Registry error does not trigger State objective liability when victim fault and third-party act existError registral no genera responsabilidad objetiva del Estado si hay culpa de la víctima y hecho de tercero

“V. It should be noted that, in general terms, the core point of the first substantive defect concerns the failure of the Tribunal to recognize the alleged error in the registry entry (asiento registral), despite the clarity of the evidence and the acceptance of the fact by the co-defendants. Prior to the analysis of the evidence, and what was indicated by the parties and the Tribunal in this process, it is appropriate to analyze some topics related to the object of the process. Regarding the registry function: With respect to the functioning of the Public Administration in registry matters, it must first be emphasized that the legal system governing the matter is based on the principles of publicity and registry security (seguridad registral) and, consequently, is characterized by providing legal protection to the assets and rights that are duly noted and registered in the Public Registry.

In this vein, registry publicity (publicidad registral) and security are fundamental pillars of national economic development, as they provide third parties with the precise and necessary information about the ownership of movable and immovable property, and give users confidence regarding their rights and duties, protecting the underlying legal situations in the transactions that have given rise to the various annotations and registry entries. Article 1 of Law 3883 defines the objective of the service it provides in the following manner: “ARTICLE 1.- The purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of registered assets or rights with respect to third parties. The foregoing shall be achieved through the publicity of these assets or rights. Regarding the processing of documents, its objective is to register them. It is of public convenience to simplify and expedite the procedures for the receipt and registration of documents, without detriment to registry security (seguridad registral).

Provisions or procedures that hinder these procedures or that, when applied, cause such an effect are contrary to public interest.” Thus, the data recorded therein acquire special relevance for the purpose of proving registered ownership (titularidad registral) and good faith at the time of transferring or acquiring an asset. In that sense, one may consult votes (votos) no. 37 at 14:45 on April 10, 1996, no. 78 at 14:15 on September 12, 1997, and no. 162 at 8:15 on February 16, 2001, all from this Chamber. The third party who bases their legal transaction on the presumption of the truthfulness of the information in a Registry entry has valid and legally compliant registry security (seguridad registral), given that the same legal system has placed its trust in the information from the systems and databases of the Public Registry of Property. Therefore, a third-party acquirer in good faith is protected in their rights, even if their title was based on a registry inaccuracy (inexactitud registral), that is, when there has been a discrepancy between the data emanating from the Registry and the legal reality, provided they were unaware of the registry inaccuracy, error, or omission at the time of acquisition.

For its part, canon 32 of the cited Law is consistent with these considerations, stating the following regarding the legal effects of registry entries: “ARTICLE 32.- The National Registry, through the technical and technological procedures it deems secure and agile, shall establish the manner of processing and publicizing registry information. The registry entries (asientos registrales) made through these means shall produce the legal effects derived from registry publicity, with respect to third parties, and shall have the validity and authenticity that the law grants to public documents.” This norm is complemented by precept 66 of the Public Registry Regulation – Executive Decree No. 26771-J, insofar as it establishes what the so-called registry publicity (publicidad registral) consists of: “Registry publicity (publicidad registral) is constituted by the information contained in the volumes, electronic data processing systems, digitization, and microfilming.

A close relationship must exist between these systems, both being reciprocal and complementary auxiliaries, in order to guarantee the unity, security, and congruence of the registry information.” That is, registry publicity is achieved through all these means, which is nothing more than the written confirmation of a title, act, fact, or circumstance in the books of the Public Registry. In accordance with the foregoing, a perfect sequence of the titleholder of dominion and of the registered rights must result from the existing entries, as well as the correlation between the registrations and their modifications, cancellations, or terminations. Now, there are different ways to obtain the information from the entries, whether directly from the Registry, in a certified document, or from its website through on-screen information, the data being absolutely concordant; the contrary would undermine the registry publicity and the service offered through this other medium.

From the foregoing, the scope of the service provided in the country and the consequent obligations and manifestations of administrative conduct are evident. In accordance with what has been said, it would be appropriate to determine whether, in the specific case, the registry action conformed as a whole to the norms and principles that should apply to the case under study, or whether, on the contrary, we are in the presence of conduct contrary to law that could entail liability for the co-defendants.

VI.We proceed to the analysis of what was stated by the parties. First. In relation to the subject, the State representation expressed that although a principle of registry publicity (publicidad registral) exists, this does not inhibit the plaintiffs from conducting a prior investigation into the conditions of the asset and its creditors, especially when they have agreed upon senior-degree credits. It questions why the plaintiffs, prior to approving and signing the second-degree pledge credit and acquiring the vehicle, did not also investigate at the offices of Banca Promérica the real conditions of the capital owed, or why they did not perform a detailed registry study (estudio registral) of the first-degree pledge, which demonstrates a total lack of diligence on their part, not attributable to the State. Second. In a similar vein, the representative of the Public Registry answers the complaint, acknowledges that there was an inaccuracy in the registry publicity (publicidad registral) of the first-degree pledge, but adds that the parties are obligated to carry out the pertinent studies and corroborate everything necessary to conduct a reliable negotiation.

He states that, although a first-degree pledge contract was presented to the Registry in which the company Trasadvaro constituted itself as debtor to Banca Promérica for $30,000.00, an error was made when entering into the database the amount of the monthly payment to be made by the debtor, instead of the total sum of the obligation, thus providing erroneous registry publicity (publicidad registral). He admits that, while it is true there was an error at the time of registering the mentioned document, there is also a lack of diligence on the part of:

• 1)Banca Promérica, as creditor of the pledge contract, since, in its view, its officers should have verified that the document was registered in accordance with the literal text of the testimony.
• 2)The notaries in charge, because they must guarantee to those who hire them the correct registration in accordance with the will of the parties.
• 3)The plaintiff companies, for their excessive trust in the debtor, as acknowledged in fact five of the complaint. Based on the foregoing, he says, it is clear that it is not possible to assign total responsibility to the Registry as intended. He alleges that, in this matter, exonerating circumstances from liability operate, such as the fault of the victim, due to the lack of diligence in failing to verify that the first-degree pledge lien amounted to $30,000.00 and not $548.00 as was publicized in the registry. On the other hand, the exonerating circumstance of an act of a third party is applicable, constituted by the situation caused by the debtor Adrián Vargas Obando, in his capacity as representative of Transadvaro, who took advantage of this and obtained a second-degree pledge credit and the sale of the pledged vehicle, causing the damage to the plaintiffs. Third. The co-defendant Marlen Guerrero Mejía, the registrar to whom the commission of the error in the entry is attributed, follows the same line of argument as the other defendants and adds that the Registry not only makes public a registry movement, but also its supporting documentation, and that she finds it strange why the plaintiffs did not consult it to precisely determine the real status of the asset. That guarantee is the microfilm or scanned document; which is what gives rise to the registry entry (asiento registral), besides, she says, being its complement. It is publicized just like the entry, and she emphasizes that it cannot be ignored by the parties, which demonstrates their lack of diligence in the study required for the transaction they carried out. Therefore, the plaintiff party cannot take advantage of their own fault, negligence, and lack of diligence to claim compensation from the Administration for the alleged damage suffered. Having analyzed the parties' statements, the Tribunal concluded: “…we can verify that the 2008 VOLUME and the ENTRY 00020304 refer to the duly registered document, which contains the information relating to the first-degree pledge in favor of Banca Proamérica (sic) SA, where the credit conditions are verified, which was explained in the proven facts of this judgment. But upon consulting the on-screen registry information, according to the evidence evaluated at trial, we notice two simultaneous things: on the one hand, that there is NO falsehood whatsoever in the registry information, and on the other hand, that we are in the presence of incomplete information, although we do not think it is omitted in its circumstances or obscure. Let us see. According to the registered document, a copy of which the deed was presented by the plaintiff company, the term of 72 months is for paying 71 consecutive monthly installments of $548.00, and a final one for the balance, canceling the debt of $30,000.00 acquired with Banca Proamerica (sic) SA. That is the information registered in the indicated volume and entry, with respect to which protection is given against third parties. However, the Registry's computer system yields partial information, because in the amount field, the number 548 appears, and in the currency field, dollars is indicated, which the plaintiff company states means that the debt to be paid is for the capital sum of 548, over a term of 72 months, running from January 21, 2008, to March 1, 2013, according to the information visible on the screen. This is precisely where the illogical nature of the plaintiff company's thesis lies, which in some way the defendants also pointed out, because it states that the Bank lent 548.00 dollars to TRANSADVARO SA, payable over 72 months, and even more curiously, without interest, since the computer system does not indicate it. The Tribunal observes that there is an imprecision in the on-screen information, which may result from the content of the ‘amount’ field, or from the reading that the user makes of that data, according to their knowledge and understanding. For our part, as a Tribunal, we understand with absolute clarity that the information provided on-screen, printed in the evidence we evaluated, is not false; on the contrary, it is true, because it corresponds to the information in the deed constituting the pledge, which indicates that the monthly payments are 71 installments of $548.00, and a final one for the balance, for a total of 72 installments, so the Registry does not lie in its information, but it is incomplete because the capital sum data is not recorded, only the monthly installments, nor is there a field indicating ‘capital amount’ or ‘monthly installment amount’ exclusively. Thus, the information to which registry publicity (publicidad registral) is given is true, but for this collegiate body, the only way to complete the missing information is by going to the document registered with the Public Registry, referring for that purpose to the volume and entry indicated on the screen, a consultation that is what allows the registered right to be reviewed, precisely as a protection mechanism against third parties, taking into account that the on-screen information is incomplete, as no field for the capital sum owed is indicated. Such verification activity is precisely what the notary responsible for the deed must carry out, as ordered by Article 34, subsections g) and h) of Law 7764, Notarial Code. It is also our criterion that Article 32 of the aforementioned Law on Document Registration does not affect the validity of that information, visible on-screen, nor does it imply that the value of a certification is being given to fallacious information, because it has already been indicated that the information displayed is true, but that the information field used as a publicity mechanism for the duly registered document does not contain a piece of data, because a capital sum is not indicated. Neither do we believe that Article 454, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code is infringed, since it is not a matter of an omission in the registration, the document being duly registered, for which it suffices to refer to the respective volume and entry, which has not been claimed as false. At most, the information is not complete on-screen, as the capital sum for which the asset given as collateral is liable is not indicated, leaving only a record of the monthly sum corresponding to the installments due, which is why the publicity mechanism is not infringed, and it is necessary to corroborate the document to obtain all the data derived from the registered right, by going to the volume and entry referred to by the computer system…” An interpretation that this Chamber shares, as will be set forth below.

VII.It is necessary to analyze the evidence that the appellants claim was wrongly evaluated:

• 1)Confession of the parties regarding fact eight of the complaint. The fact states: “The pledge for $30,000 was erroneously registered by Registrar number 67, MARLENE GUERRERO MEJIA, of legal age, married once, employee of the National Registry, ID 3 308 945, ON 01-24-2008 INDICATING IN THE REGISTRY ENTRY THE AMOUNT OF $548.00. To this date, the entry remains registered for the said amount: $548.00.” The co-defendants answer as follows: State: “It is true.” National Registry: “I accept it with variations and rectifications.” Although, it says, the pledge lien appears registered in the Registry for an amount of $548.00, the Administrative Registry Tribunal (Tribunal Registral Administrativo) by means of vote (voto) no. 1161-2009, at 10:30 on September 16, 2009, ordered the rectification of the amount of the registered pledge contract and to proceed to modify it to the correct amount. However, because an appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal was filed by the interested parties, the Directorate of the Public Registry of Movable Goods referred the file to the Tribunal for it to hear the appeal. Marlen Guerrero Mejía answers: “I accept it in part.” Despite the apparent error, she indicates, the truth is that the interested parties have the obligation to study the assets they wish to acquire, especially the document that originates the registry entry (asiento registral) of interest, apart from the history of the asset that tells them the movements it has had. However, the registry error (error registral) (since the document that gives rise to the pledge in favor of Banca Promérica, S.A. is recorded in the scanned document), by means of vote 1161-2009, of the Administrative Registry Tribunal, rectification of the pledge contract amount was ordered, which is pending due to having been challenged.
• 2)The appellant states that vote no. 1161-2009 of the Administrative Registry Tribunal (Tribunal Registral Administrativo) substantiates that the error could not be corrected because such registration had affected the rights of the plaintiffs. Analyzed the resolution in question, it is extracted from the fifth considerando of the ruling, the express acknowledgment of the error by the Administrative Registry Tribunal, which indicated: “… the Public Registry of Movable Property should not have proceeded with the correction of the pledge amount from $548.00 to $30,000.00 since that erroneous information that the Registry publicized served as a precedent and basis for the preliminary negotiations of the subsequent contracting…” (Folio 357 of the judicial file). In the same sense, the resolutions of the Registry's Administrative Board (Junta Administrativa del Registro) at 8:00 on September 10 and at 9:00 on October 19, both of 2009, within their proven facts, acknowledge the error (Folios 39-48 of the judicial file).
• 3)Regarding the certification visible on folio 25 of the file, although it is not a certification in the strict sense of the word, but rather a printout of the on-screen information referring to the registry entry (asiento registral), it enjoys the same legal certainty and registry public faith (fe pública registral) as the entry, insofar as it is the digitized or computerized reflection of the data that, in principle, are recorded in the Registry or that the Registry publicizes. This is because it provides the essential details about the asset or right in question. Having carefully examined said evidence, this Chamber considers that the co-defendants expressly acknowledge the commission of an error in the registration of the registry entry (asiento registral), in which the amount of $548.00 was recorded in the amount field of the first-degree pledge instead of $30,000.00. (Folios 78, 100, 153 of the judicial file). However, this error raises doubts, which, if properly addressed by those who conducted the transaction, could have clarified the situation of what truly occurred and thereby prevented the current situation. The verification of registry information is within the function and obligations of notaries according to canon 34 g) of the Notarial Code, and this is not limited solely to the registry report (informe registral) displayed informatically, but also to microfilm and volumes if necessary, when —as in the case under study— any doubt arises from the information contained in the former. According to what was stated by the Registry in resolution no. 1161-2009, formal publicity refers to the means and access procedures that individuals have to the Public Registry, with the purpose of consulting the information recorded in its databases, including the website. In this sense, canon 66 of the Public Registry Regulation – Executive Decree No. 26771-J, establishes that the so-called registry publicity (publicidad registral) is constituted by the information contained in the volumes, electronic data processing systems, digitization, and microfilming. Now, when one of these means reflects reasonable doubt in the information contained, which is exactly what happened in this dispute, since it is questionable whether it conforms to reality that a banking institution places a first-degree lien on a vehicle for the sum of $548.00, payable over a 72-month term. The concern is obvious, and therefore the need to perform a complete registry study (estudio registral). Although it is true that the Registry has the duty to safeguard the veracity of the entries through all the means through which it publicizes them, and that digital information is one of those means, it is also true that it is not the only one; that is, registry faith (fe registral) and publicity do not rest solely on this. Therefore, given the slightest doubt about the information contained in the medium used, one should have resorted to another of the instruments that make up the registry publicity (publicidad registral). For the above reason, this Chamber agrees with the argument expressed by the judges, in that the on-screen information is incomplete, but not omitted or obscure, because the amount of the lien recorded was rather that of the monthly payment to be made, as is evident from the first-degree pledge deed in the judicial file. In accordance with the foregoing, in this Chamber’s opinion, reasonable doubt existed that warranted resorting to the other means of registry publicity in order to verify the information displayed on the registry screen; this action in no way violates the faith and publicity safeguarded by the Registry, given that it is the institution itself that enables all those forms of verification in order to ensure the correct and most transparent reality of what is recorded there. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that the Tribunal has not improperly assessed the indicated evidence, nor has it violated norms 1 and 32 of Law 3883 and 66 of Executive Decree No. 26771-J. It is evident that a correct and careful comparison of the data through the different registry instruments made available to users would have prevented the transaction from being carried out, and with that, the situation that befell the plaintiffs would have been prevented. Therefore, the alleged damage is the product of their own negligence or lack of diligence, because the material error incurred by the registrar is not decisive, since a careful reading of the information contained on the screen would have raised sufficient doubts as to whether its content was truthful or not and conformed to the reality of what was agreed between Transadvaro and Banca Promérica.

VIII.Consequently, resorting to the regime of objective liability of the State and its exonerating circumstances, embodied in canon 190 of the LGAP, which establishes: “1. The Administration shall be liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. 2. The Administration shall be liable in accordance with this article, even when it cannot be so by virtue of the following sections of this Chapter, but liability for a lawful act or normal functioning shall arise only according to the terms of the following Third Section.” And considering that said regulation contemplates three cases of total or partial exemption from liability, namely: force majeure as an unforeseeable, unavoidable event of nature, alien and external; act of a third party, insofar as it is produced by the action or omission of a subject entirely alien to the triangular relationship between Administration-official-affected party; and fault of the victim, to the extent that it is the passive subject of the damage (victim) themselves who produces —through inexcusable negligence or imprudence— the injury, or places themselves in a position conducive to it.

It is observed that we are in the presence of the exonerating circumstance of fault of the victim, due to the lack of diligence with which the plaintiff companies have proceeded, failing in their duty to verify the true legal situation of the asset that they were each pledging and buying. Also, in this Chamber’s opinion, the exonerating circumstance of “act of a third party” is applicable, consisting of the fact that Mr. Adrián Vargas Obando, in his capacity as president of the company Transadvaro, managed to obtain a credit for $11,000.00 and the sale of the vehicle for $24,000.00, knowing the real situation of the vehicle. It is clear that he took advantage of the situation, achieving these transactions, such that the plaintiff party could well have brought the company Transdavaro and Mr. Vargas Obando as its representative into the process; however, when the failure to join them in the proceeding was raised, the plaintiffs opposed their joinder, which indeed happened.

Being in the presence of the indicated exonerating circumstances, the causal link between the conduct reproached to the co-defendants and the damage suffered by the plaintiffs is broken, which leads to the rejection of the grievance and, therefore, the appeal must be declared without merit.”

Note that, in general terms, the core point of the first substantive defect concerns the Court's failure to recognize the error alleged in the registration entry (asiento registral), despite the clarity of the evidence and the co-defendants' acceptance of the fact. Before analyzing the evidence and what was stated by the parties and the Court in this proceeding, it is appropriate to analyze some issues related to the object of the proceeding. On the registration (registral) function: Regarding the functioning of the Public Administration in registration matters, it is first necessary to emphasize that the legal system governing the matter is founded on the principles of publicity and registration security (seguridad registral) and, consequently, characterized by providing legal protection to goods and rights that are duly noted and inscribed in the Public Registry. In this vein, registration publicity and security are fundamental pillars of national economic development, as they provide third parties with the precise and necessary information on the ownership of movable and immovable property, and give confidence to users regarding their rights and duties, protecting the underlying legal situations in the transactions that have given rise to the various notations and registration entries.

Article 1 of Law 3883 defines the objective of the service it provides as follows: "*ARTICULO 1º.- The purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of inscribed goods or rights with respect to third parties. This shall be achieved through the publicity of these goods or rights. Regarding document processing, its objective is to inscribe them. It is of public convenience to simplify and expedite the procedures for receiving and inscribing documents, without undermining registration security. Provisions or procedures that hinder these procedures, or that, when applied, cause such an effect, are contrary to the public interest*". It is in this way that the data recorded therein acquire special relevance, for the purpose of demonstrating registration title (titularidad registral) and good faith at the time of disposing of or acquiring a property. In this sense, one may consult rulings (votos) no. 37 of 14 hours 45 minutes on April 10, 1996, no. 78 of 14 hours 15 minutes on September 12, 1997, and no. 162 of 8 hours 15 minutes on February 16, 2001, all from this Chamber.

A third party who bases their legal transaction on the presumption of the veracity of the information in a Registry entry has valid and legal registration security, given that the same legal system has placed its trust in the information from the systems and databases of the Public Property Registry. Therefore, a third-party acquirer in good faith is protected in their rights, even if their title was founded on a registration inaccuracy, that is, when a discrepancy has arisen between the data emanating from the Registry and the legal reality, provided that the acquirer was unaware of the inaccuracy, error, or registration omission at the time of acquisition. For its part, canon 32 of the cited Law is consistent with these considerations, by indicating the following regarding the legal effects of registration entries: "*ARTÍCULO 32.- The National Registry, through the technical and technological procedures it deems safe and agile, shall establish the manner of processing and publicizing registration information.

The registration entries made through these means shall produce the legal effects derived from registration publicity with respect to third parties, and shall have the validity and authenticity that the law grants to public documents*". This rule is complemented by precept 66 of the Regulation of the Public Registry – Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26771-J, insofar as it establishes what so-called registration publicity consists of: "*Registration publicity consists of the information contained in the volumes, electronic data processing systems, digitization, and microfilming. There must be a close relationship between these systems, both being reciprocal and complementary auxiliaries, in order to guarantee the unity, security, and congruence of the registration information*". That is, registration publicity is achieved through all these means, which is nothing more than the written verification of a title, act, fact, or circumstance in the books of the Public Registry.

In accordance with the foregoing, from the existing entries, a perfect sequence of the titleholder of the domain and the registered rights must result, as well as the correlation between the inscriptions and their modifications, cancellations, or extinctions. Now, there are different ways to obtain information from the entries, whether directly from the Registry, in a certified document, or from its website through screen information, and the data must be absolutely concordant; the contrary would defeat the registration publicity and the service offered through this other means. From the foregoing, the scope of the service provided in the country, and the consequent obligations and manifestations of administrative conduct, are evident. In accordance with what has been said, it would be appropriate to determine whether, in the specific case, the registration action conformed, as a whole, to the rules and principles that should apply to the case under study, or whether, on the contrary, there is conduct contrary to law that may entail liability for the co-defendants.

VI.An analysis of what was stated by the parties is undertaken. First. Regarding the matter, the State representation stated that although there is a principle of registration publicity, this does not prohibit the plaintiffs from making a prior inquiry into the conditions of the property and its creditors, especially when they have agreed to senior credits. It questions why the plaintiffs, prior to approving and signing the second-priority pledge credit and acquiring the vehicle, did not also investigate at the offices of Banca Promérica the real conditions of the owed capital, or why they did not conduct a detailed registration study of the first-priority pledge, which demonstrates a total negligence on their part, not attributable to the State. Second. In a similar vein, the representative of the Public Registry answers the complaint, acknowledging that there was an inaccuracy in the registration publicity of the first-priority pledge, but adding that the parties are obligated to conduct pertinent studies and corroborate everything necessary to carry out a reliable transaction.

He states that, although a first-priority pledge contract was filed in the Registry in which the company Trasadvaro became the debtor of Banca Promérica for $30,000.00, an error was made when including in the database the amount of the monthly payment to be made by the debtor, instead of the total sum of the obligation, thus providing erroneous registration publicity. He admits that, while it is true there was an error when inscribing the mentioned document, there is also a lack of diligence on the part of:

• 1)Banca Promérica, as the creditor of the pledge contract, since, in his view, its officers should have ensured that the document was inscribed in accordance with the literal text of the notarized copy.
• 2)The responsible notaries, because they must guarantee to those who hire them the correct inscription in accordance with the will of the parties.
• 3)The plaintiff companies, due to excessive trust in the debtor, as acknowledged in fact five of the complaint. Based on the foregoing, he says, it is clear that it is not possible to fully assign responsibility to the Registry as is intended. He alleges that, in the present matter, defenses against liability operate, such as contributory negligence of the victim (culpa de la víctima), for the lack of diligence in not verifying that the first-priority pledge encumbrance amounted to $30,000.00 and not $548.00 as was publicized in the registration. On the other hand, the defense of an act of a third party (hecho de un tercero), constituted by the situation caused by the debtor Adrián Vargas Obando, in his capacity as representative of Transadvaro, who took advantage of this situation and obtained a second-priority pledge credit and the sale of the pledged vehicle, causing the damage to the plaintiffs, is applicable. Third. The co-defendant Marlen Guerrero Mejía, the registrar to whom the commission of the error in the entry is attributed, follows the same line of argument as the other defendants and adds that the Registry not only makes a registration record public, but also its supporting documentation, and that she is surprised by why the plaintiffs did not consult it to accurately determine the real status of the property. That guarantee is the microfilm or scanned document, which is what gives rise to the registration entry, besides, she says, being its complement. It is publicized just like the entry, and she emphasizes that it cannot be unknown to the parties, which demonstrates their lack of diligence in the study required for the transaction they carried out. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of its own fault, negligence, and carelessness to claim compensation from the Administration for the supposed damage suffered. Having analyzed the parties' statements, the Court concluded: "*... we can verify that TOME 2008 and ENTRY 00020304 refers to the duly inscribed document, which contains the information related to the first-priority pledge in favor of Banca Proamérica* (sic) *SA, where the credit conditions are verified, which was explained in the proven facts of this judgment. But when consulting the registration information on the screen, according to the evidence evaluated at trial, we notice two simultaneous things: on one hand, that there is NO falsehood whatsoever in the registration information, and on the other hand, that we are in the presence of incomplete information, although we do not think it is lacking in its circumstances or obscure. Let's see. According to the inscribed document, a copy of the deed of which was presented by the plaintiff company, the 72-month term is for paying 71 consecutive monthly installments of $548.00, and a final one for the balance, paying off the debt of $30,000.00 acquired with Banca Proamerica* (sic) *SA. That is the information inscribed in the indicated volume and entry, regarding which protection is given against third parties. Nonetheless, the Registry's computer system yields partial information, because in the amount box, the number 548 appears, and in the currency box, dollars is indicated, which the plaintiff company claims means that the debt to be paid is for the capital sum of 548, for a term of 72 months, running from January 21, 2008, to March 1, 2013, according to the information visible on the screen. This is precisely where the illogical nature of the plaintiff company's thesis lies, which the defendants also pointed out in some way, since it affirms that the Bank lent $548.00 dollars to TRANSADVARO SA, payable over 72 months, and even more curiously, without interest, since the computer system does not indicate it. The Court observes that there is an imprecision in the on-screen information, which may result from the content of the "amount" box, or from the user's reading of that data, according to their knowledge and understanding. For our part, as a Court, we understand with absolute clarity that the information available on the screen, printed in the evidence we evaluate, is not false; on the contrary, it is true, since it corresponds to the information from the constitutive deed of the pledge, which indicates that the monthly payments are 71 installments of $548.00, and one final installment for the balance, for a total of 72 installments, so the Registry is not lying in its information, but it is incomplete because the capital sum data is not recorded, but rather the monthly payments, just as there is no box that indicates "capital amount", or "monthly payment amount", exclusively. So the information to which registration publicity is given is true, but for this collegiate body, the only way to complete that missing information is by accessing the inscribed document before the Public Registry, referring for that purpose to the volume and entry indicated on the screen, a consultation that is what allows reviewing the inscribed right, precisely as a protection mechanism against third parties, taking into account that the on-screen information is incomplete, as a box for the capital sum owed is not indicated. Such verification activity is precisely what the notary responsible for the deed must carry out, as ordered by Article 34, subsections g) and h) of Law 7764, the Notarial Code. It is our opinion, furthermore, that Article 32 of the Law for the Inscription of Documents already cited, does not affect the validity of that information, visible on the screen, just as it does not imply that the value of a certification is being given to deceitful information, since it has already been indicated that the displayed information is true, but that the information box used as a publicity mechanism for the duly inscribed document does not contain a piece of data, because no capital sum is indicated. We also do not believe that Article 454, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code is violated, since it is not an omission in the inscription, the document being duly inscribed, for which it suffices to refer to the respective volume and entry, which have not been claimed to be false. At most, the on-screen information is not complete, as the capital sum for which the property given as security is liable is not indicated, leaving only a record of the monthly sum corresponding to the installments due, which is why the publicity mechanism is not infringed, and it becomes necessary to corroborate the document to obtain all the data derived from the inscribed right, by going to the volume and entry to which the computer system refers...*" An interpretation that this Chamber shares, as will be set forth below.

VII.It is necessary to analyze the evidence that the appellants maintain was poorly evaluated:

• 1)Confession of the parties regarding fact eight of the complaint. The fact states: "*The pledge for $30,000 was erroneously inscribed by Registrar number 67, MARLENE GUERRERO MEJIA, of legal age, married once, employee of the National Registry, ID 3 308 945,* (sic) *ON 01-24-2008 INDICATING IN THE INSCRIPTION ENTRY THE AMOUNT OF $548.00*; *to this date, the entry remains inscribed for* (sic) *the said amount: $548.00.*". The co-defendants answered in the following manner: State: "*It is true*". National Registry: "*I accept it with variations and rectifications*". Although, it says, the pledge encumbrance appears inscribed in the Registry for an amount of $548.00, the Administrative Registry Court (Tribunal Registral Administrativo), through ruling (voto) no. 1161-2009, of 10 hours 30 minutes on September 16, 2009, ordered the rectification of the amount of the inscribed pledge contract and its modification to the correct amount. However, because an appeal for revocation with a subsidiary appeal was filed by the interested parties, the Directorate of the Public Registry of Movable Property remitted the file to the Court for it to hear the appeal. Marlen Guerrero Mejía answers: "*I accept it in part*". Despite the apparent error, she indicates, the truth is that interested parties have the obligation to study the properties they wish to acquire, in particular, the document that gives rise to the registration entry of interest, apart from the history of the property which tells them the transactions it has had. Nonetheless, the registration error (since the document giving rise to the pledge in favor of Banca Promérica, S.A. is recorded in the scanned file), through ruling 1161-2009 of the Administrative Registry Court, ordered the rectification of the amount of the pledge contract, which is pending due to having been challenged.
• 2)The appellant states that ruling no. 1161-2009 of the Administrative Registry Court establishes that the error could not be corrected because such inscription had affected the rights of the plaintiffs. Having analyzed the resolution in question, the express recognition of the error by the Administrative Registry Court is extracted from Considerando V (Considerando Quinto) of the ruling, which indicated: "*... the Public Registry of Property of Movable Property should not have carried out the correction of the pledge amount from $548.00 to $30,000.00, since that erroneous information that the Registry publicized served as the background and basis for the preliminary negotiations of the subsequent contracting*..." (Folio 357 of the judicial file). In the same sense, the resolutions of the Administrative Board (Junta Administrativa) of the Registry of 8 hours on September 10 and 9 hours on October 19, both of 2009, within their proven facts, recognize the error (Folios 39-48 of the judicial file).
• 3)Regarding the certification visible on folio 25 of the file, although it is not a certification in the strict sense of the word, but rather a printout of the on-screen information referring to the registration entry, this enjoys the same legal security and registration public faith (fe pública registral) as the entry, insofar as it is the digitized or computerized reflection of the data that, in principle, is recorded in the Registry or that it publicizes. This is because it provides the essential details of the property or right in question. Having carefully examined said evidence, this Chamber considers that the co-defendants expressly acknowledge the commission of an error in the inscription of the registration entry, in which the sum of $548.00 was recorded in the amount box for the first-priority pledge instead of $30,000. (Folios 78, 100, 153 of the judicial file). However, this error raises doubts, which, if duly addressed by those who carried out the transaction, could have clarified the situation of what truly occurred and thereby prevented the current situation. The verification of registration information is within the function and obligations of notaries according to canon 34 g) of the Notarial Code, and this is not limited only to the registration report displayed electronically, but also to microfilm and volumes if necessary, when—as in the case under study—some doubt arises from the information contained in the former. According to what was stated by the Registry in resolution no. 1161-2009, formal publicity refers to the means and procedures of access that people have to the Public Registry for the purpose of consulting the information recorded in its databases, among these, the website. In that sense, canon 66 of the Regulation of the Public Registry – Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J, establishes that so-called registration publicity consists of the information contained in the volumes, electronic data processing systems, digitization, and microfilming. Now, when one of those means reflects reasonable doubt in the information contained—which is exactly what occurred in this dispute, since it is questionable whether it corresponds to reality that a banking institution encumbers a vehicle in first priority for the sum of $548, payable over a 72-month term—the concern, and therefore the need to conduct a complete registration study, is obvious. While it is true that the Registry has the duty to safeguard the veracity of the entries through all the means by which it publicizes them, and that digital information is one of those means, it is also true that it is not the only one; that is, registration faith and publicity do not rest solely on this. Therefore, given the slightest doubt about the information contained in the medium used, one should have resorted to another of the instruments that make up registration publicity. By reason of the foregoing, this Chamber agrees with the argument expressed by the judges, in that the on-screen information is incomplete but not lacking or obscure, since the amount of the encumbrance recorded was rather the amount of the monthly payment to be made, as is clear from the first-priority pledge deed in the judicial file. In accordance with the foregoing, in the opinion of this Chamber, there existed reasonable doubt that warranted resorting to the other means of registration publicity in order to verify the information displayed on the registry screen; said action in no way violates the faith and publicity that the Registry safeguards, given that it is the institution itself that enables all these forms of verification in order to ensure the correct and most transparent reality of what is recorded therein. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that the Court has not improperly evaluated the indicated evidence, nor has it violated rules 1 and 32 of Law 3883 and 66 of Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J. It is evident that a correct and careful comparison of the data through the different registration instruments made available to users would have prevented the transaction from being carried out, and with that, the situation that occurred to the plaintiffs would have been prevented. Therefore, the alleged damage is the product of their own negligence or lack of diligence, because the material error incurred by the registrar is not determinative, since a careful reading of the information contained on the screen would have raised sufficient doubts as to whether its content was truthful or not, and corresponded to the reality of what was agreed between Transadvaro and Banca Promérica.

VIII.Consequently, resorting to the strict liability regime of the State and its defenses, embodied in canon 190 of the LGAP, which establishes: "*1. The Administration shall be liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, except for force majeure, contributory negligence of the victim (culpa de la víctima), or act of a third party. 2. The Administration shall be liable in accordance with this article, even when it cannot be found liable under the following sections of this Chapter, but liability for lawful acts or normal functioning shall occur only under the terms of the following Section Three*".

And considering that said regulation provides for three scenarios of total or partial exemption from liability, namely: force majeure (fuerza mayor) as an unforeseeable, inevitable, natural event, alien and external; act of a third party (hecho de un tercero), insofar as it is produced by the action or omission of a subject completely outside the triangular relationship between Administration-official-affected party; and fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima), to the extent that it is the passive subject of the damage (victim) who produces—through inexcusable negligence or recklessness—the injury, or places themselves in a position conducive to it. It is observed that we are in the presence of the exemption from liability of fault of the victim (culpa de la victima), due to the lack of diligence with which the plaintiff companies have proceeded, failing in their duty to verify the true legal situation of the property that each was pledging and buying.

Also, in the opinion of this Chamber, the exemption of “act of a third party (hecho de un tercero)” is applicable, consisting of the fact that Mr. Adrián Vargas Obando, in his capacity as president of the company Transadvaro, managed to obtain a loan for $11,000.00 and the sale of the vehicle for $24,000.00 knowing the real situation of the motor vehicle. It is clear that he took advantage of the situation, achieving those deals, for which the plaintiff could well have brought into the process the company Transdavaro and Mr. Vargas Obando as its representative; however, when the failure to join them in the litis was raised, the plaintiffs opposed it so that they would not be joined, as indeed happened. Being in the presence of the indicated exemptions, the causal link between the conduct attributed to the co-defendants and the damage suffered by the plaintiffs is broken, which results in the rejection of the grievance and therefore the appeal must be declared without merit.” It is our opinion, furthermore, that Article 32 of the Law of Registration of Documents already cited does not affect the validity of that information, visible on screen, nor does it imply that false information is being given the value of a certification, since it has already been indicated that the information displayed is true, but that the information field used as a publicity mechanism for the duly registered document does not contain one piece of data, because a capital sum is not indicated.

Neither do we believe that Article 454, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code is violated, since it is not a matter of an omission in the registration, given that the document is duly registered, for which it suffices to refer to the volume and the respective entry (asiento), which has not been alleged to be false. At most, the information is not complete on screen, as the capital sum for which the property given as guarantee is liable is not indicated, leaving only record of the monthly sum corresponding to the installments due, which is why the publicity mechanism is not infringed, and it is necessary to corroborate the document to obtain all the data derived from the registered right, by referring to the volume and the entry (asiento) to which the computer system directs…” Interpretation shared by this Chamber as will be set forth below.

VII.It is necessary to analyze the evidence that the appellants maintain was wrongly assessed:

• 1)Confession of the parties regarding the eighth fact of the complaint. The fact states: “*The chattel mortgage (prenda) for $30,000 was erroneously registered by Registrar number 67, MARLENE GUERRERO MEJIA, of legal age, married once, employee of the Registro Nacional, ID 3 308 945, THE* (sic) *01-24-2008 INDICATING IN THE REGISTRATION ENTRY THE AMOUNT OF $548.00 to date, the entry remains registered for the* (sic) *said amount: $548.00.*” The co-defendants answer as follows: State: “*It is true*”. Registro Nacional: “*I accept it with variations and rectifications*”. Although, it says, the chattel mortgage lien appears registered in the Registry for an amount of $548.00, the Tribunal Registral Administrativo, through vote (voto) no. 1161-2009, at 10:30 a.m. on September 16, 2009, ordered the rectification of the amount of the registered chattel mortgage contract and to proceed to modify it to the correct one. However, because an appeal for revocation with a subsidiary appeal was filed by the interested parties, the Directorate of the Registro Público de Bienes Muebles referred the file to the Tribunal so that it could hear the appeal. Marlen Guerrero Mejía answers: “*I accept it in part*”. Despite the apparent error, it indicates, the truth is that interested parties have the obligation to study the assets they wish to acquire, in particular, the document that gives rise to the registration entry (asiento registral) of interest, apart from the history of the asset which tells them the movements it has had. However, the registration error (since the document giving rise to the chattel mortgage in favor of Banca Promérica, S.A. is evident in the scanned document), through vote (voto) 1161-2009 of the Tribunal Registral Administrativo, ordered the rectification of the amount of the chattel mortgage contract, which is pending as it was challenged.
• 2)The appellant states that vote (voto) no. 1161-2009 of the Tribunal Registral Administrativo grounds that the error could not be corrected because such registration had affected the rights of the plaintiffs. Analyzing the resolution in question, from the fifth considering (considerando) of the ruling, an express acknowledgment of the error by the Tribunal Registral Administrativo is extracted, which indicated: “… *the Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Muebles should not have carried out the correction of the chattel mortgage amount from $548.00 to $30,000.00 since that erroneous information that the Registry publicized served as background and basis for the preliminary negotiations of the subsequent contracting*…” (Folio 357 of the judicial file). In the same sense, the resolutions of the Junta Administrativa of the Registry at 8 a.m. on September 10 and at 9 a.m. on October 19, both of 2009, within their proven facts, acknowledge the error (Folios 39-48 of the judicial file).
• 3)Regarding the certification visible at folio 25 of the file, although it is not a certification in the strict sense of the word, but rather a printout of the screen information referring to the registration entry (asiento registral), it enjoys the same legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and registral public faith (fe pública registral) of the entry, insofar as it is the digitized or computerized reflection of the data that, in principle, are recorded in the Registry or that it publicizes. This is because it provides the essential details about the property or right in question. Having carefully examined these pieces of evidence, this Chamber considers that the co-defendants expressly acknowledge the commission of an error in the registration of the entry (asiento registral), in which the amount of the first-degree chattel mortgage was recorded in the corresponding field as the sum of $548.00 instead of $30,000. (Folios 78, 100, 153 of the judicial file). However, this error raises doubts, which, if duly addressed by those who performed the transaction, could have clarified the situation of what truly occurred and thereby prevented the current situation. The verification of the registral information is within the function and obligations of notaries according to canon 34 g) of the Notarial Code, and this is not limited only to the registral report displayed electronically, but also to microfilm and volumes if necessary, when—as in the case under study—any doubt arises from the information contained in the former. According to what was stated by the Registry in resolution no. 1161-2009, formal publicity refers to the means and procedures of access that people have to the Public Registry, for the purpose of consulting the information recorded in its databases, among these the website. In that sense, canon 66 of the Regulation of the Public Registry – Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J, establishes that the so-called registral publicity (publicidad registral) is constituted by the information contained in the volumes, electronic data processing systems, digitization, and microfilming. Now then, when one of those means reflects reasonable doubt in the information contained, which is exactly what occurred in this dispute, since it is questionable whether it corresponds to reality that a banking institution places a first-degree lien on a vehicle for the sum of $548, payable over a 72-month term. The concern is immediately apparent, and therefore the need to carry out a complete registral study. Although it is true that the Registry has the duty to safeguard the veracity of the entries by all means through which it publicizes them, and that digital information is one of those means, it is also true that it is not the only one; that is, registral faith and publicity (fe y publicidad registral) do not rest solely on this. Therefore, given the slightest doubt about the information contained in the means used, another of the instruments that make up registral publicity should have been consulted. By reason of the foregoing, this Chamber agrees with the argument expressed by the judges, in that the information on the screen is incomplete but not omitted or obscure, given that the amount of the lien recorded was rather the monthly payment to be made, as is evident from the first-degree chattel mortgage deed in the judicial file. In accordance with the above, in this Chamber’s opinion, there existed reasonable doubt that warranted consulting the other means of registral publicity in order to verify the information displayed on the registry screen; such action in no way violates the faith and publicity safeguarded by the Registry, given that it is the institution itself that enables all those forms of verification in order to ensure the correct and most transparent reality of what is recorded there. Therefore, it is permissible to affirm that the Tribunal has not improperly assessed the indicated evidence, nor has it violated norms 1 and 32 of Law 3883 and 66 of Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J. It is evident that a correct and careful comparison of the data through the different registral instruments made available to users would have prevented the transaction, and thereby the situation that befell the plaintiffs would have been prevented. Therefore, the alleged damages are the product of their own negligence or lack of diligence, because the material error incurred by the registrar is not determinative, since a careful reading of the information contained on the screen would have raised sufficient doubts as to whether its content was truthful and corresponded to the reality of what was agreed between Transadvaro and Banca Promérica.

VIII.Consequently, resorting to the regime of strict liability of the State and its exemptions, embodied in canon 190 of the LGAP which establishes: “*1. The Administration (La Administración) shall be liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. 2. The Administration shall be liable in accordance with this article, even when it cannot be so under the following sections of this Chapter, but liability for lawful act or normal functioning shall only occur according to the terms of the following Third Section*”. And considering that said regulation contemplates three assumptions of total or partial exemption from liability, namely: force majeure as an unforeseeable, inevitable, natural, extraneous, and external event; act of a third party, insofar as it is produced by the action or omission of a subject totally alien to the triangular relationship between Administration-official-affected party; and fault of the victim, to the extent that it is the passive subject of the damage (victim) who produces—through inexcusable negligence or recklessness—the injury, or places themselves in a position conducive to it.

It is observed that we are in the presence of the exemption from liability of fault of the victim, due to the lack of diligence with which the plaintiff companies have proceeded, failing in the duty to verify the real legal situation of the property that each was pledging (pignorando) and purchasing. Also, in this Chamber's opinion, the exemption of “*act of a third party*” is applicable, consisting of the fact that Mr. Adrián Vargas Obando, in his capacity as president of the company Transadvaro, managed to obtain a loan for $11,000.00 and the sale of the vehicle for $24,000.00, knowing the real situation of the automobile. It is clear that he took advantage of the situation, achieving those businesses, so the plaintiff party could well have brought the company Transdavaro and Mr. Vargas Obando as its representative into the process; however, when the lack of joinder of the dispute against them was raised, the plaintiffs opposed it so that they were not joined, which is what happened.

Being in the presence of the indicated exemptions, the causal link between the conduct reproached to the co-defendants and the damages suffered by the plaintiffs is broken, which leads to the rejection of the grievance and therefore the appeal must be declared without merit.”

“V. Obsérvese que en términos generales, el punto medular del primer vicio sustantivo versa sobre la falta de reconocimiento por parte del Tribunal, del error acusado en el asiento registral, lo anterior, pese a la claridad de la prueba y la aceptación del hecho por parte de los codemandados. Previamente al análisis de las probanzas, y lo indicado por las partes y el Tribunal en este proceso, conviene analizar algunos temas relacionados con el objeto del proceso. Sobre la función registral: Con respecto al funcionamiento de la Administración Pública en materia registral, en primer término es menester destacar que el ordenamiento jurídico que rige la materia, se funda en los principios de publicidad y seguridad registral y por consiguiente, caracterizado en dar tutela jurídica a los bienes y derechos que se encuentran debidamente anotados e inscritos en el Registro Público. En este orden de ideas, la publicidad y seguridad registrales son pilares fundamentales del desarrollo económico nacional, en tanto brindan a terceros, la información precisa y necesaria sobre la propiedad de bienes muebles e inmuebles, y da confianza a los usuarios respecto de sus derechos y deberes, tutelando las situaciones jurídicas subyacentes en los negocios que han dado origen a los diversas anotaciones y asientos registrales.

El artículo 1 de la Ley 3883, define el objetivo del servicio que éste presta de la siguiente manera: "ARTICULO 1º.- El propósito del Registro Nacional es garantizar la seguridad de los bienes o derechos inscritos con respecto a terceros. Lo anterior se logrará mediante la publicidad de estos bienes o derechos. En lo referente al trámite de documentos, su objetivo es inscribirlos. Es de conveniencia pública simplificar y acelerar los trámites de recepción e inscripción de documentos, sin menoscabo de la seguridad registral. Son contrarios al interés público las disposiciones o los procedimientos que entorpezcan esos trámites o que, al ser aplicados, ocasionen tal efecto". Es así como los datos que ahí se consignan, adquieren especial relevancia, a efecto de demostrar la titularidad registral y la buena fe en el momento de enajenación o adquisición de un bien. En ese sentido pueden consultarse los votos no. 37 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 10 de abril de 1996, el no. 78 de las 14 horas 15 minutos del 12 de setiembre de 1997 y el no. 162 de las 8 horas 15 minutos del 16 de febrero del 2001, todos de esta Sala.

El tercero, que funde su negocio jurídico partiendo de la presunción de la veracidad de la información de un asiento del Registro, cuenta con seguridad registral, válida y conforme a derecho, habida cuenta, el mismo ordenamiento jurídico ha depositado la confianza en la información de los sistemas y bases de datos del Registro Público de la Propiedad. Por lo anterior, un tercero adquirente de buena fe se encuentra protegido en sus derechos, aún y cuando su título se haya fundado en una inexactitud registral, sea, cuando se haya presentado una discrepancia entre los datos emanados del Registro, y la realidad jurídica, siempre y cuando éste desconozca en el momento de la adquisición, la inexactitud, error u omisión registral. Por su parte, el canon 32 de la Ley de cita, es conteste con estas consideraciones, al indicar lo siguiente con respecto a los efectos jurídicos de los asientos registrales: "ARTÍCULO 32.- El Registro Nacional, mediante los procedimientos técnicos y tecnológicos que considere seguros y ágiles, establecerá la forma de tramitar y publicitar la información registral.

Los asientos registrales efectuados con estos medios surtirán los efectos jurídicos derivados de la publicidad registral, respecto de terceros y tendrán la validez y autenticidad que la ley otorga a los documentos públicos". Esta norma se complementa con el precepto 66 del Reglamento del Registro Público – Decreto Ejecutivo n° 26771-J, en tanto establece en qué consiste la denominada publicidad registral: “La publicidad registral está constituida por la información contenida en los tomos, sistemas de procesamiento electrónico de datos, digitalización y la microfilmación. Debe existir entre esos sistemas una estrecha relación, siendo ambos auxiliares recíprocos y complementarios, a fin de garantizar la unidad, seguridad y congruencia de la información registral”. Es decir, la publicidad registral se logra, a través de todos esos medios, lo cual no es más que la constatación escrita de un título, acto, hecho o circunstancia en los libros del Registro Público.

Conforme a lo anterior, de los asientos existentes, deberá resultar una perfecta secuencia del titular del dominio y de los derechos registrados, así como la correlación entre las inscripciones y sus modificaciones, cancelaciones o extinciones. Ahora bien, existen diferentes maneras de obtener la información de los asientos, ya sea directamente del Registro, en documento certificado, o de su página web a través de la información de pantalla, debiendo ser los datos absolutamente concordantes, lo contrario daría al traste con la publicidad registral y del servicio que ofrece por este otro medio. De lo expuesto, se evidencian los alcances del servicio que brinda en el país y las consecuentes obligaciones y manifestaciones de la conducta administrativa. De conformidad con lo dicho, procedería determinar si en el caso concreto, la actuación registral se adecuó como un todo a las normas y principios que se deberían aplicar al caso de estudio o si por el contrario, se está en presencia de una conducta adversa a derecho, que pueda acarrear responsabilidad a las codemandadas.

VI.Se procede al análisis de lo expuesto por las partes. Primero. En relación al tema, la representación estatal expresó que si bien existe un principio de publicidad registral, esto no inhibe a las actoras a realizar una averiguación previa de las condiciones del bien y de sus acreedores, sobre todo, cuando han pactado los créditos de grado superior. Se cuestiona por qué las demandantes, previo a aprobar y suscribir el crédito prendario en segundo grado y adquirir el vehículo, no investigaron también en las oficinas de Banca Promérica, las condiciones reales del capital adeudado, o por qué no hicieron un estudio registral pormenorizado de la prenda en primer grado, lo cual demuestra una total desidia de estas, no achacable al Estado. Segundo. En sentido similar el representante del Registro Público contesta la demanda, reconoce que hubo una inexactitud en la publicidad registral de la prenda en primer grado, pero agrega, las partes se encuentran en la obligación de realizar los estudios pertinentes y corroborar todo lo necesario para llevar a cabo una negociación confiable.

Manifiesta, no obstante se presentó en el Registro un contrato prendario de primer grado en el que la sociedad Trasadvaro se constituía deudora de Banca Promérica por $30.000,00, se cometió un yerro al momento de incluir en la base de datos el monto de la mensualidad a pagar por el deudor, en lugar de la suma total de la obligación, brindándose así una errónea publicidad registral. Admite, si bien es cierto hubo un error al momento de inscribir el mencionado documento, también hay una falta de diligencia de:

• 1)Banca Promérica, como acreedor del contrato prendario, por cuanto, en su concepto, sus personeros debieron cerciorarse de que el documento se inscribiera conforme a la literalidad del testimonio.
• 2)Los notarios encargados, porque deben garantizar a quienes los contraten la correcta inscripción conforme a la voluntad de las partes.
• 3)Las empresas accionantes, por la excesiva confianza en el deudor, conforme lo reconoce en el hecho cinco de la demanda. Con base en lo anterior, dice, queda claro que no es posible endosarle totalmente la responsabilidad al Registro como se pretende. Alega, en el presente asunto, operan eximentes de responsabilidad como culpa de la víctima, por la falta de diligencia al no verificar que el gravamen prendario de primer grado ascendía a $30.000,00 y no a $548,00 como se publicitó registralmente. Por otra parte, resulta aplicable la eximiente de hecho de un tercero, constituido ante la situación acaecida por el deudor Adrián Vargas Obando, en su carácter de representante de Transadvaro, quien se aprovechó de ésta y obtuvo un crédito prendario en segundo grado y la venta del vehículo pignorado, causándoles el daño a las actoras. Tercero. La codemandada Marlen Guerrero Mejía, registradora a quien se le imputa la comisión del error en el asiento, sigue la misma línea argumentativa de los otros demandados y agrega, que el Registro no solo hace público un movimiento registral, sino que también su respaldo y que le extraña por qué las demandantes no lo consultaron, para determinar con precisión el estado real del bien. Esa garantía es el microfilm o documento escaneado; el cual es el que le da origen al asiento registral, amén, dice, de ser su complemento. Se publicita al igual que el asiento y recalca, no puede ser desconocido por las partes, lo que demuestra su falta de diligencia en el estudio requerido para el negocio que realizó. De modo que, no puede aprovecharse la parte actora de su propia culpa, negligencia y desidia, para pretender un resarcimiento de la Administración por el supuesto daño sufrido. Analizadas las manifestaciones de las partes, el Tribunal concluyó: “…podemos verificar que el TOMO 2008 y el ASIENTO 00020304, remite al documento debidamente inscrito, que contiene la información relativa a la prenda en primer grado a favor de Banca Proamérica (sic) SA, donde se comprueba las condiciones del crédito, lo que fue explicado en los hechos probados de esta sentencia. Pero al consultarse la información registral en pantalla, según la prueba valorada en juicio, notamos dos cosas simultáneas, por un lado, que NO existe falsedad alguna en la información registral, y por otro lado, que estamos en presencia de una información incompleta, aunque no pensamos que sea omisa en sus circunstancias u oscura. Veamos. Según el documento inscrito, cuya copia de la escritura la presentó la sociedad actora, el plazo de 72 meses lo es para pagar 71 cuotas mensuales y consecutivas de $548,00, y una última por el saldo, cancelando la deuda de $30,000.00 adquirida con Banca Proamerica (sic) SA. Esa es la información inscrita al tomo y asiento indicados, respecto de la cual se da protección frente a terceros. No obstante, el sistema de cómputo del Registro, arroja una información parcial, pues en la casilla de monto, aparece el número 548, y en la de moneda, se indica dólares, lo que afirma la sociedad actora quiere decir que la deuda a pagar, lo es por la suma de capital de 548, por un plazo de 72 meses, que corre desde 21 de enero de 2008 hasta el 1 de marzo de 2013, según la información visible de la pantalla. Aquí es donde precisamente radica lo ilógico de la tesis de la sociedad actora, que de alguna manera también lo hicieron ver los demandados, pues afirma que el Banco prestó 548,00 dólares a TRANSADVARO SA, pagaderos en 72 meses, y más curioso aún, sin intereses, puesto que el sistema de cómputo no lo indica. El Tribunal observa que hay una imprecisión, en la información de la pantalla, que puede resultar del contenido de la casilla de "monto", o de la lectura que haga el usuario en cuanto a esos datos, según su leal saber y entender. De nuestra parte, como Tribunal, entendemos con absoluta claridad que la información dispuesta en pantalla, impresa en la prueba que valoramos, no es falsa, al contrario, es cierta, pues corresponde a la información de la escritura constitutiva de la prenda, la cual indica que las mensualidades son 71 cuotas de $548,00, y una última por el saldo, para un total de 72 cuotas, de manera que el Registro no miente en su información, pero es incompleta porque no se consigna el dato de la suma de capital, sino de las mensualidades, así como tampoco hay una casilla que indique "monto de capital", o "monto de mensualidad", exclusivamente. De manera que la información a la que se da publicidad registral es cierta, pero para este órgano colegiado la única forma de completar aquella faltante, lo es acudiendo al documento inscrito ante el Registro Público, remitiéndose para tal efecto al tomo y asiento indicados en la pantalla, consulta que es la que permite revisar el derecho inscrito, precisamente como mecanismo de protección frente a terceros, tomando en cuenta que la información en pantalla es incompleta, al no indicarse una casilla para la suma de capital adeudada. Tal actividad de verificación es la que precisamente debe desplegar el notario responsable de la escritura, según lo ordena el artículo 34 incisos g) y h) de la Ley 7764, Código Notarial. Es nuestro criterio, además, que el artículo 32 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos ya citada, no afecta la validez de esa información, visible en pantalla, así como tampoco implica que se esté dando el valor de una certificación, a una información falaz, pues ya se indicó que la información desplegada es cierta, pero que la casilla de información que se utiliza como mecanismo de publicidad del documento debidamente inscrito, no contiene un dato, porque no se indica una suma de capital. Tampoco creemos que se lesione el artículo 454 párrafo 2º Código Civil, ya que no se trata de una omisión en la inscripción, siendo que el documento está debidamente inscrito, para lo cual basta remitirse al tomo y al asiento respectivo, el cual no ha sido argüido de falso. A lo sumo la información no está completa en pantalla, al no indicarse la suma de capital por la que responde el bien dado en garantía, quedando únicamente constancia de la suma mensual que corresponde a las cuotas debidas, razón por la cual no se infringe el mecanismo de publicidad, y resulta necesario corroborar el documento para obtener todos los datos derivados del derecho inscrito, dirigiéndose al tomo y al asiento al que remite el sistema informático…” Interpretación que comparte esta Sala tal y como se expondrá de seguido.

VII.Precisa analizar las pruebas que los recurrentes sostienen mal valoradas:

• 1)Confesión de las partes respecto del hecho octavo de la demanda. Expone el hecho: “La prenda por $30.000 fue inscrita erróneamente por la Registradora número 67, MARLENE GUERRERO MEJIA, mayor, casada una vez, empleada del Registro Nacional, cédula 3 308 945, EL (sic) 24-01-2008 INDICANDO EN EL ASIENTO DE INSCRIPCIÓN EL MONTO DE $548.00 hasta esta fecha, el asiento se mantiene inscrito por el (sic) dicho monto: $548.00.”. Contestan los codemandados de la siguiente manera: Estado: “Es cierto”. Registro Nacional: “Lo acepto con variantes y rectificaciones”. Si bien, dice, en el Registro aparece inscrito el gravamen prendario por un monto de $548.00, el Tribunal Registral Administrativo mediante el voto no. 1161-2009, de las 10 horas 30 minutos del 16 de setiembre de 2009, ordenó rectificar el monto del contrato prendario inscrito y proceder a modificarlo por el correcto. No obstante por haberse presentado recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio por las partes interesadas, la Dirección del Registro Público de Bienes Muebles, remitió el expediente al Tribunal para que conociera del recurso. Marlen Guerrero Mejía contesta: “Lo acepto en parte”. A pesar del aparente error, indica, lo cierto es que los interesados tienen la obligación de estudiar los bienes que desean adquirir, en especial, el documento que da origen al asiento registral de interés, aparte del historial del bien que le dice los movimientos que ha tenido. No obstante, el error registral (pues consta en lo escaneado, el documento que le da origen a la prenda a favor de Banca Promérica, S.A.), mediante el voto 1161-2009, del Tribunal Registral Administrativo, se ordenó rectificar el monto del contrato prendario, lo cual está en espera por haber sido impugnado.
• 2)Expone el recurrente, que el voto no. 1161-2009 del Tribunal Registral Administrativo fundamenta, que no se pudo corregir el error por cuanto tal inscripción había afectado los derechos de las actoras. Analizada la resolución de marras, se extrae del considerando quinto del fallo, el reconocimiento Administrativo, el cual indicó: “… el Registro Público de la Propiedad de Bienes Muebles no debió llevar a cabo la corrección del monto de la prenda de $548.00 a $30.000.00 ya que esa información errónea que publicitó el Registro sirvió de antecedente y base de las tratativas preliminares de la contratación posterior…” (Folio 357 del expediente judicial). En igual sentido las resoluciones de la Junta Administrativa del Registro de las 8 horas del 10 de setiembre y de las 9 horas del 19 de octubre ambas de 2009, dentro de sus hechos probados, reconocen el error (Folios 39-48 del expediente judicial).
• 3)En cuanto a la certificación visible a folio 25 del expediente, si bien, no se trata de una certificación en el sentido estricto de la palabra, sino mas bien, de una impresión de la información de la pantalla referida al asiento registral, ésta goza de la misma seguridad jurídica y fe pública registral del asiento, en el tanto, es el reflejo digitalizado o computarizado de los datos que en tesis de principio constan en el Registro o que este publicita. Ello por cuanto aporta los detalles imprescindibles sobre el bien o derecho de que se trate. Vistas con detenimiento dichas probanzas, estima esta Cámara, las codemandadas reconocen expresamente la comisión de un error en la inscripción del asiento registral, en el cual se hizo constar en la casilla del monto de la prenda en primer grado la suma de $548,00 en lugar en $30.000. (Folios 78, 100, 153 del expediente judicial). Sin embargo, este error despierta dudas, las cuales bien atendidas por quienes realizaron el negocio, hubiesen podido clarificar la situación de lo verdaderamente ocurrido y con ello prevenir la situación actual. La verificación de la información registral esta dentro de la función y las obligaciones de los notarios conforme al canon 34 g) del Código Notarial y esta no se limita únicamente al informe registral desplegado informáticamente, sino también a microfilm y tomos de ser necesario, cuando -como en el caso en estudio- surge alguna duda de la información contenida en el primero. Conforme a lo expuesto por el Registro en la resolución no. 1161-2009, la publicidad formal se refiere a los medios y procedimientos de acceso que tienen las personas al Registro Público, con la finalidad de consultar la información consignada en sus bases de datos, entre esos la página web. En ese sentido el canon 66 del Reglamento del Registro Público – Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J, establece que la denominada publicidad registral está constituida por la información contenida en los tomos, sistemas de procesamiento electrónico de datos, digitalización y la microfilmación. Ahora bien, cuando de uno de esos medios, refleja duda razonable en la información contenida, que es exactamente lo ocurrido en esta litis, por cuanto es de cuestionarse si obedece a la realidad que una institución bancaria grave en primer grado un vehículo por la suma de $548, pagaderos a 72 meses plazo. Salta a la vista la inquietud y por ende la necesidad de realizarse un estudio registral completo. Si bien es cierto, el Registro tiene el deber de salvaguardar la veracidad de los asientos por todos los medios a través de los cuales los publicita, y que la información digital es uno de esos medios, también es cierto que no es el único, es decir la fe y publicidad registral no descansa únicamente en este. Por lo que ante la ínfima duda de la información contenida en el medio utilizado, debía acudirse a otra de los instrumentos que conforman la publicidad registral. En razón de lo anterior, concuerda esta Sala con el argumento externado por los juzgadores, en cuanto a que la información de la pantalla es incompleta más no omisa u oscura, por cuanto el monto del gravamen consignado era más bien el de la mensualidad a pagar, tal y como se desprende de la escritura de prenda en primer grado del expediente judicial. Conforme a lo anterior, en criterio de esta Cámara, existió duda razonable que ameritaba acudir a los otros medios de publicidad registral a efecto de verificar la información desplegada en la pantalla del registro, dicha actuación en nada vulnera la fe y publicidad que resguarda el Registro, habida cuenta de que es la propia institución la que habilita todos esas formas de verificación a fin de asegurarse la correcta y mas transparente realidad de lo que ahí se consigna. Por eso, es dable afirmar, que el Tribunal no ha valorado en forma indebida la prueba indicada, ni ha violado las normas 1 y 32 de la Ley 3883 y 66 del Decreto Ejecutivo no. 26771-J. Es evidente que una correcta y cuidadosa confrontación de los datos a través de los distintos instrumentos registrales puestos a su disposición de los usuarios, habrían evitado realizar el negocio, y con ello se hubiese prevenido la situación acaecida a las actoras. Por lo tanto, el daño acusado es producto de su propia desidia o falta de diligencia, debido a que el error material en el que incurrió la registradora no es determinante, por cuanto una lectura cuidosa de la información contenida en la pantalla hubiera despertado dudas suficientes, en cuanto a si su contenido era o no verídico y obedecía a la realidad de lo pactado entre Transadvaro y Banca Promérica.

VIII.En consecuencia, acudiendo al régimen de responsabilidad objetiva del Estado y sus eximentes, plasmadas en el canon 190 de la LGAP el cual establece: “1. La Administración responderá por todos los daños que cause su funcionamiento legítimo o ilegítimo, normal o anormal, salvo fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de un tercero. 2. La Administración será responsable de conformidad con este artículo, aún cuando no pueda serlo en virtud de las secciones siguientes de este Capítulo, pero la responsabilidad por acto lícito o funcionamiento normal, se dará únicamente según los términos de la Sección Tercera siguiente”. Y considerando que dicha normativa, contempla tres supuestos de exención total o parcial de responsabilidad, a saber: fuerza mayor como hecho imprevisible, inevitable, de la naturaleza, extraño y exterior; hecho de un tercero, en tanto es producido por la acción u omisión de un sujeto totalmente ajeno a la relación triangular entre Administración-funcionario-afectado y culpa de la víctima, en la medida en que es el propio sujeto pasivo del daño (víctima), quien produce –por negligencia o imprudencia inexcusable- la lesión, o se coloca en posición propicia para ello.

Se aprecia, se está en presencia de la eximente de responsabilidad de culpa de la victima, en razón de la falta de diligencia con que han procedido las compañías actoras, faltando al deber de verificar la situación jurídica real del bien que estaban pignorando y comprando cada una. También, en criterio de esta Cámara resulta aplicable, la eximente de “hecho de un tercero” consistente en que el señor Adrián Vargas Obando, en su carácter de presidente de la sociedad Transadvaro, logró obtener un crédito por $11.000,00 y la venta del vehículo por $24.000,00 conociendo la situación real del automotor. Es claro que se aprovechó de la situación logrando esos negocios, por lo que bien pudo la parte accionante traer al proceso a la sociedad Transdavaro y la señor Vargas Obando como su representante, sin embargo, cuando fue interpuesta la falta de integración de la litis contra ellos, las actoras se opusieron a efecto de que no se integrara tal y como sucedió.

Estando en presencia de las eximentes indicadas, se rompe el nexo de causalidad entre la conducta reprochada a los codemandados y el daño sufrido por las actoras, lo cual hace el rechazo del agravio y por ende se deberá declarar sin lugar el recurso.”