Municipal lease for sports complex: Association cannot claim value of works built with public fundsArrendamiento municipal para polideportivo: Asociación no puede reclamar valor de obras construidas con fondos públicos

**IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE** The plaintiff alleged that on March 22, 1990, the Municipal Council of Grecia, in Session number twenty, Article III, subsection 9, adopted a firm resolution, approved unanimously, to lease the property it owned, located behind the Eulogia Ruiz School, to the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones, for a symbolic price of one hundred colones, for a period of 10 years, extendable. Subsequently, the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones convened its various affiliated associations, and on May 19, 1990, they formed the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia, legal identification number 3-002-114673, which had, according to its bylaws, the objective of promoting the development and construction of the Sports Complex in its entirety, maintaining all the infrastructure of the sports complex, which would be at the service of the people of Grecia, as well as the administrative aspects; for this it would have resources from voluntary dues of its members, donations and contributions from its honorary members or from international organizations, donations and contributions and any kind of contribution that State institutions, municipalities or any public, private, civic or professional entity might agree to in its favor, and the percentage of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) established by law. During the term of the lease, an infrastructure was built comprising a large pool and another small one, a restaurant, a gym, bathrooms and changing rooms, a basketball court, a machine room, a finish-line shelter, a well, a warehouse, a green zone, and a beach zone. The construction was able to be erected thanks to specific budget allocations assigned to the association, with the funds used being public, not municipal. For this reason, the plaintiff maintains that if the Municipality wishes to evict them, it must pay the Asociación de Desarrollo Especifico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia the value of what was built, as well as the damages caused by attempting to recover the property. The case theory of the Municipality maintains that since the works were built with public funds, the association cannot claim, as owner, the value of what was built; moreover, it did not provide accounting books, invoices, or documents by which it could demonstrate that private contributions were received, nor does this appear in the Association's book, which is why it could not charge any amount for that concept; it further notes that they received multiple complaints from residents of the community alleging that the infrastructure was in a state of abandonment, which is why the Council, in an extraordinary Session on February 26, 2010, recorded in minute No. 322, decided to inform the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia that it would no longer extend the contract or agreement granted for the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex, granting a period of 30 days to vacate the property, as from that date the Municipality would assume its administration, which it indeed did.

**V.-** **ON THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL** The central point underpinning the plaintiff's case theory for claiming payment of the value of the building that was constructed is the assertion that although the Sports Complex was built on municipal land, the funds were public and not municipal. Before proceeding to the analysis of the claim, it is appropriate to note that there is no controversy regarding the fact that the property given in lease was an unbuilt property registered in the Public Registry under title number 196628-000, whose owner was the municipality of Grecia. By a singular designation (afectación singular), this patrimonial asset was destined to fulfill a public utility function, by authorizing the construction of a Sports Complex, a purpose that was evidently connected to the service of the community, since it would become a place where all the inhabitants of that territorial circumscription could healthily practice sports activities, contributing to health and recreation. The lease contract for carrying out the cited works was signed on March 22, 1990, between the municipal entity and the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, for a symbolic rent of one hundred colones per month, and with a duration of ten years, extendable. The foregoing leads us to separate two realities: the property on which the Sports Complex was built, which undoubtedly became a public use asset (bien de uso público), whose ownership is not claimed, since being property of the administration it escapes the general logic applied to private goods, whose normal purpose is to be an object of appropriation, while public ones, as already noted, are withdrawn from commerce among men, and are inalienable and imprescriptible. To this end, it is necessary to specify that although the lease contract was signed with the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, the construction was assigned to a different association, which was formed on May 19, 1990, under the supervision of DINADECO, under the name Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, registered in the Person Registry under legal identification number 3-002-114673 and in the National Registry of Associations at volume 11, folio 478, entry 18497, which would have among its objectives the total construction of the Sports Complex and the maintenance of the infrastructure. That association was formed under the aegis of the Community Development Law No. 3859 (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº3859), which regulates the formation of associations wishing to dedicate themselves to community development, as set forth in Article 15 of the cited Law: “The communities of the country that wish to organize themselves to carry out comprehensive or specific development activities for their own benefit and for the benefit of the country may do so in the form of district, cantonal, regional, provincial, or national associations, which shall be governed by the provisions of this law.” For its formation, “... it shall be necessary that at least one hundred persons, and no more than fifteen hundred, over the age of fifteen and interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, meet. The jurisdictional area of a development association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural basis for community grouping. In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of development associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above. In no case may associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five.” (Art. 16 eiusdem). These associations shall be governed by bylaws, which must contain, among others, the determination of the specific or general purpose it pursues and the resources it will have; furthermore, they must coordinate their activities with the Municipality of the respective canton, so that these are successful. The fulfillment of the purpose for which it was created is so relevant that its existence and operation are subordinated to it, and it is prohibited from: “a) using the association for purposes other than those indicated in the bylaws… b) carrying out activities for profit on behalf of its board members or any of its associates….” (Art. 24 Ley Nº 3859). However, for its operation, it may acquire all kinds of property, enter into contracts of any type, and carry out all kinds of lawful operations aimed at achieving its purposes (Art. 23 of the cited law). It is evident from the rules stated that this type of association differs from common Associations created under the Associations Law No. 218 (Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218), which regulate those created for scientific, artistic, sports, charitable, recreational, and any other lawful purposes that do not have profit or gain as their sole and exclusive object (see Art 1 of Law 218), by their purpose and the absence of profit or gain for their associates, since what they pursue is the development and organization of the community. For this reason, the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, through decree Decreto Nº 32595 of August 4, 2005, established in Article 10 that business, infrastructure, training, acquisition of real estate, purchase of machinery and equipment projects, consistent with the country's development policy, or specific community development activities of organized joint effort in the economic, social, and cultural fields, will receive funds. According to Article 19 of Ley Nº 3859, those projects shall be financed by: “The State, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, the municipalities, and other public entities, are authorized to grant subsidies, donate goods, or provide services of any kind to these associations, as a way of contributing to the development of the communities and the economic and social progress of the country. The State shall include in the National Budget an allocation equivalent to 2% of the estimated Income Tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta) for that period, which shall be transferred to the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, for the duly constituted and legalized community development associations. The Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo shall deposit those funds in the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, to be disbursed exclusively to the Community Development Associations and, at the same time, to create a fund for guarantees and incentives, to enable the financing or facilitate the financing of projects submitted by the same associations, in accordance with the respective regulations.” In the case at hand, it was demonstrated that with the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic for the Fiscal Year 1989, No. 711 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República para el Ejercicio Fiscal de 1989 Nº 711), a budgetary allocation was provided for the construction and purchase of materials for the Municipal Sports Complex in the sum of five million five hundred seventy thousand colones; subsequently, in the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Economic Year 1995, No. 7465 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1995, Nº 7465), an allocation was destined for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, in the sum of ten million five hundred thousand colones; and the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Economic Year 1996, No. 7563 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1996, Nº 7563), reserved an allocation for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, in the sum of nine million two hundred thousand colones. The aforementioned budget allocations or transfers, as well as the percentage established in the law from the collection of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) – comprised of levies on corporate profits and on individuals conducting lucrative activities, the tax on dependent personal labor income, taxes on remittances abroad and the tax on dividends and interest from securities, and other sources established in Ley Nº 3859 – confirm the case theory maintained by the defendant entity and paradoxically confirmed by the plaintiff: that the Greek Sports Complex was built with public funds, a concept that refers to that “set of money and assets existing in the public treasury; and also the active obligations in favor of the State and public corporations, such as taxes and duties pending payment” (Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volume I. p. 94). That ownership the State holds over public funds means they become part of the public patrimony, understood as “...the universality constituted by the public funds and the liabilities chargeable to the Public Treasury.” (Art. 8 of the Organic Law of the General Comptroller of the Republic). The State, to carry out its projects and activities, requires fluid wealth, which fulfills an economic instrumentality, and therefore the money it receives forms part of the State budget. The money, regardless of the source from which it is obtained (tributes, fees, special contributions, internal and external credit, patrimonial assets, public debt operations, or any other resource), constitutes income of the Public Treasury, which is budgeted each year for a specific purpose and the satisfaction of a public interest. Specific allocations were, for many years, a budgetary distortion in public spending, as they allowed the assignment of funds from the national budget to fulfill commitments acquired at the legislative level without supporting technical criteria or adherence to the priorities defined by the Executive Branch and the specialized bodies. In this specific case, several of these allocations were what enabled the construction of a large part of the Sports Complex. Having clarified the above, it is appropriate to note that in this specific case, the plaintiff did not separate which resources from the total invested in the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex did not originate from those allocations, from the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) amount, donations, or even from the resources generated by the use or rental of the facilities, even though it bore the burden of proof. For this reason, it is not possible to grant any sum of the claimed amount, clarifying that even if it had been proven that there were contributions from members, these could not be returned, not only due to the nature of the association to which reference has already been made, but also because even if it had been proven that those contributions were made, their purpose was to contribute to the achievement of the communal development and well-being that were being pursued. The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, and therefore the Association could not claim ownership of them as the owner, when it was only its administrator, a role which also did not mean it had to provide such services in perpetuity. The foregoing leads us to an essential consideration that must not be forgotten: the Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipality, as the titleholder of the property, exercised its powers in disposing of it and leasing it, but concomitantly it had to exercise control over the acts of utilization, and therefore it could verify that it was indeed destined for the purpose for which it was leased, and that the facilities were maintained in the best conditions, so that citizens could safely practice sports and recreational activities. However, the multiple complaints from community residents and users of the facilities allowed it to reach a different conclusion, adding to this that an audit conducted by DINADECO revealed disorder in the administration of finances. Furthermore, it must be noted that as the titleholder of the property, the Municipality had the power not to further extend the lease contract, which it effectively did. Finally, the claim for damages requested is rejected, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate their existence, even though it bore the burden of proof.” **IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE** The plaintiff alleged that on March 22, 1990, the Municipal Council of Grecia, in Session number twenty, article III, subsection 9, adopted a firm and unanimously approved agreement to lease, for the symbolic price of one hundred colones, the property owned by it, located behind the Eulogia Ruiz School, to the Cantonal Union of Associations (Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones), for a period of 10 years, renewable. Consequently, the Cantonal Union of Associations convened its various affiliated associations, and they constituted on May 19, 1990, the Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Griego Sports Complex of Grecia (Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia), legal identification number 3-002-114673, which had, according to its bylaws, the objective of promoting the development and construction of the Sports Complex in its entirety, maintaining all the infrastructure of the sports complex, which would be at the service of the people of Grecia, as well as the administrative aspects; for this, it would have resources from voluntary dues of its members, donations and contributions from its honorary members or from international organizations, donations and contributions and any kind of contribution agreed in its favor by State institutions, municipalities or any public, private, civic or professional entity, the percentage of the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) agreed by law. During the term of the lease, an infrastructure was built that included a large pool and a small pool, a restaurant, a gym, bathrooms and changing rooms, a basketball court, a machine house, a finish line shelter, a well, a warehouse, a green area, and a beach area. The construction was achieved thanks to specific budget allocations assigned to the association, the funds used being public, not municipal. For this reason, the plaintiff maintains that if the Municipality wishes to evict them, it must pay the Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Griego Sports Complex of Grecia the value of what was built, as well as the damages caused by attempting to recover the property. The case theory of the Municipality maintains that since the works were built with public funds, the association cannot claim, as the owner, the value of what was built; furthermore, it did not provide accounting books, invoices, or documents through which it could demonstrate that private contributions were received, nor does this appear in the Association's book, which is why it could not charge any sum for that concept. Additionally, it notes that it received multiple complaints from community neighbors alleging that the infrastructure was in a state of abandonment, for which reason the Council, in an extraordinary Session on February 26, 2010, recorded in minute No. 322, decided to notify the Cantonal Union of Associations of Grecia that it would not further extend the contract or agreement granted for the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex, granting a period of 30 days to vacate the property, since from that date the Municipality would assume its administration, as it effectively did.

**V.-** **ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL** The core point underpinning the plaintiff's case theory, to claim payment of the value of the building that was constructed, is the assertion that although the Sports Complex was built on municipal land, the funds were public, not municipal. Before addressing the analysis of the claim, it should be noted that there is no controversy regarding the fact that the leased property was an unbuilt property registered in the Public Registry under folio number 196628-000, whose owner was the municipality of Grecia. By a singular designation, this patrimonial asset was destined to **fulfill a public utility function**, by authorizing the construction of a Sports Complex, a purpose that was evidently connected to community service, as it would become a place where all the inhabitants of that territorial circumscription could healthily practice sports activities that contributed to health and recreation. The lease contract for carrying out the cited works was signed on March 22, 1990, between the municipal entity and the Cantonal Union of Development Associations, for a symbolic rent of one hundred colones per month, and with a duration of ten years, renewable. The foregoing leads us to separate two realities: the property on which the Sports Complex was built, which undoubtedly became a public-use asset, whose ownership is not claimed, since being property of the administration, it escapes the general logic applied to private assets, whose normal purpose is to be an object of appropriation, while public assets, as already noted, are outside the commerce of men and are inalienable and imprescriptible. For this, it is necessary to specify that although the lease contract was signed with the Cantonal Union of Development Associations, the construction was assigned to a different association, which was constituted on May 19, 1990, under the supervision of DINADECO, with the name Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Sports Complex of Grecia, registered in the Persons Registry under legal identification number 3-002-114673 and in the National Registry of Associations at volume 11, folio 478, entry 18497, which would have among its objectives the total construction of the Sports Complex and the maintenance of the infrastructure. That association was formed under the aegis of the Law on Community Development No. 3859 (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº 3859), which regulates the constitution of associations wishing to dedicate themselves to community development, as prescribed in Article 15 of the cited Law: *"The communities of the country that wish to organize themselves to carry out comprehensive or specific development activities for their own benefit and for the benefit of the country, may do so in the form of district, cantonal, regional, provincial or national associations, which shall be governed by the provisions of this law."* For its constitution *"...it will be necessary that at least one hundred persons, and no more than fifteen hundred, over the age of fifteen and interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, meet. The jurisdictional area of a development association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation of community grouping. In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of development associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above. In no case may associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five."* (Art. 16 ejúsdem), these associations shall be governed by bylaws, which must contain, among other things, the determination of the special or general purpose pursued and the resources it will have; furthermore, they must coordinate with the Municipality of the respective canton their activities, so that these are successful.

The fulfillment of the purpose for which it was created is so relevant that its existence and operation are subordinated to it, and it is prohibited from “a) using the association for purposes other than those indicated in the bylaws…b) carrying out activities for profit in favor of the board members or any of its associates….” (Art. 24 Ley Nº 3859), however, for its operation it may acquire all kinds of goods, enter into contracts of any type, and carry out all kinds of lawful operations aimed at achieving its purposes (Art. 23 of the cited law). From the aforementioned provisions, it follows that this type of association differs from ordinary Associations created under Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218, which regulate those created for scientific, artistic, sports, charitable, recreational, and any other lawful purposes that do not have profit or gain as their sole and exclusive object (see Art. 1 of Ley 218), by its purpose and the absence of profit or gain for its associates, since what they pursue is the development and organization of the community. For that reason, the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, by decree Decreto Nº 32595 of August 4, 2005, established in Article 10 that those business projects, infrastructure, training, acquisition of real estate, purchase of machinery and equipment, in accordance with the country’s development policy, or specific community development activities of organized joint effort in the economic, social, and cultural fields, will have funds. Those projects will be financed, according to Article 19 of Ley Nº 3859, by *“The State, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, the municipalities, and other public entities, are authorized to grant subsidies, donate goods, or provide services of any kind to these associations, as a way of contributing to the development of the communities and to the economic and social progress of the country. The State shall include in the National Budget an item equivalent to 2% of the estimated income tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta) for that period, which shall be transferred to the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, for the duly constituted and legalized community development associations. The Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo shall deposit those funds in the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, to be transferred exclusively to the Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and at the same time to create a guarantee and incentive fund, which allows financing or facilitating the financing of projects submitted to it by the same associations, in accordance with the respective regulations.”* In the case at hand, it was demonstrated that with the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República for the 1989 Fiscal Year, Nº 711, a budget item was allocated for the construction and purchase of materials for the Municipal Sports Complex (Polideportivo Municipal) in the sum of five million five hundred seventy thousand colones; subsequently, in the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas for the 1995 Economic Year, Nº 7465, an item was allocated to the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, in the sum of ten million five hundred thousand colones; and the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas for the 1996 Economic Year, Nº 7563, reserved an item for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, in the sum of nine million two hundred thousand colones. The foregoing budget items or transfers, as well as the percentage established in the law from the collection of income tax—made up of levies on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities, the tax on dependent personal labor income, taxes on remittances abroad, and the tax on dividends and interest from securities, and other sources established in Ley Nº 3859—confirm the theory of the case sustained by the defendant entity and paradoxically confirmed by the plaintiff, that the Polideportivo Griego was built with public funds, a concept that refers to that “set of money and securities existing in the public treasury; and also the active obligations in favor of the State and public corporations, such as taxes and rights pending payment” Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volume I. p. 94). That ownership that the State has over public funds means that they become part of the public patrimony (patrimonio público), understood as “...the universality constituted by the public funds and the liabilities charged to the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública).” (Art. 8 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). The State, to carry out its projects and activities, requires fluid wealth, which fulfills an economic instrumentality, and for that reason the money it receives forms part of the State budget. Money, regardless of the source from which it is obtained (tributes, rates, special contributions, internal and external credit, patrimonial assets, public debt operations, or any other resource), constitutes **revenue of the Public Treasury (ingresos de la Hacienda pública),** which is budgeted each year for a purpose and the satisfaction of a public interest. Specific items were, for many years, a budgetary distortion in public spending, since they allowed the allocation of funds from the national budget to fulfill commitments acquired at the legislative level without technical criteria to support it, nor adherence to the priorities defined by the Executive Branch and the specialized bodies. In the specific case, it was several of these items that allowed the construction of a large part of the Sports Complex. Having clarified the foregoing, it should be noted that in the specific case, the plaintiff did not specify which resources from the total invested in the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex did not come from those items, from the amount of the income tax, donations, or even from the resources generated by the use or rental of the facilities, despite the fact that the burden of proof fell upon it. For that reason, it is not possible to award any sum of the amount claimed, clarifying that even if it had been proven that there were contributions from the associates, these could not be returned, not only due to the nature of the association to which reference has already been made, but also because even if it had been proven that those contributions were made, they had the purpose of contributing to the achievement of the community development and well-being that was pursued. The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, which is why the Asociación could not claim ownership as the owner, when it was only its administrator, a role that also did not mean it had to serve in perpetuity. The foregoing leads us to an essential point that must not be forgotten: the Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipalidad, as the owner of the property, exercised its powers by disposing of it and granting it under lease, but concomitantly it had to exercise control over the acts of use, and for that reason it could verify that it was effectively destined for the purpose for which it was leased, and that the facilities were maintained in the best conditions so that citizens could safely practice sports and recreational activities. However, the multiple complaints from community neighbors and users of the facilities allowed it to reach a different conclusion, adding to the foregoing that an audit carried out by DINADECO showed disorder in the administration of finances. Furthermore, it must be noted that as the owner of the property, the Municipalidad had the power not to further extend the lease contract, as it indeed did. Finally, the claim for damages is rejected, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate their existence, despite the fact that the burden of proof fell upon it.”

“IV.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO La actora acusó que el 22 de marzo de 1990, el Consejo Municipal de Grecia, en la Sesión numero veinte artículo III, inciso 9 tomó el acuerdo firme y aprobado por unanimidad, de arrendar por el precio simbólico de cien colones, el inmueble de su propiedad, ubicado detrás de la Escuela Eulogia Ruiz, a la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones, por espacio de 10 años prorrogables. Por lo anterior la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones convocó a sus diferentes asociaciones afiliadas, y constituyeron el 19 de mayo de 1990, la Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia, cédula jurídica 3-002-114673, la cual tenía según sus estatutos el objetivo de promover el desarrollo y construcción del Polideportivo en su obra total, darle mantenimiento a toda la infraestructura del complejo deportivo, la cual estaría al servicio del pueblo de Grecia, así como de los aspectos administrativos, para ello contaría con recursos provenientes de las cuotas voluntarias de sus asociados donaciones y contribuciones de sus socios honorarios o de organismos internacionales, donaciones y contribuciones y cualquier clase de aporte que acordaran a su favor las instituciones del Estado, las municipalidades o cualquier entidad pública, privada, cívica o profesional, el porcentaje del impuesto sobre la renta acordado por ley. Durante el plazo del arrendamiento se construyó una infraestructura que comprendió una piscina grande y otra pequeña, restaurante, gimnasio, baños y vestidores, cancha de básquetbal, casa de máquinas, rancho de meta, pozo, bodega, zona verde, zona de playa. La construcción se logró levantar gracias a partidas específicas asignadas a la asociación, siendo los fondos usados públicos, no municipales. Razón por la cual sostiene la actora, si la Municipalidad desea desalojarlos, debe pagar a la Asociación de Desarrollo Especifico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia, el valor de lo levantado, así como los daños y perjuicios causados al intentar recuperar el bien. La teoría del caso de la Municipalidad, sostiene que como las obras fueron construidas con fondos públicos, la asociación no puede reclamar a título de dueña, el valor de lo edificado, pero además no aportó libros contables, facturas o documentos, por medio de los cuales pudiera demostrar, que se recibieron aportes privados, ni ello consta en el libro de la Asociación, razón por la cual no podía cobrar suma alguna por ese concepto, además acota, recibieron múltiples quejas de los vecinos de la comunidad en donde se acusaba que la infraestructura se hallaba en estado de abandono, razón por la cual el Consejo en Sesión extraordinaria del 26 de febrero de 2010, que consta en el acta Nº 322 decidió comunicar a la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia, que no iba a prorrogar más el contrato o convenio otorgado para la construcción y mantenimiento del Polideportivo, concediéndose un plazo de 30 días para que desalojaran el inmueble, pues a partir de esa fecha la Municipalidad asumiría su administración, como en efecto lo hizo.

V.- SOBRE LA VALORACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA Y CONCLUSIONES A LAS QUE LLEGA EL TRIBUNAL El punto medular que fundamenta la teoría del caso de la actora, para reclamar el pago del valor de la edificación que se construyó, es la afirmación que aunque el Polideportivo se edificó sobre un terreno municipal, los fondos eran públicos, y no municipales. De previo a abocarnos al análisis del reclamo conviene señalar que no existe controversia, respecto a que el bien dado en arriendo, era una propiedad sin construcción inscrito en el Registro Público bajo la matrícula 196628-000, cuyo titular era la municipalidad de Grecia. Por una afectación singular, a este bien patrimonial se le destinó a cumplir una función de utilidad pública, al autorizarse la construcción de un Polideportivo, fin que evidentemente estaba conectado al servicio de la comunidad, ya que se convertiría en un lugar , donde todos los habitantes de esa circunscripción territorial, pudieran practicar sanamente actividades deportivas, que contribuyeran a la salud y el esparcimiento. El contrato de arrendamiento para que se llevaran a cabo las obras citadas, se suscribió el 22 de marzo de 1990, entre el ente municipal y la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, por un alquiler simbólico de cien colones por mes, y con una duración de diez años prorrogables. Lo anterior nos lleva a separar dos realidades, el inmueble sobre el cual se construyó el Polideportivo, que indudablemente se convirtió en un bien de uso público, cuya titularidad no se reclama, ya que al ser propiedad de la administración escapa a la lógica general que se aplica a los bienes privados, cuya finalidad normal es ser objeto de apropiación, mientras que los públicos como ya se apuntó salen del comercio del los hombres, y son inalienables e imprescriptibles Para ello es necesario precisar que aunque el contrato de arrendamiento se firmó con la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, la construcción se asignó a una asociación diferente, que se constituyó el 19 de mayo de 1990, bajo la supervisión de DINADECO, con el nombre Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, inscrita en el Registro de Personas bajo la cédula jurídica 3-002-114673 y en Registro Nacional de Asociaciones al tomo11. folio 478, asiento 18497, la cual tendría entre sus objetivos, la construcción total del Polideportivo y el mantenimiento de la infraestructura. Esa asociación se conformó bajo égida de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº3859, la cual regula la constitución de asociaciones que deseen dedicarse al desarrollo de la comunidad, tal como lo preceptúa el artículo 15 de la Ley citada “Las comunidades del país que deseen organizarse para realizar actividades de desarrollo integral o específico en su propio beneficio y en beneficio del país, pueden hacerlo en forma de asociaciones distritales, cantonales, regionales, provinciales o nacionales, las cuales se regirán por las disposiciones de la presente ley.”, Para su constitución “... será necesario que se reúnan por lo menos cien personas, y no más de mil quinientas, mayores de quince e interesadas en promover, mediante el esfuerzo conjunto y organizado, el desarrollo económico y el progreso social y cultural de un área determinada del país. El área jurisdiccional de una asociación de desarrollo corresponderá a aquel territorio que constituye un fundamento natural de agrupación comunitaria. En casos excepcionales, la Dirección podrá autorizar la existencia de asociaciones de desarrollo integradas por un número inferior o superior al indicado anteriormente. En ningún caso se podrán crear asociaciones con un número de personas inferior a veinticinco.” (art. 16 ejúsdem ), esas asociaciones se regirán por un estatuto, que deberá contener entre otros, la determinación del fin especial o general que persigue y los recursos con que contará, además deberán coordinar con la Municipalidad del cantón respectivo, sus actividades, a fin de que éstas tengan buen suceso. Es tan relevante el cumplimiento del fin para la cual fue creada, que su existencia y funcionamiento se subordina a él, prohibiéndosele “ a) utilizar la asociación para fines distintos a los indicados en el estatuto…b) realizar actividades con fines de lucro a favor de los miembros directivos o cualquiera de sus asociados….” ( art. 24 Ley Nº 3859 ), sin embargo para su funcionamiento pueden adquirir toda clase de bienes, celebrar contratos de cualquier tipo, y realizar toda clase de operaciones lícitas dirigidas a la consecución de sus fines.(art. 23 ley citada). De las normas enunciadas se desprende, que este tipo de asociaciones se diferencian de las Asociaciones comunes que se crean al amparo de la Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218, y que regulan aquellas creadas para fines científicos, artísticos, deportivos, benéficos, de recreo y cualesquiera otros lícitos que no tengan por único y exclusivo objeto el lucro o la ganancia (ver art 1 de ley 218), por su finalidad y la ausencia de lucro o ganancia de sus asociados, ya que lo que persiguen es el desarrollo y organización de la comunidad, por esa razón el Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, mediante el decreto Decreto Nº 32595 del 4 de agosto de 2005, estableció en el artículo 10 , que contarán con fondos aquellos proyectos empresariales, de infraestructura, capacitación, adquisición de bienes inmuebles, compra de maquinaria y equipo, acordes con la política de desarrollo del país, o actividades específicas de desarrollo comunal de esfuerzo conjunto organizado en los campos económico, social y cultural. Esos proyectos serán financiados, según el artículo 19 de la Ley Nº 3859 por “ El Estado, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas, las municipalidades y demás entidades públicas, quedan autorizadas para otorgar subvenciones, donar bienes o suministrar servicios de cualquier clase a estas asociaciones, como una forma de contribuir al desarrollo de las comunidades y al progreso económico y social del país. El Estado incluirá en el Presupuesto Nacional una partida equivalente al 2% de lo estimado del Impuesto sobre la Renta de ese período que se girará al Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, para las asociaciones de desarrollo de la comunidad, debidamente constituidas y legalizadas. El Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo, depositará esos fondos en el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, para girarlos exclusivamente a las Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad y a la vez para crear un fondo de garantías e incentivos, que permita financiar o facilitar el financiamiento de proyectos que le presenten las mismas asociaciones, de acuerdo con la respectiva reglamentación.” En el caso que nos ocupa, se demostró que con la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República para el Ejercicio Fiscal de 1989 Nº 711, se dispuso una partida presupuestaria para la construcción y compra de materiales del Polideportivo Municipal por la suma de cinco millones quinientos setenta mil colones, posteriormente, en la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1995, Nº 7465, se destinó una partida para la Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, por la suma de diez millones quinientos mil colones, y la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1996, Nº 7563, reservó una partida para la Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, por la suma de nueve millones doscientos mil colones. Las anteriores partidas o transferencias presupuestarias, así como el porcentaje establecido en la ley de la recaudación del impuesto sobre la renta, -conformado por los gravámenes a las utilidades de las empresas y las personas físicas que realizan actividades lucrativas, el impuesto sobre las rentas del trabajo personal dependiente, los impuestos sobre las remesas al exterior y el impuesto a los dividendos e intereses de títulos valores, y demás fuentes establecidas en la Ley Nº 3859- confirman, la teoría del caso sostenida por el ente demandado y paradójicamente confirmada por la actora, de que el Polideportivo Griego se construyó con fondos públicos, concepto que nos remite a aquel " conjunto de de dinero y valores existentes en el erario público; y además las obligaciones activas a favor del Estado y las cooporaciones públicas, como impuestos y derechos pendientes de pago" Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volumen I. pág 94), esa propiedad que tiene el Estado sobre los fondos públicos hace que se integren al patrimonio público entendido como "...la universalidad constituida por los fondos públicos y los pasivos a cargo de la Hacienda Pública." (art. 8 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). El Estado para llevar a cabo sus proyectos y actividades, requiere de riqueza fluida, que cumple una instrumentalidad económica, y por eso el dinero que percibe forma parte del presupuesto del Estado. El dinero con independencia de la fuente de donde se obtenga (tributos, tasas, contribuciones especiales, crédito interno y externo bienes patrimoniales, operaciones de deuda pública, o cualquier otro recurso) constituyen ingresos de la Hacienda pública, que se presupuestan, cada año para una finalidad y la satisfacción de un interés público. Las partidas específicas fueron por muchos años, una distorsión presupuestaria en el gasto público, ya que permitían la asignación de fondos, del presupuesto nacional, para cumplir con compromisos adquiridos a nivel legislativo y sin criterio técnico que lo respaldara, ni apego a la prioridades definidas por el Poder Ejecutivo y los órganos especializados, en el caso concreto fueron varias de estas partidas, las que permitieron la edificación de gran parte del Polideportivo. Aclarado lo anterior conviene señalar que en el caso concreto, la actora no deslindó cuales recursos del total que se invirtieron en la construcción y mantenimiento del Polideportivo, no provenían de esas partidas, del importe del impuesto sobre la renta, donaciones, o incluso de los recursos que el uso o alquiler de las instalaciones generaba, pese a que le incumbía la carga de la prueba, por eso no es posible otorgar suma alguna de la reclamada, aclarando que aún y cuando se hubiere probado que hubo aportes de los socios, estos no podían ser devueltos, no solo por la naturaleza de la asociación a la cual ya se ha hecho referencia, sino porque aún y cuando se hubiere probado, que se realizaron esos aportes, los mismos tenían una finalidad coadyuvar en la consecución del desarrollo y bienestar comunal que se perseguía. La denegatoria en el pago, se fundamenta precisamente, en el hecho de que los fondos usados eran públicos, por eso la Asociación no podía reclamar su titularidad como dueña, cuando solo era su administradora, cargo que tampoco significaba debía prestar a perpetuidad, lo anterior nos lleva a un planteamiento esencial que no hay que olvidar, el Polideportivo tenía un fin público que cumplir, independientemente de quien lo administrara, y por eso a Municipalidad, como titular del inmueble ejerció sus competencias, al disponer del mismo y darlo en arrendamiento, pero concomitantemente debía de ejercer control, sobre los actos de utilización, y por ello podía verificar , que efectivamente se destinara al fin para el cual fue arrendado, y que las instalaciones se mantuvieran en las mejores condiciones, para que los ciudadanos pudieran practicar de forma segura deportes y actividades recreativas, sin embargo las múltiples quejas de los vecinos de la comunidad y usuarios de las instalaciones, le permitieron llegar a una conclusión diferente, sumándose a lo anterior, que una auditoria realizada por DINADECO, evidenció desorden en la administración de la finanzas. Además hay que acotar que como titular del inmueble, la Municipalidad tenía la potestad de no prorrogar más el contrato de arrendamiento, como efecto lo hizo. Finalmente se rechaza el cobro de los daños perjuicios reclamados, al no haber demostrado la parte actora su existencia, pese a que le competía la carga de la prueba.”