Municipal oversight of sewage treatment and liability for inspection failuresControl municipal sobre el tratamiento de aguas negras y responsabilidad por omisión fiscalizadora

VI.- Regarding municipal autonomy. Principle of legality. With respect to the objections raised, the following should be noted. Municipalities are local entities that enjoy relative autonomy in the exercise of their functions. The municipal regime is a form of territorial decentralization, as inferred from Article 168 of the Constitution. This level of independence is granted by Article 169 of the Political Constitution, within the framework of its territorial jurisdiction, comprising the physical space designated for the canton it represents, as it states that each town council is responsible for the: "administration of local interests and services ... ". That is, the constitutional framers have conferred a series of functions or powers in favor of those governments by reason of "the local," that is, to administer the services and interests of the area to which it is limited, namely, the canton. This competence is not exclusive of that which has been granted by the Legal System to other entities or organs of the State. Thus, it is clear that there are interests whose safeguarding corresponds to the Municipalities, and alongside them, others coexist whose constitutional or legal protection is attributed to other public entities. The foregoing because there are interests that transcend the local sphere, as they affect other latitudes outside the canton. However, it must be clear that the administration of those interests within the territorial sphere of the municipality constitutes an original competence of the town councils, and can only be displaced from them by a nationalization law, provided that such legislative expression does not constitute a violation of the aforementioned autonomy or imply emptying the constitutional content of the municipal regime. For its part, Article 4 of the Municipal Code, Law No. 7794 of April 30, 1998, develops the types of autonomy that the ordinary legislator deemed these corporations possessed, indicating they possess political, administrative, and financial autonomy. On the scope of this autonomy, see, among others, from the Constitutional Chamber, rulings 5445-99, 1220-2002, 5204-2004, and 8928-2004. All in all, as part of an integrated system, within the dynamic of satisfying the interests of the residents, it is clear that there will be interests that are entirely local and others that can be considered national. This aspect obliges, within a principle of sound administration, coordination with the administrative instances of the Central Government, which carry out, at a macro level, functions related to those deployed locally by the corporation. An example of this, relevant to this case, is that of urban matters, in which, even though according to Article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, it is each Municipality that must approve the respective Regulatory Plan, coordination with the INVU and the Urbanism Directorate is imposed for these purposes, with a view to implementing a national development policy that integrates all the technical, economic, and social variables that converge in this activity. The same particularities of coordination are mandatory in environmental matters, in which certainly, the treatment of natural resources and the actions established by each administrative unit for the defense and protection of the environment, within a perception that should be precautionary and preventive, directly affects not the territorial sphere of the municipality, but the entirety of the national territory. Just as ecosystems maintain a linkage and symbiotic relationship with each other (as in the case of biological corridors for species conservation), the incidences that occur in a specific sector of the country have consequences for the entirety of the national environment. Hence, in this matter, one faces a national and local interest simultaneously. The Constitutional Chamber, in ruling No. 5445-99, already laid the foundations for the necessary coordination that must prevail in these inter-administrative relations, which arise without detriment to the autonomy that the constitutional framers already assigned to local entities. In this direction, the cited ruling stated: "X.- (...) Having defined the material competence of the municipality within a specific territorial circumscription, it is clear that there will be tasks that by their nature are exclusively municipal, alongside others that may be deemed national or state; therefore, it is essential to define the form of co-participation of powers that is inevitable, since the public capacity of municipalities is local, and that of the State and other entities is national; hence, municipal territory is simultaneously state and institutional, to the extent circumstances require. That is, municipalities may share their competences with the Public Administration in general, a relationship that must unfold in the terms defined by law (Article 5 of the former Municipal Code, Article 7 of the new Code), which establishes the obligation of 'coordination' between municipalities and public institutions that concur in the performance of their competences, to avoid duplication of efforts and contradictions, above all, because only voluntary coordination is compatible with municipal autonomy, being its expression. In other terms, the municipality is called upon to enter into cooperative relations with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coincident nature—in many cases—of interests around a specific matter. In doctrine, coordination is defined based on the existence of several independent centers of action, each with its own tasks and decision-making powers, and potentially discrepant; despite this, there must be a community of ends by subject matter, but by concurrence, insofar as the object receiving the final results of the activity and acts of each is common. Thus, coordination is the ordering of relations between these diverse independent activities, which addresses that concurrence on a same object or entity, to make it useful for a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. As there is no hierarchical relationship between decentralized institutions, or the State itself in relation to municipalities, the imposition of specific conduct on them is not possible, giving rise to the essential inter-institutional 'concert,' strictly speaking, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one fulfills a role in view of a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relations of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed forms of coordination, with the exclusion of any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the State's interest (through the 'administrative tutelage' of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control that corresponds to it, with general supervisory powers over the entire sector)." Now then, even with this autonomy, it is clear that under the protection of Article 11 of the Constitution, the municipalities and their officials are equally subject to the principle of legality, in its dual dimension, positive and negative, such that in the exercise of their competences, they must proceed as provided by the legal norms that delimit and specify their functioning. This subjection is generic to the entire Legal System, constituting a guarantee for the resident and civil society in general, that the public acts emanating from those local entities are consistent with it. This includes, as a general rule, a due application of the norms, not only in their content, but also in respecting their hierarchical level, from which it is inferred that the applications of infralegal measures that are opposed or contrary to law are unfeasible. The foregoing because the executive regulatory power and, in general, the issuance of administrative acts of a general or normative nature, as the case may be (Article 121 of the General Public Administration Law), find their insurmountable limit in the law and in the Political Constitution itself, such that they cannot contain regulations that contravene the statements of those higher-ranking norms, or venture into areas that, in accordance with the content of the law, are forbidden to them (principle of prohibition of arbitrariness of the regulatory power). Hence, when these limits are circumvented, the infralegal norm is inapplicable, being contrary to Law. In this sense, an adequate, generalized, and abstract application of the norms is sought, avoiding arbitrary and capricious procedures.

VII.- Local autonomy in urban planning and buildings. As has been indicated, municipal autonomy, imposed by the Constitution, confers upon local corporations a special competence for the administration of the interests of their territorial jurisdiction (Articles 169 and 170). Within this set of interests and services is urban planning, in which the town council holds an essential competence and, in general principle, one prevailing over that of other institutions, in the local context. With respect to what is relevant to this case, Article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968, confers upon local entities the basic competence to regulate and supervise everything concerning urban planning and development within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction. In this sense, the norm provides: "In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development within the limits of their jurisdictional territory is recognized. Consequently, each one shall provide what is necessary to implement a regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must apply, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific control regime." Note that the assigned competence is not limited to a mere planning aspect, but also includes the powers of control over urban development, which implies a degree of substantive supervision of both works in progress and those already executed, an aspect which will be addressed in more detail later. Along these lines, the first canon of the Construction Law, Decree Law No. 833 of November 4, 1949, clearly establishes these powers when it states: "The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that the cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares and in the buildings and constructions erected on land within them, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13, subsection o) of the Municipal Code, it corresponds to the Council to dictate the rules and measures concerning urban planning. In this order, according to the Construction Law, the execution of any work or building requires a municipal permit, while the local entity is responsible for its supervision (mandates 74 and 87 of that legal body). Therefore, the prevailing role that the Municipality holds in these tasks is evident, being incumbent upon it to provide the specific measures on urban development and planning, as well as the granting of construction "permits" and the control of those activities according to the norms that regulate that field. This has been defined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, among many others, in rulings No. 2153-93 of 9 hours 21 minutes on May 21, 1993, and No. 4205-96 of 14 hours 33 minutes on August 20, 1996.

Now then, the scope and effects of urban development and planning sometimes imply the emergence of coordination relationships with various public bodies with concurrent competence in certain areas of administrative activity, as has been explained. The foregoing because, although those aforementioned powers arise in relation to a local concept, they must be aligned with national planning policies. These are principles of sound administration that seek to establish coordination mechanisms that allow, more adequately, for an efficient attention to public needs and interests, so that a potential jurisdictional conflict does not prevent the State (in a broad sense) from attending to its duties and transgressing thereby—for mere organizational or design aspects—its teleological dimension. Within this framework lies the issuance of regulatory plans, which, under the protection of Article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, are carried out by local entities and later approved by the Urbanism Directorate. Article 169 of the Constitution, together with the Urban Planning Law, it is insisted, recognizes the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their territory, through the issuance of these types of plans, which, at their core, hold a normative nature insofar as they provide for the programming of land use in the respective cantonal jurisdiction. This is why, within their processing, the public hearing that allows residents to comment on the proposal constitutes an insurmountable prerequisite, due to the evident interest they hold regarding the administrative decision that establishes the destiny to be assigned to the properties located in the Canton. However, for reasons of linkage and harmony with national planning, given that the content of a plan of this nature has a reflexive impact on the integral context of the national territory, they must be approved by the Urbanism Directorate (Article 18 ibidem) in order to adjust them to national planning criteria. Nevertheless, it is emphasized, in this matter, the town council has an original competence, despite the coordination relationships, which allows it to plan, regulate, and supervise urban development within the respective canton.

VIII.- Regulation of urban planning matters. Control powers. Having said this, it is appropriate to note that the development of urban projects, in general terms, is subject to a set of norms that establish the diverse aspects converging in this subject matter, such as structural, constructive, health, water treatment, among others. However, broadly speaking (since the provisions specifying this matter are otherwise extensive), its basic regulation lies in the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law, legal bodies complemented by other norms that develop specific topics, e.g., the General Health Law. In these, generically, the basic assumptions are established that delimit the execution of buildings, whether for public or private use, temporary or permanent. Even so, the establishment of a series of factors that, by their nature, it is not advisable to incorporate within a law, have been further developed in regulations or infralegal norms. Along these same lines, the Urban Planning Law leaves the development of procedural and other aspects to those latter sources of law. In matters of an urban nature, in particular, the construction of subdivisions (urbanizaciones) or residential developments, the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law, in line with what has been said, in their Articles 15 and 32 respectively, refer the specification of the aspects that must be covered by the developers to a regulation, which, in the specific instance, is the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, No. 3991 of December 13, 1982. For its part, in construction matters, there is the so-called Reglamento de Construcciones, published on March 22, 1983. In accordance with the provisions of Canons 15 and 74 of the Construction Law, every subdivision (fraccionamiento) and development, as well as every work related to construction, must have an authorizing act issued by the corresponding Municipality. According to Article 19 in relation to Article 20, subsection h), both of the Urban Planning Law, local entities must issue the pertinent regulation to comply with the conditions of the Regulatory Plan, as well as to ensure the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being. In this direction, Article 56 ibidem indicates that the Reglamento de Construcciones shall set the rules of safety, health, and embellishment. However, these aspects are contemplated in the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, a norm that would be applicable to this effect. It is a legal instrument of a preeminently technical nature, which contains, regarding developments, varied regulations in aspects such as access, roadways, lot layout, green and public areas, drainage, aqueducts, sewers, infrastructure and finishes, among others.

With respect to the supervisory exercise, as has been said, Canon 1 of the Construction Law establishes that local governments are responsible for ensuring that the cities, their buildings, constructions, and public thoroughfares meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies. This is once again a legislative expression aimed at enhancing municipal competences in favor of their autonomy within the sphere of local interests that concern them. As is proper, those empowerments constitute true powers-duties, that is, they allow the adoption of executive and enforceable actions, but at the same time impose duties and demands, insofar as it must undertake the meritorious actions to fulfill its tasks. Therefore, it must subject its decisions to the bloc of legality (in harmony with subjective rights and legitimate interests), which implies of course, exercising due control over areas of social interest, such as health and safety, when appropriate, in coordination with Central Government authorities. This is why, as a counterpart to the competence to grant construction permits established by Article 74 of the Construction Law, Article 87 ibidem imposes the duty to inspect and control the works erected in its territory, as well as the use being made of them. These powers imply the competence to establish the harmony of construction applications with the norms regulating that matter, to the point that if it is inferred they are not complied with, they are empowered to deny the "permit" or refuse the required authorizing act. From this standpoint, the role of municipalities occurs in two instances, namely, preventive and supervisory. In the preventive framework, the "permit" is granted if all requirements are met, and in that comparison (qualitative and quantitative), such exercise materializes. In supervision, it verifies that what is carried out in reality is consistent with what was authorized. Of course, due to the very dynamic of urban planning, a wide range of variables converge that, due to their magnitude and relevance, demand coordination actions by local entities jointly with specialized public units. This is the case with public health and the treatment of waters of diverse nature (potable, wastewater, black water), assumptions in which linkage levels prevail between the administrative exercise of the municipalities and the organs or entities with specific functional competence in those areas. Indeed, this is deduced from the General Health Law in its Articles 338 and 338 bis, regarding the powers of supervision of compliance with health norms. Likewise, in water matters, Precepts 1, 2, 21, and 23 grant competence to the Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to approve water supply and disposal systems. Ultimately, under the protection of the cited Construction Law, and as relevant to this case, it corresponds to local corporations to issue the authorization to undertake the construction of a specific work (within these, developments). In turn, jointly with other public authorities, to deploy supervisory actions over those works, in order to verify their conformity with the regulatory framework. However, that control which is their direct concern is not dependent on the actions of other bodies.

IX.- Scope of the supervisory framework in the specific case. This Chamber considers that the very conception of the supervisory powers in urban planning matters that have been entrusted to the Municipalities (already discussed), are manifestations of a public power derived from competences granted by the constitutional and legal order in this field, which justifies the empowerment of the Administration. They therefore permit the deployment of a series of inherent and necessary powers for the exercise of sound administration. These even empower the suspension of a specific work when it does not meet the due conditions, or, within its preventive and foreseeing aspect, the rejection of a building request when the legal and technical requirements imposed by the applicable provisions have not been satisfied. These are specific manifestations of public power that allow the protection of legal principles, among others, that of safety and health. It therefore constitutes an inspection task over the constructive aspects of structures erected within the territorial space of the municipality, for the purpose of determining that they comply with the requirements established by that legislation, as well as other regulations associated with the activity. These faculties and powers, within their teleological orientation, are placed at the service of public or collective interests, which, in the final analysis, are the object that legitimizes their involvement in the control and supervision of urban planning activity. Given that these are competences established by the Legal System (as a direct derivation of their constitutional competences entrusted to them) and that are associated with the protection of public interests, the action of the local entity must consider not only a superficial (formal) review of construction permit applications, but an integral and in-depth assessment of compliance with the legal and technical requirements imposed by the Legal System. That is, verifying compliance not only formally but qualitatively with the conduct subject to control. For such purposes, it must consider the harmony of the application and proposals formulated in the respective plan with the provisions or technical rules dictated in each case. Applied to this case, this involves that the Municipality must analyze whether the black water treatment systems offered in the construction plan conform to the applicable technical norms, in such a way that they are functional and possess the capacity and volume that the established rules stipulate. That is, the technical viability of installing a septic tank, in the proposed dimensions and conditions, such that they do not imply potential risks of any nature, including public health. But furthermore, public powers in this field are not exhausted in the deployment of an authorizing conduct. Indeed, the issuance of the act that permits the building or construction of the work must be accompanied, it is insisted, by a controlling and verifying exercise on the part of the granting entity, with the object of ensuring that works in progress as well as those already executed fall within the normative framework that regulates the matter. As has been said, this exercise presents itself on a dual level: preventive, at the time of analyzing the application to build; and subsequent, in the inspections of those works to determine that they comply with what was authorized and, in general, with the applicable rules. In this way, the controlling function must be continuous, efficient, and effective. This is why when those competences have not been properly fulfilled and as a result of that conduct or dysfunctionality damage is generated (directly or by concurrence), a causal link arises that allows attributing the injury to the Municipality, in accordance with the rules of strict liability established by the Constitution and developed by the General Public Administration Law starting from Canon 190. The foregoing can occur for various causes. In a first stage, due to so-called material inactivity, that is, when the controlling and verifying framework is not exercised at all. In a second, when it is not carried out adequately, because even though the verification was performed, it was exhausted in a simple comparison of formal requirements, but not in a due examination in qualitative terms, of compliance or non-compliance with the requirements that the person intending to build must abide by. In this scenario, the passivity of the Municipality in the due supervision of elementary matters for the purposes of the work allows those rules to be circumvented, potentially enhancing risks or future damages to third parties. That is, an abnormal functioning operates in these assumptions that entails liability. This being the case as they constitute administrative conducts that, in themselves, depart from good administration (according to the concept used by the General Law itself in Article 102, subsection d., which among other things includes effectiveness and efficiency) or from organization, technical rules, or from expertise and prudent action in the deployment of their actions, with injurious effect on the person. Thus, the abnormality is manifested by a malfunction, by an insufficient supervisory exercise, therefore, inadequate. This because if the injurious result occurs in relation to facts in which the guarantor position exercised by the Administration made it required to prevent that consequence through the adequate control it ought to have exercised, it must face the implications of that non-observance. In this area, liability for "administrative inaction" (even partial) occurs due to a dual behavior. The first is that of the public or private person by whose action the impairment in the legal sphere of the injured party or parties is produced. The other, which concurs with the former, is the inaction of the public authority that does not exercise, as is due, the conduct required to avoid the damage, which can occur, it is reiterated, totally or partially. In this latter case, when the supervisory framework does not fully encompass the totality of variables that must be assessed in that exercise, such that due to relative non-observance, relevant aspects that constitute sources of risk are left aside. It is therefore a relativized framework of non-executed administrative protection (in its preventive aspect), which as inactivity concurs in producing the injury and therefore causes the shared liability, almost always joint and several, of the two agents causing the damage (understood as different centers of imputation, public or private). In this way, supervisory inaction in the face of third-party conduct is normally reflected in that irregularity which it should have identified in a timely manner; or in that damage produced which it should have foreseen in accordance with the existing state of affairs; or, by the omission, which for these purposes is equivalent to inactivity, reprehensible from a legal standpoint, in that it did not exercise, in a timely and proper manner, the precautions and corrective or foreseeing measures for the case. Of course, such attributability depends, to a high degree, on the determination of the existence of a causal link between that inaction (even partial) and the injury, insofar as only when the inactivity contributed to the generation of the damage, would administrative patrimonial liability be applicable. That is, when, had the supervisory exercise not been omitted, the injury would probably not have come to be caused. On the topic of liability for inaction, see, from this Chamber, ruling No. 308 of 10 hours 30 minutes on May 25, 2006.

In this scenario, it must be insisted that the oversight or supervision that has been entrusted to the municipalities in urban planning matters (which includes buildability) is not reduced to formal authorization conduct, but rather includes substantive, periodic, and effective control over works in progress and completed, such that the omission of this supervisory exercise makes it liable for the damages caused to third parties thereby.

X.- Management of black water. Legal regulation. In the specific case, the appellant considers that numerals 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), 4 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), and 170 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) have been violated, as the Court concluded that the vigilance over the connection of the pipes was not an obligation of the defendant Municipality. By this, he indicates, the inspection duty inherent to local entities is disregarded. Likewise, he accuses that from the application of Decree no. 3391 mentioned by the Ad quem, the aforementioned dispensation of verification is inferred, when that norm does not permit such an interpretation. Of interest for the specific case is the control that the Municipality of Heredia must exercise on the concrete issue of black and sewage water pipes with the provisions that every dwelling within a residential development (urbanización) must have. The foregoing because the appellant argues that article 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) imposes the obligation on local corporations to supervise the construction of works carried out in the respective Canton, so by not having done so regarding the referred pipes, it entails its strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) for the damages suffered. In this matter, as has been indicated, the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) refer to regulatory norm. Such development is regulated in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Residential Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), no. 3991 of December 13, 1982. On this point, as the Ad quem has correctly pointed out, the alluded Regulation, in chapter III, titled "Urbanizaciones", sets the rules that are applicable. In this sense, the norm provides several possibilities, depending on the characteristics of each residential urban complex. In this regard, it provides: "III.3.12 Sewers: When areas are developed that have a functioning black water collector service, the developer shall connect to said system./ When the collector is planned for a later stage, the developer shall leave a sewer system built within the residential development (urbanización) to be connected in the future to the planned collector system./ If there is no functioning or planned sewer, the following alternatives are contemplated: /III.3.12.1 For complexes larger than five hundred (500) dwelling units, the construction of a proprietary black water treatment plant is required: except when complexes larger with septic tanks are negotiated with the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, A y A)./ III.3.12.2 In complexes with a smaller number of lots or dwellings, the minimum lot size must be adapted for the use of a septic tank as set by this Regulation." In this way, depending on whether a collector exists or not, the developer may opt for one of the regulated possibilities, which, in order to what has been said, must be weighed by the municipality, the instance that is responsible, once the concrete case has been assessed, for establishing the appropriateness of the measure proposed. It is clear that the design of the water supply and the treatment and drainage system must conform to and correspond with the technical norms that, in each case, the authorities with concurrent competence establish, among them, the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). The foregoing must be reflected in the plan that the administrative instances must approve, as inferred from chapter VI, canon 3.3 of the cited Regulation. In this sense, as a matter of principle, AyA is the competent instance to set policies, establish, and apply norms related to the supply of potable water and evacuation of black water (article 1 of its Constitutive Law (Ley Constitutiva), no. 2726 of April 14, 1961, and its amendments). However, in accordance with what numeral 23 of its Constitutive Law (Ley Constitutiva) provides: "The plans for the construction or partial or total reconstruction of a house or building in the head cities of a province or Canton whose Municipalities have an Engineering Department shall be submitted for prior approval to said Department and once approved by it, to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, for its review…". That same rule is applicable in the case of residential development projects. From all the foregoing, it is inferred that definitively, the verification of compliance with the norms inherent to the issue of black water falls on the local corporations, as they are the competent ones to grant the construction permit, which is only possible, within an ideal framework, once the regulations inherent to this matter have been satisfied.

XI.- Regarding the specific case. In the specific case, the challenged ruling starts from the demonstrated assumption that in reality, it has been verified that the residential complex does not have a functioning black water treatment system or collector, but only one planned, and furthermore, that the number of dwellings does not exceed five hundred. A simplistic examination of this matter would lead to concluding that in consideration of that factual picture (which the cassation appellant says is not based on any evidence) and according to the cited Regulation, the theoretically viable solution was to adapt the lot for the use of a septic tank and leave the pipes planned for a later stage. However, this Chamber considers that the particularities immersed in this debate require a more in-depth analysis of what occurred. Certainly, the alluded norm permits the solution that the developer gave to the aspect of black water, that is, leaving the pipes planned (which the Municipality authorized). However, the reference to the possibility of installing septic tanks when there is a number of dwellings less than five hundred must be harmonized with the technical feasibility and suitability of the proposal raised by the builder, so that the system ultimately adopted is functional and optimal to fulfill its purpose. Ergo, this does not mean that this solution was the adequate and correct one for the specific case and to comply with the norms proper to urban construction matters. Indeed, in tune with the control and inspection powers assigned to it by law, the local entity should have studied whether, aside from the fact that the prerequisites established by the norm for installing a septic tank were met, the one offered in the construction plans was adjusted in terms of volume and capacity to the type of dwelling intended to be developed. In this sense, due control required measuring not only the appropriateness of the requested measure in theoretical terms, but also, and with greater relevance, the capacity of the proposal to fulfill its function, that is, to serve as an efficient mechanism for the evacuation and storage of black water, with the aim of thus avoiding potential risks to people's health and the generation of damages or injuries. This is because, since there was no water treatment system installed by the Municipality, and being a type of waste whose inadequate management can harm the health of residents and the environment, it was imperative to consider whether what was proposed met the needs it had to cover and satisfy. This analysis is far from being an exercise in document verification, quite the opposite. Due to the legal values at stake, the activity deployed (urban planning) which undoubtedly has public relevance or interest, and due to the competencies that have been assigned to the local corporation in this field (as a function inherent in its territory), it was necessary for the local entity to weigh whether the solution proposed by the developer was proper and optimal, so that what was definitively authorized fully complied with the public purpose and the public service immersed in the authorizing titles issued by the municipality. The supervisory function assigned to it by the legislator in the activity of urban construction seeks for both preventive and subsequent controls to be carried out, to ensure that the buildings conform to the requirements and conditions established by the normative order. Said verification then tends, in the framework of the construction of residential developments (urbanizaciones), to ensure the existence of adequate conditions of the structure in qualitative terms, which supposes, as a general rule, that its development occurs within the proper channels. This implies that the dwellings have the basic services that allow a normal quality of life for the resident, which is certainly set aside when a black water waste system does not adjust to its needs, constituting an eminent risk to their health, their life, and the harmony of the urban environment. The alluded supervision cannot be considered correctly performed if the aptitude of that already mentioned aspect was not assessed, not in formal terms, but in its capacity to correctly solve a basic and foreseeable need of every dwelling. Ergo, the municipal examination should not have been superficial, but in-depth in aspects such as the one indicated. From this perspective, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that the defendant Municipality did not exercise proper a priori control regarding this aspect. This is because, in the process of issuing construction permits or licenses, it omitted to analyze the suitability of the proposed tanks for the type of building for which the license was requested, something that was elemental to establish whether it had the pertinent volume or capacity. Indeed, regardless that the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Residential Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones) permits that specific technical solution when the regulated factual prerequisites for the case concur, this does not relieve the local entity of analyzing, within the exercise of its control competencies, whether that solution, in the terms in which it was proposed, was viable for each building, with a view to allowing proper management of black and sewage water. However, that study was not performed in a proper manner, giving way to an authorization to install a tank that did not have the volume required for each dwelling. On this level, the expert opinion rendered by engineer Ricardo Aymerich Kingsbury clearly indicates: "As an important technical fact, I clarify to the Court that there are construction plans indicating the stormwater pipes and black water pipes for the total project, being the three stages, however, the construction company did not connect the sewage water of the dwellings to the planned ones that are customarily left in the green zone or sidewalk; on the contrary, in a small space of the front garden, it built a small absorption well, which does not have the capacity or volume required by each of the dwellings. In the approved plans, the municipality did not give the technical importance required in these very important aspects and approved the dwelling plans with a septic tank solution and drainage pipes, located in these plans in the front garden area, which cannot be approved like this, because there is not sufficient area for the drainage (porous) pipes to function efficiently with this solution. (...)" (folio 366 of the principal file). Note that even in proven fact no. 12, the Court had this administrative control deficiency as proven, which was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal. XII.- This collegiate body considers that in the subexamine, although the Municipality issued a formal act granting the construction permit, which would presuppose that it complied with its control duties, as has been indicated, that conduct does not fully adjust to the Legal System, as it failed to weigh whether the black water system proposed by the developer was adequate or not, limiting itself to a formal examination of that requirement, which speaks of an abnormal functioning of the defendant public corporation. It is reiterated, the exercise of the supervisory competencies inherent to its powers to grant building or construction licenses, and which is expressly provided in canons 1 and 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), is not exhausted in a simple formal act of authorization. Within its correct understanding, it includes proper, continuous, and efficient supervision over works in progress and those already completed, to establish their harmony with the norms that regulate that matter. Therefore, its neglect generates liability for the damages caused in the legal sphere of third parties. This being so, it is clear that as an immediate effect of that conduct in the inspections prior to granting the construction permit, the defendant allowed the installation of tanks that, far from representing a proper response to the issue of black water treatment, led to a problem not only for the plaintiff owners but for public health in general. Then, given the impossibility of executing the guarantee provided by the construction firm, the owners of the residences where that circumstance occurred had to solve the water evacuation inconveniences, because, as has been said, the well did not have the adequate capacity. The reason to attribute liability to the Municipality for those facts does not lie in the lack of installation of a black water treatment system (as it is clear that since it does not exist, it cannot be put into operation), but in the neglect of its inspection duties regarding the technical feasibility of installing a septic tank, in the dimensions and conditions proposed for this case. Had that aspect been analyzed carefully, it could well have been corrected in time and thus avoided the construction of dwellings that do not have an adequate sewer system. In this sense, the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes the liability of the Administration for its legitimate and illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, save for exonerating causes of force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. In this extreme, the abnormality, as a public malfunction, includes the improper exercise of legally granted powers or faculties. In the sub-examine, the said construction was carried out once authorized by the Municipality, despite the deficiencies noted, wherewith it failed in its control and surveillance duties assigned by numerals 1 and 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), which in the particular case must be complemented with the provisions of the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Residential Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones). With this, liability is imposed on the local entity, obliging it to cover the damages and losses suffered by the plaintiffs who, at the date of filing the lawsuit, were owners of a house or lot within Residencia Cedri, items that must be determined in the sentence execution process. In this way, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that, for the reasons stated, the grievance under examination must be upheld. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal must be annulled, and on this point, that of the Court confirmed." Within this set of interests and services lies the urban planning matter in which the local government holds an essential competence and, as a matter of principle, a prevailing one over that of other institutions in the local context. Regarding what is relevant to the case, article 15 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), No. 4240 of November 15, 1968, confers upon local entities the base competence to regulate and monitor everything concerning urban planning and development within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, the provision stipulates: "Pursuant to the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development within the limits of their jurisdictional territory is recognized. Consequently, each of them shall order what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must apply, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors where qualified reasons exist to establish a specific control regime." Note that the assigned competence is not limited to a mere planning aspect but also includes the powers of control over urban development, which implies a degree of substantive monitoring of both works in progress and those already completed, an aspect that will be addressed in more detail below. Along these lines, the first article of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), Decree Law (Decreto Ley) No. 833 of November 4, 1949, establishes these powers with evident clarity when it states: "The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other settlements meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on the land thereof, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, in accordance with the provisions of article 13, subsection o) of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), it is the Council's responsibility to issue the norms and measures concerning urban planning (ordenamiento urbano). In this order, according to what is stipulated by the Construction Law, the execution of any work or building requires a municipal permit (licencia municipal), while the local entity is responsible for monitoring them (mandates 74 and 87 of that legal body). Therefore, the prevailing role that the Municipality holds in these tasks is evident, and it is incumbent upon it to order the concrete measures on urban development and planning, as well as the granting of construction "permits" (licencias) and the control of those activities according to the norms that regulate that field. This has been defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) itself, among many, in rulings No. 2153-93 at 9:21 a.m. on May 21, 1993, and No. 4205-96 at 2:33 p.m. on August 20, 1996. However, the scope and effects of urban development and planning sometimes imply the emergence of coordination relationships with various public bodies with concurrent jurisdiction in certain areas of administrative activity, as has been explained. The foregoing is due to the fact that although these aforementioned powers arise in relation to a local concept, they must mesh with national planning policies. These are principles of sound administration that seek to establish coordination mechanisms that allow, in a more adequate manner, for the efficient attention of public needs and interests, so that a potential jurisdictional conflict is not an obstacle for the State (in a broad sense) to neglect its duties and thereby transgress, due to aspects of mere organization or design, its teleological dimension. Within this framework is the issuance of regulatory plans (planes reguladores), which, under the shelter of article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, are carried out by local entities and then approved by the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo). Article 169 of the Constitution, together with the Urban Planning Law, it is insisted, recognizes the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development within the limits of their territory, through the issuance of this type of plan, which at heart, possess a normative nature insofar as they set forth the programming of land use in the respective cantonal jurisdiction. That is why, within its processing, a public hearing that allows residents to pronounce themselves on the proposal constitutes an insurmountable prerequisite, due to the obvious interest they hold regarding the administrative decision that establishes the destiny that must be given to the properties located in the Canton. Nevertheless, due to the aspect of linkage and harmony with national planning, since the content of a plan of this nature has a reflexive impact on the integral context of the national territory, they must be approved by the Urban Planning Directorate (article 18 ibidem) in order to adjust them to national planning criteria. However, it is emphasized, in this matter, the local government has an originating competence, despite the coordination relationships, which allows it to plan, regulate, and monitor urban development within the respective canton.

VIII.- Regulation of the urban planning matter. Control powers. Having said this, it should be noted that the matter of developing urban projects, in general terms, is subject to a set of norms that establish the various aspects that converge in this subject matter, such as structural, construction, health, water treatment, among others. However, broadly speaking (since the provisions that specify this matter are excessively extensive), its basic regulation lies in the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law, legal bodies that are complemented by other norms that develop specific topics, e.g., the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud). In these, in a generic way, the basic prerequisites that delimit the execution of buildings are established, whether for public or private use, temporary or permanent. Even so, the establishment of a series of factors that, by their nature, are not convenient to incorporate into a law, have been elaborated upon in regulations or infra-legal norms. In this same direction, the Urban Planning Law leaves to these latter sources of law the development of procedural and other aspects. In matters of an urban planning nature, in particular, the construction of subdivisions (urbanizaciones) or residential complexes, the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law, in line with what has been said, in their articles 15 and 32 respectively, refer the specification of the aspects that must be covered by developers (urbanizadores) to a regulation, which in this specific case is the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), No. 3991 of December 13, 1982. For its part, in tasks of the construction matter, there is the so-called Construction Regulation (Reglamento de Construcciones), published on March 22, 1983. In accordance with what is stipulated by articles 15 and 74 of the Construction Law, every subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization (urbanización), as well as every work related to construction, must have an authorizing act issued by the corresponding Municipality. Pursuant to article 19 in relation to article 20, subsection h), both of the Urban Planning Law, local entities must issue the pertinent regulation to comply with the conditions of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), as well as to ensure the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being. In this direction, article 56 ibidem states that the Construction Regulation will establish the rules of safety, health, and adornment. However, these aspects are contemplated in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations, a norm that would be applicable for this purpose. It is a legal instrument of a preeminently technical nature, which contains, regarding subdivisions, varied regulations on aspects such as access, road systems, lot division (lotificación), green and public areas, drainage, aqueducts, sewers, infrastructure, and finishes, among others. With regard to the oversight exercise, as has been said, article 1 of the Construction Law establishes that local governments are responsible for ensuring that cities, their buildings, constructions, and public roads meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies. This is once again a legislative manifestation that aims to enhance municipal powers in favor of their autonomy in the sphere of local interests that concern them. As is due, those authorizations constitute true powers-duties, that is, they allow them to adopt executive and enforceable actions, but at the same time impose duties and demands upon them, insofar as they must assume the actions of merit to fulfill their tasks. As such, they must subject their decisions to the legal framework (in harmony with subjective rights and legitimate interests), which implies, of course, exercising due control over areas of social interest, as is the case of health and safety, when appropriate, in coordination with Central Government authorities. That is why, as a counterpart to the competence to grant the construction permits (licencias de construcción) established by article 74 of the Construction Law, article 87 ibidem imposes upon it the duty to supervise and control the works erected in its territory, as well as the use that is being given to them. These powers entail the competence to establish the harmony of construction requests with the norms that regulate that matter, to the point that if it infers non-compliance, they are empowered to deny the "permit" or refuse the required authorizing act. From this perspective, the role of the municipalities occurs in two instances, namely, preventive and supervisory. In the preventive framework, the "permit" is granted if it complies with all the requirements, and in that collation (qualitative and quantitative), such exercise is materialized. In the supervisory function, it verifies that what is carried out in reality is consistent with what was authorized. It is clear that, due to the very dynamic of the urban planning matter, a wide range of variables converge that, due to their magnitude and relevance, demand coordination actions from local entities jointly with specialized public units. This is the case with public health and the treatment of waters of diverse nature (potable, gray water, black water), cases in which the levels of linkage between the administrative exercise of the municipalities and the organs or entities with specific functional competence in those areas prevail. Indeed, this is derived from the General Health Law in its articles 338 and 338 bis, regarding the supervisory powers over compliance with health norms. Similarly, in water matters, precepts 1, 2, 21, and 23 grant the competence to the National Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) to approve water supply systems and their disposal. In short, under the shelter of the cited Construction Law, and in what becomes relevant to the case, it corresponds to the local corporations to issue the authorization to undertake the construction of a specific work (within them, subdivisions). In turn, jointly with other public authorities, to deploy supervisory actions over those works, in order to verify their conformity with the regulatory framework. However, that control which is of their direct concern is not dependent on the actions of other organs.

IX.- Scope of the supervisory framework in the specific case. This Chamber considers that the very conception of supervisory powers in urban planning matters that have been entrusted to the Municipalities (already discussed) are manifestations of a public power derived from competences granted by the constitutional and legal order in this field, which justifies the empowerment of the Administration. They therefore allow the deployment of a series of inherent and necessary attributions for the exercise of sound administration. These even empower them to suspend a specific work when it does not meet the due conditions, or, within its preventive and foreseeing aspect, to reject the building request when the legal and technical requirements that the applicable provisions impose have not been satisfied. These are concrete manifestations of public power that allow the protection of legal principles, among others, that of safety and health. It therefore constitutes a task of inspection over the construction aspects of the structures erected in the territorial space of the municipality, for the purpose of determining that they comply with the requirements that such legislation provides, as well as other regulations associated with the activity. These faculties and powers, within their teleological orientation, are placed at the service of public or collective interests, which, ultimately, are the object that legitimizes their incursion into the control and supervision of the urban planning activity. As they are competences fixed by the Legal System (Ordenamiento) (as a direct derivation of their constitutional competences that were entrusted to them) and that are associated with the protection of public interests, the action of the local entity must ponder not only a superficial (formal) review of the building permit requests, but a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of compliance with the legal and technical demands imposed by the Legal System. That is, verifying compliance not only formal but qualitative of the conduct subject to control. For such purposes, it must consider the harmony of the request and proposals formulated in the respective plan with the technical provisions or rules dictated for each case. Applied to this case, this involves the Municipality having to analyze that the black water treatment systems offered in the construction plan comply with the applicable technical standards, in such a way that they are functional and have the capacity and volume that the established rules provide. That is, the technical viability of installing a septic tank, in the proposed dimensions and conditions, such that they do not imply potential risks of any nature, including public health. But furthermore, the public powers in this field are not exhausted in the deployment of an authorizing conduct. Indeed, the issuance of the act that allows the building or construction of the work must be accompanied, it is insisted, by a supervisory and verifying exercise by the granting entity, with the purpose of ensuring that the works in progress as well as those already completed, are within the normative framework that regulates the matter. As has been said, this exercise presents itself on a double level: preventive, at the moment of analyzing the request to build; and subsequent, in the inspections of those works to determine that they comply with what was authorized and, in general, with the applicable rules. In this way, the supervisory function must be continuous, efficient, and effective. That is why when these competences have not been duly fulfilled, and as a result of that conduct or dysfunctionality, damage is generated (directly or through concurrence), a causal link arises that allows the injury to be imputed to the Municipality, according to the rules of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) set forth by the Constitution and developed by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) starting from article 190. The foregoing can occur for several reasons. In a first stage, due to so-called material inactivity, that is, when the supervisory and verifying framework is not exercised at all. In a second, when it is not done in an adequate manner, because even though the verification was carried out, it was exhausted in a simple collation of formal requirements, but not in a due examination in qualitative terms, of compliance or non-compliance with the demands that the person intending to build must observe. In this scenario, the passivity of the Municipality in the due monitoring of elementary questions for the purpose of the work allows the circumvention of those rules, which can potentiate future risks or damages to third parties. That is, abnormal functioning operates in these cases that entails liability. This is because they constitute administrative conducts that, in themselves, deviate from good administration (according to the concept used by the General Law itself in article 102, subsection d., which among other things includes effectiveness and efficiency) or from the organization, technical rules, or expertise and prudent conduct in the deployment of their actions, with harmful effect for the person. Thus, the abnormality manifests itself through poor functioning, through an insufficient supervisory exercise, therefore, inadequate. This because if the harmful result occurs in relation to facts in which the guarantor position exercised by the Administration made it necessary to avoid that consequence through the adequate control it should have exercised, it must face the implications of that non-compliance. In this sphere, liability for "administrative inaction" (even partial) occurs due to a double behavior. The first, of the public or private person by whose action the impairment in the legal sphere of the injured party or parties occurs. The other, which concurs with that one, due to the inaction of the public authority that does not exercise, as is due, the conduct required to avoid the damage, which can occur, it is reiterated, totally or partially. In the latter case, when the supervisory framework does not fully cover the totality of variables that must be pondered in that exercise, so that due to relative non-observance, relevant aspects that constitute sources of risk are left aside. It is therefore a relativized framework of administrative protection not acted upon (in its preventive aspect), which as inactivity concurs in producing the injury and therefore causes the shared liability, almost always joint and several (solidaria), of the two agents causing the damage (understood as diverse centers of imputation, public or private). In this way, the supervisory inaction in the face of third-party conduct is normally reflected in that irregularity that it should have identified in a timely manner; or in that damage produced that it should have foreseen according to the existing state of affairs; or, due to the omission, which for these effects is equivalent to inactivity, reprehensible from the legal plane, of not exercising in time and form the prevention and corrective or foreseeing measures for the case. It is clear that such imputability depends, to a high degree, on the determination of the existence of a causal link between that inaction (even partial) and the injury, insofar as only when the inactivity has contributed to the generation of the damage, would administrative patrimonial liability be applicable. That is, when had the supervisory exercise not been omitted, the injury, with probability, would not have been caused. On the subject of liability for inaction, see, from this Chamber, ruling No. 308 at 10:30 a.m. on May 25, 2006. In this scenario, it must be insisted that the protection or supervision that has been entrusted to the municipalities in urban planning matters (which includes building capacity) is not reduced to formal authorization conducts but includes substantive, periodic, and effective control over works in progress and completed, in such a way that the omission of this supervisory exercise makes it liable for the damages produced to third parties thereby.

X.- Management of black water. Legal regulation. In this specific case, the appellant considers that articles 87 of the Construction Law, 4 of the Municipal Code, and 170 of the Political Constitution have been violated, since the Court concluded that the monitoring of the pipe connection was not an obligation of the defendant Municipality. With this, he indicates, the inspection duty inherent to local entities is disregarded. Likewise, he accuses, from the application of Decree No. 3391 mentioned, the Ad quem infers the dispensation of the aforementioned verification, when that norm does not allow such an interpretation. Of interest for the specific case is the control that the Municipality of Heredia must exercise on the specific topic of the black and gray water pipes provided for that every dwelling must have within a subdivision.

The foregoing because the appellant alleges that Article 87 of the Construction Law imposes an obligation on local corporations to supervise the construction of works carried out in the respective Canton, and therefore, by failing to do so with respect to the aforementioned pipes, it incurs strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) for the damages suffered. In this matter, as has been indicated, the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law refer to regulatory provisions. Such development is regulated in the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, No. 3991 of December 13, 1982. On this point, as the Ad quem has rightly noted, the aforementioned Reglamento, in Chapter III, entitled "Urbanizaciones," sets forth the rules that are applicable. In this regard, the provision contemplates several possibilities, depending on the characteristics of each residential urban development. It states in this respect: "III.3.12 Sewers: When areas that have a functioning blackwater (aguas negras) collector service are urbanized, the developer (urbanizador) must connect to said system./ When the collector is planned for a later stage, the developer must leave a sewer system built within the urbanization (urbanización) to be connected in the future to the planned collector system./ If there is no sewer in operation nor planned, the following alternatives are contemplated: /III.3.12.1 For complexes larger than five hundred (500)/ housing units, the construction of a dedicated blackwater treatment plant is required: unless larger complexes with a septic tank are negotiated with the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA)./ III.3.12.2 In complexes with a smaller number of lots or dwellings, the minimum lot size for the use of a septic tank must be adjusted as set forth in this Reglamento." Thus, depending on whether a collector exists or not, the developer may opt for one of the regulated possibilities, which, as stated, must be weighed by the municipality, the instance responsible for, once the specific case has been assessed, establishing the appropriateness of the proposed measure. It is clear that the design of the water supply and the treatment and drainage system must be in conformity and correspondence with the technical standards established in each case by the authorities with concurrent competence, among them, the Ministry of Health and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). The foregoing must be reflected in the plan that must be approved by the administrative bodies, as inferred from Chapter VI, canon 3.3 of the cited Reglamento. In this sense, in principle, AyA is the competent body to set policies, establish and apply standards regarding the supply of potable water and evacuation of blackwater (Article 1 of its Constitutive Law, No. 2726 of April 14, 1961 and its amendments). However, as provided in numeral 23 of its Constitutive Law: "The plans for the construction or partial or total reconstruction of a house or building in the provincial capital cities or in Cantons whose Municipalities have an Engineering Department, shall be submitted for prior approval to said Department and once approved by it, to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, for its review…". That same rule is applicable to urbanization (urbanización) projects. From all the foregoing, it is inferred that ultimately, the verification of compliance with the regulations inherent to the issue of blackwater falls upon the local corporations, as they are competent to grant the construction permit, which is only possible, within an ideal framework, when the regulations inherent to this matter have been satisfied.

**XI.- Regarding the specific case.** In the case at hand, the challenged judgment is based on the demonstrated premise that in reality, it has been verified that the residential complex does not have a functioning blackwater treatment system or collector, but only one that is planned, and furthermore, that the number of dwellings does not exceed five hundred. A simplistic examination of the present matter would lead to the conclusion that, in consideration of that factual picture (which the appellant on cassation says is not based on any evidence) and according to the cited Reglamento, the theoretically viable solution was to adjust the lot for the use of a septic tank and leave the pipes planned for a later stage. However, this Chamber considers that the particularities involved in this debate require a more in-depth analysis of what occurred. Certainly, the cited provision allows the solution that the developer gave to the blackwater aspect, i.e., to leave the pipes planned (which the Municipality authorized). However, the reference to the possibility of installing septic tanks when there is a number of dwellings less than five hundred must be harmonized with the technical viability and suitability of the proposal put forward by the builder, so that the system ultimately adopted is functional and optimal to fulfill its purpose. Ergo, this does not mean that this solution was adequate and correct for the specific case and for complying with the standards inherent to the matter of urban construction. Indeed, in accordance with the control and inspection powers assigned to it by law, the local entity should have studied whether, regardless of the existence of the conditions established by the provision for installing the septic tank, the one offered in the construction plans conformed, in terms of volume and capacity, to the type of dwelling intended to be developed. In this sense, due control required measuring not only the appropriateness of the requested measure in theoretical terms, but also, and with greater relevance, the capacity of the proposal to fulfill its function, i.e., to serve as an efficient mechanism for the evacuation and storage of blackwater, in order to thus avoid potential risks to people's health and the generation of damages or injuries. This because, in the absence of a water treatment system installed by the Municipality, and because it involves a type of waste whose inadequate management can harm the health of residents and the environment, it was imperative to consider whether the proposal met the needs it was meant to cover and satisfy. This analysis is far from being a document verification exercise; quite the contrary. By reason of the legal values at stake, the deployed activity (urban development) which undoubtedly has relevance or public interest, and due to the powers in this field that have been assigned to the local corporation (as a function inherent in its territory), it was necessary for the local entity to weigh whether the solution proposed by the developer was due and optimal, in such a way that what was definitively authorized would fully comply with the public purpose and the public service inherent in the authorization titles issued by the municipality. The oversight function assigned to it by the legislature in the activity of urban constructions aims to ensure that both preventive and subsequent controls are carried out, to ensure that the buildings conform to the requirements and conditions established by the normative order. Said verification, therefore, tends, within the framework of urbanization (urbanización) constructions, to ensure the existence of adequate conditions of the structure in qualitative terms, which presupposes, as a rule of principle, that its development occurs within the proper channels. This implies that the dwellings have the basic services that allow a normal quality of life for the resident, which is certainly disregarded when a blackwater waste system does not meet their needs, constituting an imminent risk to their health, their life, and the harmony of the urban environment. The aforementioned oversight cannot be considered correctly performed if the suitability of that already indicated aspect was not assessed, not in formal terms, but in its capacity to successfully resolve a basic and foreseeable need of every dwelling. Ergo, the municipal examination should not have been superficial, but in-depth on aspects such as the one indicated. From this perspective, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that the defendant Municipality did not exercise due a priori control regarding this aspect. This is because, in the process of issuing construction permits or licenses, it omitted to analyze the suitability of the proposed tanks for the type of building for which the license was requested, which was fundamental to establish whether it had the pertinent volume or capacity. Indeed, regardless of whether the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones allows that specific technical solution when the regulated factual conditions for the case concur, this does not relieve the local entity from analyzing, within the exercise of its control powers, whether that solution, in the terms in which it was proposed, was viable for each building, with a view to allowing proper management of blackwater and sewage (aguas servidas). However, that study was not carried out properly, giving way to an authorization to install a tank that did not have the volume required by each dwelling. From this standpoint, the expert report rendered by engineer Ricardo Aymerich Kingsbury clearly indicates: "As an important technical fact, I clarify to the Court that there are construction plans indicating the stormwater and blackwater pipes for the entire project, i.e., the three stages; however, the construction company did not connect the sewage from the dwellings to the planned ones that are customarily left in the green zone or sidewalk; on the contrary, in a small front yard space, it built a small absorption well, which does not have the capacity or volume required by each of the dwellings. In the approved plans, the municipality did not give the technical importance required in these very important aspects and approved the dwelling plans with a septic tank solution and drainage pipes, located in these plans in the front yard area, which cannot be approved as such, because there is not enough area for the (porous) drainage pipes to function efficiently with this solution. (...)" (folio 366 of the main file). It is noted that even, in proven fact no. 12, the Court considered this deficiency of administrative control to have been demonstrated, which was subsequently endorsed by the Tribunal.

**XII.-** This collegiate body considers that in the sub examine, although the Municipality issued a formal act granting the construction permit, which implied it fulfilled its control duties, as has been indicated, that conduct does not fully conform to the Legal System (Ordenamiento Jurídico), insofar as it failed to weigh whether the blackwater system proposed by the developer was adequate or not, limiting itself to a formal examination of that requirement, which speaks to an abnormal functioning (funcionamiento anormal) of the defendant public corporation. It is reiterated, the exercise of the supervisory powers inherent to its authority to grant building or construction licenses, which is expressly provided for in canons 1 and 87 of the Construction Law, is not exhausted in a simple formal act of authorization. Its correct understanding includes a due, continuous, and efficient oversight of works under execution and those already executed, in order to establish their harmony with the regulations governing that matter. Therefore, its neglect generates liability for the damages it has caused within the legal sphere of third parties. That being so, it is clear that as an immediate effect of that conduct in the inspections prior to granting the construction permit, the defendant allowed the installation of tanks that, far from representing a proper response to the issue of blackwater treatment, led to a problem not only for the plaintiff owners but for public health in general. Subsequently, given the impossibility of executing the guarantee provided by the construction company, the owners of the residences where this circumstance occurred had to resolve the inconveniences of water evacuation, because, as has been stated, the well did not have the adequate capacity. The reason for attributing liability to the Municipality for these events does not lie in the failure to install a blackwater treatment system (since it is clear that since it does not exist, it cannot be put into operation), but in the neglect of its inspection duties regarding the technical viability of installing a septic tank, with the dimensions and conditions proposed for this case. Had that aspect been carefully analyzed, it could well have been corrected in time and thus, the construction of dwellings lacking an adequate sewer system could have been avoided. In this sense, the General Law of Public Administration establishes the liability of the Administration for its legitimate and illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning (funcionamiento normal o anormal), except for the exempting causes of force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. In this regard, abnormality, as poor public functioning, includes the improper exercise of legally granted powers or faculties. In the sub examine, said construction was carried out once authorized by the Municipality, despite the indicated deficiencies, whereby it failed in its control and supervision duties assigned to it by numerals 1 and 87 of the Construction Law, which, in this particular case, must be complemented with the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. Consequently, liability is imposed upon the local entity, obliging it to cover the damages and losses suffered by the plaintiffs who, as of the date of filing the complaint, were owners of a house or lot within the Residencia Cedri, items that must be determined in the sentence execution process. Thus, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that for the reasons set forth, the grievance under examination must be upheld.

Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court must be annulled, and on this point, that of the Court of First Instance must be confirmed.

**VI.- On municipal autonomy. Principle of legality.** Regarding the objections raised, the following should be noted. Municipalities are local entities that enjoy relative autonomy in the exercise of their functions. The municipal regime is a type of territorial decentralization, as inferred from numeral 168 of the Magna Carta. This level of independence is granted by precept 169 of the Political Constitution, within the framework of its territorial jurisdiction, comprised of the physical space designated for the canton it represents, as it states that each local government is responsible for: "*the administration of local interests and services …*". That is, the constituent power has conferred a series of functions or attributions upon those governments by reason of "the local," that is, to administer the services and interests of the sphere to which it is circumscribed, namely, the canton. This competence is not exclusive of that which has been granted by the Legal System to other entities or organs of the State. Thus, it is clear that there are interests whose safeguarding corresponds to the Municipalities, and alongside them, others coexist whose constitutional or legal protection is attributed to other public entities. The foregoing is due to the fact that there are interests that transcend the local sphere, because they affect other latitudes outside the canton. However, it must be clear that the administration of those interests within the territorial sphere of the municipality constitutes an original competence of the local governments and can only be displaced from them by a nationalization law, provided that such legislative manifestation does not entail a breach of the aforementioned autonomy or imply emptying the constitutional content of the municipal regime. For its part, Article 4 of the Código Municipal, Ley no. 7794 of April 30, 1998, develops the types of autonomy that the ordinary legislator deemed these corporations held, indicating that they possess political, administrative, and financial autonomy. On the scope of this autonomy, see, among others, from the Constitutional Chamber, votes 5445-99, 1220-2002, 5204-2004 and 8928-2004. Nonetheless, as part of an integrated system, within the dynamic of satisfying the interests of the residents, it is clear that there will be interests that are purely local and others that can be considered national. This aspect requires, within a principle of sound administration, coordination with the administrative instances of the Central Government, which carry out, at a macro level, functions related to those deployed locally by the corporation. This is the example, in what is relevant to this case, of urban aspects, in which, even though under the terms of Article 15 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, it is each Municipality that must approve the respective Regulating Plan, coordination with the INVU and the Dirección de Urbanismo is imposed for these purposes, with a view to implementing a national development policy that integrates all the technical, economic, and social variables that converge in this activity. Similar particularities of coordination are essential in environmental matters, in which certainly, the treatment of natural resources and the actions that each administrative unit establishes for the defense and protection of the environment, within a perception that should be precautionary and preventive, directly impacts not only the territorial sphere of the municipality, but the entirety of the national territory. Just as ecosystems maintain a linkage and symbiotic relationship among themselves (such is the case of biological corridors for species conservation), the impacts produced in a specific sector of the country have consequences on the entirety of the national environment. Hence, in this matter, we are faced with a national and local interest simultaneously. The Constitutional Chamber, in resolution no. 5445-99, already laid the foundations for the necessary coordination that must prevail in these inter-administrative relationships, which arise without detriment to the autonomy that the constituent power already assigned to local entities. In this direction, the cited ruling stated: "*X.- (...) Once the material competence of the municipality is defined in a specific territorial circumscription, it is clear that there will be tasks that, by their nature, are exclusively municipal, alongside others that can be deemed national or state; therefore, it is essential to define the form of co-participation of attributions that is inevitable, since the public capacity of the municipalities is local, and that of the State and other entities, national; consequently, the municipal territory is simultaneously state and institutional, to the extent that circumstances require it. That is, municipalities can share their competences with the Public Administration in general, a relationship that must develop in the terms defined by law (Article 5 of the former Código Municipal, Article 7 of the new Código), which establishes the obligation of 'coordination' between the municipalities and the public institutions that concur in the performance of their competences, to avoid duplication of efforts and contradictions, above all, because only voluntary coordination is compatible with municipal autonomy, being its expression. In other words, the municipality is called upon to enter into cooperative relationships with other public entities, and vice versa, given the concurrent or coincident —in many cases— nature of interests surrounding a specific matter. In doctrine, coordination is defined based on the existence of several independent centers of action, each with its own duties and decision-making powers, and potentially discrepant ones; despite this, there must be a community of purposes by subject matter, but by concurrence, insofar as the object receiving the final results of the activity and the acts of each one is common. So that coordination is the ordering of the relationships between these diverse independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence in the same object or entity, to make it useful for a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship among decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, the imposition of specific conducts upon them is not possible, thus giving rise to the essential inter-institutional 'agreement' in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one plays a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relationships of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the latter (through the 'administrative oversight' of the State, and specifically, in the function of control of legality that corresponds to it, with powers of general vigilance over the entire sector)."* Now, even with this autonomy, it is clear that under the shelter of precept 11 of the Magna Carta, the municipalities and their officials are equally subject to the principle of legality, in its dual dimension, positive and negative, so that in the exercise of their competences, they must proceed in accordance with the legal norms that delimit and specify their operation. This subjection is generic to the entirety of the Legal System, constituting a guarantee for the resident and civil society in general that the public acts emanating from those local entities are consistent with it. This includes, as a rule of principle, a due application of the norms, not only in their content, but also in respect for their hierarchical level, from which it is inferred that applications of infralegal measures that are opposed or contrary to the law are unfeasible. The foregoing, given that the executive regulatory power and, in general, the issuance of administrative acts of a general or normative character, as the case may be (Article 121 Ley General de la Administración Pública), find their impassable limit in the law and in the Political Constitution itself, so they cannot contain regulations that contravene the statements of those higher-ranking norms, or venture into areas that, in order of the law's content, are forbidden to them (principle of prohibition of arbitrariness of the regulatory power). Hence, when these limits are circumvented, the infralegal norm is inapplicable, as contrary to Law. What is sought in this sense is an adequate, generalized, and abstract application of the norms, avoiding arbitrary and capricious proceedings.

**VII.- Local autonomy in matters of urban planning and buildings.** As has been indicated, municipal autonomy, imposed by the Magna Carta, confers upon local corporations a special competence for the administration of the interests of their territorial jurisdiction (Articles 169 and 170). Within this set of interests and services lies the urban planning matter in which, the local government holds an essential competence and, in thesis of principle, one that prevails over that of other institutions, in the context of the locality. In what becomes relevant to the case, numeral 15 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, no. 4240 of November 15, 1968, confers upon local entities the base competence to regulate and oversee everything concerning urban planning and development within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction. In this sense, the norm provides: "*In conformity with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each one of them will provide what is appropriate to implement a regulating plan, and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail to establish a specific controlling regime.*" Note that the assigned competence is not limited to an aspect of mere planning, but also includes the powers of control over urban development, which supposes a degree of substantive oversight of both works in execution and those already executed, an aspect which will be addressed in more detail later. In this line, the first canon of the Ley de Construcciones, Decreto Ley no. 833 of November 4, 1949, establishes these powers with evident clarity when it states: "*The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other populated areas meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares and in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative organs.*" For its part, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13, subsection o) of the Código Municipal, it is the responsibility of the Council to dictate the norms and measures concerning urban planning. In this order, according to what is stipulated by the Ley de Construcciones, the execution of any work or building requires a municipal license, while the local entity is responsible for oversight of those works (mandates 74 and 87 of that legal body). Therefore, the prevalent role that the Municipality holds in these tasks is evident, it being incumbent upon it to provide the specific measures on urban development and planning, as well as the granting of construction "licenses" and the control of those activities according to the norms that regulate that field. This has been defined by the Constitutional Chamber itself, among many rulings, in resolutions no. 2153-93 of 9:21 a.m. on May 21, 1993, and no. 4205-96 of 2:33 p.m. on August 20, 1996. Now, the scope and effects of urban development and planning imply, on occasions, the emergence of coordination relationships with diverse public organs with concurrent competence in certain areas of administrative activity, as has been explained. The foregoing due to the fact that even though those alluded powers arise in relation to a local concept, they must align with national planning policies. These are principles of sound administration that aim to establish coordination mechanisms that allow a more adequate, efficient attention to public needs and interests, so that a potential jurisdictional conflict is not an obstacle for the State (in a broad sense) to neglect its duties and thereby transgress, for aspects of mere organization or design, its teleological dimension. Within this framework lies the issuance of regulating plans, which, under the protection of numeral 15 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, are produced by the local entities and then approved by the Dirección de Urbanismo. Article 169 of the Constitution, together with the Ley de Planificación Urbana, it is insisted, recognizes the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their territory, through the issuance of this type of plans, which, at their core, possess a normative nature insofar as they provide for the programming of land use in the respective cantonal jurisdiction.

It is for this reason that, within its processing, the public hearing that allows the residents to pronounce on the proposal constitutes an unavoidable prerequisite, given the evident interest they have in the administrative decision that establishes the use to be given to the properties located in the Canton. However, for reasons of linkage and harmony with national planning, given that the content of a plan of this nature has a reflexive impact on the comprehensive context of the national territory, they must be approved by the Directorate of Urbanism (Article 18 ibidem) in order to adjust them to national planning criteria. Nevertheless, it is emphasized that, in this matter, the local government (ayuntamiento) has original competence, despite coordination relationships, which allows it to plan, regulate, and monitor urban development within the respective canton.

VIII.- Regulation of urban planning matters. Powers of control. Having said this, it should be noted that the matter of urban project development, in general terms, is subject to a set of rules that establish the various aspects that converge in this topic, such as structural, constructive, health, water treatment, among others. However, broadly speaking (since the provisions that specify this matter are exceedingly extensive), its basic regulation lies in the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), legal instruments that are complemented by other norms that develop specific subjects, e.g., the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud). In these, the basic prerequisites that delimit the execution of buildings, whether for public or private use, temporary or permanent, are generically established. Even so, the establishment of a series of factors that, by their nature, are not appropriate to incorporate into a law, have been elaborated in regulations or infra-legal norms. In the same direction, the Urban Planning Law leaves the development of procedural and other aspects to these latter sources of law. In matters of an urban planning nature, particularly the construction of developments or residential complexes, the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law, in accordance with what has been said, in their Articles 15 and 32 respectively, refer the specification of the aspects that must be covered by the developers to a regulation, which in this specific case is the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urban Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), No. 3991 of December 13, 1982. For its part, in matters related to construction, there is the so-called Construction Regulation (Reglamento de Construcciones), published on March 22, 1983. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 15 and 74 of the Construction Law, every subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urban development, as well as all work related to construction, must have an authorizing act issued by the corresponding Municipality. Pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 20 subsection h), both of the Urban Planning Law, local entities must issue the pertinent regulation to comply with the conditions of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), as well as to ensure the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and welfare. In this direction, Article 56 ibidem indicates that the Construction Regulation shall establish the rules of safety, health, and ornamentation. However, these aspects are covered in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urban Developments, a norm that would be applicable for this purpose. It is a legal instrument of a preeminently technical nature, which contains, regarding urban developments, varied regulations on aspects such as access points, road networks, lot division, green and public areas, drainage, aqueducts, sewers, infrastructure, and finishes, among others. Regarding the oversight function, as has been stated, Article 1 of the Construction Law establishes that local governments are responsible for ensuring that cities, their buildings, constructions, and public roads meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies. This is once again a legislative expression intended to enhance municipal competencies in favor of their autonomy in the sphere of local interests that concern them. As is proper, those empowerments constitute true powers-duties, that is, they allow them to adopt executive and enforceable actions, but at the same time impose duties and requirements upon them, insofar as they must undertake the relevant actions to fulfill their tasks. Therefore, it must subject its decisions to the body of law (in harmony with subjective rights and legitimate interests), which of course implies exercising due control over areas of social interest, such as health and safety, when applicable, in coordination with Central Government authorities. It is for this reason that, as a counterpart to the competence to grant construction permits (licencias de construcción) established by Article 74 of the Construction Law, Article 87 ibidem imposes the duty to supervise and control the works erected in its territory, as well as the use being given to them. These powers entail the competence to establish the harmony of construction applications with the norms that regulate that matter, to the point that if they infer non-compliance, they are empowered to deny the "permit" or reject the required authorizing act. From this perspective, the role of the municipalities occurs in two instances, namely, preventive and supervisory. In the preventive framework, the "permit" is granted if it meets all the requirements, and in that check (qualitative and quantitative) such exercise is concretized. In the supervisory role, it verifies that what is actually being done corresponds to what was authorized. Clearly, due to the very dynamics of urban planning matters, a wide range of variables converge that, due to their magnitude and relevance, require coordination actions by local entities jointly with specialized public units. This is the case with public health and the treatment of waters of various types (potable, gray, black), situations where the levels of linkage between the administrative exercise of the municipalities and the organs or entities with specific functional competence in those areas prevail. Indeed, this follows from the General Health Law in its Articles 338 and 338 bis, regarding the powers of supervision of compliance with health regulations. Likewise, in water matters, Articles 1, 2, 21, and 23 grant competence to the National Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) to approve water supply systems and their disposal. In short, under the purview of the cited Construction Law, and as relevant to the case, it is the responsibility of the local corporations to issue the authorization to undertake the construction of a specific work (among them, urban developments). In turn, jointly with other public authorities, they must deploy supervisory actions over those works, in order to verify their conformity with the regulatory framework. However, that control, which is their direct responsibility, is not dependent on the actions of other bodies.

IX.- Scope of the supervisory framework in the specific case. This Chamber considers that the very concept of the supervisory powers in urban planning matters entrusted to the Municipalities (already commented upon) are manifestations of a public power derived from competencies granted by the constitutional and legal order in this field, which justifies the empowerment of the Administration. They therefore allow the deployment of a series of inherent and necessary attributions for the exercise of sound administration. These empower them to even suspend a specific work when it does not comply with the due conditions, or, within its preventive and forward-looking aspect, to reject the building application when the legal and technical requirements imposed by the applicable provisions have not been met. These are concrete manifestations of public power that enable the protection of legal principles, among others, those of safety and health. It therefore constitutes a task of inspection over the constructive aspects of the structures erected within the territorial space of the municipality, for the purpose of determining that they comply with the requirements established by such legislation, as well as other regulations associated with the activity. These faculties and powers, within their teleological orientation, are placed at the service of public or collective interests, which, in the end, are the object that legitimizes their involvement in the control and supervision of urban planning activity. Being competencies established by the Legal System (as a direct derivation of their constitutional competencies that were entrusted to them) and that are associated with the protection of public interests, the action of the local entity must weigh not only a superficial (formal) review of the construction permit applications but also a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of compliance with the legal and technical requirements imposed by the Legal System. That is, verifying not only formal but also qualitative compliance with the conduct subject to control. For such purposes, it must consider the harmony of the application and proposals formulated in the respective plan with the provisions or technical rules dictated in each case. Applied to this case, this involves that the Municipality must analyze whether the black water treatment systems offered in the construction plan conform to the applicable technical norms, in such a way that they are functional and have the capacity and volume that the established rules require. That is, the technical feasibility of installing a septic tank (tanque séptico), in the dimensions and conditions proposed, so that they do not imply potential risks of any nature, including public health. But furthermore, public powers in this field are not exhausted in the deployment of an authorizing conduct. Indeed, the issuance of the act that permits the building or construction of the work must be accompanied, it is insisted, by a supervisory and verifying exercise on the part of the granting entity, with the purpose of ensuring that the works under execution as well as those already executed are within the normative framework that regulates the matter. As has been stated, this exercise occurs at two levels: preventive, at the time of analyzing the application to build; and subsequent, in the inspections of those works to determine that they comply with what was authorized and, in general, with the applicable rules. In this way, the supervisory function must be continuous, efficient, and effective. It is for this reason that when those competencies have not been duly fulfilled and as a result of that conduct or dysfunctionality damage is generated (directly or by concurrence), a causal link arises that allows the injury to be imputed to the Municipality, in accordance with the rules of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) established by the Constitution and developed by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) starting from Article 190. The foregoing can occur for various reasons. In a first stage, due to so-called material inactivity, that is, when the supervisory and verifying framework is not exercised at all. In a second, when it is not done adequately, because even though the verification was carried out, it was exhausted in a simple check of formal requirements, and not in a due examination in qualitative terms, of whether or not the requirements that the person intending to build must meet were fulfilled. In this scenario, the passivity of the Municipality in the proper surveillance of elementary aspects for the purposes of the work allows those rules to be circumvented, which can potentiate risks or future damages to third parties. That is, an abnormal functioning operates in these cases, which entails liability. This is because they constitute administrative conducts that, in themselves, depart from good administration (in accordance with the concept used by the General Law itself in Article 102 subsection d., which among other things includes effectiveness and efficiency) or from the organization, from the technical rules, or from the expertise and prudent action in the deployment of their actions, with a harmful effect on the person. Thus, the abnormality is manifested by a malfunction, by an insufficient, and therefore inadequate, supervisory exercise. This is because if the harmful result occurs in relation to facts in which the position of guarantor exercised by the Administration made it imperative to avoid that consequence through the adequate control it should have exercised, it must face the implications of that non-observance. In this area, liability for "administrative inaction" (even partial) occurs because of a double behavior. The first is that of the public or private person by whose action the impairment in the legal sphere of the injured party or parties occurs. The other, which concurs with the former, is the inaction of the public authority that does not exercise, as is proper, the conduct required to avoid the damage, which can occur, it is reiterated, totally or partially. In the latter case, when the supervisory framework does not fully cover all the variables that must be weighed in that exercise, so that through relative inobservance, relevant aspects that constitute sources of risk are set aside. It is therefore a relativized framework of unexecuted administrative protection (in its preventive current), which as inactivity concurs in producing the injury and therefore causes the shared liability, almost always joint and several, of the two agents causing the damage (understood as diverse centers of imputation, public or private). In this way, supervisory inaction in the face of the conduct of third parties is normally reflected in that irregularity which it should have identified in a timely manner; or in that damage produced which it should have foreseen according to the existing state of things; or, by the omission, which for these purposes is equivalent to inactivity, reprehensible from a legal standpoint, that it did not exercise in a timely and due manner, the relevant preventative and corrective or preemptive measures of the case. It is clear that such imputability depends, to a high degree, on the determination of the existence of a causal link between that inaction (even partial) and the injury, insofar as, only when the inactivity contributed to the generation of the damage, would administrative pecuniary liability be applicable. That is, when, had the supervisory exercise not been omitted, the injury would probably not have been caused. On the subject of liability for inaction, see, from this Chamber, ruling No. 308 of 10 hours 30 minutes of May 25, 2006. In this scenario, it must be insisted that the protection or supervision entrusted to the municipalities in urban planning matters (which includes buildability) is not reduced to formal conduct of authorization, but rather includes substantive, periodic, and effective control over works under execution and executed, such that the omission of this supervisory exercise renders it liable for the damages caused to third parties thereby.

X.- Management of black waters (aguas negras). Legal regulation. In the specific case, the appellant considers that Articles 87 of the Construction Law, 4 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), and 170 of the Political Constitution have been violated, insofar as the Court concluded that the surveillance of the pipe connections was not an obligation of the defendant Municipality. By this, he indicates, the inherent duty of inspection of local entities is disregarded. Likewise, he accuses that from the application of Decree No. 3391 mentioned, the Ad quem deduces the aforementioned dispensation from verification, when that norm does not permit such an interpretation. Of interest for the specific case is the control that the Municipality of Heredia must exercise regarding the specific subject of the black and gray water pipes that every dwelling within an urban development must have. The foregoing because the appellant argues that Article 87 of the Construction Law imposes the obligation on local corporations to supervise the building of the works carried out in the respective Canton, so that not having done so regarding the referenced pipes entails its strict liability for the damages suffered. In this matter, as has been indicated, the Construction Law and the Urban Planning Law refer to regulatory norms. Such development is regulated in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urban Developments, No. 3991 of December 13, 1982. On this point, as the Ad quem has rightly pointed out, the aforementioned Regulation, in Chapter III, titled "Urbanizaciones" (Urban Developments), establishes the rules that are applicable. In this sense, the norm provides for several possibilities, depending on the characteristics of each residential urban development complex. In this regard, it provides: "III.3.12 Sewers (Cloacas): When areas that have a functioning black water collector service are urbanized, the developer must connect to said system./ When the collector is planned for a later stage, the developer must leave a constructed sewer system within the urban development to connect in the future to the planned collector system./ If there is no functioning or planned sewer, the following alternatives are contemplated: /III.3.12.1 For complexes greater than five hundred (500) dwelling units, the construction of a dedicated black water treatment plant is required: unless larger complexes with a septic tank (tanque séptico) are negotiated with the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) (AyA)./ III.3.12.2 In complexes with a smaller number of lots or dwellings, the minimum lot size must be adapted for the use of a septic tank as established by this Regulation." In this manner, depending on whether a collector exists or not, the developer may opt for one of the regulated possibilities, which, in accordance with what has been said, must be weighed by the municipality, the instance responsible, once the specific case has been evaluated, for establishing the appropriateness of the proposed measure. Clearly, the design of the water supply and the treatment and drainage system must conform and correspond with the technical norms that, in each case, are established by the authorities with concurrent competence, among them, the Ministry of Health and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). The foregoing must be reflected in the plan that the administrative instances must approve, as inferred from Chapter VI, Article 3.3 of the cited Regulation. In this sense, in principle, AyA is the competent instance to set policies, establish and apply norms referring to the supply of potable water and evacuation of black waters (Article 1 of its Constitutive Law, No. 2726 of April 14, 1961, and its reforms). However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of its Constitutive Law: "The plans for the construction or partial or total reconstruction of a house or building in the provincial or cantonal capital cities whose Municipalities have an Engineering Department, shall be submitted for prior approval to said Department and, once approved by it, to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, for its review…". That same rule is applicable in the case of urban development projects.

From all the foregoing it can be inferred that, ultimately, verification of compliance with the regulations inherent to the issue of blackwater (aguas negras) falls to local corporations, given that they are the competent entities to grant the construction permit, which is only possible, within an ideal framework, when the regulations inherent to this matter have been satisfied.

XI.- Regarding the specific case. In this instance, the challenged judgment is based on the proven assumption that, in reality, it has been verified that the residential development does not have a functioning blackwater treatment system or collector, but rather only one that is planned, and furthermore, that the number of dwellings does not exceed five hundred. A simplistic examination of this matter would lead to the conclusion that, in consideration of that factual scenario (which the appellant claims is not based on any evidence) and pursuant to the cited Regulation, the theoretically viable solution was to adapt the lot for the use of a septic tank (tanque séptico) and leave the pipes planned for a later stage. However, this Chamber considers that the particularities involved in this debate require a more in-depth analysis of what occurred. Certainly, the aforementioned rule allows the solution that the developer gave to the blackwater aspect, that is, leaving the pipes planned (which the Municipality authorized). However, the reference to the possibility of installing septic tanks when there is a number of dwellings less than five hundred must be harmonized with the technical viability and suitability of the proposal put forward by the builder, so that the system ultimately adopted is functional and optimal for fulfilling its purpose. Ergo, this does not mean that this solution was adequate and correct for the specific case and to comply with the rules inherent to the matter of urban construction. Indeed, in accordance with the control and inspection powers assigned to it by law, the local entity should have studied whether, regardless of the prerequisites established by the rule for installing the septic tank being met, the one offered in the construction plans conformed, in terms of volume and capacity, to the type of dwelling intended to be developed. In this sense, due control required measuring not only the appropriateness of the requested measure in theoretical terms, but also, and with greater relevance, the capacity of the proposal to fulfill its function, that is, to serve as an efficient mechanism for the evacuation and storage of blackwater, in order to thus avoid potential risks to people's health and the generation of damages or injuries. This is because, since there was no treatment system for the water installed by the Municipality, and because it involves a type of waste whose improper handling can harm the health of the residents and the environment, it was an imperative need to consider whether what was proposed met the needs it had to cover and satisfy. This analysis is far from being a document verification exercise; quite the opposite. By reason of the legal values at stake, the activity carried out (urban development) which undoubtedly has public relevance or interest, and the powers that in this field have been assigned to the local corporation (as a function inherent to its territory), it was necessary for the local entity to weigh whether the solution proposed by the developer was due and optimal, so that what was ultimately authorized fully complied with the public purpose and the public service involved in the authorizing titles issued by the municipality. The oversight function assigned to it by the legislator in urban construction activity is intended to ensure that both preventive and subsequent controls are carried out to ensure that the buildings conform to the requirements and conditions established by the normative order. Said verification therefore aims, within the framework of the construction of residential developments, to ensure the existence of adequate qualitative conditions of the structure, which presupposes, as a general rule, that its development occurs within due bounds. This implies that the dwellings have the basic services that allow for a normal quality of life for the resident, which is certainly disregarded when a blackwater disposal system does not meet its needs, becoming an imminent risk to their health, their life, and the harmony of the urban environment. The aforementioned oversight cannot be considered correctly performed if the suitability of that previously indicated aspect was not assessed, not in formal terms, but in its capacity to successfully solve a basic and foreseeable need of every dwelling. Ergo, the municipal examination should not have been superficial, but in-depth in aspects such as the one indicated. From this perspective, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that the defendant Municipality did not exercise due a priori control regarding this aspect. This is because, in the processing of issuing construction permits or licenses, it omitted to analyze the suitability of the proposed tanks for the type of building for which the license was requested, which was fundamental to establish whether it had the pertinent volume or capacity. Indeed, regardless of the fact that the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones permits that specific technical solution when the prerequisite factual circumstances regulated for the case concur, this does not relieve the local entity of analyzing, within the exercise of its control powers, whether that solution, in the terms in which it was proposed, was viable for each building, with a view to allowing proper management of blackwater and sewage (aguas servidas). However, that study was not performed properly, giving way to an authorization to install a tank that did not have the required volume for each dwelling. From this standpoint, the expert report rendered by engineer Ricardo Aymerich Kingsbury clearly states: "As an important technical fact, I clarify to the Court that there are construction plans indicating the stormwater (aguas pluviales) and blackwater pipes for the total project, that is, the three stages; however, the construction company did not connect the sewage (aguas servidas) from the dwellings to the planned ones that are customarily left in the green area or sidewalk; on the contrary, in the small space of the front garden it built a small absorption well, which does not have the capacity or volume required by each of the dwellings. In the approved plans, the municipality did not give the technical importance required in these very important aspects and approved the dwelling plans with a solution of a septic tank and drainage pipes, located in these plans in the front garden area, which cannot be approved in this way, because there is not sufficient area for the (porous) drainage pipes to function efficiently with this solution. (...)" (folio 366 of the principal file). It should be noted that even in proven fact no. 12, the Court found this deficiency in administrative control to be proven, which was subsequently endorsed by the Tribunal.

XII.- This collegiate body considers that in the subexamine, although the Municipality issued a formal act granting the construction permit, which would lead one to presume that it complied with its control duties, as has been indicated, that conduct does not fully conform to the Legal System, insofar as it failed to weigh whether the blackwater system proposed by the developer was adequate or not, limiting itself to a formal examination of that requirement, which speaks to an abnormal functioning of the defendant public corporation. It is reiterated, the exercise of the oversight powers inherent to its authority to grant building or construction licenses, and which is expressly provided for in canons 1 and 87 of the Ley de Construcciones, is not exhausted in a simple formal act of authorization. Within its correct comprehension, it includes due, continuous, and efficient oversight of the works under execution and those already executed, in order to establish their harmony with the rules that regulate this matter. Therefore, its neglect generates liability for the damages it has caused in the legal sphere of third parties. This being the case, it is clear that as an immediate effect of that conduct in the inspections prior to the granting of the construction permit, the defendant allowed the installation of tanks that, far from signifying a proper response to the issue of blackwater treatment, led to a problem not only for the plaintiff owners but for public health in general. Subsequently, given the impossibility of executing the guarantee provided by the construction firm, the owners of the residences where this circumstance occurred had to solve the inconveniences of water evacuation, because, as stated, the well did not have adequate capacity. The reason for attributing liability for these events to the Municipality does not lie in the lack of installation of a blackwater treatment system (since it is clear that if it does not exist, it cannot be put into operation), but in the neglect of its inspection duties regarding the technical viability of installing a septic tank, in the dimensions and conditions proposed for this case. Had that aspect been carefully analyzed, it could well have been corrected in time, thus avoiding the construction of dwellings lacking an adequate sewer system. In this sense, the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes the Administration's liability for its legitimate and illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, except for the exonerating causes of force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. In this regard, abnormality, as public malfunctioning, includes the improper exercise of legally granted powers or faculties. In the sub-examine, said construction was carried out once authorized by the Municipality, despite the deficiencies noted, whereby it failed in its control and oversight duties assigned to it by numerals 1 and 87 of the Ley de Construcciones, which in this particular case must be complemented with the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. With this, liability is imposed on the local entity, obligating it to cover the damages and losses suffered by the plaintiffs who, at the date of filing the lawsuit, were owners of a house or lot within the Residencia Cedri, amounts that must be determined in the sentence execution proceeding. Thus, it is the criterion of this collegiate body that, for the stated reasons, the grievance under examination must be upheld. Therefore, the Tribunal's judgment must be annulled, and on this point, the trial court's judgment must be confirmed."

“VI.- Sobre la autonomía municipal. Principio de legalidad. Referente a los reparos planteados cabe indicar lo siguiente. Las municipalidades son entidades locales que gozan de autonomía relativa en el ejercicio de sus funciones. El régimen municipal es una especie de descentralización territorial, según se colige del numeral 168 de la Carta Magna. Este nivel de independencia lo otorga el precepto 169 de la Constitución Política, en el marco de su jurisdicción territorial, integrada por el espacio físico dispuesto para el cantón al cual representa, en tanto señala que corresponde a cada ayuntamiento la: "administración de los intereses y servicios locales … ". Es decir, el constituyente ha conferido una serie de funciones o atribuciones en favor de esos gobiernos en razón de "lo local", esto es, para administrar los servicios e intereses del ámbito a la que está circunscrita, sea, el cantón. Esta competencia no es excluyente de la que ha sido otorgada por el Ordenamiento a otras entidades u órganos del Estado. De este modo, es claro que existen intereses cuya salvaguardia corresponde a las Municipalidades y junto a ellos, coexisten otros cuya protección constitucional o legal es atribuida a otros entes públicos. Lo anterior debido a que hay intereses que trascienden la esfera de lo local, debido a que inciden en otras latitudes fuera del cantón. Empero, debe quedar claro que la administración de esos intereses de la esfera territorial del municipio constituye una competencia originaria de los ayuntamientos y solo mediante ley de nacionalización puede serles desplazada, siempre que esa manifestación legislativa no suponga un quebranto a la autonomía referida o implique vaciar el contenido constitucional del régimen municipal. Por su parte, el artículo 4 del Código Municipal, Ley no. 7794 del 30 de abril de 1998, desarrolla los tipos de autonomía que el legislador ordinario estimó ostentaban estas corporaciones, indicando que poseen la política, administrativa y financiera. Sobre los alcances de esta autonomía, ver entre otras, de la Sala Constitucional, votos 5445-99, 1220-2002, 5204-2004 y 8928-2004. Con todo, como parte de un sistema integrado, dentro de la dinámica de la satisfacción de los intereses de los munícipes, es claro que existirán intereses que son plenamente locales y otros que pueden ser considerados nacionales. Este aspecto obliga, dentro de un principio de sana administración, a la coordinación con las instancias administrativas del Poder Central, que realizan, a nivel macro, funciones relacionadas con las que localmente despliega la corporación. Es este el ejemplo, en lo que resulta relevante a este caso, de los aspectos urbanos, en los que, aún cuando al tenor del artículo 15 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, es cada Municipalidad la que debe aprobar el respectivo Plan Regulador, se impone una coordinación con el INVU y la Dirección de Urbanismo para estos efectos, de cara a la implementación de una política nacional de desarrollo que integre todas las variables técnicas, económicas y sociales que convergen en esta actividad. Iguales particularidades de coordinación son de rigor en la materia ambiental en la que ciertamente, el tratamiento de los recursos naturales y las acciones que establezca cada unidad administrativa para la defensa y tutela del ambiente, dentro de una percepción que debería ser precautoria y preventiva, incide de forma directa no en la esfera territorial del municipio, sino en la totalidad del territorio nacional. Al igual que los ecosistemas guardan una vinculación y relación simbiótica entre sí (sea el caso de los corredores biológicos de conservación de especies), las incidencias que se produzcan en un determinado sector del país, tienen sus consecuencias en la globalidad del medio nacional. De ahí que en esta materia se esté frente a un interés nacional y local a la vez. Ya la Sala Constitucional en la resolución no. 5445-99, sentó las bases sobre la necesaria coordinación que debe imperar en estas relaciones inter-administrativas, las que surgen sin menoscabo de la autonomía que ya de por sí el constituyente le asignó a las entidades locales. En esta dirección, en el fallo citado se indicó: "X.- (...) Definida la competencia material de la municipalidad en una circunscripción territorial determinada, queda claro que habrá cometidos que por su naturaleza son exclusivamente municipales, a la par de otros que pueden ser reputados nacionales o estatales; por ello es esencial definir la forma de cooparticipación de atribuciones que resulta inevitable, puesto que la capacidad pública de las municipalidades es local, y la del Estado y los demás entes, nacional; de donde resulta que el territorio municipal es simultáneamente estatal e institucional, en la medida en que lo exijan las circunstancias. Es decir, las municipalidades pueden compartir sus competencias con la Administración Pública en general, relación que debe desenvolverse en los términos como está definida en la ley (artículo 5 del Código Municipal anterior, artículo 7 del nuevo Código), que establece la obligación de "coordinación" entre la municipalidades y las instituciones públicas que concurran en el desempeño de sus competencias, para evitar duplicaciones de esfuerzos y contradicciones, sobre todo, porque sólo la coordinación voluntaria es compatible con la autonomía municipal por ser su expresión. En otros términos, la municipalidad está llamada a entrar en relaciones de cooperación con otros entes públicos, y viceversa, dado el carácter concurrente o coincidente -en muchos casos-, de intereses en torno a un asunto concreto. En la doctrina, la coordinación es definida a partir de la existencia de varios centros independientes de acción, cada uno con cometidos y poderes de decisión propios, y eventualmente discrepantes; pese a ello, debe existir una comunidad de fines por materia, pero por concurrencia, en cuanto sea común el objeto receptor de los resultados finales de la actividad y de los actos de cada uno. De manera que la coordinación es la ordenación de las relaciones entre estas diversas actividades independientes, que se hace cargo de esa concurrencia en un mismo objeto o entidad, para hacerla útil a un plan público global, sin suprimir la independencia recíproca de los sujetos agentes. Como no hay una relación de jerarquía de las instituciones descentralizadas, ni del Estado mismo en relación con las municipalidades, no es posible la imposición a éstas de determinadas conductas, con lo cual surge el imprescindible "concierto" interinstitucional, en sentido estricto, en cuanto los centros autónomos e independientes de acción se ponen de acuerdo sobre ese esquema preventivo y global, en el que cada uno cumple un papel con vista en una misión confiada a los otros. Así, las relaciones de las municipalidades con los otros entes públicos, sólo pueden llevarse a cabo en un plano de igualdad, que den como resultado formas pactadas de coordinación, con exclusión de cualquier forma imperativa en detrimento de su autonomía, que permita sujetar a los entes corporativos a un esquema de coordinación sin su voluntad o contra ella; pero que sí admite la necesaria subordinación de estos entes al Estado y en interés de éste (a través de la "tutela administrativa" del Estado, y específicamente, en la función de control la legalidad que a éste compete, con potestades de vigilancia general sobre todo el sector)." Ahora bien, aún con esta autonomía, es claro que al socaire del precepto 11 de la Carta Magna, las municipalidades y sus funcionarios están igualmente sujetos al principio de legalidad, en su doble dimensión, positiva y negativa, de modo que en el ejercicio de sus competencias, deben proceder conforme lo disponen las normas jurídicas que delimitan y precisan su funcionamiento. Esta sujeción es genérica a la globalidad del Ordenamiento Jurídico, constituyendo una garantía para el munícipe y sociedad civil en general, de que los actos públicos que emanen de esas entidades locales, son contestes con aquél. Ello incluye por regla de principio, una aplicación debida de las normas, no solamente en su contenido, sino además en el respeto de su nivel jerárquico, de lo que se infiere que son inviables las aplicaciones de medidas infralegales que sean opuestas o contrarias a la ley. Lo anterior dado que la potestad reglamentaria ejecutiva y en general, la emisión de actos administrativos de carácter general o normativo, según sea el caso (artículo 121 Ley General de la Administración Pública) encuentran en la ley y en la propia Constitución Política, su límite infranqueable, de modo que no puede contener regulaciones que se contrapongan a los enunciados de esas normas de mayor jerarquía, o bien, incursionar en áreas que en orden al contenido de la ley, les están vedadas (principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad de la potestad reglamentaria). De ahí que cuando se burlen estos límites, la norma infralegal sea inaplicable, por contraria a Derecho. Se busca en este sentido, una aplicación adecuada, generalizada y abstracta de las normas, evitando procederes arbitrarios y antojadizos.

VII.- Autonomía local en materia de urbanismo y edificaciones. Según se ha indicado, la autonomía municipal, impuesta por la Carta Magna, confiere a las corporaciones locales una competencia especial para la administración de los intereses de su jurisdicción territorial (artículos 169 y 170). Dentro de este conjunto de intereses y servicios se encuentra la materia urbanística en la cual, el ayuntamiento guarda una competencia esencial y en tesis de principio, prevalente sobre la de otras instituciones, en el contexto de la localidad. En lo que viene relevante al caso, el numeral 15 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, no. 4240 del 15 de noviembre de 1968 confiere a los entes locales la competencia base para regular y vigilar todo lo concerniente a la planificación y desarrollo urbano dentro de los límites de su jurisdicción territorial. En este sentido la norma dispone: "Conforme al precepto del artículo 169 de la Constitución Política, reconócese la competencia y autoridad de los gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano, dentro de los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional. Consecuentemente, cada uno de ellos dispondrá lo que proceda para implantar un plan regulador, y los reglamentos de desarrollo urbano conexos, en las áreas donde deba regir, sin perjuicio de extender todos o algunos de sus efectos a otros sectores, en que priven razones calificadas para establecer un determinando régimen contralor." Nótese que la competencia asignada no se limita a un aspecto de mera planificación, sino que además, incluye las potestades de control del desarrollo urbanístico, lo que supone un grado de vigilancia sustantiva tanto de las obras en ejecución, como de las ya ejecutadas, aspecto sobre el cual se ingresará con mas detalle adelante. En esta línea, el canon primero de la Ley de Construcciones, Decreto Ley no. 833 del 4 de noviembre de 1949, establece con claridad evidente estas potestades cuando señala: "Las Municipalidades de la República son las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás poblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza en sus vías públicas y en los edificios y construcciones que en terrenos de las mismas se levanten sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas materias a otros órganos administrativos." Por su parte, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 13 inciso o) del Código Municipal, corresponde al Concejo dictar las normas y medidas atinentes al ordenamiento urbano. En este orden, según lo estatuido por la Ley de Construcciones, la realización de toda obra o edificación requiere de una licencia municipal, a la vez que corresponde al ente local la vigilancia sobre aquellas (mandatos 74 y 87 de ese cuerpo legal). Por ende, resulta evidente el papel prevalente que en estos menesteres ostenta la Municipalidad, siendo que le incumbe disponer las medidas concretas sobre el desarrollo y planeamiento urbano, así como el otorgamiento de las "licencias" de construcción y el control de esas actividades acorde a las normas que regulan ese campo. Así lo ha definido la misma Sala Constitucional, entre muchos, en los fallos no. 2153-93 de las 9 horas 21 minutos del 21 de mayo de 1993 y no. 4205-96 de las 14 horas 33 minutos del 20 de agosto de 1996. Ahora bien, los alcances y efectos del desarrollo y planificación urbana implica, en ocasiones, el surgimiento de relaciones de coordinación con diversos órganos públicos con competencia concurrente en ciertas áreas de actividad administrativa, según se ha explicado. Lo anterior debido a que si bien esas potestades aludidas surgen en relación con un concepto local, deben empatarse con políticas de planificación nacional. Se trata de principios de sana administración que pretenden establecer mecanismos de coordinación que permitan de manera más adecuada, una eficiente atención de las necesidades e intereses públicos, a fin de que un eventual conflicto competencial no sea óbice para que el Estado (en sentido amplio) no desatienda sus deberes y transgreda con ello, por aspectos de mera organización o diseño, su dimensión teleológica. Dentro de este marco se ubica la emisión de planes reguladores, los que al amparo del numeral 15 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, son realizados por los entes locales y luego aprobados por la Dirección de Urbanismo. El artículo 169 constitucional, junto con la Ley de Planificación Urbana, se insiste, reconoce la competencia y autoridad de los gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano, dentro de los límites de su territorio, a través de la emisión de este tipo de planes, que en el fondo, ostentan una naturaleza normativa en tanto disponen la programación del uso del suelo en la respectiva jurisdicción cantonal. Es por ello que dentro de su tramitación, se constituye en presupuesto infranqueable la audiencia pública que permita a los munícipes, pronunciarse sobre la propuesta, en razón del evidente interés que guardan respecto de la decisión administrativa que establezca el destino que deberá darse a las heredades localizadas en el Cantón. No obstante, por aspecto de vinculación y armonía con la planificación nacional, siendo que el contenido de un plan de esta naturaleza incide de manera refleja en el contexto integral del territorio patrio, deben ser aprobados por la Dirección de Urbanismo (ordinal 18 ibidem) a fin de ajustarlos a criterios de planificación nacional. Sin embargo, se recalca, en esta materia, el ayuntamiento tiene una competencia originaria, pese a las relaciones de coordinación, que le permiten planificar, regular y vigilar el desarrollo urbano dentro del cantón respectivo.

VIII.- Regulación de la materia urbanística. Potestades de control. Dicho esto, cabe señalar que la materia de desarrollo de proyectos urbanísticos, en términos generales, se encuentra sujeta a un conjunto de normas que establecen los diversos aspectos que convergen en esta temática, como son el estructural, constructivo, salud, tratamiento de aguas, entre otros. No obstante, grosso modo (pues las disposiciones que precisan esta materia son extensas por demás), su regulación básica radica en la Ley de Construcciones y la Ley de Planificación Urbana, conjuntos legales que se complementan por otras normas que desarrollan temas concretos, v.gr, la Ley General de Salud. En estas, de forma genérica, se establecen los presupuestos básicos que delimitan la realización de las edificaciones, sean de uso público o privado, temporales o permanentes. Aún así, el establecimiento de una serie de factores que por su naturaleza, no resulta conveniente incorporarlos dentro de una ley, han sido profundizados en reglamentos o normas infralegales. En esta misma dirección, la Ley de Planificación Urbana deja a dichas últimas fuentes del derecho, el desarrollo de aspectos de corte procedimental y de otra índole. En cuestiones de naturaleza urbanística, en particular, la de construcción de urbanizaciones o residenciales, la Ley de Construcciones y la Ley de Planificación Urbana, a tono con lo dicho, en sus artículos 15 y 32 respectivamente, remiten la concreción de los aspectos que deben ser cubiertos por los urbanizadores, a un reglamento, que en la especie, es el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, no. 3991 del 13 de diciembre de 1982. Por su parte, en menesteres de la materia constructiva, se encuentra el denominado Reglamento de Construcciones, publicado el 22 de marzo de 1983. De conformidad con lo estatuido por los cánones 15 y 74 de la Ley de Construcciones, todo fraccionamiento y urbanización, así como toda obra relacionada con la construcción deberá contar con un acto autorizatorio emitido por la Municipalidad correspondiente. Al tenor del numeral 19 en relación al 20 inciso h), ambos de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, las entidades locales deberán emitir el reglamento pertinente para acatar las condiciones del Plan Regulador, así como para velar por la protección de los intereses de la salud, seguridad, comodidad y bienestar. En esta dirección, el ordinal 56 ibidem señala que el Reglamento de Construcciones fijará las reglas de seguridad, salubridad y ornato. Empero, estos aspectos se encuentran contemplados en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, norma que sería aplicable al efecto. Se trata de un instrumento jurídico de naturaleza preeminentemente técnica, que contiene en aspecto de urbanizaciones, regulaciones variadas en aspectos tales como accesos, vialidad, lotificación, áreas verdes y públicas, drenajes, acueductos, cloacas, infraestructura y acabados, entre otros. En lo que se refiere al ejercicio fiscalizador, como se ha dicho, el canon 1 de la Ley de Construcciones establece que son los gobiernos locales los encargados de velar por que las ciudades, sus edificios, construcciones y vías públicas, reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza, sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas materias a otros órganos administrativos. Se trata una vez más de una manifestación legislativa que pretende potenciar las competencias municipales en pro de su autonomía en la esfera de los intereses locales que le incumben. Como es debido, esos apoderamientos, constituyen verdaderos poderes-deberes, es decir, le permiten adoptar actuaciones ejecutivas y ejecutorias, pero a la vez le impone deberes y exigencias, en tanto ha de asumir las acciones de mérito para cumplir con sus cometidos. Por tal, debe sujetar sus decisiones al bloque de juridicidad (en armonía con los derechos subjetivos e intereses legítimos), lo que implica desde luego, ejercer un debido control de áreas de interés social, como es el caso de la salud y la seguridad, cuando proceda, en coordinación con autoridades del Gobierno Central. Es por ello que como contrapartida de la competencia para otorgar las licencias de construcción que establece el artículo 74 de la Ley de Construcciones, el 87 ibidem le impone el deber de fiscalizar y controlar las obras levantadas en su territorio, así como el uso que se les esté dando. Estas potestades suponen la competencia para establecer la armonía de las solicitudes de construcción con las normas que regulan esa materia, al punto que de inferir que se incumplen, están facultadas para negar la "licencia" o denegar el acto autorizatorio requerido. Desde este plano, el papel de los municipios se da en dos instancias, sea, preventiva y fiscalizadora. En el marco preventivo, la "licencia" se otorga si cumple con todas las exigencias y en ese cotejo (cualitativo y cuantitativo) se concreta tal ejercicio. En la fiscalización, verifica que lo que se realiza en la realidad, sea conteste con lo autorizado. Claro está que por la dinámica misma de la materia urbanística, converge una amplia gama de variables que por su magnitud y relevancia, exigen acciones de coordinación de las entidades locales conjuntamente con unidades públicas especializadas. Es el caso de la salud pública y el tratamiento de las aguas de diversa naturaleza (potable, servidas, negras), supuestos en los que imperan los niveles de enlace entre el ejercicio administrativo de las municipalidades y los órganos o entes con competencia funcional específica en esas áreas. En efecto así se desprende de la Ley General de Salud en sus numerales 338 y 338 bis, a propósito de las potestades de fiscalización del cumplimiento de las normas sanitarias. De igual forma, en menesteres de aguas, los preceptos 1, 2, 21 y 23 otorgan la competencia al Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados para aprobar los sistemas de abastecimiento de agua y su disposición. En definitiva, al amparo de la citada Ley de Construcciones, y en lo que viene relevante al caso, corresponde a las corporaciones locales emitir la autorización para emprender la construcción de una determinada obra (dentro de ellas, las urbanizaciones). A su vez, conjuntamente con otras autoridades públicas, desplegar acciones de fiscalización de esas obras, a fin de constatar su conformidad con el marco regulatorio. Empero, ese control que es de su incumbencia directa, no es dependiente de las acciones de otros órganos.

IX.- Alcances del marco fiscalizador en el caso concreto. Estima esta Sala que la concepción misma de las potestades de fiscalización en materia urbanística que se han encomendado a las Municipalidades (ya comentadas), son manifestaciones de un poder público derivado de competencias otorgadas por el orden constitucional y legal en este campo, que justifica el apoderamiento de la Administración. Le permiten por tanto el despliegue de una serie de atribuciones inherentes y necesarias para el ejercicio de una sana administración. Estas le facultan incluso suspender una determinada obra cuando no cumpla con las condiciones debidas, o bien, dentro de su arista preventiva y previsora, rechazar el pedimento de edificación cuando no se hayan satisfecho los requerimientos jurídicos y técnicos que las disposiciones aplicables imponen. Se trata de manifestaciones concretas del poder público que permiten la tutela de principios jurídicos, entre otros, el de seguridad y de salud. Constituye por ende una labor de inspección sobre los aspectos constructivos de las estructuras que se erijan en el espacio territorial del municipio, a efectos de determinar que cumplan con las exigencias que dispone esa legislación, así como demás regulaciones asociadas a la actividad. Estas facultades y potestades, dentro de su orientación teleológica, se ponen al servicio de los intereses públicos o colectivos, que a fin de cuentas, son el objeto que legitima su incursión en el control y fiscalización de la actividad urbanística. Al ser competencias fijadas por el Ordenamiento (como derivación directa de sus competencias constitucionales que le fueron confiadas) y que se asocian con la tutela de intereses públicos, la acción del ente local debe ponderar no solamente una labor de revisión superficial (formal) de las solicitudes de permiso de construcción, sino, una valoración integral y a fondo del acatamiento de las exigencias jurídicas y técnicas que impone el Ordenamiento. Es decir, verificando el acatamiento no solo formal sino cualitativo de la conducta objeto de control. Para tales efectos, debe considerar la armonía de la solicitud y propuestas formuladas en el plano respectivo con las disposiciones o reglas técnicas dictadas en cada supuesto. Ello aplicado a este caso envuelve que la Municipalidad debe analizar que los sistemas de tratamiento de aguas negras ofrecidos en el plano de construcción, se ajusten a las normas técnicas aplicables, de manera tal que sean funcionales y cuenten con la capacidad y el volumen que las reglas establecidas dispongan. Es decir, la viabilidad técnica de la instalación de un tanque séptico, en las dimensiones y condiciones propuestas, de manera que no impliquen riesgos potenciales de cualquier naturaleza, incluida la salud pública. Pero además, las potestades públicas en este campo no se agotan en el despliegue de una conducta autorizatoria. En efecto, la emisión del acto que permite la edificación o construcción de la obra, debe acompañarse, se insiste, de un ejercicio contralor y verificador por parte del ente otorgante, con el objeto de asegurarse que las obras en ejecución así como las ya ejecutadas, se encuentran dentro del marco normativo que regula la materia. Como se ha dicho, este ejercicio se presenta en un doble nivel: preventivo, al momento de analizar la solicitud para edificar; y posterior, en las inspecciones de esas obras para determinar que cumplen con lo autorizado y en general, con las reglas aplicables. De este modo, la función contralora debe ser continua, eficiente y eficaz. Es por ello que cuando esas competencias no han sido cumplidas de forma debida y a raíz de esa conducta o disfuncionalidad se genera un daño (de forma directa o por concurrencia), surge un nexo causal que permite imputar la lesión a la Municipalidad, conforme a las reglas de la responsabilidad objetiva fijada por la Constitución y desarrollada por la Ley General de la Administración Pública a partir del canon 190. Lo anterior puede darse por varias causas. En un primer estadio, por la denominada inactividad material, esto es, cuando del todo no se ejerce el marco contralor y verificador. En un segundo, cuando no se hace de manera adecuada, por cuanto aún realizada la verificación, se agotó en un simple cotejo de requisitos formales, más no en un examen debido en términos cualitativos, del cumplimiento o no de las exigencias que debe acatar quien pretende construir. En este escenario, la pasividad del Municipio en la debida vigilancia de cuestiones elementales para efectos de la obra, permite la burla de esas reglas, lo que puede potenciar riesgos o daños futuros a terceros. Es decir, opera en estos supuestos un funcionamiento anormal que acarrea responsabilidad. Ello al constituir conductas administrativas, que en sí mismas, se apartan de la buena administración (conforme al concepto utilizado por la propia Ley General en el artículo 102 inciso d., que entre otras cosas incluye la eficacia y la eficiencia) o de la organización, de las reglas técnicas o de la pericia y el prudente quehacer en el despliegue de sus actuaciones, con efecto lesivo para la persona. Así, la anormalidad se manifiesta por un mal funcionamiento, por un ejercicio fiscalizador insuficiente, por tal, inadecuado. Esto por cuanto si el resultado lesivo se produce en relación a hechos en los que la posición de garante que ejerce la Administración hacía exigible evitar esa consecuencia mediante el control adecuado que debió ejercer, debe afrontar las implicaciones de esa inobservancia. En este ámbito, la responsabilidad por la "inacción administrativa" (aun parcial) se produce por causa de un doble comportamiento. El primero de la persona pública o privada por cuya acción se produce el menoscabo en la esfera jurídica del o los lesionados. El otro, que concurre con aquél, por la inacción de la autoridad pública que no ejerce, como es debido, la conducta requerida para evitar el daño, lo que puede producirse, se reitera, de manera total o parcial. En este último, cuando el marco fiscalizador no abarca de manera plena la totalidad de variables que deben ser ponderadas en ese ejercicio, de modo que por inobservancia relativa se dejan de lado aspectos relevantes que conforman fuentes de riesgo. Se trata por ende de un marco relativizado de tutela administrativa no actuada (en su corriente preventiva), que como inactividad concurre a producir la lesión y provoca por tanto, la responsabilidad compartida, casi siempre solidaria, de los dos agentes causantes del daño (entendidos como centros de imputación diversos, públicos o privados). De esta forma, la inacción fiscalizadora frente a conductas de terceros, se refleja normalmente, en aquella irregularidad que debió identificar de manera oportuna; o en aquel daño producido que debió prever de acuerdo con el estado de cosas existentes; o bien, por la omisión, que para estos efectos equivale a inactividad, reprochable desde el plano jurídico, que no ejerció en tiempo y forma, las prevenciones y medidas correctivas o previsoras del caso. Claro está que tal imputabilidad depende, en alto grado, de la determinación de la existencia de un nexo causal entre aquella inacción (incluso parcial) y la lesión, en tanto, solo cuando la inactividad haya coadyuvado en la generación del daño, la responsabilidad patrimonial administrativa sería aplicable. Esto es, cuando de no haberse omitido el ejercicio fiscalizador, la lesión, con probabilidad, no hubiere llegado a causarse. Sobre el tema de la responsabilidad por inacción, véase, de esta Sala, el fallo no. 308 de las 10 horas 30 minutos del 25 de mayo del 2006. En este escenario, debe insistirse en que la tutela o fiscalización que le ha sido confiada a las municipalidades en materia urbanística (que incluye la edificabilidad), no se reduce a conductas formales de autorización, sino que incluyen un control sustantivo, periódico y eficaz sobre las obras en ejecución y ejecutadas, de tal modo que la omisión de este ejercicio fiscalizador, le hace responsable de los daños producidos a terceros por ello.

X.- Manejo de las aguas negras. Regulación jurídica. En la especie, el recurrente estima que han sido violentados los numerales 87 de la Ley de Construcciones, 4 del Código Municipal y 170 de la Constitución Política, en tanto el Tribunal concluyó que la vigilancia de la conexión de las tuberías no era obligación de la Municipalidad demandada. Con ello, indica, se desconoce el deber de inspección inherente a las entidades locales. Así mismo, acusa, de la aplicación del Decreto no. 3391 mencionado el Ad quem desprende la dispensa de verificación aludida, cuando esa norma no permite tal interpretación. Interesa para el caso específico, el control que debe ejercer la Municipalidad de Heredia en el tema concreto de las tuberías de aguas negras y servidas a las previstas con que debe contar toda vivienda dentro de una urbanización. Lo anterior en razón de que el recurrente aduce que el artículo 87 de la Ley de Construcciones impone la obligación a las corporaciones locales de vigilar la edificación de las obras que se realicen en el respectivo Cantón, por lo que al no haberlo hecho respecto de las referidas tuberías, le acarrea su responsabilidad objetiva por los daños padecidos. En esta materia, como se ha indicado, la Ley de Construcciones y la Ley de Planificación Urbana remiten a norma reglamentaria. Tal desarrollo se encuentra regulado en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, no. 3991 del 13 de diciembre de 1982. Sobre el particular, como bien lo ha señalado el Ad quem, el Reglamento aludido, en el capítulo III, denominado "Urbanizaciones", fija las reglas que son de aplicación. En este sentido, la norma prevé varias posibilidades, según sean las características de cada complejo urbanístico residencial. Al respecto dispone: "III.3.12 Cloacas: Cuando se urbanicen áreas que tengan servicio de colector de aguas negras funcionando, el urbanizador deberá conectarse a dicho sistema./ Cuando el colector se tenga previsto para una etapa posterior, el urbanizador deberá dejar construido un sistema de cloacas dentro de la urbanización para empatarse en un futuro al sistema de colectores previsto./ De no existir cloaca en funcionamiento ni prevista, se contemplan las siguientes alternativas: /III.3.12.1 Para conjuntos mayores a quinientas(500)/ unidades de vivienda se requiere la construcción de una planta de tratamiento de aguas negras propia: salvo que con el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (A y A) se negocien conjuntos mayores con tanque séptico./ III.3.12.2 En conjuntos con un número menor de lotes o viviendas se deberá adecuar el tamaño mínimo de lote para el uso de tanque séptico según lo fija este Reglamento." De esta manera, dependiendo de si existe un colector o no, el urbanizador podrá optar por una de las posibilidades reguladas, la que, en orden a lo dicho, debe ser ponderada por el municipio, instancia a quien corresponde, una vez valorado el caso concreto, establecer la procedencia de la medida que se proponga. Claro está que el diseño del abastecimiento de aguas y el sistema de tratamiento y desagüe, deberá guardar conformidad y correspondencia con las normas técnicas que en cada caso establezcan las autoridades con competencia concurrente, entre ellas, el Ministerio de Salud y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). Lo anterior debe plasmarse en el plano que deberán aprobar las instancias administrativas, según se colige del capítulo VI, canon 3.3 del citado Reglamento. En este sentido, en tesis de principio, el AyA es la instancia competente para fijar políticas, establecer y aplicar normas referidas al suministro de agua potable y evacuación de aguas negras (artículo 1 de su Ley Constitutiva, no. 2726 del 14 de abril de 1961 y sus reformas). Empero, conforme lo dispone el numeral 23 de su Ley Constitutiva: "Los planos para la construcción o reconstrucción parcial o total de una casa o edificio en las ciudades cabeceras de provincia o de Cantón cuyas Municipalidades tengan Departamento de Ingeniería, serán sometidas para su aprobación previa a dicho Departamento y una vez aprobados por éste, al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, para su revisión…". Esa misma regla es de aplicación cuando se trate de proyectos de urbanización. De todo lo anterior se colige que en definitiva, la verificación del cumplimiento de la normativa inherente al tema de las aguas negras recae en las corporaciones locales, siendo que son las competentes para otorgar el permiso de construcción, lo que solo es posible, dentro de un marco ideal, cuando se hayan satisfecho las regulaciones inherentes a esta materia.

XI.- Sobre el caso concreto. En la especie, el fallo impugnado parte del supuesto demostrado de que en la realidad, se ha constatado que el residencial no cuenta con un sistema de tratamiento o colector de aguas negras en funcionamiento, sino solamente previsto, y además, que el número de viviendas no supera las quinientas. Un examen simplista del presente asunto llevaría a concluir que en consideración de ese cuadro fáctico (el que dice el casacionista no se fundamenta en prueba alguna) y al tenor del citado Reglamento, la solución teóricamente viable era adecuar el lote para el uso de tanque séptico y dejar las tuberías previstas para una etapa posterior. Sin embargo, considera esta Sala que las particularidades inmersas en este debate, exigen un análisis más a fondo de lo sucedido. Ciertamente la norma aludida permite la solución que el urbanizador dio al aspecto de las aguas negras, sea, dejar previstas las tuberías (lo que autorizó la Municipalidad). Empero, la referencia de la posibilidad de instalar tanques sépticos cuando exista un número de viviendas inferior a las quinientas, debe armonizarse con la viabilidad técnica e idoneidad de la propuesta planteada por el edificador, a fin de que el sistema que en definitiva sea adoptado, resulte funcional y óptimo para cumplir su finalidad. Ergo, ello no dice que esa solución fuese la adecuada y correcta para el caso específico y para cumplir con las normas propias de la materia de construcción urbanística. En efecto, a tono con las facultades de control e inspección que le asigna la ley, la entidad local debió estudiar, si al margen de que se dieran los presupuestos que establece la norma para instalar el tanque séptico, el que se ofrecía en los planos de construcción, se ajustaba en cuanto a volumen y capacidad, al tipo de vivienda que se pretendía desarrollar. En este sentido, el control debido exigía medir no solamente la procedencia de la medida solicitada en términos teóricos, sino además, y con mayor relevancia, la capacidad de la propuesta para cumplir con su función, sea, servir de mecanismo eficiente de evacuación y almacenamiento de aguas negras, con el objeto de evitar así riesgos potenciales en la salud de las personas y la generación de daños o lesiones. Ello en virtud de que al no haber un sistema de tratamiento de aguas instalado por la Municipalidad, y por tratarse de un tipo de desecho cuyo manejo inadecuado puede lesionar la salud de los residentes y el ambiente, era imperiosa la necesidad de considerar si lo propuesto, atendía a las necesidades que debía cubrir y satisfacer. Este análisis dista de ser un ejercicio de verificación de documentos, todo lo contrario. En razón de los valores jurídicos en juego, de la actividad desplegada (urbanística) que sin duda tiene relevancia o interés público, y por las competencias que en este campo le han sido asignadas a la corporación local (como función ínsita en su territorio), era necesario que el ente local ponderara si la solución propuesta por el urbanizador era debida y óptima, de modo tal que lo que en definitiva se autorizara, cumpliera a cabalidad con el fin público y el servicio público inmerso en los títulos autorizatorios que expide el municipio. La función fiscalizadora que le ha sido asignada por el legislador en la actividad de construcciones urbanas, pretende que se realicen controles tanto preventivos como posteriores, para asegurar que las edificaciones se ajustan a los requisitos y condiciones que han sido establecidos por el orden normativo. Dicha verificación propende entonces, en el marco de las construcciones de urbanizaciones, al aseguramiento de la existencia de las condiciones adecuadas de la estructura en términos cualitativos, lo que supone, por regla de principio, que su desarrollo, se genera dentro de los causes debidos. Esto implica, que las viviendas cuentan con los servicios básicos que permitan una normal calidad de vida del residente, lo que ciertamente se deja de lado cuando un sistema de desecho de aguas negras no se ajusta a sus necesidades, constituyéndose en un riesgo inminente para su salud, su vida y la armonía del entorno urbano. La fiscalización aludida no puede considerarse realizada correctamente si no se valoró la aptitud de ese aspecto ya señalado, no en términos formales, sino en su capacidad de solventar con acierto una necesidad básica y previsible de toda vivienda. Ergo, el examen municipal no debía ser superficial, sino a fondo en aspectos como el que se indica. Desde esta perspectiva, es criterio de este órgano colegiado que la Municipalidad demandada no ejerció un debido control a priori respecto de este aspecto. Esto por cuanto en el trámite de emisión de permisos o licencias de construcción, omitió analizar la idoneidad de los tanques propuestos, para el tipo de edificación de la que se solicitaba licencia, lo que resultaba elemental para establecer si contaba con el volumen o capacidad pertinentes. En efecto, al margen de que el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, permita esa determinada solución técnica cuando concurran los presupuestos de hecho regulados para el caso, ello no releva a la entidad local de analizar, dentro del ejercicio de sus competencias de control, si esa solución, en los términos en que fue propuesta, era viable para cada edificación, de cara a permitir un buen manejo de las aguas negras y servidas. Empero, ese estudio no se realizó de forma debida, dando paso a una autorización para instalar un tanque que no tenía el volumen que requiere cada vivienda. Desde este plano, la experticia rendida por el ingeniero Ricardo Aymerich Kingsbury, indica con claridad: "Como dato técnico importante, aclaro al Juzgado que existen planos constructivos en donde se indican las tuberías de aguas pluviales y aguas negras del proyecto total, sean las tres etapas, sin embargo la empresa constructora no conectó las aguas servidas de las viviendas a las previstas que se acostumbra a dejar en la zona verde o acera; por el contrario en poco espacio de antejardín construyó un pequeño pozo de absorción, el cual no tiene la capacidad o volumen que requieren cada una de las viviendas. En los planos aprobados, la municipalidad no le dió la importancia técnica que se requieren en estos aspectos tan importantes y aprobó los planos de las viviendas con una solución de tanque séptico y tuberías de drenaje, ubicados en estos planos en el área de antejardín, lo cual no se puede aprobar así, porque no existe suficiente área, para que las tuberías (porosas) del drenaje funcionen eficientemente con esta solución. (...)" (folio 366 del principal). Nótese que incluso, en el hecho probado no. 12, el Juzgado tuvo por demostrada esta deficiencia de control administrativo, lo que posteriormente fue prohijado por el Tribunal. XII.- Considera este órgano colegiado que en el subexamine, si bien la Municipalidad dictó un acto formal en el que otorgó el permiso de construcción, el que hacía presuponer que cumplió con sus deberes de control, según se ha indicado, esa conducta no se ajusta plenamente al Ordenamiento Jurídico, en tanto dejó de ponderar si el sistema de aguas negras propuesto por el urbanizador, era adecuado o no, limitándose a un examen formal de ese requisito, lo que dice de un funcionamiento anormal de la corporación pública demandada. Se reitera, el ejercicio de las competencias de vigilancia inherente a sus potestades para otorgar las licencias de edificación o construcción, y que se encuentra dispuesta de manera expresa en los cánones 1 y 87 de la Ley de Construcciones, no se agota en un simple acto formal de autorización. Dentro de su correcta comprensión incluye una fiscalización debida, continua y eficiente sobre las obras en ejecución y las ya ejecutadas, a fin de establecer su armonía con las normas que regulan esa materia. Por ende, su desatención le genera la responsabilidad por los daños que haya causado en la esfera jurídica de terceros. Siendo así, es claro que como efecto inmediato de esa conducta en las inspecciones previas al otorgamiento del permiso de construcción, la demandada permitió instalar tanques que lejos de significar una respuesta debida al tema del tratamiento de aguas negras, conllevó a un problema no solamente para los propietarios actores, sino para la salud pública en general. Luego, ante la imposibilidad de ejecutar la garantía rendida por la firma constructora, los propietarios de las residencias en las que se presentó esa circunstancia, debieron solucionar los inconvenientes de evacuación de aguas, en razón de que según se ha dicho, el pozo no tenía la capacidad adecuada. El motivo para atribuirle a la Municipalidad la responsabilidad por esos hechos, no radica en la falta de instalación de un sistema de tratamiento de aguas negras (pues es claro que al no existir no puede ponerse en funcionamiento), sino en la desatención de sus deberes de inspección en torno a la viabilidad técnica de la instalación de un tanque séptico, en las dimensiones y condiciones que se proponía para este caso. De haberse analizado con detenimiento ese aspecto, bien pudo haberse corregido a tiempo y de esa forma, evitar la construcción de viviendas que no cuentan con un sistema de cloacas adecuado. En este sentido, la Ley General de la Administración Pública establece la responsabilidad de la Administración por su funcionamiento legítimo e ilegítimo, normal o anormal, salvo las causas eximentes de fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de tercero. En este extremo, la anormalidad, como mal funcionamiento público, incluye el ejercicio indebido de potestades o facultades legalmente otorgadas. En el sub-exámine, la construcción dicha se realizó una vez autorizada por la Municipalidad, aún las deficiencias señaladas, con lo cual, faltó a sus deberes de control y vigilancia que le asigna los numerales 1 y 87 de la Ley de Construcciones, los que en el particular, deben complementarse con las disposiciones del Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. Con ello, se impone la responsabilidad a cargo de la entidad local que le obliga a cubrir los daños y perjuicios padecidos por los actores que a la fecha de presentación de la demanda, fuesen propietarios de una casa o lote dentro del Residencia Cedri, partidas que deberán ser fijadas en proceso de ejecución de sentencia. De este modo, es criterio de este órgano colegiado que por los motivos expuestos, debe estimarse el agravio en examen. Por ende, debe anularse la sentencia del Tribunal, y sobre el punto, confirmar la del Juzgado.”