Property Immobilization as Precautionary Measure for Irregular Registry ActionInmovilización de Finca como Medida Cautelar ante Actuación Registral Irregular

I.- The record shows that the Registry, on its own motion (de manera oficiosa), proceeded to investigate the official assigned to the Legal Entities Registry, Eduardo Seravalli Carpio, for an action classified as "irregular." Thus, upon verifying an audit of the registration and cancellation movements made in the property database during the year two thousand, an anomalous movement was detected in Alajuela property 354504, an immovable property for which, with a document dated June 6, 2000, under No. 425-10450, the property's area (medida) was modified from 2,952.61 square meters to 3,152.61 square meters. Said property was created by document 477-9021, where the area is indicated as 2,552.61 square meters, and it has a recorded mortgage document 480-15134. By expanding the report through official letter AT-34-2001 dated February 16, 2001, Lic. Róger Hidalgo Zúñiga, Head of the Technical Advisory Department, reports that according to the document presented to the Daily Record of this Registry under entry (asiento) 9021 of volume (tomo) 477, the consolidation (reunión) of properties Alajuela District (Partido de Alajuela) numbers 348511 and 348512 was carried out, and the rectification of the area of the resulting property was requested, as evidenced above, based on the cadastral survey (plano catastrado) A-596299-99, to which the following defects had been noted: "1. The nature, boundaries (linderos), and situation of the consolidation by reference are not appropriate. 2. Rectification of area is not appropriate; properties were created through possessory information (información posesoria)." In addition to the above, it is recorded that the authorizing notary had entered a notarial statement (razón notarial) dated June 1, 2000, which stated: "…, also, do not take note regarding the rectification of the area." This document was registered on June 5, 2000, creating property Alajuela District number 354504, without a cadastral survey number and locating the immovable property in district 2 Aguas Claras, Canton 13 Upala of the Province of Alajuela, the correct location being district 13 Peñas Blancas, canton 2 San Ramón of the same province. Thus, Eduardo Seravalli Carpio, using the document presented to the Daily Record under entry 10450 of volume 425, which relates to properties numbers 154064 and 86303B, registered on February 5, 1996, carries out the modification of the area, as seen above, and with the same movement includes cadastral survey number A-596299-99. On June 7, 2000, the official Seravalli, using the same document (Entry 10450, volume 425), proceeded to modify the situation of property Alajuela District 354504.

II.- As stated by the Registry itself, it does not have the powers to act in the ex officio manner that official Seravalli did (numeral 451 of the Civil Code, Código Civil), especially since a modification of the area of an immovable property or its situation is not appropriate without the support of a legitimate and registrable document granted by the registered owner (article 450 ibidem and article 33 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry No. 3883 of May 30, 1967, and its amendments). Therefore, everything that occurred in the instant case reflects a manifest illegality that violates the legal system, with an absolutely improper registration being verified that undermines legal certainty. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as has been reiterated on many occasions, the registry cannot annul anomalous registrations such as the one cited (Article 474 of the Civil Code).

III.- Since it is impossible to annul a registration entry, the basis for the appropriate action is found in article 86 of the Regulations of the Public Registry of Immovable Property, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 26771-J of February 18, 1998, titled (The Immobilization, La Inmovilización), referring to the manner of correcting REGISTRY errors (errores REGISTRALES) (material or of concept), and even more so substantial ones, this body of Improper Hierarchy adds; it determines that in the event of opposition or if any harm is caused, in the correction of that error, the Directorate or Subdirectorate, by resolution, will order placing a warning note (nota de advertencia) on the registration, which immobilizes it until the matter is clarified through judicial channels (vía judicial) or the parties authorize it. That warning and immobilization note was also developed in articles 66 and 105 of the preceding Regulations (Decretos Ejecutivos No. 9885-J of April 16, 1979, and No. 24322-J of May 12, 1995, currently repealed), whose purpose was also the halting (paralización) of the entry, pending a judicial resolution on the legitimacy of the registry registration, justified by the existence of an error or omission implying the nullity of the entry. It is clear, then, that in the specific case, there was indeed an anomalous procedure, which could be classified as a "registry error (error registral)" (since it was committed by an official of that Registry), in the registration process of the document in question, directly attributable to the registry body, which allows the imposition of such a precautionary measure (medida cautelar).

IV.- As our national jurisprudence has repeatedly stated, the warning and immobilization note is of a concrete nature and affects owners identified in the questioned registry entries. The legal purpose of this act is not to "limit" but to "take precaution (cautelar)" and it is of temporary duration. Such a precautionary measure is a technique to protect property, avoiding the Registry "publicity" of an entry that, due to its background, would eventually be declared null in the respective jurisdiction. Through the warning and immobilization act, the registry entry is temporarily withdrawn from commercial traffic as long as the warning note is not canceled or the pertinent rectification is made. The Sala Constitucional, through Voto No. 7190-94, established:

"…The ensuring or precautionary measures, according to the most qualified doctrine, arise in the process as a necessity to guarantee effective jurisdictional protection, and therefore they can be conceptualized as 'a set of procedural powers of the judge –be it jurisdictional or administrative justice– to decide before the final judgment, with the specific purpose of preserving the real conditions indispensable for the issuance and execution of the final act.'" In the same vein, through Voto No. 6663-95, the same Chamber established: "…The doctrine understands that instrumentality and provisionality are two fundamental characteristics of precautionary measures and that their main configurative elements require that they must be: a) lawful and legally possible; b) provisional, since they are extinguished with the issuance of the final act; c) grounded, that is, having real factual support in relation to the particular case; d) modifiable, in the sense that they are susceptible to being increased or decreased to adapt them to new needs; e) accessory, since they are justified within a main process; f) of a preventive nature, since their purpose is to avoid inconveniences to the interests and rights represented in the main process; g) of ensuring effects, aiming to maintain a state of fact or law during the development of the process, preventing situations that could harm the effectiveness of the judgment or final act; h) be homogeneous and not respond to characteristics of identity with respect to the substantive right protected, so that they are effective preventive measures and not anticipated acts of execution.

V.- The grievances of the sole opposing party are limited to reporting a process being conducted through the repressive channel (vía represiva) in which they claim to defend their rights due to an alleged illegitimate decrease in the area of their immovable property, and that such a precautionary measure ordered by the a quo violates their rights, casting doubt on the demonstrated irregular actions. The foregoing is absolutely unacceptable. In other words, it is interpreted that the appellant expected the administration to protect their particular interests regardless of the irregular actions evidenced in the present expediente, to the detriment of a valid and legitimate sequence of the chain of title (tracto sucesivo); that is, that the detected anomalies should have been overlooked for their benefit. It is reasonable and proportionate that the regulation empowers the registrar to make the warning and immobilization note in cases such as the instant case. Consequently, without further considerations, regarding what has been the subject of the appeal (alzada), the resolution heard on appeal must be confirmed so that the immobilization decreed by the A quo is maintained in order to not increase potential harm to third parties. As there is no further recourse, the administrative channel (vía administrativa) is deemed exhausted. (Article 6 of Law No. 7274 of December 10, 1991.)

It is clear then, that in the instant case there was an anomalous proceeding, which could be classified as a “registration error” (registral error) (given that it was committed by an official of that Registry), in the registration process of the document being challenged, directly attributable to the registration body, which allows the imposition of such a precautionary measure.

IV.- As our national jurisprudence has repeatedly stated, the warning and immobilization notice is of a specific nature and affects owners identified in the questioned registration entries. The legal purpose of this act is not to “limit” but to “precaution” and is of temporary duration. Such a precautionary measure is a technique to protect property, avoiding the Registry “publicity” of an entry that due to its antecedents would eventually be declared null in the respective jurisdiction. Through the act of warning and immobilization, the registration entry is temporarily removed from commercial traffic while the warning notice is not canceled or the pertinent rectification is made. The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), through Vote No. 7190-94, established:

“…Precautionary or protective measures, according to the most qualified doctrine, arise in the process as a necessity to guarantee effective jurisdictional protection and therefore can be conceptualized as ‘a set of procedural powers of the judge—whether jurisdictional or administrative justice—to resolve before the ruling, with the specific purpose of preserving the real conditions indispensable for the issuance and execution of the final act.’” In the same line of reasoning, through Vote No. 6663-95, the same Chamber established: “…The doctrine understands that instrumentality and provisionality are two fundamental characteristics of precautionary measures and that their main configurative elements require that they be: a) lawful and legally possible; b) provisional, since they are extinguished with the issuance of the final act; c) founded, that is, have real factual support in relation to the particular case; d) modifiable, in the sense that they are susceptible to being increased or decreased to adapt them to new needs; e) accessory, since they are justified within a main process; f) of preventive nature, since their purpose is to avoid inconveniences to the interests and rights represented in the main process; g) of securing effects, by intending to maintain a state of fact or law during the development of the process, preventing situations that may harm the effectiveness of the judgment or final act; h) be homogeneous and not respond to characteristics of identity with respect to the protected substantive right, so that they are effective preventive measures and not anticipated acts of execution.

V.- The grievances of the sole nonconforming party are limited to informing of a process being conducted in the repressive venue in which they claim to defend their rights for an alleged illegitimate reduction of the area of their property and that such precautionary measure ordered by the lower court (a quo) violates their rights and calls into question the demonstrated irregular actions. The foregoing is absolutely unacceptable. In other words, it is interpreted that the appellant expected from the administration protection regarding their private interests regardless of the irregular actions evidenced in the present file, to the detriment of a valid and legitimate sequence of the successive tract, that is, that the anomalies detected should be overlooked for their benefit. It is reasonable and proportionate that the norm empowers the registrar to execute the warning and immobilization notice in cases such as the one at hand. Consequently, without further considerations, regarding what has been the subject of appeal, it is necessary to uphold the resolution known in grade so that the immobilization decreed by the lower court (A quo) is maintained in order to not increase potential harm to third parties. Given that there is no further recourse, the administrative venue is deemed exhausted. (Article 6 of Law No. 7274 dated December 10, 1991.)

"I.- Consta en autos que el Registro de manera oficiosa, procedió a la investigación del funcionario destacado en el Registro de Personas Jurídicas, Eduardo Seravalli Carpio, por una actuación calificada de “irregular.” Es así como al verificar una fiscalización de los movimientos de inscripciones y cancelaciones practicadas en la base de datos de propiedad durante el año dos mil, se detectó un movimiento anómalo en la finca de Alajuela 354504, inmueble al cual con documento de fecha 6 de junio del año 2000, bajo el N° 425-10450 se le modifica la medida de la finca de 2952,61 metros cuadrados a 3.152,61 metros cuadrados. Dicha finca nació por el documento 477-9021 donde se indica como medida 2.552,61 metros cuadrados y posee anotado un documento de hipoteca 480-15134. Mediante ampliación del informe mediante oficio AT-34-2001 de fecha 16 de febrero del 2001, el Lic. Róger Hidalgo Zúñiga, Jefe del Departamento de Asesoría Técnica informa que según documento presentado al Diario de este Registro bajo el asiento 9021 del tomo 477, se procede a la reunión de las fincas Partido de Alajuela números 348511 y 348512 y se solicita la rectificación de la medida de la finca resultante, según se evidenció supra, con base en el plano catastrado A-596299-99 al cual se le habían consignado como defectos: “1. No procede la naturaleza, los linderos y la situación de la reunión por referencia. 2. No procede rectificación de medida, fincas nacieron por información posesoria.” Aunado a lo anterior, consta que el notario autorizante había consignado una razón notarial con fecha 1° de junio del 2000, que expresaba: “…, además que no tome nota en cuanto a la rectificación de la medida.” Este documento quedó inscrito el 5 de junio del 2000, formando la finca del Partido de Alajuela número 354504, sin número de plano catastrado y ubicando el inmueble en el distrito 2 Aguas Claras, Cantón 13 Upala de la Provincia de Alajuela, siendo lo correcto distrito 13 Peñas Blancas, cantón 2 San ramón de la misma provincia. Es así como Eduardo Seravalli Carpio utilizando el documento presentado al Diario bajo el asiento 10450 del tomo 425, que se relaciona con las fincas números 154064 y 86303B, inscrito el 5 de febrero de 1996, realiza la modificación de la medida, según se vio supra y con el mismo movimiento le incluye el plano catastrado número A-596299-99. El 7 de junio del 2000, el funcionario Seravalli, utilizando el mismo documento (Asiento 10450, tomo 425), procede a modificar la situación de la finca del Partido de Alajuela 354504. II.- Tal y como lo refiere el propio Registro, éste no posee facultades para actuar en la forma oficiosa en que lo hizo el funcionario Seravalli (numeral 451 del Código Civil), máxime que no procede una modificación de cabida de un inmueble ni su situación, sin el sustento de documento legítimo e inscribible, otorgado por el propietario registral (artículo 450 ibídem y artículo 33 de la Ley sobre Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público N° 3883 de fecha 30 de mayo de 1967 y sus reformas). De manera que todo lo acontecido en el caso de marras refleja una evidente ilegalidad que atenta contra el ordenamiento jurídico, verificándose una inscripción absolutamente improcedente y que atenta contra la seguridad jurídica. No obstante lo dicho, tal y como se ha reiterado en no pocas oportunidades, el registro no puede anular inscripciones anómalas como la de cita (Artículo 474 del Código Civil). III.- Como existe imposibilidad para anular un asiento de inscripción, el sustento de lo que procede lo encontramos en el artículo 86 del Reglamento del Registro Público de la Propiedad Inmueble, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 26771-J de 18 de febrero de 1998, titulado (La Inmovilización) refiriéndose al modo de subsanar los errores REGISTRALES (materiales o de concepto), y más aun los sustanciales, agrega éste órgano de Jerarquía Impropia; determina que en caso de oposición o de que se cause algún perjuicio, en la corrección de ese error, la Dirección o Subdirección, mediante resolución ordenará poner una nota de advertencia en la inscripción, que la inmoviliza hasta tanto no se aclare el asunto en vía judicial, o las partes no lo autoricen. Esa nota de Advertencia e inmovilización, fue también desarrollada en los artículos 66 y 105 de los Reglamentos precedentes (Decretos Ejecutivos Nº9885-J de 16 de abril de 1979 y Nº 24322-J de 12 de mayo de 1995, actualmente derogadas), cuyo propósito era también, la paralización del asiento, en espera de una resolución judicial sobre la legitimación de la inscripción registral, justificada por la existencia de un error u omisión que implicaba la nulidad del asiento. Es claro entonces, que en la especie si medió un proceder anómalo, que podría catalogarse como “error registral”( dado que fue cometido por un funcionario de ese Registro), en el trámite de inscripción del documento que se cuestiona, achacable directamente al órgano registral, lo que permite la imposición de tal medida cautelar. IV.- Tal y como lo ha referido nuestra jurisprudencia nacional en repetidas ocasiones, la nota de advertencia e inmovilización, es de carácter concreto y afecta a propietarios identificados en los asientos registrales cuestionados. La finalidad jurídica de este acto no es la de “limitar” sino “cautelar” y de duración temporal. Tal medida cautelar es una técnica para proteger la propiedad, evitando la “publicidad” Registral de un asiento que por sus antecedentes sería eventualmente declarado nulo en la jurisdicción respectiva. Por intermedio del acto de advertencia e inmovilización, el asiento registral se sustrae del tráfico comercial de forma temporal mientras no se cancele la nota de advertencia o se efectúe la rectificación pertinente. La Sala Constitucional mediante Voto N° 7190-94 estableció: “…La medidas asegurativas o cautelares, según la más calificada doctrina, surgen en el proceso como una necesidad que permita garantizar una tutela jurisdiccional efectiva y por ello se pueden conceptualizar como “ un conjunto de potestades procesales del juez –sea justicia jurisdiccional o administrativa – para resolver antes del fallo, con el específico fin de conservar las condiciones reales indispensables para la emisión y ejecución del acto final.” En el mismo orden de ideas, mediante el Voto N° 6663-95, la misma Sala estableció: “…La doctrina entiende que la instrumentalidad y la provisionalidad son dos características fundamentales de las medidas cautelares y que sus principales elementos configurativos, exigen que deban ser: a) lícitas y jurídicamente posibles; b) provisionales, puesto que se extinguen con el dictado del acto final; c) fundamentadas, es decir, tener sustento fáctico real con relación al caso particular; d) modificables, en el sentido que son susceptibles de aumentarse o disminuirse para adaptarlas a nuevas necesidades; e) accesorias, puesto que se justifican dentro de un proceso principal; f) de naturaleza preventiva, ya que tienen como objeto evitar inconvenientes a los intereses y derechos representados en el proceso principal; g) de efectos asegurativos, al pretender mantener un estado de hecho o de derecho durante el desarrollo del proceso, previniendo situaciones que puedan perjudicar la efectividad de la sentencia o acto final; h) ser homogéneas y no responder a características de identidad respecto del derecho sustantivo tutelado, con el fin de que sean medidas preventivas efectivas y no actos anticipados de ejecución. V.- Los agravios de la única parte inconforme, se limitan a informar de un proceso que se tramita en la vía represiva en el cual afirma que defiende sus derechos por una supuesta disminución ilegítima de la cabida de su inmueble y que tal medida cautelar ordenada por el a quo violenta sus derechos y poniendo en tela de duda las demostradas actuaciones irregulares. Lo anterior resulta absolutamente inaceptable. Dicho de otro modo, se interpreta que la apelante esperaba de la administración una protección respecto de sus intereses particulares sin importar las actuaciones irregulares que se evidencian en el presente expediente, en detrimento de una secuencia válida y legítima del tracto sucesivo, es decir, que se debían obviar en su beneficio las anomalías detectadas. resulta razonable y proporcionado que la norma faculte al registrador para practicar la nota de advertencia e inmovilización en casos como el de marras. En consecuencia, sin mayores consideraciones, en lo que ha sido motivo de alzada, se impone confirmar la resolución conocida en grado para que se mantenga la inmovilización decretada por el A quo en aras de no incrementar eventuales perjuicios a terceros. En razón de no existir ulterior recurso, se da por agotada la vía administrativa. (Artículo 6 de la Ley N 7274 de fecha 10 de diciembre de 1991.)"