y privados…”; ii) La declaratoria de interés público que se hace a favor de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Comunal (Integral o Específico), dado los fines que persiguen, tiene la consecuencia de otorgarles una serie de beneficios de carácter fiscal y de privilegios, los cuales se encuentran estipulados en la ley número 3859, sin embargo, ello no tiene la virtud de modificar su naturaleza jurídica de sujetos de derecho privado. En ese sentido, el hecho de que exista una fiscalización por parte de la Contraloría General de la República (artículos 4, 5, 6 y 8 de su Ley Orgánica), tampoco desvirtúa la naturaleza jurídica privada de las Asociaciones de Desarrollo Integral o Específico, ya que la fiscalización se da como consecuencia de que sean custodios o administradores por cualquier título de fondos públicos, o por el hecho de recibirlos (artículo 19 de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad), y no por el hecho de su naturaleza jurídica; iii) Siempre que en el presupuesto de las asociaciones de desarrollo figuren fondos provenientes de subvenciones, donaciones o contribuciones provenientes del Estado, de las instituciones públicas o de las municipalidades -entiéndase, transferencias o partidas específicas- (artículo 19 de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad), la Contraloría General de la República podrá ejercer las facultades de control y supervisión de conformidad con la Ley (artículo 61 del Reglamento a la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad, Decreto Ejecutivo número 26935-G); iv) Por todo lo expuesto, y contrario a lo que afirma la recurrente, los dineros que fueron otorgados a la Asociación de Desarrollo Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia (folios 31 a 35 del expediente), para el cumplimiento del fin para el que fue constituida (folios 14 a 30 del expediente), no son fondos propios de ese sujeto de derecho privado, sino que constituyen fondos públicos, que se asignan –en este caso- a una Asociación de Desarrollo Integral; v) Que en consecuencia, dichos fondos públicos que administren, custodien o dispongan, por cualquier título, para conseguir sus fines y que hayan sido transferidos o puestos a su disposición, mediante norma o partida presupuestaria por los Poderes del Estado, constituyen parte de la Hacienda Pública y su uso está sometido a los controles que ejerce la Contraloría General de la República; vi) Por ende, resulta improcedente sostener que al haberse asignado a favor de la Asociación recurrente, fondos públicos mediante las partidas presupuestarias correspondientes, dichos recursos así como las instalaciones deportivas que se construyeron con esos fondos, constituyen bienes de su propiedad. Ello por cuanto, dichas partidas asignadas a la Asociación recurrente por medio de la Ley de Presupuesto, iban dirigidas a un destino específico, como lo es, la construcción y mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego (ver folios 31 a 35 del expediente), o sea, tienen un fin público (folio 12, 508 y 509 del expediente), motivo por el cual, la Asociación no puede válidamente pretender ninguna titularidad sobre dichos fondos, o bien, sobre las instalaciones deportivas para cuya construcción y mantenimiento, fueron presupuestados y asignados a la apelante, pues aquellas son bienes de dominio público, tal y como se analizará en el considerando V de esta resolución. En síntesis: a) Indistintamente de que sean fondos municipales o no, lo cierto es que a la Asociación apelante se le asignaron fondos públicos para un fin específico: la construcción en un inmueble de la Municipalidad de Grecia -tal y como la propia agraviada lo reconoce-, de un Polideportivo destinado al uso público; b) El hecho de que se le hayan girado esas transferencias, no le confiere derecho alguno para arrogarse la propiedad de las instalaciones deportivas, toda vez que al haberse edificado con fondos públicos, las convierte en parte de la Hacienda Pública; c) Los dineros transferidos mediante la Ley de Presupuesto tenían como único fin la realización de las obras constructivas del Polideportivo, razón por la cual y contrario a lo que sostiene la recurrente las partidas presupuestarias no son creadoras de derechos de administración sobre el inmueble y menos aún de derechos de propiedad sobre las instalaciones deportivas objeto del procedimiento; d) En consecuencia, aunque por accesión las instalaciones del Polideportivo Griego, se incorporaron al terreno propiedad de la Municipalidad de Grecia, dicha circunstancia no convierte a la Asociación apelante en el titular de algún derecho sobre las instalaciones deportivas y menos aún en su dueño, pues se insiste, fueron construidas con fondos públicos para ser destinadas a un uso común, circunstancia que las convierte en parte de la Hacienda Pública. Por todo lo expuesto, el acuerdo impugnado no resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 183 de la Constitución Política; 4, 5, 6, 8 y 9 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República; 19 de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (Ley 3859); 61 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 26935-G.

Vo.- SOBRE LAS INSTALACIONES PÚBLICAS DEPORTIVAS Y/O RECREATIVAS, Y SUS FORMAS DE INCORPORACIÓN AL DOMINIO PÚBLICO. Un bien público puede ser natural o artificial, según se trate de bienes declarados públicos por el legislador considerándolos en el estado en que la naturaleza los presenta u ofrece (un río por ejemplo), o de bienes declarados públicos por el legislador pero cuya creación o existencia depende de un hecho humano (construcción de una calle o un parque público). Ahora bien, de conformidad con el párrafo 1º del artículo 44 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, “...el dominio municipal sobre las áreas de calles, plazas, jardines, parques u otros espacios abiertos de uso general, se constituye por ese mismo uso y puede prescindirse de su inscripción en el Registro de la Propiedad, si consta en el Mapa Oficial...” (el resaltado no es del original). Por su parte, el artículo 76 de la Ley 7800, dispone que “… Las instalaciones deportivas y recreativas de carácter público financiadas con fondos de la administración del Estado, deberán planificarse y contribuirse de tal modo que se favorezcan su utilización deportiva polivalente y las actividades recreativas, teniendo en cuenta las diferentes disciplinas deportivas, la máxima disponibilidad y los distintos niveles de práctica de los ciudadanos. Estas instalaciones deberán ponerse a disposición de la comunidad para uso público…” (el resaltado no es del original). De las normas parcialmente transcritas con anterioridad y de los parámetros establecidos en el artículo 261 del Código Civil, se desprende que las instalaciones deportivas y/ o recreativas construidas con financiamiento estatal y destinadas a un uso público, constituyen bienes demaniales, cuya finalidad esencial al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, es la de otorgar a las personas –en este caso, de un determinado Cantón- áreas de esparcimiento, como una forma de garantizarles el disfrute de espacios que les permitan tener una buena calidad de vida y por ende, desarrollarse plenamente como seres humanos en libertad. En el caso concreto, este Tribunal considera que el Polideportivo Griego constituye un bien incorporado al dominio público, puesto que se trata de instalaciones deportivas y/o recreativas construidas con financiamiento estatal, en un inmueble que pertenece a la Municipalidad de Grecia y que se encuentra destinado a un uso público, tal y como se desprende de los siguientes medios probatorios: 1) En el “Contrato de Alquiler de un Terreno Municipal” suscrito el tres de abril de mil novecientos noventa, por la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia y el Ejecutivo Municipal de ese Cantón, se establece –en lo que interesa- que “ …Se le alquila un terreno ubicado detrás de la Escuela Eulogia Ruiz donde se construye un Polideportivo, a la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de Grecia, por la suma de cien colones mensuales simbólicos y por diez años prorrogables. El mismo se constituyó en un acuerdo firme y aprobado por unanimidad por el Concejo Municipal…” (folios 12, 508 y 509 del acuerdo del Concejo Municipal contenido en el artículo II, inciso 9), del Acta número 20 del 22 de marzo de mil novecientos noventa (folios 12, 508 y 509 del expediente), emitido conforme a las potestades que le confieren los artículos 2, 9, 13 inciso e) y 62 párrafo 1º del Código Municipal, en relación con el numeral 154 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 2) Asimismo, de los documentos visibles de folio 31 a 35 del expediente, se desprende que los fondos públicos destinados a la construcción y mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, otorgados a la Asociación recurrente mediante Leyes Presupuestarias de la República, son de origen Estatal -circunstancia que ella misma reconoce (folio 398 del Ley 7800 y 66 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 28922-C, sí adquiere relevancia a fin de determinar la incorporación de dichas instalaciones al dominio público, puesto que una de las condiciones previstas en el artículo 76 de la Ley 7800 y su Reglamento, es que sean “… financiadas con fondos de la administración del Estado…”; 3) Las instalaciones del Polideportivo Griego, están a disposición de la comunidad del Cantón de Grecia para su uso público, tan es así, que el Concejo Municipal de Grecia, mediante el acuerdo impugnado decidió dejar sin efecto el Contrato suscrito con la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia y asumir temporalmente la administración de las mismas, aunque con posterioridad otorg ó su administración al Comité Cantonal de Deportes. Lo anterior, con el objeto no sólo de preservar, sino de garantizar que cumplan la finalidad pública para la que fueron destinadas, lo cual, encuentra sustento en lo dispuesto por los artículos 76 in fine de la Ley 7800, 44 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, 171 del Código Municipal y 67 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 28922-C (folios 331 a 332, 348 a 355, 379 a 381, 395 del expediente). En consecuencia, aunque por accesión las instalaciones del Polideportivo Griego, se incorporaron al terreno propiedad de la Municipalidad de Grecia, dicha circunstancia no convierte a la Asociación apelante en el titular de algún derecho sobre las instalaciones deportivas y menos aún en su dueño, pues se insiste, fueron construidas con fondos públicos para ser destinadas a un uso común, circunstancia que las convierte en parte de la Hacienda Pública. Tanto el terreno, como las instalaciones públicas deportivas que allí se construyeron, les revisten las características de inalienabilidad, imprescriptibilidad, e inembargabilidad. En consecuencia y por todo lo contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 44 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana; 261 del Código Civil; 76 in fine de la Ley 7800; 2, 9, 13 inciso e) y 62 párrafo 1º, 171 del Código Municipal y 67 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 28922-C.”