Registry error omitting usufruct inscription causes moral damages to mortgage creditorError registral al omitir inscripción de usufructo genera daño moral al acreedor hipotecario

VII.- COURT'S OPINION: Having analyzed the arguments and reviewed the evidentiary content of the case file, the Court determines that the claim for compensatory damages must be declared admissible, but only partially, regarding subjective moral damages, for the following reasons: BASIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK: Articles 1 and 22 and Transitory Provision V of the Law Creating the National Registry - No. 5695 of 05/28/1975 -, in pertinent part, establish: "Article 1.- The National Registry is created, dependent upon the Ministry of Justice (...)" "Article 22.- The Administrative Board of the National Registry must indemnify users for any harm the National Registry causes them in the processing of documents. To this end, it shall carry out the pertinent procedures to acquire an individual or collective fidelity bond, issued by an insurance institution authorized by law." "Transitory Provision V.- Until such time as the provisions of Article 22 of the Law creating the National Registry are implemented, the Administrative Board of the National Registry, through a budget allocation, shall allocate the necessary resources to cover eventual damages to third parties." Articles 1, 27, and 32 of the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry - 3883 of 05/30/1967 -, in pertinent part, establish: "ARTICLE 1.- The purpose of the National Registry is to guarantee the security of registered property or rights with respect to third parties. This shall be achieved through the publicity of these property or rights. (...)" "ARTICLE 27.- For qualification purposes, both the General Registrar and the courts shall adhere only to what arises from the title, the books, the property, commercial, or personal folios, and in general, all information available in the Registry (...)" "ARTICLE 32.- The National Registry, through the technical and technological procedures it deems secure and agile, shall establish the manner of processing and publicizing registral information. Registral entries made by these means shall produce the legal effects derived from registral publicity, regarding third parties, and shall possess the validity and authenticity that the law grants to public documents." Subsection g) of Article 34 and Article 100 of the Notarial Code - Law 7764 of April 17, 1998 -, in pertinent part, establish: "ARTICLE 34.- Scope of the notarial function. It is incumbent upon the notary public: (...) g) To conduct registral studies (...)." "ARTICLE 100.- Appearance of parties in common mortgages. In the constitution of common mortgages, the acceptance of the creditor is not necessary (...)." Article 6 and the final paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulations of the Public Registry - Executive Decree # 26771 of February 18, 1998 -, in pertinent part, establish: "Article 6°-(Repealed by Article 1° of Executive Decree No. 27934 of May 26, 1999, 'Suppresses the organic structure of the National Registry, the Legal Advisory Offices of the Registries of Movable Property, Immovable Property, Legal Persons, and National Cadastre, as independent structures')". "Article 14.- Of the Certifications Department. (...) It is incumbent upon the Certifiers to issue the certifications requested regarding registered information contained in the different databases, which they shall do by the means available in coordination with the Directorate, with the obligation to provide efficient service." Articles 2, 3, 14, 15, 25, and 28 of the Regulation for the Organization of the Real Estate Registry - Executive Decree No. 35509 of 09/30/2009 - in pertinent part, establish: Article 2º - Definitions. For the purposes of these Regulations, the following shall be understood as: (...) l) Warning note (Nota de advertencia): is a precautionary measure included when so determined, in the registration entry upon processing an administrative procedure, solely for purposes of notice publicity (publicidad noticia). (...) p) Notice publicity (Publicidad noticia): is that information publicized by the Real Estate Registry, the sole effect of which is to inform about the existence of an administrative procedure in the investigation phase, by means of a warning note or prevention. Its existence does not immobilize nor prevent transactions regarding the right containing the warning note or prevention. Article 3º- Purpose of the Real Estate Registry. The purpose of the Real Estate Registry is to strengthen real estate registral security, through the legal effects of its publicity, (...)." Article 14.- Inaccuracy of registral publicity. (...) According to their origin, inaccuracies may be: a) Registral. b) Extra-registral. Article 15.- Inaccuracies of registral origin. Registral inaccuracies are those originating in the qualification and registration process of documents subject to registration or in the Cadastral Surveying (Levantamiento Catastral) process. The following shall be considered inaccuracies of registral origin: a) That resulting from an involuntary error committed by the Registrar. (...). Article 17.—Jurisdictional protection of registral publicity. Given that, as indicated by Article 456 of the Civil Code, registration does not validate null or voidable acts; safeguarding the interests of those who acquire in good faith based on the publicity of the registral entries; the following must be heard and declared in judicial proceedings, in accordance with Articles 472, 473, and 474 of the Civil Code: a) The invalidity of a registration; b) The cancellation of a provisional or definitive entry that is in force; and c) The declaration of a better right of ownership, regarding the registered titleholder. Third parties shall become aware of any of these claims regarding registered rights, through the preventive annotations ordered and recorded by jurisdictional authorities in accordance with the Law. In accordance with the foregoing, hearing the claims indicated in the three preceding subsections is impermissible in the administrative registral venue. (...). Article 25.- Of the administrative warning note. While the corresponding investigations are being carried out, the Deputy Directorate of the Registry or the advisor to whom it delegates, may order, when so deemed, that an administrative warning note be recorded on the respective registration, for purposes of notice publicity, without preventing the registration of subsequent documents. Article 28.- Immobilization (La inmovilización). If, upon granting hearings to the interested parties or those affected by the inaccuracy of registral origin, there is opposition from any of them regarding its correction; the respective Deputy Directorate or the advisor to whom it delegates, by means of a reasoned decision, shall order the immobilization of the registration in question, until the matter is clarified in judicial proceedings or the interested or affected parties of the inaccuracy authorize it, by means of a suitable document duly submitted to the Real Estate Registry for its qualification and registration. The same procedure shall be followed when the rectification of the error causes harm to third parties who acquired in good faith, based on registral and cadastral publicity." Articles 1, Section 1 and 2, Section 2, 8, and 12 of the Judicial Collection Law - No. 8624 of 11/01/2007 - in pertinent part, establish: "ARTICLE (...) 1.1 Applicability. The collection of monetary, liquid, and due obligations, based on public or private documents, with or without executive force, shall be processed through the expedited monetary process. (...) ARTICLE 2.- (...) 2.2 Executory titles. The following are executory titles, provided they evidence the existence of a monetary, liquid, and due obligation: a) The certified copy (testimonio) of a non-registrable public deed, duly issued and authorized, or the certification of this certified copy. b) The certification of a public deed, duly registered in the National Registry. (...) g) All kinds of documents that, by special laws, have executive force. ARTICLE 8.- Titles. Common and mortgage certificate mortgages, as well as duly registered pledges, constitute execution titles to enforce the privilege over the encumbered property or, as applicable, over the insurance sum, as well as to enforce all personal guarantees, which shall be understood as limited to the outstanding balance. (...)" "ARTICLE 12.- Deterioration of the guarantee, outstanding balance, and conversion to insolvency proceedings. When it is proven that the guarantee has deteriorated or has been extinguished, other assets may be pursued in the same process. (...)" (source: Costa Rican Legal Information System). ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND BASIC FACTUAL FRAMEWORK: In the case file, we have that: By deed of July 20, 2011, executed before Notary Rodríguez Herrera, with the appearance of Nombre24934 and Nombre7411, it was recorded: "... FIRST: (...) Nombre7411 (...), states that he is the owner of the domain in property (...) ONE ONE NINE THREE NINE NINE sequence ZERO ZERO ZERO (...) THIRD: (...) Nombre7411 (...) states that, reserving for himself the rights of lifetime tenure (usufructo), use, and habitation in the aforementioned property for life, he DONATES to the second appearing party Nombre24934 (...) who accepts the donation of the property described in point one (...) I issue a first certified copy (primer testimonio). Having read what is written to the grantors, it is found accurate, they state that they approve it, and together we sign in ...". Upon registering that document, the Registrar did not record the reservation of lifetime tenure (usufructo) in favor of Mr. Nombre7411. Leaving Dirección8755 registered entirely in the name of Nombre24934. Without this, as seen, being noticed by Notary Rodríguez Herrera, the authorizing party responsible for the registration of that deed. Conduct attributable to Notary Rodríguez Herrera, in the private practice of his profession and as such a private individual unconnected to the Administration. Without this being imputable to the Administration. Without any liability action having been apparently attempted against him, either, for the consequences of his omission, in this or another process. That inadvertence also rules out, in principle, the imputation of liability to Mr. Nombre7411. There is no doubt that this registral omission generated inaccuracy in the registral publicity, as of July 29, 2011, the date of its registration, in the sense that Nombre24934 was the owner of the full domain. However, there is also no doubt that Nombre24934 heard what was written by the Notary—in the acquisition document—and manifested her conformity and approval. Consequently, she was not unaware of the legal situation of the property: Her status as bare owner (nudataria), by virtue of the lifetime tenure (usufructo) right of Mr. Nombre7411, reserved in the same acquisition document. Despite this, and as seen, she did not inform that situation to Nombre32374, her creditor—the plaintiff here—nor to Notary Salazar Fonseca, the authorizing party of the loan with mortgage deed. Which contributed—along with the error and inaccuracy of the registral publicity—to the registration—on June 9, 2014—of the loan with mortgage on property 4-119399-000, granted by her, on May 30, 2014, before the cited Notary, in favor of Mr. Nombre32374. Without this single fact—the omissive conduct of Nombre24934—implying, for the same reason, a total break in the causal link, excluding the liability—at least partially, regarding moral damages—of the Registry. Therefore, it is strange that the plaintiff's claim does not contain material claims against her. On the other hand, no imputation of liability lies against Mr. Nombre32374 nor Notary Salazar Fonseca—for not reviewing the prior registral situation—, given that, according to the legal framework, it is the Registrar who must adhere to—take into account—for qualification, what arises from the title, but also from the books, the property folios, and in general, all information available in the Registry; that registral entries produce the legal effects derived from registral publicity, regarding third parties, and possess the validity and authenticity that the law grants to public documents; and that, although the Notary is responsible for conducting registral studies, there is no reason to go beyond a certification—e.g., a registral property report—especially in a simple notarial act like the present one, given that it is incumbent upon the Certifiers to issue the certifications requested regarding the registered information contained in the different databases. In a common mortgage, there are two obligations linked together: a personal one, the credit right (principal), and a real one, the guarantee of the credit (accessory). Ergo, it is evident and notorious that it was the default in payment of that credit, by Nombre24934, that gave rise to the initiation—on August 11, 2014—and subsequent processing of the mortgage foreclosure process against her, by the plaintiff here. Without any liability whatsoever lying with the State or the Registry for that payment default and consequent judicial collection process, not only for not being a party, and therefore not susceptible to opposition against them, but also and consequently, because it involves situations unrelated to their public administrative and registral function. Nor, consequently, are they responsible, even by way of compensation, for that personal obligation and its judicial collection process. That is, for the collection—and payment—of the damages and losses consisting—according to the claim in the lawsuit—of the Principal owed according to the mortgage loan, the accrued Interest, the Costs of the judicial collection process, and their indexation. Now, that collection process gave rise to the judicial resolution of March 9, 2015, by virtue of which the property given as guarantee, i.e., property Dirección8757, was put up for first auction, with a base price of ¢21,000,000, for which 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 2015 was scheduled. And as a result, according to the Auction Record of that time and date, the creditor Nombre32374—plaintiff here—offered the base price as credit against his debt, for the auctioned item. Which is different from affirming—as is confusedly asserted—that Mr. Nombre32374 had already paid a price for the property, or had already been awarded the auctioned property. Much less that the property was already his. On the other hand, we have that, at the date of the auction, there was not—nor was there subsequently—opposition, prejudiciality, nullity incidents, or third-party claims within the foreclosure process. Much less had the administrative registral procedure been initiated. Indeed, it was not until two days after the auction, i.e., July 22, 2015, that Mr. Nombre7411 reported to the Registry that he had learned said property was being auctioned, that his lifetime tenure (usufructo) right had not been registered, by virtue of which he requested the immobilization of the property. This led to the following day, on July 23, 2015, the issuance of an administrative registral decision, which ordered: a) To authorize the opening of the administrative file to carry out investigations and comply with due procedure, and b) To record an "Administrative Warning" on the property in question, solely for purposes of registral publicity, while the processing of the file continued. On July 27, 2015, the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374 requested the approval of the auction. By judicial resolution at 1:38 p.m. on August 4, 2015, the interest calculation formulated in the initial lawsuit filing was approved. At 2:28 p.m. on this same day, August 4, 2015, the Court received Official Letter from the Registry RIM-AJRI- 802 -2015, dated July 24, 2015—requesting information on the current status of the file, and the interested parties in said judicial process to proceed with the legally mandated hearings in the processing of the administrative proceeding. Now, in response to the request for approval of the auction, filed on July 27, 2015, by resolution of August 10, 2015, the Collection Court of Heredia ordered: "Upon review of this matter, it is noted that there exists an administrative warning (within file 2015-1676-RIM, see resolution of 10:00 on 07-23-2015, see also filing of 08-04-2015), reason for which the auction at issue is reserved to be heard once said warning is resolved in the administrative venue....". On October 2, 2015, the Court received the copy of administrative file 2015-1676-RIM. Subsequently, by judicial resolution of October 22, 2015, the Court ordered the rejection of the appeal for reversal filed by the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374 against the aforesaid resolution of August 10, 2015. For which it considered: "Let that party observe that the filing submitted on August 4, 2015, by the Real Estate Registry (National Registry) is clear in indicating that an investigation is currently being conducted in relation to the property at issue, so much so that they indicate it is possible there is a registral error that has not been corrected because the present process is annotated, which is why, and taking into account the delicacy of the situation, the auction carried out in the case file is reserved to be heard once administrative file No. 1676-2015-RIM is resolved.-". Simultaneously, it rejected the appeal filed. Now, it cannot be ignored that by Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 dated November 16, 2015, addressed to the Court—at the request of the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374—, the Directorate of the Registry made observations regarding the scope and limits of the Administrative Warning, in accordance with the aforementioned regulations, in the sense that "... it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for purposes of notice publicity, which does not interrupt property transactions, meaning it does not generate the immobilization of the property, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and which is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded. ...". By virtue of which, this Court understands, the plaintiff Nombre32374 once again requested the approval of the auction, on November 24, 2015. However, by judicial resolution at 8:36 a.m. on January 6, 2016, in pertinent part, it was ordered: "... Let the plaintiff party abide by what was resolved in the order of eight hours and fourteen minutes of October twenty-second, two thousand fifteen....". On January 15, 2016, he requested Supplementary Ruling and Clarification. However, by judicial resolution of April 5, 2016, in pertinent part, it was ordered: "... The request for supplementary ruling and clarification is rejected (...) given that it is only applicable when a final judgment on the merits is issued.....". Now, it was not until the final resolution of the administrative procedure, at 11:00 a.m. on March 1, 2016, that the Registry ordered: To Maintain the Warning Note, and to proceed with the immobilization—due to registral inconsistency—and its annotation on the property. The annotation was made upon its filing with the Registry Journal, at 10:24 a.m. on March 28, 2016. Which implies, as considered in that resolution, and in accordance with Article 28 of the Regulation for the Organization of the Real Estate Registry, the referral to the judicial venue so that in a separate process, the matter may be clarified or the interested or affected parties of the inaccuracy authorize it, by means of a suitable document duly submitted to the Real Estate Registry for its qualification and registration, to be resolved accordingly. The powers of the registry to resort to the remedy of the Immobilization Note in cases where third parties must be made aware that a registral entry suffers from a defect cannot be questioned. That is, in cases where, after the due administrative procedure, it detects an error or omission that entails the potential nullity of the entry, it is appropriate to order said note in the margin of the entry, which, until cancelled or rectified, prevents any subsequent registral operation from being performed on the respective entry. In this case, the immobilization note meets the substantive requirements that any precautionary measure must satisfy. That is, there is an evident current interest since the note is appropriate upon detecting an error and omission that entails the potential nullity of the entry and its cancellation. Furthermore, as in the sub examine, there must be elements of judgment that preliminarily evidence the nullity of the entry due to being of a serious nature, irreparable, or of difficult reparation for the harm sought to be avoided. That is why it is reasonable and proportionate for the law to empower the Registry to record the immobilization note to safeguard its liability regarding damages to third parties under the protection of registral publicity. This is for the purpose of preventing any subsequent registral operation from being performed on that property until such note is cancelled or the nullity affecting it is remedied, as applicable, in protection of third parties. It does not matter, it has been said, that registrable documents may have been previously filed, because if those acts or contracts were registered, their rights would be consolidated, which definitively is much more harmful than waiting for the definition of the respective ordinary trial. Thus, in the present case, what the Registry did was comply with a mandate delegated by law, without the Registry bearing liability, per se, for it; which dismisses the reproach that it did not remedy the situation in the administrative venue and instead issued the March 1, 2016, resolution for immobilization of the property—without it—as erroneously stated—already being his property—and referred it to the judicial authority to make the decision. It is probable that this situation may become, as applicable, a judicial process—cumbersome over years—that will continue to affect his interests, however, upon closer inspection, the claim for material or economic damages does not consist of this. That final administrative resolution was incorporated into the judicial file of the collection process on April 12, 2016. It was based on this that the Collection Court of Heredia ordered—by resolution of October 21, 2016—the following: "... Upon determining in said administrative process the existence of a lifetime tenure (usufructo) right which was not registered on the property intended to be auctioned due to a registral error, and it being necessary to notify the lifetime tenant (usufructuario) in the processes in which the property over which their right exists is auctioned, and this procedural act being lacking, due to the aforementioned situation, the auction held at nine hours zero minutes on July twenty of the year two thousand fifteen is disapproved.—". This was notified to the creditor-plaintiff Mr. Nombre32374 on October 31, 2016, through his lawyer. Without any challenge procedure being recorded. Nor the suspension of the foreclosure process, judicial file No. 14-006163- 1158- CJ, given that its electronic mailbox is indicated as INACTIVE. Which is different. The consequences of this will be addressed later. Now, as we see, between August 10, 2015, and April 5, 2016, the Collection Court rejected the requests for approval of the July 20, 2015 auction, and instead kept its consideration in reserve—suspended—due to the Administrative Warning, until it was resolved in the administrative venue, in file No. 1676-2015-RIM. Without there being, at the auction date—nor subsequently—opposition, prejudiciality, nullity incidents, or third-party claims. Besides the existence of the aforementioned regulations and Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 of November 16, 2015, stating that "... it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for purposes of notice publicity, which does not interrupt property transactions, meaning it does not generate the immobilization of the property, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and which is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded. ...". In short, without the Administrative Warning alone—existing from July 23, 2015, until at least March 28, 2016, when immobilization was ordered—preventing—in that interval, at least—the approval of the auction and its eventual registration. COROLLARY: Considering all the foregoing, we have that this omissive conduct by the Court also ultimately contributed—along with the omission to register the lifetime tenure (usufructo) and the inaccuracy of the registral publicity; along with the oversight by the Notary responsible for its registration, and jointly with the omissive conduct of Nombre24934—to the non-approval of the auction of the property in favor of the creditor—plaintiff here—Mr. Nombre32374, until the legal situation of the same was resolved. But one thing is that, i.e., the ineffectiveness of the mortgage privilege—in no way the object—in and of itself—of the economic material claim, and another, distinct, is the extinction or disappearance of the debt, an indebtedness which subsists. Without it having been reliably demonstrated, in this ordinary proceeding, beyond all doubt, the existence of material damage and consequent liability of the State and the Registry for the collection—and payment—of the damages and losses consisting—according to the claim in the lawsuit—of the Principal owed according to the credit, the Interest generated by that credit, the Costs of the Judicial Collection Process, and their indexation (doctrine of Article 317 of the CPC). Indeed, regarding the claimed strict liability for such economic damages due to illicit or abnormal activity, the same, we reiterate, is not admissible. For an indemnity claim for liability of the Public Administration for its illicit acts or abnormal operation to proceed, its action is not sufficient. A causal relationship is required between the act attributed to the administration and the harm produced, without the influence of an external cause, such as fault of the victim, force majeure, or an act of a third party. In any case, it is necessary that a harm has occurred, one that is effective, economically assessable, and individualized (Article 196 of the LGAP). The special nature of the harm is required, e.g., due to the exceptional intensity of the lesion. That is, it must entail a special sacrifice. Special not in terms of singularity, but in terms of being particularly intense and serious. That it exceeds the common burdens borne by the generality of the administered and impacts the assets of specific administered parties in an especially intense and serious manner. In the present case, as we already noted, the warning note and immobilization—causing the disapproval of the auction—are the final consequence of several subjects and singular conducts that concurred in their production. Furthermore, as we noted, the invalidity or invalidity and eventual cancellation order of the registration entry of the property, in the name of Nombre24934, as owner of the full domain, has not been declared, nor ordered, in an ordinary judicial process. Much less, consequently, the nullity and cancellation of the mortgage registration in favor of the plaintiff here, Mr. Nombre32374. Without any news of its filing being known. Nor may anything regarding this be resolved—nor should be—within the present Civil Hacienda process. Despite the immobilization note, the effectiveness of the credit right subsists. In this sense, the documented legal act retains the condition of an executory title capable of pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor, in the same process or through the expedited monetary process. Indeed, notwithstanding the immobilization note, which weakens the real guarantee, the mortgage deed retains the condition of an executory title capable of pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor—among them, e.g., the ownership of the right to the bare ownership (nuda propiedad), which Nombre24934 possesses and maintains in the property by virtue of the document of her acquisition. Furthermore, the judicial collection process is not suspended but inactive, without the creditor—plaintiff here—Mr. Nombre32374 having attempted—and exhausted—the possibility of requesting the attachment and auction of other assets or rights of the debtor for the satisfaction of the debt, among them, the right of bare ownership (nuda propiedad) that she possesses and maintains in the property in question, within that process, or through an expedited monetary process—. Finally, without the existence of an uncollectible debt being proven—to date—. Any conclusion in this respect is premature.

In virtue of which, doubt exists regarding the ineffectiveness of his credit right; and, therefore, regarding the existence of actual, economically assessable, individualized damage, that is, of the material or economic damage consisting of the loss of the Principal owed and Interest on the credit, and costs of the judicial collection process.

VIII.- ON THE CLAIMS: A) ECONOMIC DAMAGES: For all the foregoing, in accordance with the considerations set forth, to which we refer, the claim for an order to pay damages consisting of the Principal owed and Interest on the credit, costs of the judicial collection process, and indexation must be dismissed as unfounded, given the failure to prove the existence of the aforementioned material damage in the present ordinary proceeding. B) SUBJECTIVE MORAL DAMAGE: For all the foregoing and in accordance with the considerations set forth, the existence—*in re ipsa*—of subjective moral damage is deemed established. Indeed, as the plaintiff indicates, the serious omission and breach of the duty of care by the registrar at the time, as well as the negligence of the Registry in supervising the actions of its officials, were the triggers that allowed—concurrently with other subjects and conducts—a series of other already mentioned events to be unleashed, which are today the cause of the situation in which the plaintiff finds himself. It is thus reasonable to presume that, over these years, the feelings provoked by all these actions have represented for Mr. Nombre32374 a toll on his person, great anger, and a sea of negative emotions, such as disappointment, frustration, rage, impotence, despair, anguish, and loss of trust in public institutions. However, the payment of ¢20,000,000.00, the sum in which the plaintiff quantifies the claim for moral damage, is rejected, and in its place, the equitable, reasonable, and proportionate sum, given the circumstances, of ¢5,000,000.00 is fixed and granted, due to the existence, in this case, of Contributing Causes. Ergo, the lawsuit must be declared partially procedent, being understood as denied in what is not granted, as follows: The Administrative Board of the Registry—and subsidiarily the State—must be ordered to pay ¢5,000,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff, for subjective moral damage. The subsidiary liability of the State is justified based on Articles 1 and 22 and Transitory Provision V of the Law Creating the National Registry, since, although the National Registry depends on the Ministry of Justice, a State body, it is its Administrative Board that responds, primarily, for the duty to indemnify through its policy and/or budget allocation designated for this purpose.

Which led, the following day, on July 23, 2015, to the issuance of an administrative registry resolution, which ordered a) Authorize the opening of the administrative file (expediente administrativo) to conduct investigations and comply with due procedure, and b) Record an "Administrative Warning" (Advertencia Administrativa) on the property in question, solely for purposes of registry publicity, while the processing of the file continued. On July 27, 2015, the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374 requested approval of the foreclosure sale. By judicial resolution of 1:38 p.m. on August 4, 2015, the interest calculation submitted in the initial statement of claim was approved. At 2:28 p.m. on that same day, August 4, 2015, the Registry's Official Letter RIM-AJRI-802-2015, dated July 24, 2015, was filed with the Court, requesting a report on the current status of the file and the interested parties in said judicial process in order to proceed with the legally required hearings in the processing of the administrative proceeding.

Now then, in response to the request for approval of the foreclosure sale, filed on July 27, 2015, by resolution of August 10, 2015, the Heredia Collection Court ordered: "Upon review of this matter, it is noted that there is an administrative warning (within file 2015-1676-RIM, see resolution of 10:00 a.m. 07-23-2015, see also filing of 08-04-15), for which reason the foreclosure sale in question is reserved to be heard once said administrative warning is resolved...." On October 2, 2015, the Court received the copy of administrative file 2015-1676-RIM. Subsequently, by judicial resolution of October 22, 2015, the Court ordered the rejection of the appeal for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff-creditor, Nombre32374, against the aforementioned resolution of August 10, 2015. For which it considered: "Let that party note that the filing submitted on August 4, 2015, by the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) (National Registry) clearly indicates that an investigation is currently being conducted regarding the property in question, so much so that they indicate it is possible there is a registry error that has not been corrected due to the annotation of this proceeding, which is why, considering the delicate nature of the situation, the foreclosure sale conducted in these proceedings is reserved to be heard once administrative file No. 1676-2015-RIM is resolved." Simultaneously, it rejected the appeal that had been filed.

Now then, it cannot be ignored that by Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 dated November 16, 2015, addressed to the Court—at the request of the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374—the Registry Directorate made observations to it regarding the scope and limits of the Administrative Warning, in accordance with the aforementioned regulations, to the effect that "...it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for purposes of notice publicity, which does not interrupt real estate transactions, that is, it does not cause the immobilization of the asset, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded...." By virtue of which, this Court understands, the plaintiff Nombre32374 once again requested the approval of the foreclosure sale, on November 24, 2015. However, by judicial resolution at 8:36 a.m. on January 6, 2016, it was ordered, in pertinent part: "...The plaintiff party shall abide by what was resolved in the order of eight hours and fourteen minutes on October twenty-second, two thousand fifteen...." On January 15, 2016, he requested an Addition and Clarification. However, by judicial resolution of April 5, 2016, it was ordered, in pertinent part: "...The request for addition and clarification (...) is rejected, as it only proceeds when what is issued is a final judgment on the merits....." Now then, it was not until the final resolution of the administrative procedure, at 11:00 a.m. on March 1, 2016, that the Registry ordered: Maintain the Warning Notice, and proceed with the immobilization—due to registry inconsistency—and its annotation on the property. The annotation was made with its submission to the Registry Daily Log at 10:24 a.m. on March 28, 2016. Which implies, as considered in that resolution and in accordance with Article 28 of the Regulations for the Organization of the Real Property Registry, referral to the judicial courts so that, in a separate proceeding, the matter be clarified or the parties interested in or affected by the inaccuracy authorize it, by means of a suitable document duly submitted to the Real Property Registry for qualification and registration, and a resolution be issued on the matter. The Registry's powers to resort to the measure of the Immobilization Notice cannot be called into question in cases where third parties must be made aware that a registry entry suffers from a defect. That is, in cases where, following the due administrative procedure, it detects an error or omission that entails the potential nullity of the entry, it may order said notice to be annotated in the margin of the entry, and while it is not canceled or rectified, no subsequent registry operation may be performed on the respective entry. In the present case, the immobilization notice meets the substantive requirements that any precautionary measure must fulfill to be such. That is, there is an evident present interest, as the notice proceeds upon detection of an error or omission that entails the potential nullity of the entry and its cancellation. Furthermore, as in the sub examine, there must be elements of judgment that preliminarily evidence the nullity of the entry because it is of a serious nature, irreparable, or of difficult reparation for the damage sought to be avoided. This is why it is reasonable and proportionate for the law to empower the Registry to issue an immobilization notice to discharge its liability in matters of damages to third parties under the protection of registry publicity. This is for the purpose of preventing any subsequent registry operation from being performed on said property until such notice is canceled or the nullity affecting it is remedied, in protection of third parties. It does not matter, it has been held, that registrable documents may have even been previously submitted, because if those acts or contracts were registered, their rights would be consolidated, which is ultimately much more prejudicial than awaiting the definition of the respective ordinary trial. Therefore, in the present case, the Registry was complying with a mandate delegated by law, without the Registry itself bearing any liability for this; which rejects the reproach that it failed to resolve the situation at the administrative level and instead issued the resolution of March 1, 2016, immobilizing the property—without it—as erroneously asserted—already being his property—and referred the matter to the judicial authority to make the decision.

It is likely that said situation will become, in its case, a judicial process—cumbersome for years—that will continue to affect his interests; however, seen correctly, the claim for material or economic damages does not consist of this. That final administrative resolution was incorporated into the judicial file of the collection proceeding on April 12, 2016. It was only based on this resolution that the Heredia Collection Court ordered—by resolution of October 21, 2016—the following: "...Upon determining in said administrative proceeding the existence of a usufruct (usufructo) right which was not registered on the property to be sold at auction due to a registry error, and the notification of the usufructuary being necessary in proceedings where the property over which their right exists is to be auctioned, and said procedural act being lacking due to the situation noted above, the foreclosure sale conducted at nine o'clock and zero minutes on July twentieth of the year two thousand fifteen is disapproved (imprueba el remate)." This was notified to the creditor-plaintiff Mr. Nombre32374 on October 31, 2016, through his attorney. And there is no record of any objection filing. Nor of the suspension of the enforcement proceeding, judicial file No. 14-006163-1158-CJ, since its electronic filing indicates it is INACTIVE. Which is different. The consequences of which will be addressed later.

Now then, as we see, between August 10, 2015, and April 5, 2016, the Collection Court rejected the requests for approval of the July 20, 2015, foreclosure sale, and instead kept its hearing reserved—suspended—due to the Administrative Warning, until it was resolved at the administrative level, in file No. 1676-2015-RIM. Without there being, at the date of the foreclosure sale—nor subsequently—any opposition, preliminary ruling, nullity incidents, or third-party claims. Notwithstanding the aforementioned regulations and Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 of November 16, 2015, stating that "...it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for purposes of notice publicity, which does not interrupt real estate transactions, that is, it does not cause the immobilization of the asset, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded...." In short, without the Administrative Warning alone—existing from July 23, 2015, until, at least, March 28, 2016, when the immobilization was ordered—preventing—in that interim, at least—the approval of the foreclosure sale and its eventual registration.

COROLLARY: Based on all of the foregoing, we find that this omission by the Court also ultimately contributed—along with the failure to register the usufruct, and the inaccuracy of registry publicity; along with the oversight by the Notary responsible for its registration, jointly with the omission by Nombre24934—to the non-approval of the foreclosure sale of the property in favor of the creditor—plaintiff here—Mr. Nombre32374, until the legal situation of the same was resolved. But the ineffectiveness of the mortgage privilege—in no way the object—in and of itself—of the material economic claim, is one thing, and the extinction or disappearance of the debt, an obligation which subsists, is quite another. Without it having been conclusively demonstrated, in this ordinary process, beyond all reasonable doubt, the existence of material damage, and consequent liability of the State and the Registry for the payment of the damages consisting—according to the claim of the lawsuit—of the Principal owed (Capital debido) according to the credit, the Interest generated (Intereses generados) by that credit, the Costs of the Judicial Collection Process and their indexation (doctrine of Article 317 of the CPC). Indeed, regarding the alleged strict liability for such economic damages due to illicit or abnormal activity, we reiterate, it cannot be accepted. For an indemnity to proceed for the liability of the Public Administration for its illicit acts or abnormal functioning, its action is not sufficient. A causal relationship is required between the act attributed to the administration and the damage produced, without the incidence of an external cause, such as the victim's own fault, force majeure, or the act of a third party. It being necessary, in any case, that an effective, economically assessable, and individualized damage (daño, efectivo, evaluable económicamente, individualizado) has been produced (Article 196 of the LGAP). The special nature of the damage is required, e.g., by the exceptional intensity of the injury. That is, it must entail a special sacrifice. Special not in the sense of singular, but in the sense of being particularly intense and grave. That it exceeds the common burdens borne by the general public and impacts the assets of certain individuals in a particularly intense and grave manner.

In the present case, as we have already indicated, the warning and immobilization notice—causes of the disapproval of the foreclosure sale (improbación del remate)—are the final consequence of several subjects and singular actions that concurred in its production. Furthermore, as we indicated, the invalidity or nullity and eventual order for cancellation of the property's registration entry, in the name of Nombre24934, as owner of full dominion, has not been declared, nor ordered, in an ordinary judicial process. Less, consequently, the nullity and cancellation of the mortgage registration in favor of the plaintiff here, Mr. Nombre32374. And there is no notice of its filing. Nor can—or should—anything be resolved on the matter, within this present Civil Treasury Process. Despite the immobilization notice, the effectiveness of the credit right subsists. In this sense, the documented legal act retains its status as an enforceable title capable of pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor, in the same proceeding or via the expedited payment process. Indeed, the immobilization notice, which weakens the real guarantee, does not prevent the mortgage deed from retaining its status as an enforceable title capable of pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor—among them, e.g., the ownership of the bare ownership right, which Nombre24934 has and maintains in the property by virtue of its acquisition document. Furthermore, the judicial collection process is not suspended, but rather inactive, without the creditor—plaintiff here—Mr. Nombre32374, having attempted—and exhausted—the possibility of requesting the attachment and forced sale of other assets or rights of the debtor for the satisfaction of the debt, among them, the bare ownership right that Nombre24934 has and maintains in the property in question, within that proceeding, or in an expedited payment process. In short, without it being proven—to date—the existence of an uncollectible debt. Any conclusion on the matter being premature. By virtue of which there is doubt regarding the ineffectiveness of their credit right; and, therefore, of the existence of effective, economically assessable, and individualized damage (daño, efectivo, evaluable económicamente, individualizado), that is, of material or economic damage consisting of the loss of the Principal owed and Interest on the credit, and costs of the judicial collection process.

**VIII.- ON THE CLAIMS: A) ECONOMIC DAMAGES:** For all the foregoing, in accordance with the considerations set forth, to which we refer, the claim for an order to pay damages consisting of the Principal due and Interest on the credit, costs of the judicial collection proceeding, and indexation, must be dismissed as improper, given the lack of proof of the existence of the aforementioned material damage in this ordinary proceeding. **B) SUBJECTIVE MORAL DAMAGE:** For all the foregoing and in accordance with the considerations set forth, the existence—*in re ipsa*—of subjective moral damage is deemed established. Indeed, as the plaintiff points out, the serious omission and breach of the duty of care by the registrar at the time, as well as the negligence of the Registry in supervising the actions of its officials, were the triggers that allowed—concurrently with other subjects and conduct—a chain of other previously mentioned events to be unleashed, which today are the cause of the situation in which the plaintiff finds himself. It is then reasonable to presume that, over these years, the feelings provoked by all these actions have represented for Mr. Nombre32374 a personal toll, great anger, and a sea of negative emotions, such as disappointment, frustration, rage, helplessness, despair, anguish, and loss of trust in public institutions. However, the payment of ₡20,000,000.00, the sum at which the plaintiff quantifies the claim for moral damage, is rejected, and in its place, the equitable, reasonable, and proportionate sum, in view of the circumstances, of ₡5,000,000.00 is fixed and granted, due to the existence, in this case, of Concurrence of Causes. Ergo, the lawsuit must be declared partially admissible, it being understood as denied in what is not granted, as follows: The Administrative Board of the Registry—and subsidiarily the State—must be ordered to pay ₡5,000,000.00 in favor of the plaintiff, for the concept of subjective moral damage. The subsidiary liability of the State is justified based on Articles 1 and 22 and Transitory Provision V of the Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional, since, although the Registro Nacional depends on the Ministry of Justice, a state body, it is its Administrative Board that bears the primary obligation to compensate through its policy and/or the budgetary allocation designated for that purpose." **ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THE BASIC FACTUAL FRAMEWORK:** The record shows that: By deed of July 20, 2011, executed before Notary Rodríguez Herrera, with the appearance of Nombre24934 and Nombre7411, the following was recorded: *"... FIRST: (...) Nombre7411 (...) states that he is the owner in fee simple of the farm (...) ONE ONE NINE THREE NINE NINE sequence ZERO ZERO ZERO (...) THIRD: (...) Nombre7411 (...) states that, reserving for life the rights of lifetime tenure (usufructo), use and occupancy in the aforementioned property, he DONATES to the second appearing party Nombre24934 (...) who accepts the donation of the farm described in point one (...) I issue a first certified copy. Having read what was written to the grantors, they agree, state that they approve it, and together we sign in ...".* Upon registering that document, the Registrar did not record the reservation of lifetime tenure (usufructo) in favor of Mr. Nombre7411. Leaving Dirección8755 registered entirely in the name of Nombre24934. Without, it seems, Notary Rodríguez Herrera, the authorizing officer and party responsible for the registration of that deed, having noticed it. Conduct attributable to Notary Rodríguez Herrera, in the private practice of his profession and as such a private individual unrelated to the Administration. It cannot be imputed to the Administration. Nor, it seems, has any liability action been brought against him, for the consequences of his omission, in this or another proceeding. That oversight also, in principle, rules out any imputation of liability on Mr. Nombre7411. There is no doubt that this registration omission generated inaccuracy in the registry publicity, as of July 29, 2011, the date of its registration, in the sense that Nombre24934 was the owner in full fee simple. Now then, there is also no doubt that Nombre24934 heard what was written by the Notary—in the acquisition document—and stated her agreement and approval. Consequently, she was not unaware of the legal situation of the farm: her status as a bare owner (nudataria), by virtue of the right of lifetime tenure (usufructo) of Mr. Nombre7411, reserved in that same acquisition document. Despite which, and apparently, she did not inform Nombre32374, her creditor—the plaintiff here—nor Notary Salazar Fonseca, the authorizing officer of the loan deed with mortgage, of that situation. Which, together with the error and inaccuracy of the registry publicity, led to the registration—on June 9, 2014—of the loan with mortgage on farm 4-119399-000, granted by her, on May 30, 2014, before the cited Notary, in favor of Mr. Nombre32374. Without that single fact—the omission by Nombre24934—thereby implying a total break in the causal link, excluding the Registry's liability—at least partially, regarding moral damages. Which is why it is strange that the plaintiff's lawsuit contains no substantive claims against her. On the other hand, no imputation of liability is applicable against Mr. Nombre32374 or Notary Salazar Fonseca—for not reviewing the antecedent registry situation—given that, in accordance with the legal framework, it is the Registrar who must adhere to—take into account—for qualification, what arises from the instrument, but also from the books, the real folios, and in general all information held in the Registry; that registry entries produce the legal effects derived from registry publicity, with respect to third parties, and have the validity and authenticity that the law grants to public documents; and that, while it is the Notary's duty to conduct registry studies, he has no reason to go beyond a certification—e.g., a property registry report—even less so in a simple notarial act like this one, given that it is the Certifiers who are responsible for issuing the requested certifications of the registered information that appears in the different databases. **In a common mortgage there are two interconnected obligations, one personal, the right of credit (principal), and another real, the guarantee of the credit, (accessory).** Ergo, it is evident and notorious that it was the failure to pay that credit, by Nombre24934, that gave rise to the initiation—on August 11, 2014—and subsequent processing of the judicial collection proceeding against her, by the plaintiff here. Without the State or the Registry bearing any liability whatsoever for that payment default and consequent judicial collection process, not only because they are not a party, and therefore not subject to any opposition against them, but also and consequently, because these are situations unrelated to their public administrative and registry function. Nor, consequently, are they responsible, even for compensatory purposes, for that personal obligation and its judicial collection process. That is, for the collection—and payment—of the damages consisting—according to the lawsuit's claim—of the Principal Due under the mortgage loan, the Accrued Interest, the Costs of the judicial collection process, and their indexation. Now then, that collection process led to the judicial order of March 9, 2015, by virtue of which the property given as security, namely the farm Dirección8757, was brought to a first judicial auction, with a base price of ¢21,000,000, for which 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 2015 was set. And to which, therefore, according to the Auction Minutes of that time and date, the creditor Nombre32374—the plaintiff here—offered the base price as payment on account of his credit, for the property auctioned. Which is different from affirming—as is confusingly asserted—that Mr. Nombre32374 had already paid a price for the property, or had already been adjudicated the auctioned asset. Much less that the property was already his. Furthermore, we have that, as of the auction date, there was no—nor was there subsequently—any opposition, matter of prejudiciality, nullity incidents, or third-party claims within the enforcement proceeding. Nor had the administrative registry procedure been initiated. Indeed, it was not until two days after the auction, specifically on July 22, 2015, that Mr. Nombre7411 reported to the Registry that he had learned that said farm was being auctioned, that his right of lifetime tenure (usufructo) had not been registered, and by virtue of this, he requested the immobilization (inmovilización) of the farm. Which led to the following day, July 23, 2015, an administrative registry order being issued, whereby it was ordered a) To authorize the opening of the administrative file to carry out investigations and comply with due procedure, and b) To record an "Administrative Warning" on the property in question, solely for registry publicity purposes, while the file's processing continued. On July 27, 2015, the plaintiff-creditor Nombre32374 requested approval of the auction. By judicial order at 1:38 p.m. on August 4, 2015, the liquidation of interest formulated in the initial complaint filing was approved. At 2:28 p.m. on that same day, August 4, 2015, the Registry's Official Letter RIM-AJRI-802-2015, dated July 24, 2015, was filed with the Court, requesting a report on the current status of the file and the interested parties in said judicial process to proceed with the legal hearings in the processing of the administrative action. Now then, in response to the request for approval of the auction, submitted since July 27, 2015, by order of August 10, 2015, the Collection Court of Heredia ordered: "Having reviewed the present matter, it is noted that there is an administrative warning (within file 2015-1676-RIM, see order at 10:00 on 07-23-2015, see also filing of 08-04-15), which is why the ruling on the requested auction is reserved until said administrative warning is resolved...". On October 2, 2015, the copy of administrative file 2015-1676-RIM was received at the Court. Subsequently, by judicial order of October 22, 2015, the Court ordered the rejection of the appeal for reversal filed by the plaintiff-creditor, Nombre32374, against the aforementioned order of August 10, 2015. For which it considered: "Let that party note that the filing submitted on August 4, 2015, by the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) (National Registry) is clear in indicating that an investigation is currently being conducted regarding the farm in question, so much so that they indicate it is possible that there is a registry error that has not been corrected because the present process is noted, which is why the ruling on the auction held in this file is reserved until administrative file No. 1676-2015-RIM is resolved.-". Simultaneously, it rejected the filed appeal. Now then, it cannot be denied that by Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 dated November 16, 2015, addressed to the Court—at the request of the plaintiff creditor Nombre32374—the Registry Directorate made observations regarding the scope and limits of the Administrative Warning, in accordance with the aforementioned regulations, in the sense that "... it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for notice publicity purposes, which does not interrupt real estate traffic, that is, it does not generate the immobilization (inmovilización) of the asset, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded. ...". By virtue of which, this Court understands, the plaintiff Nombre32374 again requested approval of the auction, on November 24, 2015. However, by judicial order at 8:36 a.m. on January 6, 2016, in what is relevant, it was ordered: "... Let the plaintiff adhere to what was resolved in the order of eight hours and fourteen minutes on October twenty-second, two thousand fifteen....". On January 15, 2016, he requested Addition and Clarification. However, by judicial order of April 5, 2016, in what is relevant, it was ordered: "... The request for addition and clarification is rejected (...) since the same only proceeds when what is issued is a final judgment on the merits....." Now then, it was not until the final order of the administrative procedure, at 11:00 a.m. on March 1, 2016, that the Registry ordered: To maintain the Warning Note, and to proceed with the immobilization (inmovilización)—due to registry inconsistency—and its notation on the property. The notation was made with its submission to the Registry Journal, at 10:24 a.m. on March 28, 2016. Which implies, as considered in that order, and in accordance with Article 28 of the Regulations for the Organization of the Real Property Registry (Reglamento de Organización del Registro Inmobiliario), referral to the judicial venue so that in a separate proceeding, the matter is clarified or the interested or affected parties of the inaccuracy authorize it, through a suitable instrument duly submitted to the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) for its qualification and registration, that it be resolved accordingly. The Registry's powers to resort to the Immobilization Note in cases where it must be brought to the attention of third parties that a registry entry suffers from a defect cannot be questioned. That is, in cases where, after due administrative procedure, it discovers an error or omission that entails the possible nullity of the entry, it is appropriate to order said note in the margin of the entry, so that as long as it is not canceled or rectified, no subsequent registry operation can be carried out on the respective entry. In the present case, the immobilization note meets the substantive requirements that every precautionary measure must fulfill to be considered such. That is, there is an evident current interest because the note is appropriate when an error or omission is detected that may entail nullity of the entry and its cancellation. There must also be, as in the sub examine case, elements of judgment that preliminarily evidence the nullity of the entry because it is serious, irreparable, or the damage sought to be avoided is difficult to repair. That is why it is reasonable and proportionate that the law empowers the Registry to issue the immobilization note to preserve its liability regarding damages to third parties under the protection of registry publicity. This is for the purpose that no subsequent registry operation be carried out on said property until such note is canceled or the nullity affecting it is rectified, as applicable, for the protection of third parties. It does not matter, it has been said, that registrable documents have even been previously submitted, because if those acts or contracts were registered, their rights would be consolidated, which is ultimately much more harmful than waiting for the definition of the respective ordinary proceeding. So, in the present case, what the Registry did was comply with a mandate delegated by law, without the Registry bearing any liability, in itself, for it; which dismisses the reproach that it did not rectify the situation in administrative proceedings and instead issued the order of March 1, 2016, of immobilization (inmovilización) of the property—without it being—as is erroneously stated—already his property—and referred it to the judicial authority for it to decide. It is probable that said situation will become, in its case, a judicial process—cumbersome over years—that will continue to affect his interests; however, properly considered, the claim for material or economic damage does not consist of this. That final administrative order was incorporated into the judicial file of the collection process on April 12, 2016. It was solely based on that order that the Collection Court of Heredia ordered—by order of October 21, 2016—the following "... The existence of a right of lifetime tenure (usufructo) having been determined in said administrative process, which was not registered on the property sought to be auctioned due to a registry error, and it being necessary to notify the usufructuary in processes where the property over which his right exists is auctioned, and said procedural act being lacking, due to the previously noted situation, the auction held at nine hours zero minutes on July twenty, two thousand fifteen, is disapproved.-". Which was notified to the creditor-plaintiff Mr. Nombre32374 on October 31, 2016, through his attorney. Without any challenge action being recorded. Nor the suspension of the enforcement proceeding, judicial file No. 14-006163-1158-CJ, since its electronic docket indicates INACTIVE. Which is different.

The consequences of which will be addressed later.

Now then, as we see, between August 10, 2015, and April 5, 2016, the Collection Court rejected the requests for approval of the judicial sale of July 20, 2015, and instead held in reserve—suspended—its consideration, due to the *Administrative Warning*, until it was resolved in the administrative venue, in case file No. 1676-2015-RIM. Without there being, at the date of the judicial sale—nor subsequently—any opposition, prejudiciality, nullity incidents, or third-party claims. Besides the existence of the aforementioned regulations and Official Letter No. RIM-RE-306-2015 of November 16, 2015, stating that *"... it is a precautionary, preventive, and temporary measure, recorded solely for publicity-notice purposes, which does not interrupt real estate transactions, that is, it does not generate the immobilization of the property, and therefore does not prevent the registration of new acts or contracts, and which is recorded while the study of the matter under investigation is concluded. ..."* In short, without the mere Administrative Warning—existing from July 23, 2015, until at least March 28, 2016, when the immobilization was ordered—having prevented—in that interim, at least—the approval of the judicial sale and its eventual registration.

**COROLLARY:** By reason of all the foregoing, we have that this omission by the Court also ultimately contributed—together with the omission in registering the usufruct (usufructo), and the inaccuracy of the registry publicity; together with the oversight by the Notary responsible for its registration, jointly with the omission by Nombre24934—to the non-approval of the judicial sale of the property in favor of the creditor—plaintiff herein—Mr. Nombre32374, until such time as its legal situation was resolved. But one thing is that, that is to say, the ineffectiveness of the mortgage privilege—in no way the object—in and of itself—of the material economic claim, and another, distinct, is the extinction or disappearance of the debt, an obligation which subsists. Without it having been demonstrated, reliably, in this ordinary proceeding, beyond all doubt, the existence of material damage, and the consequent liability for collection—and payment—borne by the State and the Registry for damages and losses consisting—according to the claim in the lawsuit—of the *Principal Due* according to the credit, the *Interest Generated* by that credit, the *Costs of the Judicial Collection Proceeding* and its indexation (doctrine of article 317 of the CPC). Indeed, regarding the alleged strict liability, for such economic damages, due to unlawful or abnormal activity, the same, we repeat, is not admissible. For indemnification to proceed based on the liability of the Public Administration for its unlawful acts or abnormal functioning, its action is not enough. The existence of a causal relationship is required between the act imputed to the administration and the damage produced, without the incidence of an extraneous cause, such as the victim's fault, force majeure, or the act of a third party. It being necessary, in any case, that a **damage, effective, economically assessable, individualized** has been produced (article 196 of the LGAP). The special nature of the damage is required, e.g., by the exceptional intensity of the injury. That is, it must entail a special sacrifice. Special not in the sense of singular, but in the sense of particularly intense and serious. That it exceeds the common burdens weighing upon the generality of the administered and impacts in an especially intense and serious manner the property of specific administered persons. In the present case, as we already pointed out, the warning and immobilization notice—causing the *disapproval of the judicial sale*—are the final consequence of various subjects and singular conducts that concurred in its production. Besides, as we pointed out, the invalidity or nullity and eventual order for cancellation of the registration entry of the property, in the name of Nombre24934, as owner of the full domain, has not been declared, nor ordered, in an ordinary judicial proceeding. Even less, consequently, the nullity and cancellation of the registration of the mortgage in favor of the plaintiff herein, Mr. Nombre32374. Without there being any notice of its filing. Without it being possible—nor proper—to resolve anything in this regard, within this present Civil Hacienda proceeding. Despite the immobilization notice, the effectiveness of the credit right subsists. In this sense, the documented legal act retains the condition of an executory title (título ejecutivo) susceptible to pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor, in the same proceeding or through the order for payment procedure (proceso monitorio). Indeed, the immobilization notice does not impede—which weakens the real guarantee—the mortgage deed retains the condition of an executory title (título ejecutivo) susceptible to pursuing other assets or rights of the debtor—among them, e.g., the ownership of the right to the bare ownership (nuda propiedad), which Nombre24934 has and maintains, in the property by virtue of the document of its acquisition. Apart from that, the judicial collection proceeding is not suspended, but inactive, without the creditor—plaintiff herein—Mr. Nombre32374, having attempted—and exhausted—the possibility of requesting the seizure (embargo) and judicial sale of other assets or rights of the debtor, for the satisfaction of the debt, among them, the right of bare ownership (nuda propiedad) that it has and maintains, in the property in question, within that proceeding, or in an order for payment procedure (proceso monitorio). In short, without there being accredited—to date—the existence of an uncollectible debt. Any conclusion regarding it is premature. By virtue of which, there is doubt about the ineffectiveness of his credit right; and, therefore, about the existence of **damage, effective, economically assessable, individualized**, that is, of the material or economic damage consisting of the loss of the Principal Due and Interest of the credit, costs of the judicial collection proceeding.

**VIII.- ON THE CLAIMS: A) ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND LOSSES:** For all that has been said, in accordance with the considerations set forth, to which we refer, the claim for condemnation to the payment of damages and losses consisting of the Principal Due and Interest of the credit, costs of the judicial collection proceeding and indexation must be rejected, as inadmissible, given the lack of demonstration of the existence of the aforementioned material damage, in the present ordinary proceeding.

**B) SUBJECTIVE NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGE (DAÑO MORAL SUBJETIVO):** For all that has been said and in accordance with the considerations set forth, the existence—*in re ipsa*—of subjective non-economic damage (daño moral subjetivo) is deemed proven. Indeed, as the plaintiff states, the serious omission and breach of the duty of care (deber de cuidado) by the registrar at the time, as well as the negligence of the Registry in supervising the actions of its officials, were the triggers that allowed—concurrently with other subjects and conducts—another series of events already mentioned to be unleashed, and which today are the cause of the situation in which the plaintiff finds himself. It being reasonably presumable, then, that over these years the feelings caused by all these actions have represented for Mr. Nombre32374 a wearing down of his person, great anger, and a sea of negative emotions, such as disappointment, frustration, rage, impotence, desperation, anguish, and loss of confidence in public institutions. However, the payment of ¢20,000,000.00, the sum at which the plaintiff quantifies the claim for non-economic damage (daño moral), is rejected, and in its place, it is fixed and granted, in the equitable, reasonable and proportional sum, by reason of the circumstances, of ¢5,000,000.00, by reason of the existence, in this case, of Concurrence of Causes. Therefore, the lawsuit shall be declared partially admissible, with it being understood as denied in what is not granted, thus: The Administrative Board of the Registry—and subsidiarily the State—shall be condemned to the payment of ¢5,000,000.00, in favor of the plaintiff, for the concept of subjective non-economic damage (daño moral subjetivo). The subsidiary liability of the State is justified, based on articles 1 and 22 and Transitional Provision V, of the Law of Creation of the National Registry since, although the National Registry depends on the Ministry of Justice, a state body, it is its Administrative Board that responds, primarily, to the duty to indemnify through its policy and/or budget line, destined for such effect.

´” VII.- CRITERIO DEL TRIBUNAL: Analizados los alegatos y revisado el contenido probatorio de los autos, el Tribunal determina que la pretensión de condena indemnizatoria se ha de declarar procedente, pero solo parcialmente, respecto del daño moral subjetivo, por las siguiente razones: MARCO JURÍDICO BÁSICO: Los artículos 1 y 22 y Transitorio V, de la Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional -No. 5695 del 28/05/1975 -, en lo de interés, establecen: "Artículo 1º.-Créase el Registro Nacional, dependiente del Ministerio de Justicia (...)" "Artículo 22.-La Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional deberá indemnizar a los usuarios por cualquier perjuicio que el Registro Nacional les cause en la tramitación de documentos. Para ello, efectuará los trámites pertinentes, a fin de adquirir una póliza de fidelidad, individual o colectiva, expedida por una institución aseguradora autorizada por la ley." "Transitorio V.- Hasta tanto no se ejecute lo dispuesto en el artículo 22 de la Ley de creación del Registro Nacional, la Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional, mediante partida presupuestaria, destinará los recursos necesarios para cubrir los eventuales daños a terceros.". Los artículos 1, 27 y 32 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en Registro Público - 3883 del 30/05/1967-, en lo de interés, establecen: "ARTICULO 1º.- El propósito del Registro Nacional es garantizar la seguridad de los bienes o derechos inscritos con respecto a terceros. Lo anterior se logrará mediante la publicidad de estos bienes o derechos. (...)" "ARTICULO 27.- Para la calificación, tanto el Registrador General como los tribunales se atendrán tan sólo a lo que resulte del título, de los libros, de los folios reales, mercantiles o personales, y en general de toda la información que conste en el Registro (...)" "ARTÍCULO 32.- El Registro Nacional, mediante los procedimientos técnicos y tecnológicos que considere seguros y ágiles, establecerá la forma de tramitar y publicitar la información registral. Los asientos registrales efectuados con estos medios surtirán los efectos jurídicos derivados de la publicidad registral, respecto de terceros y tendrán la validez y autenticidad que la ley otorga a los documentos públicos. El inciso g) del artículo 34 y el 100 del Código Notarial - Ley 7764 del 17 de abril de 1998-, en lo conducente, establecen:"ARTÍCULO 34.-Alcances de la función notarial. Compete al notario público: (...) g) Realizar los estudios registrales (...)". ARTÍCULO 100.- Comparecencia de partes en hipotecas comunes. En la constitución de hipotecas comunes, no es necesaria la aceptación del acreedor (...)". El artículo 6 y 14 párrafo final del Reglamento del Registro Público -Decreto Ejecutivo # 26771 del 18 de febrero de 1998-, en lo conducente, establecen: "Artículo 6°-(Derogado por artículo 1° del decreto ejecutivo N° 27934 del 26 de mayo de 1999, "Suprime la estructura orgánica del Registro Nacional, las Asesorías Jurídicas de los Registros de Bienes Muebles, Bienes Inmuebles, Personas Jurídicas y Catastro Nacional, como estructuras independientes")". "Artículo 14.- Del Departamento de Certificaciones. (...) Corresponde a los Certificadores la expedición de las certificaciones que se solicitan sobre la información registrada y que consta en las diferentes bases de datos, lo cual harán por los medios de que dispongan en coordinación con la Dirección, con la obligación de brindar un eficiente servicio.". Los artículos 2, 3, 14, 15, 25 y 28 del Reglamento de Organización del Registro Inmobiliario -Decreto Ejecutivo No. 35509 del 30/09/2009 - en lo de interés, establecen: Artículo 2º - Definiciones. Para los fines del presente Reglamento, se entenderá por: (...) l) Nota de advertencia: es una medida cautelar que se incluye cuando así se determine, en el asiento de inscripción al dar curso a una gestión administrativa, para efectos de publicidad noticia únicamente. (...) p) Publicidad noticia: es aquella información publicitada por el Registro Inmobiliario, cuyo único efecto es informar sobre la existencia de un procedimiento administrativo en etapa de instrucción, por medio de una nota de advertencia o prevención. Su existencia no inmoviliza ni impide movimientos sobre el derecho que contenga la nota de advertencia o prevención. Artículo 3º- Finalidad del Registro Inmobiliario. El Registro Inmobiliario tiene como finalidad fortalecer la seguridad inmobiliaria registral, por medio de los efectos jurídicos de su publicidad, (...)". Artículo 14.- Inexactitud de la publicidad registral. (...) Según su origen las inexactitudes pueden ser: a) Registrales. b) Extra registrales. Artículo 15.- Inexactitudes de origen registral. Las inexactitudes registrales son las que tienen su origen en el proceso de calificación e inscripción de los documentos sujetos a inscripción o en el proceso de Levantamiento Catastral. Serán consideradas inexactitudes de origen registral: a) La que resulta de un error involuntario cometido por parte del Registrador. (...). Artículo 17.—Tutela jurisdiccional de la publicidad registral. Dado que, conforme lo indica el artículo 456 del Código Civil, la inscripción no convalida los actos nulos o anulables; dejando a salvo los intereses de quien adquiere de buena fe basado en la publicidad de los asientos regístrales; debe ser conocido y declarado en sede judicial, conforme a los artículos 472, 473 y 474 del Código Civil: a) La invalidez de una inscripción; b) La cancelación de un asiento provisional o definitivo que esté vigente; y c) La declaratoria de un mejor derecho de propiedad, respecto del titular registral inscrito. Los terceros tendrán conocimiento de cualquiera de estas pretensiones sobre los derechos inscritos, por medio de las anotaciones preventivas que ordenen y consignen las autoridades jurisdiccionales conforme a la Ley. Conforme lo anterior, el conocimiento de las pretensiones indicadas en los tres incisos anteriores, es improcedente en sede administrativa registral. (...). Artículo 25.- De la nota de advertencia administrativa. Mientras se realizan las investigaciones que correspondan, la Subdirección del Registro o el asesor en quien ésta delegue, podrá ordenar, cuando así lo considere, se consigne una nota de advertencia administrativa en la inscripción respectiva, para efectos de publicidad noticia, sin que impida la inscripción de documentos posteriores. Artículo 28.- La inmovilización. Si dadas las audiencias a los interesados o afectados de la inexactitud de origen registral, existiera oposición de alguno de ellos en la corrección de la misma; la Subdirección respectiva o el asesor en quien ésta delegue, mediante resolución fundada, ordenará la inmovilización de la inscripción de que se trate, hasta tanto no se aclare el asunto en vía judicial o las partes interesadas o afectadas de la inexactitud, no lo autoricen, por medio de documento idóneo debidamente presentado al Registro Inmobiliario, para su calificación e inscripción. De igual forma, se procederá, cuando la rectificación del error cause algún perjuicio a terceros que adquirieron de buena fe, basados en la publicidad registral y catastral.". Los artículos 1, punto 1 y 2 punto 2, 8 y 12 de la Ley de Cobro Judicial - No. 8624 del 01/11/2007- en lo de interés, establecen: "ARTÍCULO (...) 1.1 Procedencia. Mediante el proceso monitorio se tramitará el cobro de obligaciones dinerarias, líquidas y exigibles, fundadas en documentos públicos o privados, con fuerza ejecutiva o sin ella. (...) ARTÍCULO 2.- (...) 2.2 Títulos ejecutivos. Son títulos ejecutivos, siempre que en ellos conste la existencia de una obligación dineraria, líquida y exigible, los siguientes: a) El testimonio de una escritura pública no inscribible, debidamente expedida y autorizada, o la certificación de este testimonio. b) La certificación de una escritura pública, debidamente inscrita en el Registro Nacional. (...) g) Toda clase de documentos que, por leyes especiales, tengan fuerza ejecutiva. ARTÍCULO 8.- Títulos. Las hipotecas comunes y de cédula, así como la prenda inscritas debidamente, constituyen títulos de ejecución para hacer efectivo el privilegio sobre lo gravado o, en su caso, sobre la suma del seguro, así como para hacer efectivas todas las garantías personales, las cuales se entenderán limitadas al saldo en descubierto. (...)" "ARTÍCULO 12.- Desmejoramiento de la garantía, saldo en descubierto y conversión a proceso concursal. Cuando se pruebe que la garantía se ha desmejorado o se ha extinguido, podrán perseguirse otros bienes en el mismo proceso. (...)" (fuente: Sistema Costarricense de Información Jurídica). VALORACIÓN DEL CASO A LA LUZ DEL MARCO JURÍDICO Y DEL MARCO FÁCTICO BÁSICO: En autos tenemos que: Por escritura del 20 de julio del 2011, otorgada ante el Notario Rodríguez Herrera, con la comparecencia de Nombre24934 y Nombre7411, se consignó: "... PRIMERO: Manifiesta (...) Nombre7411 (...), que es dueño del dominio en la finca (...)UNO UNO NUEVE TRES NUEVE NUEVE secuencia CERO CERO CERO (...) TERCERO: Manifiesta (...) Nombre7411 (...) que reservándose de por vida los derechos de usufructo, uso y habitación en el mencionado inmueble DONA a la segunda compareciente Nombre24934 (...) quien acepta la donación de la finca descrita en el punto primero (...) Expido un primer testimonio. Leído lo escrito a los otorgantes, resulta conforme, manifiestan que lo aprueban y juntos firmamos en ...". Al inscribir ese documento, el Registrador no realiza la reserva de usufructo a favor de Don Nombre7411. Quedando la Dirección8755 en su totalidad inscrita a nombre de Nombre24934 . Sin que, por lo visto, el Notario Rodríguez Herrera, autorizante y responsable de la inscripción de esa escritura, lo advirtiera. Comportamiento achacable al Notario Rodríguez Herrera, en el ejercicio privado de su profesión y como tal particular ajeno a la Administración. Sin que se le puede imputar a la Administración. Sin que se haya intentado, tampoco, según parece, acción alguna de responsabilidad en su contra, por las consecuencias de su omisión, en este o en otro proceso. Esa inadvertencia descarta, también, por principio, la imputación de responsabilidad de Don Nombre7411. No cabe duda que esa omisión registral generó inexactitud de la publicidad registral, desde el 29 de julio del 2011, fecha de su inscripción, en el sentido de que Nombre24934 era dueña del dominio pleno. Ahora bien, tampoco cabe duda que Nombre24934 escuchó lo escrito por el Notario - en el documento de adquisición-, y manifestó su conformidad y aprobación. Sin que desconociera, en consecuencia, la situación jurídica de la finca: Su condición de nudataria, en virtud del derecho de usufructo de Don Nombre7411, reservado en el mismo documento de adquisición. Pese a lo cual, y por lo visto, no informó de esa situación a Nombre32374 , su acreedor -aquí actor, ni al Notario Salazar Fonseca, autorizante de la escritura de préstamo con hipoteca. Lo cual propició -junto con el error e inexactitud de la publicidad registral-, la inscripción- con fecha 9 de junio del 2014-, del préstamo con hipoteca sobre la finca 4-119399-000, otorgado por ella, con fecha 30 de mayo del 2014, ante el citado Notario, a favor del señor Nombre32374 . Sin que ese solo hecho -la conducta omisiva de Nombre24934 -, suponga, por lo mismo, una fractura total del nexo causal, excluyente de responsabilidad - al menos parcial, en cuanto al daño moral-, del Registro. Por lo cual extraña que la demanda de la parte actora no contenga pretensiones materiales en su contra. Por otra parte, ninguna imputación de responsabilidad cabe contra el señor Nombre32374 ni el Notario Salazar Fonseca - por no revisar la situación registral antecedente-, siendo que, de acuerdo con el marco jurídico, es el Registrador, quien ha de atenerse -tener en cuenta-, para la calificación, lo resultante del título, pero también, de los libros, de los folios reales, y en general de toda la información que conste en el Registro; que los asientos registrales surten los efectos jurídicos derivados de la publicidad registral, respecto de terceros y tienen la validez y autenticidad que la ley otorga a los documentos públicos; y que, si bien al Notario le compete realizar los estudios registrales, no tiene por qué ir más allá de una certificación - p. ej. de un informe registral de la propiedad-, menos en un acto notarial sencillo, como el presente, siendo que corresponde a los Certificadores la expedición de las certificaciones que se solicitan sobre la información registrada y que consta en las diferentes bases de datos. En una hipoteca común hay dos obligaciones ligadas entre sí, una personal, el derecho de crédito (principal) y otra real, la garantía del crédito, (accesoria). Ergo, es evidente y notorio que fue el incumplimiento del pago de ese crédito, por parte de Nombre24934 , el que dio lugar al inicio - con fecha 11 de agosto del 2014-, y posterior tramitación del proceso de ejecución hipotecaria en su contra, por parte del aquí actor. Sin que les quepa responsabilidad alguna al Estado ni al Registro, de ese incumplimiento de pago y consecuente proceso de cobro judicial, no solo por no ser parte, y, por ende no susceptible de oposición en su contra, sino también y en consecuencia, por tratarse de situaciones ajenas a su función pública administrativa y registral. Como tampoco, por lo consiguiente, responsables, siquiera a título indemnizatorio, de esa obligación personal y su proceso de cobro judicial. Esto es, del cobro - y pago-, de los daños y perjuicios consistentes - según la pretensión de demanda-, en el Capital debido según el crédito hipotecario, de los I ntereses generados, de las Costas del proceso de cobro judicial y su indexación. Ahora bien, ese proceso de cobro dio lugar a la resolución judicial del 9 de marzo del 2015, en virtud de la cual se sacó a primer remate el bien dado en garantía, sea la finca Dirección8757, con la base de ¢21.000.000, para lo cual se señaló las 9:00 horas del 20 de julio del 2015 . Y a que, por ende, según el Acta de Remate, de esa hora y fecha, el acreedor Nombre32374 -aquí actor-, ofreciera la base en abono a su crédito, por lo subastado. Lo cual es distinto a afirmar -como se asevera, confusamente-, que Don Nombre32374 hubiera pagado ya un precio por el inmueble, o bien, se hubiera adjudicado ya el bien subastado. Menos que menos que el inmueble fuera ya de su propiedad. Por otra parte tenemos que, a la fecha del remate no había - ni hubo con posterioridad-, oposición, prejudicialidad, incidentes de nulidad o tercerías, dentro del proceso de ejecución. Menos había iniciación del procedimiento de la gestión administrativa registral En efecto, no fue sino dos días después del remate, sea el 22 de julio del 2015 que Don Nombre7411 denunció ante el Registro haberse enterado que dicha finca se encontraba rematada, que su derecho de usufructo no había sido inscrito, en virtud de lo cual solicitó la inmovilización de la finca. Lo cual generó que al día siguiente, con fecha 23 de julio de 2015, se dictara resolución administrativa registral, mediante la cual se dispuso a) Autorizar la apertura del expediente administrativo para realizar las investigaciones y cumplir con el debido procedimiento, y b) Consignar "Advertencia Administrativa" sobre el inmueble en cuestión, únicamente para efectos de publicidad registral, mientras se continuaba con el trámite del expediente. Con fecha 27 de julio de 2015 el actor- acreedor Nombre32374 pidió la aprobación del remate. Por resolución judicial de las 13:38 horas del 4 de agosto de 2015, se aprobó la liquidación de intereses formulada en el escrito inicial, de demanda. A las 14:28 horas de este mismo día 4 de agosto de 2015 se presentó al Juzgado el Oficio del Registro RIM-AJRI- 802 -2015, de fecha 24 de julio de 2015-, solicitando informe el estado actual del expediente, y las partes interesadas en dicho proceso judicial para proceder con las audiencias de ley en el trámite de la gestión administrativa. Ahora bien, frente a la solicitud de aprobación del remate, presentada desde el 27 de julio del 2015, por resolución del 10 de agosto del 2015, el Juzgado de Cobro de Heredia, dispuso: "Revisado el presente asunto, se denota que existe una advertencia administrativa (dentro del expediente 2015-1676-RIM, ver resolución de las 10:00 23-07-2015, ver también escrito del 04-08-15 ), razón por la cual se reserva el remate que interesa para ser conocido una vez que se resuelva en vía administrativa dicha advertencia....". El 2 de octubre del 2015 se recibió en el Juzgado la copia del expediente administrativo 2015-1676-RIM. Posteriormente, por resolución judicial del 22 de octubre del 2015, el Juzgado dispuso rechazar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto el actor- acreedor, Nombre32374 contra la susodicha resolución del 10 de agosto del 2015. Para lo cual consideró : "Observe dicha parte que el escrito presentado en fecha 04 de agosto del 2015, por el Registro Inmobiliario (Registro Nacional) es claro en indicar que actualmente se realiza una investigación en relación a la finca que interesa, tanto es así que indican que es posible que exista un error registral que no ha sido corregido por estar anotado el presente proceso, razón por la cual y tomando en cuenta lo delicado de la situación, es que se reserva el remate llevado a cabo en autos para ser conocido una vez que se resuelva el expediente administrativo No. 1676-2015-RIM.-". Simultáneamente rechazó el recurso de apelación presentado. Ahora bien, no se puede desconocer que por Oficio No. RIM-RE-306-2015 de fecha 16 de noviembre de 2015 dirigido al Juzgado - a pedido del actor acreedor Nombre32374 -, la Dirección del Registro le hizo observaciones respecto a los alcances y límites de la Advertencia Administrativa, de conformidad con la normativa, supracitada, en el sentido de que "... es una medida cautelar, preventiva y temporal, consignada únicamente para efectos de publicidad noticia, que no interrumpe el tráfico inmobiliario, es decir, no genera la inmovilización del bien, y por lo tanto no impide la inscripción de nuevos actos o contratos, y que se consigna mientras se concluye el estudio del asunto que se investiga. ...". En virtud de lo cual, entiende este Tribunal, fue que el actor Nombre32374 volvió a solicitar la aprobación del remate, con fecha 24 de noviembre de 2015. Sin embargo por resolución judicial de las 8:36 horas del 6 de enero de 2016, en lo de interés, se dispuso: "... Estése la parte actora a lo resuelto en el auto de las ocho horas y catorce minutos del veintidós de octubre de dos mil quince....". El 15 de enero de 2016 solicitó Adición y Aclaración, Sin embargo, por resolución judicial del 5 de abril de 2016, en lo de interés, se dispuso:"... Se rechaza la solicitud de adición y aclaración (...) toda vez que la misma solo procede cuando lo que se dicta sea una sentencia de fondo....." Ahora bien, no fue sino por resolución final, del procedimiento administrativo, de las 11:00 horas del 1 de marzo de 2016, que se dispuso, por parte del Registro: Mantener la Nota de Advertencia, y proceder a la inmovilización - por inconsistencia registral-, y su anotación- sobre el inmueble. La anotación se produjo con su presentación al Diario del Registro, a las 10:24 horas del 28 de marzo del 2016. Lo cual implica, por así considerarse en esa resolución, y conforme con el artículo 28 del Reglamento de Organización del Registro Inmobiliario, la remisión a la vía judicial para que en proceso aparte, se aclare el asunto o las partes interesadas o afectadas de la inexactitud, lo autoricen, por medio de documento idóneo debidamente presentado al Registro Inmobiliario, para su calificación e inscripción, se resuelva al respecto. No se puede poner en cuestión las potestades del registro de acudir al recurso de la Nota de Inmovilización en el caso en que debe hacerse notar a terceros que un asiento registral adolece de un defecto. Sea que en casos en que, tras el debido procedimiento administrativo advierte un error u omisión que acarree la eventual nulidad del asiento, procede ordenar dicha nota al margen del asiento, el que mientras no se cancele o se rectifique, no pude practicarse operación registral posterior alguna en el respectivo asiento. En la especie, la nota de inmovilización reúne los presupuestos de fondo que toda medida cautelar debe cumplir para ser tal. Es decir, existe un evidente interés actual ya que la nota procede al detectarse un error y omisión que acarree eventual nulidad del asiento y su cancelación. Deben además, como en el sub examine, existir elementos de juicio que preliminarmente evidencien la nulidad del asiento por ser de carácter grave, irreparable o de difícil reparación del daño que se pretende evitar. Es por ello que resulta razonable y proporcionado que la ley faculte al Registro para practicar la nota de inmovilización para salvar su responsabilidad en materia de daños y perjuicios a los terceros al amparo de la publicidad registral. Esto con la finalidad de que no se practique ninguna operación registral posterior en dicho inmueble hasta tanto no se cancele tal nota o se subsane, en su caso, la nulidad que lo afecta, en protección de terceros. No importa, se ha dicho, que con anterioridad se hayan presentado incluso documentos inscribibles ya que si se inscribiesen esos actos o contratos, sus derechos se consolidarían, lo que en definitiva es mucho más perjudicial que el esperar a la definición del juicio ordinario respectivo. De manera que en el caso presente lo que hizo el Registro fue cumplir con un mandato delegado por la ley, sin que le quepa responsabilidad, en si, por ello, al Registro; lo cual desecha el reproche de que no subsanara en sede administrativa la situación y en su lugar dictara la resolución del 1 de marzo del 2016 de inmovilización del inmueble - sin que - como se afirma erróneamente-, fuera ya de su propiedad-, y remitiera a la autoridad judicial para que sea esta quien decida. Es probable que dicha situación se convierta, en su caso, en un proceso judicial - engorroso durante años-, que seguirá afectando sus intereses, empero, si bien se mira, el cobro del daño material o económico no consiste en esto. Esa resolución final administrativa se incorporo al expediente judicial del proceso de cobro con fecha 12 de abril del 2016. No siendo sino con fundamento en la misma que el Juzgado de Cobro de Heredia dispuso - por resolución del 21 de octubre del 2016-, lo siguiente "...Al determinarse en dicho proceso administrativo la existencia de un derecho de usufructo el cual no fue inscrito en la propiedad que interesa rematar debido a un error registral, y resultando necesaria la notificación del usufructuario en los procesos en los cuales, se remate el inmueble sobre el que recae su derecho, y echandose de menos dicho acto procesal, por la situación antes apuntada, se imprueba el remate celebrado a las nueve horas cero minutos del veinte de julio del año dos mil quince.-". La cual se le notificó al acreedor- actor señor Nombre32374 el 31 de octubre del 2016, por medio de su abogado. Sin que conste ninguna gestión de impugnación. Como tampoco la suspensión del proceso de ejecución, expediente judicial No. 14-006163- 1158- CJ, toda vez que en la casilla electrónica del mismo se indica INACTIVO. Lo cual es distinto. Cuyas consecuencias se abordaran más adelante. Ahora bien, como vemos, entre el 10 de agosto del 2015 , y el 5 de abril de 2016, el Juzgado de Cobro rechazó las solicitudes de aprobación del remate del 20 de julio del 2015, y en su lugar mantuvo en reserva -suspendido-, su conocimiento, por la Advertencia Administrativa, hasta que fuera resuelta en sede administrativa, en el expediente No. 1676-2015-RIM. Sin que a la fecha del remate -como tampoco con posterioridad-, hubiera oposición, prejudicialidad, incidentes de nulidad o tercerías. Amén de la existencia de la normativa supra citada y el Oficio No. RIM-RE-306-2015 de 16 de noviembre de 2015 de que "... es una medida cautelar, preventiva y temporal, consignada únicamente para efectos de publicidad noticia, que no interrumpe el tráfico inmobiliario, es decir, no genera la inmovilización del bien, y por lo tanto no impide la inscripción de nuevos actos o contratos, y que se consigna mientras se concluye el estudio del asunto que se investiga. ..." En fin, sin que la sola Advertencia Administrativa -existente desde el 23 de julio del 2015 hasta, al menos, el 28 de marzo de 2016, en que se dispuso la inmovilización, impidiera - en ese interín, al menos-, la aprobación del remate y su eventual inscripción. COROLARIO: En razón de todo lo expuesto tenemos que, esta conducta omisiva del Juzgado también contribuyó finalmente - junto con la omisión de inscripción del usufructo, e inexactitud de la publicidad registral; junto con la inadvertencia por el Notario responsable de su inscripción, conjuntamente con la conducta omisiva de Nombre24934 -, a la no aprobación del remate del inmueble a favor del acreedor - aquí actor- señor Nombre32374 , hasta tanto no se resolviera la situación legal del mismo. Más una cosa es eso, vale decir, la ineficacia del privilegio hipotecario - en modo alguno objeto - en sí y por sí-, de la pretensión material económica, y otra, distinta, la extinción o desaparición de la deuda, acreencia la cual subsiste. Sin que se haya demostrado, fehacientemente, en este proceso ordinario, más allá de toda duda, la existencia del daño material, y consecuente responsabilidad del cobro - y pago-, a cargo del Estado y del Registro de los daños y perjuicios consistentes - según la pretensión de demanda-, en el Capital debido según el crédito, los Intereses generados por ese crédito, de las Costas de Proceso de Cobro Judicial y su indexación.(doctrina del artículo 317 del CPC). En efecto, en cuanto a la pretendida responsabilidad objetiva, de tales daños económicos, por actividad ilícita o anormal, la misma, repetimos, no es de recibo. Para la procedencia de indemnización por responsabilidad de la Administración Pública por sus actos ilícitos o su funcionamiento anormal, no basta con su actuación. Se precisa de la existencia de una relación de causalidad, entre el acto que se imputa a la administración y el daño producido, sin incidencia de causa extraña, como culpa de la víctima, fuerza mayor, o hecho de un tercero. Siendo necesario, en todo caso, se haya producido un daño, efectivo, evaluable económicamente, individualizado. (artículo 196 de la LGAP). Se precisa de la especialidad del daño, p. ej., por la intensidad excepcional de la lesión. Sea que comporte un sacrificio especial. Especial no en cuanto singular, sino en cuanto particularmente intenso y grave. Que exceda de las cargas comunes que pesan sobre la generalidad de los administrados e incida de modo especialmente intenso y grave en los bienes de determinados administrados. En el caso presente, como ya señalamos, la nota de advertencia e inmovilización - causantes de la improbación del remate-, son consecuencia final de varios sujetos y conductas singulares que concurrieron en su producción. Aparte, como señalamos, la invalidez o invalidez y eventual orden de cancelación del asiento de inscripción de la finca, a nombre de Nombre24934 , como dueña del dominio pleno, no ha sido declarada, ni ordenada, en proceso judicial ordinario. Menos, en consecuencia, la nulidad y cancelación de la inscripción de la hipoteca a favor del aquí actor, señor Nombre32374 . Sin que se tenga noticia de su interposición. Sin que tampoco se pueda - ni deba- resolver nada al respecto, dentro del presente proceso Civil de Hacienda. Pese a la nota de inmovilización, subsiste la eficacia del derecho de crédito. En este sentido, el acto jurídico documentado conserva la condición de título ejecutivo susceptible de perseguir otros bienes o derechos de la deudora, en el mismo proceso o por la vía del proceso monitorio. En efecto, no empece la nota de inmovilización, lo cual debilita la garantía real, la escritura de hipoteca conserva la condición de título ejecutivo susceptible de perseguir otros bienes o derechos de la deudora - entre ellos p.ej. la titularidad del derecho a la nuda propiedad, el cual tiene y mantiene, Nombre24934 , en el inmueble en virtud del documento de su adquisición. Aparte, el proceso de cobro judicial no está suspendido, sino inactivo, sin que el acreedor -aquí actor- señor Nombre32374 -, haya intentado - y agotado- la posibilidad de pedir el embargo y remate de otros bienes o derechos de la deudora, para la satisfacción de la deuda, entre ellos, el derecho de nuda propiedad que tiene y mantiene, en el inmueble en cuestión, dentro de ese proceso, o bien en proceso monitorio- En fin, sin que se acredite - a la fecha-, la existencia de una deuda incobrable. Resultando prematura, cualquier conclusión a su respecto. En virtud de lo cual existe duda sobre la ineficacia de su derecho de crédito; y, por ende, de la existencia de daño, efectivo, evaluable económicamente, individualizado, esto es, del daño material o económico consistente en la pérdida del Capital debido e Intereses del crédito, costas del proceso de cobro judicial.

VIII.- SOBRE LAS PRETENSIONES: A) DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS, ECONÓMICOS: Por todo lo dicho, de acuerdo con las consideraciones expuestas, a las cuales remitimos, se ha de rechazar, por improcedente, la pretensión de condena al pago de daños y perjuicios consistentes en el Capital debido e Intereses del crédito, costas del proceso de cobro judicial e indexación, habida cuenta de la no demostración de existencia del susodicho daño material, en el presente ordinario. B) DAÑO MORAL SUBJETIVO: Por todo lo dicho y de acuerdo con las consideraciones expuestas, se estima la existencia - in re ipsa-, de daño moral subjetivo. En efecto, como señala la parte actora, la grave omisión y falta al deber de cuidado del registrador en su momento, así como la negligencia del Registro a la hora de vigilar las actuaciones de sus funcionarios, fueron los detonantes que permitieron - concurrentemente con otros sujetos y conductas-, que se desencadenasen otra serie de hechos ya mencionados, y que a hoy son los causantes de la situación en que se encuentra, el actor. Siendo de presumir, entonces, razonablemente, que en estos años los sentimientos provocados por todas esas actuaciones han representado en el señor Nombre32374 un desgaste en su persona, un gran enojo, y un mar de emociones negativas, tales como decepción, frustración, rabia, impotencia, desesperación, angustia, y pérdida de confianza en las instituciones públicas. Sin embargo, se rechaza el pago de ¢20.000.000., suma en que la parte actora cuantifica el cobro del daño moral y en su lugar, se fija y concede, en la suma, equitativa, razonable y proporcionada, en razón de las circunstancias, de ¢5.000.000, en razón de la existencia, en este caso, de Concurrencia de Causas. Ergo, se ha de declarar parcialmente procedente la demanda, entendiéndose denegada en lo que no se concede, así: Se ha de condenar a la Junta Administrativa del Registro - y subsidiariamente al Estado-, al pago de ¢5.000.000, en favor del actor, por concepto de daño moral subjetivo. La responsabilidad subsidiariedad del Estado se justifica, con base en artículos 1 y 22 y Transitorio V, de la Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional pues, si bien el Registro Nacional, depende del Ministerio de Justicia, órgano estatal, es su Junta Administrativa quien responde, primeramente, del deber de indemnizar mediante su póliza y/o partida presupuestaria, destinada a tal efecto.”