Registration of a child with two mothers and same-sex marriage prohibitionInscripción de menor con dos madres y prohibición del matrimonio igualitario

REGARDING THE PARTIAL INADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM DUE TO THE EXPIRY OF THE ACTION. [...]

It is now worth delving further, regarding acts of instantaneous effect and their differentiation from acts of continuing effect, that the Cassation Tribunal of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters, in its rulings number 1533-F1-2012 of 09:00 hours on November 20, 2012, and number 000011-A-S1-2014 of 08:35 hours on February 13, 2014, has indicated, in what is of interest: "(...) Formal activity of instantaneous effects has been defined as that where the legal results must emanate directly from the act itself; therefore, they generate a kind of legal consequences within a temporally brief limit, modifying or extinguishing the substantial sphere of the administered party upon its communication or notification, not generating results through a channel of time. Meanwhile, the continuing effects of the act persist repeatedly in a temporal interval in a prolonged manner. / Contrary to what occurs in those acts of instantaneous effect in which their incidence or effect is exhausted in a single moment, precisely in that which varies, positively or negatively, the set of rights, powers, obligations, duties, and burdens of persons (...)". [...]

REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. The plaintiff party states that the identity previously granted in a foreign country to their children, through their surnames and a family relationship previously legally recognized, based on their marital union, was not respected. In this regard, it must be indicated to the plaintiffs that their claim lacks legal basis. Firstly, it is not that the identity granted to one of their children abroad within the scope of a previously existing family relationship—which is not disputed in this proceeding—was disrespected in this matter, but rather that in this instance, there is an internal legal system, precisely the Costa Rican legal system, which is applicable within the territory of this country and by national public authorities, a system that is of general scope and that therefore cannot be disapplied for a specific case—as the plaintiff party seems to intend be done—in application of the constitutional principles of equality and legality, enshrined in numerals 33 and 11 of the Constitución Política costarricense. The plaintiffs must remember that public officials—including the servants of the Civil Registry (Registro Civil)—are "mere depositaries of the law and cannot arrogate to themselves powers that the law does not grant them" (art. 11 of the Constitución Política), and furthermore, that "The Public Administration shall act subject to the legal system and may only perform those acts or provide those public services that said system authorizes (...)" (article 11 of Law No. 6227), the foregoing coupled with the fact that "The Administration shall be subject, in general, to all written and unwritten norms of the administrative system and to the private law supplementary to it, without being able to derogate them or disapply them for specific cases." (art. 13 of Law No. 6227). To that extent, at the time of resolving the petition for registration of the minor [Name 004], the officials of the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) had to proceed to apply the legal regulations in force in our country, it being in any case irrelevant for the purposes of Costa Rica, whether in Spain or in [...], marriage between persons of the same sex is or is not permitted and whether or not this constitutes a legally recognized family in other latitudes, or whether a minor was registered in either of those two countries with two mothers or two fathers, or three or four. What does matter for the purposes of this dispute, is what the response provided by the current national legal system is to a situation such as the one raised in the case file. It must be very clear from the outset that this Tribunal is not a tribunal of conscience or morality; likewise, it also does not resolve based on personal convictions or the subjective criteria of any person; this is a Tribunal of legality, of juridicity, subject to the legality and constitutionality that the undersigned Judges swear to defend and respect (art. 154 of the Constitución Política). Therefore, what is resolved by this collegiate Chamber is the legal solution that the Costa Rican legal system provides for the specific case, at a defined historical moment—the current one, the now—and applying the regulations currently in force, to the problem that the litigants present for assessment before this judicial body. Now, this Tribunal will proceed next to assess whether the response given to the plaintiff party was appropriate, in accordance with Costa Rican law, or whether, on the contrary, it contains some defect that merits being the subject of a declaration of nullity, just as the plaintiff party requests.

Having said the above, it must be explained that in our environment, the ordinary legislator in Law No. 3504 of 1965, ordered the creation of the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) as the competent administrative body belonging to the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, for everything concerning the processing and registrations of the different civil legal acts, such as births, marriages, deaths, and divorces, among others. Specifically, numeral 48 of the cited normative body states, in its literal wording: "Every birth that occurs in Costa Rican territory must be registered in the Civil Department; the birth occurring abroad of a child of a Costa Rican father or mother shall also be registered, if the interested party so requests." As is clearly deduced and without the need for major effort from the transcribed norm, the legal competence to generally register any birth was attributed and reserved by the ordinary Costa Rican legislator to the Civil Registry (Registro Civil), prior to the completion of the corresponding administrative procedure. Furthermore, in article 69 of the cited legal text—Law No. 3504—, the legal competence was attributed to the General Registrar (Registrador General), for the purposes of the qualifications of the documents subject to assessment for the respective registration, providing to that effect: "The General Registrar (Registrador General) may suspend the registration or marginal annotation of the documents presented to him, when in his judgment they do not meet the necessary requirements and formalities and shall notify the interested parties thereof through the official newspaper. If the interested party does not agree with the suspension, they may at any time request in writing on the corresponding sealed paper, and stating the reasons on which they rely, the revocation of the order or the formal denial of the registration. The Registrar shall resolve as he deems appropriate. If he agrees to the revocation, he shall order the entry to be made; otherwise, he shall refer the case file to the Tribunal, after notification to the parties who had indicated an address for that purpose." As we can see, prior to the registration in Costa Rica of the birth of the minor [Name 004], an administrative procedure had to be followed in the Civil Registry (Registro Civil), where the competent authorities could verify the fulfillment of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary to satisfy the registration request. When carrying out this analysis, for the registry registration request of the birth of the aforementioned minor, in direct application of the so-called right of ius sanguinis, the official of the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) must have undoubtedly detected that [Name 004] was registered with two maternal surnames in the city of [...], Spain, as this is recorded in the documentation contributed to the case file by the plaintiff party, the same having been issued by the competent Spanish entity, as recorded in the list of proven facts that supports this resolution. And it is that [Name 004] had two surnames in Spain, but with the particularity that these two surnames corresponded to his two mothers registered as such in Spain, because the minor appears there as the child of a marriage, specifically that formed by Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002]. Said marital union between persons of the same sex is a legal situation that is indeed permitted in that European nation, but not in the Costa Rican legal system. Therefore, the first surname that appeared in the Spanish documentation provided, for [Name 004], was [Name 001] and his second surname was [Name 002]. This particular situation, considered by itself, configured a dialectic in relation to what is indicated by numeral 52 of Law No. 63 of 1888, the Civil Code (Código Civil) in force in our national legal system, which in its literal wording states: "Article 52.- When the child has been born outside of marriage, they shall be given the surnames of the mother. If she has only one, it shall be repeated for the child. / (Thus amended by Law No. 5476 of December 21, 1973, article 2. By Law No. 7020 of January 6, 1986, article 2, its number was moved from 34 to the current one.)" From article 52 reviewed, it is clear that, as a matter of principle, [Name 004] was born in Spain within the scope of a marital relationship that was, in principle, pre-existing between Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002], at least in Spain, but not in Costa Rica. However, a particular situation arises in relation to the previous conclusion, and it is the fact that in Spain, Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002] are wives, spouses to each other, in accordance with current Spanish regulations. But it remained to be elucidated whether this marital relationship retained the same marital character when subjected to the filter of Costa Rican legal regulations, the foregoing in order to determine whether the factual premise provided for by numeral 52 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) cited above was met in this instance and, in application of the principle of legality, to proceed to register [Name 004] before the Costa Rican Civil Registry (Registro Civil), with the two surnames of those who appeared as his parents in Spain, married to each other. Regarding marriage, Law No. 5476, the Family Code (Código de Familia) in force at the time the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) rejected the request of the plaintiffs herein, indicated in its articles 11 and 14, in what is of interest: "Article 11.- Marriage is the essential basis of the family and has as its object life in common, cooperation, and mutual help." and "Article 14.- It is legally impossible to marry: / (...) 6) Between persons of the same sex. (...)" That is to say, at the time the procedure filed by Mrs. [Name 001] was denied before the Civil Registry (Registro Civil), marriage between persons of the same sex was legally impossible in our national legal system, because the legal prohibition contained in article 14, subsection 6) of the Family Code (Código de Familia) in force was in effect, it being therefore impossible at that historical moment to register said legal union in Costa Rica, and it was even less viable to proceed to register a person as the child of a homoparental marriage, as Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002] requested in this instance, especially if one takes into consideration the provisions of article 52 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) reviewed above. To that extent, considering that the present dispute was entered into while said legal impossibility in the Family Code (Código de Familia) in force was in effect, the truth is that this Tribunal considers that the actions carried out by the Civil Registry (Registro Civil) at that historical moment were in accordance with the law, in accordance with the principle of legality that governs in administrative and registry matters, under the protection of what is indicated by numeral 11 of Law No. 6227 and 11 of the Constitución Política in force. To the above is added, moreover, as a corollary and as an aspect of core importance and mandatory observance for this Chamber, that numeral 14, subsection 6) of the Family Code (Código de Familia) in force, is still in force and continues to produce legal effects at the time of the issuance of this judgment, in our national legal system, since ruling No. 2018-12782 issued by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) on August 8, 2018, expressly states in its operative part, in what is of interest: "(...) Consequently, the validity of subsection 6 of numeral 14 of the Family Code is maintained for up to the cited term of 18 months.", a term which as of today has not yet elapsed, for which reason this Tribunal cannot ignore or disapply for the specific case the legal norms indicated in the preceding lines, nor set aside the current existence of that legal impediment, which still today does not permit marriage between persons of the same sex in our country, much less recognize today, at the registry level and as regards the establishment of parental filiation (filiación parental), the existence of children derived from this type of homoparental marital unions not yet permitted in our country, under the protection of what is indicated by article 52 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) referred to above and of the provisions of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its pronouncement—the same being binding erga omnes by command of numeral 13 of Law No. 7135—, as the plaintiffs erroneously intend with this proceeding. Therefore, it is appropriate to declare this part of the action filed without merit, as it is what is legally corresponding under the protection of the legal norms in force at the time the challenged administrative acts occurred and at the time of the issuance of this resolution. Likewise, since this Tribunal does not perceive that the challenged administrative acts are affected by any nullity defects, in accordance with the legal norms in force at the time of their issuance and at the time of the issuance of this judgment, the annulment claims filed by the plaintiffs are therefore rejected in all their parts.

As we can see, prior to the registration in Costa Rica of the birth of the minor [Name 004], an administrative procedure had to be followed before the Civil Registry (Registro Civil), where the competent authorities could have verified compliance with the necessary legal and regulatory requirements to satisfy the registration requirement. At the time of carrying out said analysis for the request for official registration of the birth of the aforementioned minor, in direct application of the so-called right of *ius sanguinis*, the official of the Civil Registry must undoubtedly have detected that [Name 004] was registered with two maternal surnames in the city of [...], Spain, as this is recorded in the documentation provided to the court records by the plaintiff party, the same documentation that was issued by the competent Spanish entity, as stated in the list of proven facts supporting this resolution. Indeed, [Name 004] had two surnames in Spain, but with the particularity that these two surnames corresponded to her two mothers registered as such in Spain, since the minor appears there as the child of a marriage, specifically that formed by Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002]. Said marital union between persons of the same sex is a legal situation that is permitted in that European nation, but not in the Costa Rican legal system. For this reason, the first surname that appeared in the Spanish documentation provided for [Name 004] was [Name 001], and her second surname was [Name 002]. This particular situation, considered in and of itself, created a contradiction in relation to what is indicated by section 52 of Law No. 63 of 1888, the Civil Code in force in our national legal system, which literally states: **<em><u>"Article 52.- When the child has been born out of wedlock, the mother's surnames shall be given. If she has only one, it shall be repeated for the child. / (As amended by Law No. 5476 of December 21, 1973, Article 2. By Law No. 7020 of January 6, 1986, Article 2, its number was moved from 34 to the current one)."</u></em></strong> Based on the aforementioned Article 52, it is clear that, in principle, [Name 004] was born in Spain within the sphere of a marital relationship that, in principle, pre-existed between Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002], at least in Spain, but not in Costa Rica. However, a particular situation arises in relation to the previous conclusion, and that is the fact that in Spain, Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002] are wives, spouses of each other, in accordance with the current Spanish regulations. But what remained to be elucidated was whether that marital relationship maintained the same marital character when subjected to the scrutiny of Costa Rican legal regulations, in order to determine whether the factual circumstances provided for in section 52 of the Civil Code cited above were met in this specific case and, in application of the principle of legality, to proceed to register [Name 004] before the Costa Rican Civil Registry, with the two surnames of those who appeared as her parents in Spain, married to each other. Regarding marriage, Law No. 5476, the Family Code in force at the time the Civil Registry rejected the request of the plaintiffs herein, stated in its Articles 11 and 14, in what is of interest: *"Article 11.- Marriage is the essential basis of the family and its purpose is common life, cooperation, and mutual aid."* and *"Article 14.- Marriage is legally impossible: / (...) 6) Between persons of the same sex. (...)"*. That is, at the time the request filed by Mrs. [Name 001] before the Civil Registry was denied, in our national legal system, marriage between persons of the same sex was legally impossible, because the legal prohibition contained in Article 14, subsection 6) of the Family Code in force was in effect, it therefore being impossible at that historical moment to register said legal union in Costa Rica and much less viable to proceed to register a person as the child of a same-sex parental marriage, as Mrs. [Name 001] and Mrs. [Name 002] requested in this specific case, especially considering the provisions of Article 52 of the Civil Code previously outlined. In that sense, taking into consideration that the present dispute was initiated while said legal impossibility was in force in the current Family Code, the truth is that this Court considers that the actions taken by the Civil Registry at that historical moment were in accordance with the law, pursuant to the principle of legality that governs in administrative and registry matters, under the protection of what is indicated by section 11 of Law No. 6227 and Article 11 of the current Political Constitution. To the foregoing, it is also added, as a corollary and as an aspect of fundamental importance and mandatory observance for this Chamber, that section 14, subsection 6) of the current Family Code is still in force and continues to produce legal effects at the time of issuing this judgment, in our national legal system, given that in ruling No. 2018-12782 issued by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 8, 2018, it expressly states in its operative part, in what is of interest: *"(...) Consequently, the validity of subsection 6 of section 14 of the Family Code is maintained until the cited period of 18 months."*, a period which, as of today, has not yet elapsed. For this reason, this Court cannot ignore or disapply for the specific case the legal norms indicated in the preceding lines, nor set aside the current existence of said legal impediment, which does not yet permit in our country marriage between persons of the same sex, much less permit recognition today, at the registry level and regarding the establishment of a parental affiliation (filiación), the existence of children derived from these types of same-sex marital unions still not permitted in our country, under the protection of what is indicated by Article 52 of the Civil Code referred to above and by what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber in its pronouncement - the same being binding *erga omnes* by the mandate of section 13 of Law No. 7135 -, as the plaintiffs erroneously seek with this process. Therefore, the proper course of action is to declare this part of the action filed without merit, as this is what is legally appropriate under the protection of the legal norms in force at the time the challenged administrative acts took place and at the time of issuing this resolution. Likewise, since this Court does not perceive that the challenged administrative acts are affected by any nullity defects, in accordance with the legal norms in force at the time of their issuance and at the time of issuing this judgment, the annulment claims brought by the plaintiffs are, therefore, rejected in their entirety." In that regard, when resolving the petition for registration of the minor </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, the Civil Registry officials were required to apply the legal regulations in force in our country, it being in any case irrelevant for the purposes of Costa Rica, whether in Spain or in </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[...]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, marriage between persons of the same sex is or is not permitted and whether that constitutes or not a legally recognized family in other latitudes, or whether a minor was registered in either of those two countries with two mothers or two fathers, or three or four. What does matter for the purposes of this dispute, is what the response provided by the current domestic legal system is, to a situation such as that raised in the case file. It must be clearly understood from the outset that this Court is not a court of conscience or morality; likewise, it does not rule based on personal convictions or the subjective criteria of any person; this is a Court of legality, of juridicity, subject to the legality and constitutionality that the undersigned Judges swore to defend and respect (Art. 154 of the Political Constitution). Therefore, what is decided by this collegiate Chamber is the legal solution that the Costa Rican legal system provides for the specific case, at a defined historical moment—the present, the now—and applying the regulations currently in force, to the problem that the litigants present for assessment before this judicial body. That said, this Court will now proceed to assess whether the response given to the claimant party was appropriate, in accordance with Costa Rican law, or whether, on the contrary, it contains any defect that warrants being subject to a declaration of nullity, as requested by the claimant party.</span></span></p> <p><span class="example1 252128" style="font-family: Arial;" data-mce-style="font-family: Arial;" face="Arial" idextracto="252128"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-decoration: Normal;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-weight: Normal; font-style: Normal; font-decoration: Normal;">Having said the above, it must be explained that in our environment, the ordinary legislator in Law No. 3504 of 1965, ordered the creation of the Civil Registry as the competent administrative body belonging to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, for everything concerning the procedures and registrations of the different civil legal acts, such as births, marriages, deaths, and divorces, among others. Specifically, Article 48 of the cited normative body states, literally: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>"Every birth that occurs in Costa Rican territory must be registered in the Civil Department; the birth occurring abroad of a child of a Costa Rican father or mother shall also be registered, if so requested by the interested party"</em></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">. As is clearly and effortlessly deduced from the transcribed regulation, the legal competence to register any birth in general was attributed and reserved by the ordinary Costa Rican legislator to the Civil Registry, prior to the completion of the corresponding administrative procedure. Furthermore, in Article 69 of the cited legal text—Law No. 3504—legal competence was attributed to the General Registrar for the purposes of qualifying documents subject to assessment for the respective registration, stipulating to that effect: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>"The General Registrar may suspend the registration or marginal annotation of the documents presented to him, when in his judgment they do not meet the necessary requirements and formalities and shall notify the interested parties via the official gazette. If the interested party does not conform to the suspension, he may at any time request in writing on the corresponding stamped paper, and setting forth the reasons on which he relies, the revocation of the order or the formal denial of registration. The Registrar shall resolve what he deems appropriate. If he accedes to the revocation, he shall order the entry to be made; otherwise, he shall forward the file to the Court, after prior notification to the parties who have indicated an address for that purpose." </em></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">As we can see, prior to the registration in Costa Rica of the birth of the minor </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, an administrative procedure had to be followed at the Civil Registry, where the competent authorities could deem accredited the satisfaction of the legal and regulatory requirements necessary to meet the registration request. At the time of carrying out said analysis for the registry inscription request of the referred minor's birth, in direct application of the so-called right of ius sanguinis, the Civil Registry official must undoubtedly have detected that </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> was registered with two maternal surnames in the city of </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[...]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, Spain, as evidenced by the documentation provided to the case file by the claimant party, which was issued by the competent Spanish entity, as recorded in the list of proven facts supporting this ruling. For indeed, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> had two surnames in Spain, but with the particularity that these two surnames corresponded to his two mothers registered as such in Spain, as the minor appears there as the child of a marriage, specifically the one formed by Mrs. [Name 001]</span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> and</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> Mrs.</span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 002]. Said marital union between persons of the same sex is a legal situation which is permitted in that European nation, but not in the Costa Rican legal system. Consequently, the first surname appearing in the Spanish documentation provided for </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> was </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 001]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> and his second surname was </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 002]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">. That particular situation, considered in and of itself, configured a dialectic in relation to what was indicated by Article 52 of Law No. 63 of 1888, the Civil Code in force in our domestic legal system, which literally states: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong><em><u>"Article 52.- When the child has been born out of wedlock, the mother's surnames shall be given to the child. If she has only one, it shall be repeated for the child. / (Thus reformed by Law No. 5476 of December 21, 1973, Article 2. By Law No. 7020 of January 6, 1986, Article 2, its number was moved from 34 to the current one)."</u></em></strong></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> From the aforementioned Article 52, it is clear that, as a matter of principle, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> was born in Spain within the scope of a marital relationship pre-existing in principle between Mrs. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 001]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> and Mrs. </span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 002]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, at least in Spain, but not in Costa Rica. However, a particular situation arises regarding the above conclusion, and it is the fact that in Spain, Mrs. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 001]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> and Mrs. </span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 002]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> are wives, spouses of each other, in accordance with current Spanish regulations. But it remained to be elucidated whether that marital relationship maintained the same marital character when subjected to the scrutiny of Costa Rican legal regulations, in order to determine whether, in the present case, the factual scenario provided for by Article 52 of the Civil Code cited above was met and, in application of the principle of legality, to proceed to register </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 004]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> before the Costa Rican Civil Registry, with the two surnames of those who appeared as his parents in Spain, married to each other. Regarding marriage, Law No. 5476, Family Code in force at the time the Civil Registry rejected the request of the claimants herein, stated in its articles 11 and 14, in what is of interest:</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"><em> "Article 11.- Marriage is the essential basis of the family and has as its object life in common, cooperation, and mutual aid." and "Article 14.- It is legally impossible for marriage to be contracted: / (...) 6) Between persons of the same sex. (...)"</em></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">. That is to say, at the time the petition filed by Mrs. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 001] before the Civil Registry</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> was denied, in our domestic legal system, marriage between persons of the same sex was legally impossible, as the legal prohibition contained in Article 14, subsection 6) of the Family Code in force was applicable, making it therefore impossible at that historical moment to register said legal union in Costa Rica, and it was even less viable to proceed to register a person as the child of a same-sex-parent marriage, as Mrs. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 001]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> and Mrs. </span> <span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">[Name 002]</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"> specifically requested, especially considering the provisions of Article 52 of the Civil Code mentioned above. In that regard, taking into consideration that the present dispute was initiated while said legal impossibility was in force in the applicable Family Code, the truth is that this Court considers that the actions carried out by the Civil Registry at that historical moment were in accordance with the law, in keeping with the principle of legality that governs in administrative and registry matters, under the protection of what is indicated by Article 11 of Law No. 6227 and Article 11 of the Political Constitution in force. Added to the above, moreover, as a corollary and as an aspect of core importance and mandatory observance for this Chamber, is that Article 14, subsection 6) of the Family Code in force, is still in force and continues to produce legal effects at the time of the issuance of this judgment, in our domestic legal system, since in Voto No. 2018-12782 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 08, 2018, it expressly states in its operative part, in what is of interest: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;"><em>"(...) Consequently, the validity of subsection 6 of Article 14 of the Family Code is maintained up to the cited term of 18 months."</em></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-size: 12pt;">, a term which to date has not yet expired, which is why this Court cannot ignore or disapply for the specific case the legal rules indicated in the preceding lines, nor disregard the current existence of said legal impediment, which still today in our country does not permit marriage between persons of the same sex, much less recognize today, at the registry level and as it pertains to the establishment of parentage, the existence of children derived from these types of same-sex-parent marital unions still not permitted in our country, under the protection of what is provided by Article 52 of the Civil Code mentioned above and of what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber in its pronouncement—which is binding erga omnes by virtue of Article 13 of Law No. 7135—, as the claimants erroneously seek with this process. Therefore, it is appropriate to declare this part of the action filed without merit, as this is what is legally corresponding under the protection of the legal regulations in force at the time the challenged administrative acts occurred and at the time of the issuance of this ruling. Likewise, as this Court does not perceive that the challenged administrative acts are affected by any defects of nullity, in accordance with the legal regulations in force at the time of their issuance and at the time of the issuance of this judgment, the nullifying claims attempted by the claimants are therefore rejected in all their aspects."</span></span></p>

"SOBRE LA INADMISIBILIDAD PARCIAL DE LA DEMANDA POR CADUCIDAD DE LA ACCIÓN. [...]

Valga ahora ahondar diciendo, sobre los actos de efecto instantáneo y su diferenciación con los actos de efecto continuado, que el Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda en sus votos número 1533-F1-2012 de las 09:00 horas del 20 de noviembre del 2012 y número 000011-A-S1-2014 de las 08:35 horas del 13 de febrero del 2014, ha señalado, en lo que resulta de interés: "(...) Se ha definido la actividad formal de efectos instantáneos, como aquella donde los resultados jurídicos han de emanar directamente del acto mismo, por ello, generan una suerte de consecuencias jurídicas en un límite temporalmente breve; modificando o extinguiendo la esfera sustancial del administrado a partir de su comunicación o notificación; no generando resultados a través de un cauce de tiempo. Mientras, los efectos continuados del acto, persisten reiteradamente en un intervalo temporal de forma prolongada. / Contrario a lo que ocurre en aquellos actos de efecto instantáneo en los que su incidencia o efecto se agota en un solo momento, precisamente en el que varía, en forma positiva o negativa, el conjunto de derechos, potestades, obligaciones, deberes, y cargas de las personas (...)". [...]

SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO. Señala la parte actora, que no se respetó la identidad previamente otorgada en un país extranjero a sus hijos, a través de sus apellidos y de una relación familiar previamente reconocida legalmente, a partir de su unión matrimonial. Al respecto, debe indicarse a las accionantes que su reclamo carece de asidero jurídico. En primer término, no se trata de que en este asunto se haya irrespetado la identidad otorgada a uno de sus hijos en el extranjero dentro del ámbito de una relación familiar previamente existente -lo que no se discute en este proceso-, sino que en la especie, existe un ordenamiento jurídico interno, precisamente el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, mismo que resulta aplicable en el territorio de este país y por parte de las autoridades públicas nacionales, ordenamiento que resulta ser de alcance general y que por ende, no puede desaplicarse para un caso concreto -como parece pretender la parte actora que se haga-, en aplicación de los principios de igualdad y legalidad constitucionales, consagrados en los numerales 33 y 11 de la Constitución Política costarricense. Deben recordar las accionantes que los funcionarios públicos -incluidos los servidores del Registro Civil-, son "meros depositarios de la ley y no pueden arrogarse atribuciones que la ley no les concede" (art. 11 de la Constitución Política), y además, que "La Administración Pública actuará sometida al ordenamiento jurídico y sólo podrá realizar aquellos actos o prestar aquellos servicios públicos que autorice dicho ordenamiento (...)" (artículo 11 ley No. 6227), lo anterior aunado al hecho de que " La Administración estará sujeta, en general, a todas las normas escritas y no escritas del ordenamiento administrativo y al derecho privado supletorio del mismo, sin poder derogarlos ni desaplicarlos para casos concretos." (art. 13 de la ley No. 6227). En ese tanto, al momento de resolver la petición de inscripción del menor [Nombre 004] , los funcionarios del Registro Civil debían proceder a aplicar la normativa jurídica vigente en nuestro país, resultando en todo caso intrascedente para los efectos de Costa Rica, si en España o en [...], es o no permitido el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo y si eso constituye o no una familia legalmente reconocida en otras latitudes, o si un menor fue inscrito en alguno de esos dos países con dos madres o dos padres, o tres o cuatro. Lo que sí importa para los efectos de esta litis, es, cuál resulta ser la respuesta que brinda el ordenamiento jurídico patrio vigente, a una situación como la planteada en autos. Debe tenerse muy claro desde el inicio, que este Tribunal no es un tribunal de conciencia ni de moral, así mismo, tampoco resuelve con base en las convicciones personales o l os criterios subjetivos de ninguna persona; este es un Tribunal de legalidad, de juridicidad, sujeto a la legalidad y a la constitucionalidad que los suscritos Jueces juramos defender y respetar (art. 154 de la Constitución Política). Por ende, lo que se resuelve por parte de esta Cámara colegiada, es la solución jurídica que da el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense para el caso concreto, en un momento histórico definido -el actual, el ahora- y aplicando la normativa actualmente vigente, a la problemática que los justiciables presentan para valoración ante este órgano judicial. Ahora bien, de seguido procederá este Tribunal a valorar si la respuesta dada a la parte accionante, era la procedente, conforme al derecho costarricense, o si por el contrario, contiene algún vicio que amerite ser objeto de una declaratoria de nulidad, tal y como lo requiere la parte actora.

Dicho lo anterior, ha de explicarse que en nuestro medio, el legislador ordinario en la ley No 3504 de 1965, dispuso la creación del Registro Civil como el órgano administrativo competente y perteneciente al Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, para todo lo concerniente a la tramitología e inscripciones de los diferentes actos jurídicos civiles, tales como los nacimientos, matrimonios, defunciones y divorcios, entre otros. Concretamente, señala el numeral 48 del citado cuerpo normativo, en su literalidad: "Todo nacimiento que ocurra en el territorio costarricense debe inscribirse en el Departamento Civil; también se inscribirá el nacimiento ocurrido en el extranjero del hijo de padre o madre costarricense, si así lo solicita la parte interesada". Como se deduce claramente y sin necesidad de mayor esfuerzo de la norma transcrita, la competencia legal para inscribir de manera general cualquier nacimiento fue atribuida y reservada por el legislador ordinario costarricense al Registro Civil, previo cumplimiento del trámite administrativo correspondiente. Además, en el artículo 69 del texto legal citado -ley N° 3504-, se atribuyó la competencia legal al Registrador General, para los efectos de las calificaciones de los documentos sujetos a valoración para la inscripción respectiva, disponiéndose al efecto: "El Registrador General podrá suspender la inscripción o anotación marginal de los documentos que se le presenten, cuando a su juicio no reúnan los requisitos y formalidades necesarios y lo avisará por el periódico oficial a los interesados. Si el interesado no se conformare con la suspensión, podrá en cualquier tiempo solicitar por escrito en papel sellado correspondiente, y exponiendo los motivos en que se apoye, la revocatoria de la orden o la denegación formal de la inscripción. El Registrador resolverá lo que estime conveniente. Si accede a la revocatoria, mandará practicar el asiento; en caso contrario, remitirá el expediente al Tribunal, previa notificación a las partes que hubieren indicado casa con ese objeto". Como vemos, de previo a la inscripción en Costa Rica del nacimiento del menor [Nombre 004], debió seguirse un trámite administrativo en el Registro Civil, donde las autoridades competentes pudieran tener por acreditado, el cumplimiento de los requisitos legales y reglamentarios necesarios para satisfacer el requerimiento de inscripción. Al momento de realizar dicho análisis, para la solicitud de inscripción registral del nacimiento del menor referido, en aplicación directa del denominado derecho del ius sanguinis, el funcionario del Registro Civil debe sin duda haber detectado, que [Nombre 004] se encontraba registrado con dos apellidos maternos en la ciudad de [...], España, pues así consta en la documentación aportada a los autos por la parte actora, misma que fuera emitida por la entidad española competente, según consta en el elenco de hechos probados que sustenta esta resolución. Y es que [Nombre 004] contaba en España con dos apellidos, pero con la particularidad de que estos dos apellidos correspondían a sus dos madres inscritas como tales en España, pues el menor aparece allá como hijo de un matrimonio, puntualmente del conformado por doña [Nombre 001] y doña [Nombre 002]. Dicha unión matrimonial entre personas del mismo sexo, resulta ser una situación jurídica que sí es permitida en aquella nación europea , más no en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense. Por ello, el primer apellido que figuraba en la documentación española aportada, para [Nombre 004], era [Nombre 001] y su segundo apellido era [Nombre 002]. Esa situación particular, por sí misma considerada, configuraba una dialéctica en relación con lo indicado por el numeral 52 de la ley No. 63 de 1888, Código Civil vigente en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico patrio, el cual en su literalidad señala: "Artículo 52.- Cuando el hijo haya nacido fuera de matrimonio se le pondrán los apellidos de la madre. Si ésta tuviere uno sólo, se repetirá para el hijo. / (Así reformado por Ley No. 5476 de 21 de diciembre de 1973, artículo 2º. Por Ley Nº 7020 de 6 de enero de 1986, artículo 2º, su número fue corrido del 34 al actual)." A partir del artículo 52 reseñado, resulta claro que, en tesis de principio, [Nombre 004] nació en España en el ámbito de una relación matrimonial en principio preexistente entre las señoras [Nombre 001] y [Nombre 002], al menos en España, mas no en Costa Rica. Sin embargo, surge una situación particular en relación con la conclusión anterior, y es el hecho de que en España las señoras [Nombre 001] y [Nombre 002] son esposas, cónyuges entre sí, de conformidad con la normativa española vigente. Pero restaba dilucidar si esa relación matrimonial, mantenía el mismo carácter marital al someterse al tamiz de la normativa jurídica costarricense, lo anterior para determinar si se cumplía en la especie con el supuesto de hecho previsto por el numeral 52 del Código Civil antes citado y en aplicación del principio de legalidad, proceder a inscribir a [Nombre 004] ante el Registro Civil costarricense, con los dos apellidos de quienes figuraban como sus progenitoras en España, casadas entre sí. Con respecto al matrimonio, señalaba la ley No. 5476 Código de Familia vigente al momento en que el Registro Civil rechazó la solicitud de las aquí accionantes, en sus artículos 11 y 14, en lo que resulta de interés: "Artículo 11.- El matrimonio es la base esencial de la familia y tiene por objeto la vida en común, la cooperación y el mutuo auxilio." y "Artículo 14.- Es legalmente imposible el matrimonio: / (...) 6) Entre personas del mismo sexo. (...)". Es decir, al momento en que se denegó la gestión planteada por la señora [Nombre 001] ante el Registro Civil, en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico patrio resultaba imposible legalmente el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, pues se encontraba vigente la prohibición legal contenida en el artículo 14 inciso 6) del Código de Familia vigente, siendo por ello imposible en aqué l momento histórico, el inscribir dicha unión jurídica en Costa Rica y mucho menos resultaba viable proceder a inscribir a una persona como hijo de un matrimonio homoparental, como lo solicitaron en la especie la señora [Nombre 001] y la señora [Nombre 002], máxime si se toma en consideración lo preceptuado por el artículo 52 del Código Civil antes reseñado. En ese tanto, teniendo en consideración que la presente litis se trabó encontrándose vigente dicha imposibilidad legal en el Código de Familia vigente, es lo cierto que estima este Tribunal, que las actuaciones desplegadas por el Registro Civil en aquél momento histórico se encontraban apegadas a derecho, de conformidad con el principio de legalidad que rige en materia administrativa y registral, al amparo de lo indicado por el numeral 11 de la ley No. 6227 y 11 de la Constitución Política vigente. A lo anterior se añade además, a manera de corolario y como un aspecto de medular importancia y obligatoria observancia para esta Cámara, que el numeral 14 inciso 6) del Código de Familia vigente, se encuentra aún vigente y sigue surtiendo efectos jurídicos al momento del dictado de esta sentencia, en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico patrio, toda vez que en el voto No.2018-12782 emitido por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia el día 08 de agosto del 2018, señala expresamente en su parte dispositiva, en lo que resulta de interés: "(...) En consecuencia, se mantiene la vigencia del inciso 6 del numeral 14 del Código de Familia hasta por el citado plazo de 18 meses.", plazo el cual al día de hoy aún no se ha cumplido, razón por la cual no puede este Tribunal, obviar ni desaplicar para el caso concreto las normas jurídicas indicadas en las líneas que anteceden, ni dejar de lado la existencia actual de dicho impedimento legal, que no permite aún hoy en nuestro país, el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo, ni mucho menos reconocer hoy en día, a nivel registral y en lo que atañe al establecimiento de una filiación parental, la existencia de hijos derivados de este tipo de uniones maritales homoparentales aún no permitidas en nuestro país, al amparo de lo señalado por el artículo 52 del Código Civil antes referido y de lo dispuesto por la Sala Constitucional en su pronunciamiento -mismo que resulta vinculante erga omnes por imperio del numeral 13 de la ley No. 7135-, como erradamente lo pretenden con este proceso las accionantes. Por ello, es lo procedente declarar sin lugar este extremo de la acción intentada, por ser lo jurídicamente correspondiente al amparo de la normativa legal vigente al momento en que acontecieron los actos administrativos impugnados y al momento del dictado de esta resolución. Así mismo, al no percibir este Tribunal que actos administrativos los impugnados se encuentren afectos por vicios de nulidad alguna, de conformidad con la normativa legal vigente al momento de su emisión y al momento del dictado de esta sentencia, se rechaza por ende en todos sus extremos, las pretensiones anulatorias intentadas por las accionantes."