Sanction for Notary for Segregation without Municipal Approval and Denial of DamagesSanción a notaria por segregación sin visado municipal y rechazo de resarcimiento

**III.** This Tribunal upholds the decision of the first-instance authority as it is in accordance with the law. On September 27, 1999, the respondent authorized deed number sixteen, through which [Nombre1] segregates a lot, measuring three hundred and thirty square meters, part of the property at [Dirección1], and sells it to his daughter [Nombre1]. That lot conformed entirely to the survey plan (plano) duly registered in the Cadastre (Catastro) under number CED1, which, on the date said segregation (segregación) was carried out, had not been approved (visado) by the Municipality for the purposes of the provisions of articles 33 and 34 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), as noted in the annotation made by the notary, without the Registry taking note. That annotation, coupled with the lack of a notarial attestation (dación de fe notarial) to the effect that the cadastral survey plan had been approved by the Municipality, cannot be assumed to have induced the Registrar into error when registering the document, given that this official, by virtue of his professional status and special knowledge of registry matters, when exercising the legality review (control de legalidad) over documents to be registered, as provided for in articles 4 of the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley sobre inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público) and article 49 subsection b) of the Public Registry Regulations (Reglamento del Registro Público), cannot be unaware of the difference between the approval of a survey plan by the Cadastre Office and the approval granted by the respective Municipality, and authorize the registration of a document under those conditions. Therefore, it is in no way possible to equate the expression “approved by the Cadastre Office” plus the aforementioned annotation as the causes of the error, because the term “approved” is not for exclusive use by the municipalities, a sole aspect on which this Tribunal disagrees with the appealed decision and on which the appellant is correct, but which does not have a substantial impact such as to modify the penalty imposed. What the professional is indeed responsible for, and for which she incurred a serious fault (falta grave) making her liable for the penalty imposed upon her, is having authorized a segregation and sale document for a lot, without first having the municipal approval prescribed in articles 33 and 34 of the Urban Planning Law, and having presented it to the Registry in these conditions. This is so because the purpose of that approval is for the Municipality to certify whether the lot complies with the urban planning regulations governing the matter and has basic services, which is why, if this pre-deed requirement had been observed from the outset, the functional duty of the notary imposed upon her the obligation to refrain from executing deed number sixteen for which her services had been requested, since the contract would ultimately prove ineffective, as indeed happened. Furthermore, although no restriction or limitation on ownership was publicized in the registry information, nor that the land was a Municipal Landfill (Relleno Municipal) or an Absolute Protection Zone (Zona de Protección Absoluta), the cadastral survey plan that motivated the segregation clearly indicates that along the north boundary, the segregated parcel (predio) was crossed from east to west by a buried culvert (alcantarilla enterrada) with a manhole (caja de registro), so the duty of counsel (deber de asesoría) of the authorizing professional obliged her to be even more cautious in requiring said approval beforehand, as common sense suggests that land under such conditions is hardly suitable for erecting any construction, since it would require deep foundations that would partially or totally destroy the culvert, thereby affecting the public interest. Nevertheless, as stated, her actions were not in that sense; rather, she executed the instrument and presented it to the Registry for recording, thereby allowing the registration to materialize based on an error of concept by the Registrar in charge of registering it, given that it lacked a requirement prescribed by law, namely, municipal approval, although it must be acknowledged that this registration was not the product of her direct action. Hence, the fault for which she is penalized is that one, as she failed to observe a functional duty prescribed to her by law, according to the provisions of articles 6 and 36 of the Notarial Code (Código Notarial), which obliges her to refrain from executing acts or contracts that may be ineffective, and not merely for a violation of the provision of article 7 subsection d), as the appealed judgment indicates. This Tribunal does not share the appellant's reproach that she bears no responsibility for the committed fault, in the sense that it is not her fault that the Registrar erred in registering the document she authorized and that the actions of third parties occurred, resulting in the harm claimed by the plaintiff. Certainly, she has no direct participation in that error or those actions. However, it must be said that said professional, in advance, had full knowledge that the aforementioned segregation lacked the respective municipal approval, both from the counsel she provided to the grantors in the pre-deed phase and from having drafted that document with the annotation that this requirement was lacking, which is why it is surprising that she was not troubled, by her condition as a notary public (fedataria) and person in charge of exercising a legality review of the documents she authorizes, that the Registry did not point out the defect regarding the approval from the outset, that she proceeded to correct the other defects that were pointed out to her, as well as that it was registered in the absence of that requirement, that she withdrew it from that Institution in that state, and delivered it to the purchaser [Nombre1], because even though the Registrar erred, she was in a position to prevent an abuse of right (abuso del derecho), as prescribed in article 22 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), by giving notice of that situation to avoid harm to third parties. Thus, the penalty imposed on said professional for having incurred a serious fault, by having authorized a lot segregation document that lacked the corresponding municipal approval when her duty required her to abstain, must be confirmed.

**IV.** Regarding the claim for compensation (pretensión resarcitoria), this Tribunal considers that the decision of the first-instance authority is also in accordance with the law, since there is no causal link (nexo causal) between the unlawful conduct (conducta antijurídica) with which the notary is reproached and the damages (daños y perjuicios) that the claimant claims to have suffered. The representatives of the complainant argue that all the harm suffered by their client stems from the fact that the respondent notary improperly authorized deed number sixteen, pertaining to the segregation and sale in favor of [Nombre1], without ensuring that the survey plan was approved by the Municipality, which constitutes a defect and serious omission on her part that is irremediable, as it is a prior and indispensable requirement. That if this deed is eliminated, everything else collapses as a consequence. Certainly, the respondent authorized the questioned document without first having obtained, as would have been correct, the respective municipal approval. Having proceeded in this manner is what, as stated before, makes her deserving of the disciplinary penalty imposed on her, but that fact alone does not make her responsible for the damages claimed by the complainant, since the respondent's action was limited to executing the deed, warning that it did not yet have municipal approval, and presenting it to the Registry as such. The act of registration was carried out by the registrar, who, as established in article 454 of the Civil Code, is ultimately responsible for that action, an administrative error that cannot in any way be reproached to the respondent, to the point that the Registry itself recognized the existence of the error and ordered that a warning and immobilization be noted in the margin of property number CED2 to alert third parties about the existence of an error in its registration entry. That the land had a nature different from that publicized by the cadastral survey plan and the Registry is a matter that also falls outside her sphere of responsibility, because to execute the instrument, the respondent relied on the publicity derived from the entries of that institution, so much so that no defect was indicated in the document regarding the free disposition of the asset and the Registry did not publicize any limitation that restricted the rights of transformation or alienation, in accordance with article 292 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, the notary Adolfo Ledezma, who later authorized the mortgage (hipoteca) in favor of the plaintiff, also relied on that information and necessarily had in sight the cadastral survey plan that reflected the existence of the culvert crossing the asset given as guarantee, and he did not object to it either, either for carrying out that act or in the subsequent transfer in favor of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff himself acknowledges that it was the action carried out by [Nombre1], who took advantage of this registration, granting the mortgage, since she relocated with her husband to the city of Cañas, where she obtained the sum of ten million colones from the complainant, guaranteed by the referenced property. In the same vein, the plaintiff acknowledges that the other acts by which his client is harmed were granted before the notary Adolfo Ledezma Vargas, independently. What is not correct, and where the complainant’s representatives are wrong in their grievances, is that the damages claimed by the plaintiff derive, as a causal link, from deed number sixteen, granted before the respondent, since they are completely autonomous acts in which other subjects intervene, namely [Nombre1] and her husband [Nombre2], as detailed by the plaintiff in his complaint, with another professional intervening in the granting of the acts. Regarding what is adduced as proof that the notary Ledezma carried out the prior registry studies, a consultation that was positive because the property was correctly registered, a fundamental aspect for the action planned by Mrs. [Nombre1] and her husband to materialize, it must be said that this in no way links the respondent's unlawful conduct with that topic, given that the sham registration was carried out by the Registry erroneously and, in any case, as previously stated, the survey plan indicates the existence of the culvert. Furthermore, what is proven in the record is that the plaintiff cancels the mortgage in favor of [Nombre1] secured by the referenced property, for having received the capital and respective interest from her, with no allusion to any other underlying transaction. Regarding the point that a registry error occurred in the processing of said deed, which was taken advantage of by [Nombre1], for whom the respondent notary authorized deed number sixteen, a document that should not have been authorized because the notary attested that it was approved by the Cadastre Office and even so, the notary made corrections for its registry registration knowing it had a defect (vicio) that rendered it ineffective, this fact alone also does not provide grounds for linking the conduct carried out by the notary with the harm and damage the complainant claims to have suffered. There is no doubt that there was a registry error that motivated the immobilization of the referenced property, but as the complainant equally acknowledges, it was [Nombre1] who, together with her husband, traveled to Cañas to request the loan from the complainant, and in this, as well as in the failed registration, there is no participation or direct responsibility of the notary. With respect to the fact that the mortgage of the asset, as well as the transfer, were carried out by Mrs. [Nombre1], what was stated earlier must be reiterated, in the sense that both acts were granted independently before another notary, where the respondent had no participation whatsoever, so the claim for the loan, plus interest at two point eight percent monthly and the default interest, starting from November 25, 1999, and totaling five million six hundred thousand colones, cannot be charged to her as damages. Likewise, documentarily, what is on record is the cancellation of the mortgage granted by the complainant in favor of Mrs. [Nombre1] for having received the due capital, and a subsequent transfer by way of donation (donación) of the property given as guarantee, without any dation in payment (dación en pago) having been proven. Nor can the sum of five hundred thousand colones be approved as damages claimed from the notary, due to the fact that the plaintiff paid the husband of Mrs. [Nombre3], as an advance on the sum that Mr. [Nombre4] committed to pay as a thirty percent commission, up to seven million colones, because this constitutes a private business decision between both parties, in the exercise of freedom of contract (autonomía de la voluntad), when entering into a business deal for the transfer of a property in which the notary's conduct has no direct or indirect relationship, just like the seven hundred thousand colones he paid to attorney Luis Gustavo Ocampo Rojas for legally representing him in the "fraud" he claims to have been a victim of, given that the potential procedural costs that a criminal proceeding may entail cannot be liquidated in this venue. Likewise, the amounts that the defendant claims to have paid for the numerous trips made from his community to San José to discuss this case do not qualify as damages, since, as stated, that causal relationship does not exist. Consequently, the decision of the first-instance authority to dismiss the claim for compensation against the respondent notary must be confirmed.

**III.** This Tribunal upholds the decision of the lower authority as being in accordance with the law. On September 27, 1999, the respondent authorized deed number sixteen, by which [Name1] segregates a lot, measuring three hundred thirty square meters, part of the property at [Address1], and sells it to his daughter [Name1]. That lot conformed entirely to the plan duly registered in the Catastro under number CED1, which, on the date said segregation was carried out, had not been approved (visado) by the Municipality for the purposes of the provisions of Articles 33 and 34 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), as noted in the annotation made by the notary, without the Registry taking note. That annotation, together with the absence of a notarial certification stating that the cadastral plan had been approved (visado) by the Municipality, cannot be considered as conducive to having misled the Registrar when registering the document, since this official, due to his professional status and specialized knowledge of registry matters, when exercising legality control over the documents to be registered, as provided in Article 4 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley sobre inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público) and Article 49, subsection b) of the Regulations of the Public Registry (Reglamento del Registro Público), cannot ignore the difference between the approval (visado) of a plan by the Catastro Office and the approval (visado) made by the respective Municipality, and authorize the registration of a document under those conditions. Thus, it cannot in any way be assumed that the expression "approved (visado) by the Catastro Office" plus the aforementioned note were the causes of the error, because the term "approved (visado)" is not for the exclusive use of municipalities, a sole aspect on which we disagree with the appealed ruling and on which the aggrieved party is correct, but which does not substantially affect it enough to modify the sanction imposed. What said professional is responsible for, and for which she incurred a serious fault making her subject to the sanction imposed, is having authorized a document for the segregation and sale of a lot, without first having the municipal approval (visado municipal) prescribed in Articles 33 and 34 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) and having presented it to the Registry under these conditions. This is so because this approval (visado) is intended for the Municipality to certify whether the lot complies with the urban planning regulations governing the matter and provides basic services, a reason for which, had this pre-deed requirement been observed from the outset, the notary's functional duty would have required her to refrain from granting deed sixteen for which her services had been requested, since the contract would ultimately prove ineffective, as indeed happened. Furthermore, although the registry information did not publicize any restriction or limitation on ownership, or that the land was a Municipal Landfill or an Absolute Protection Zone, the cadastral plan that prompted the segregation clearly indicates that on the northern boundary, the segregated property was crossed from east to west by a buried culvert with a manhole. Therefore, the duty of advisory of the authorizing professional obliged her to be even more cautious in demanding said approval (visado) beforehand, since common sense suggests that land under those conditions is hardly suitable for erecting any construction, as it requires deep foundations that would partially or totally destroy the culvert, thereby affecting the public interest. However, as stated, her actions were not in that sense; instead, she granted the instrument and presented it to the Registry for its annotation, fostering the situation where, based on a conceptual error by the Registrar in charge of registering it, the registration was materialized, lacking a requirement prescribed by law, namely, the municipal approval (visado municipal), although it must be recognized that this registration was not a product of her direct action. Hence, the fault for which she is sanctioned is that, as she failed to observe a functional duty prescribed by law, according to the provisions of Articles 6 and 36 of the Notarial Code (Código Notarial), which oblige her to refrain from granting acts or contracts that may be ineffective, and not only for an infraction of the provision in Article 7, subsection d), as the appealed judgment states. This Tribunal does not share the grievance made by the aggrieved party that she has no responsibility whatsoever for the fault committed, in the sense that it is not her fault that the Registrar erred in registering the document she authorized, or that third-party actions occurred which led to the harm claimed by the plaintiff. Certainly, she has no direct participation in that error or in those actions. However, it must be said that said professional, in advance, had full knowledge that the aforementioned segregation lacked the respective municipal approval (visado municipal), both from the advice she provided to the grantors in the pre-deed phase and from having drafted that document with the note stating that this requirement was missing. For this reason, it is surprising that she was not perplexed, given her status as a notary and person responsible for exercising legality control over the documents she authorizes, that the Registry did not initially point out the defect concerning the approval (visado), that she proceeded to correct the other defects they identified, as well as that it was registered despite lacking that requirement, that she withdrew it from that Institution in that state, and delivered it to the acquirer [Name1]. For even if the Registrar erred, she was in a position to prevent an abuse of rights, as prescribed in Article 22 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), by reporting that situation to prevent harm to third parties. Therefore, the sanction imposed on said professional for having incurred a serious fault, by having authorized a lot segregation document that lacked the corresponding municipal approval (visado municipal) when her duty required her to abstain, must be upheld.

**IV.** Regarding the claim for damages, this Tribunal finds that the lower authority's decision is also in accordance with the law, as there is no causal link between the unlawful conduct attributed to the notary and the damages and losses the claimant claims to have suffered. The representatives of the complainant argue that all the harm suffered by their client stems from the fact that the respondent notary improperly authorized deed number sixteen, concerning the segregation and sale in favor of [Name1], without the plan being approved (visado) by the Municipality, which constitutes a defect and serious omission on her part, which is irremediable, as it is a prerequisite and indispensable requirement. That if this deed is eliminated, everything else collapses as a consequence. Certainly, the respondent authorized the questioned document without having previously obtained, as would have been correct, the respective municipal approval (visado municipal). Having proceeded in this way is what, as stated before, makes her subject to the disciplinary sanction imposed, but that fact, by itself, does not make her responsible for the damages and losses claimed by the complainant, since the respondent's action was limited to granting the deed, noting that the municipal approval (visado municipal) was not yet available, and presenting it as such to the Registry. The registration act was carried out by the registrar, who, as established in Article 454 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), is ultimately responsible for that action, an administrative error that cannot be attributed in any way to the respondent, to the point that the Registry itself acknowledged the existence of the error and ordered a warning and immobilization placed on the margin of property number CED2 to warn third parties of the existence of an error in its registration entry. That the land had a nature different from that publicized by the cadastral plan and the Registry is a matter that also falls outside her sphere of responsibility, since, to grant the instrument, the respondent relied on the publicity derived from the entries of that institution. This is so much so that no defect was noted in the document regarding the free disposition of the asset, and the Registry did not publicize any limitation restricting the rights of transformation or alienation, pursuant to Article 292 of the Civil Code (Código Civil). On the other hand, the notary Adolfo Ledezma, who later authorized the mortgage in favor of the plaintiff, also relied on that information and necessarily had before him the cadastral plan reflecting the existence of the culvert that crossed the asset given as collateral, and he also did not object to it, neither for carrying out that act nor for the subsequent transfer in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff himself acknowledges that it was the action deployed by [Name1], who took advantage of this registration by granting the mortgage, since she moved with her spouse to the city of Cañas, where she obtained from the complainant the sum of ten million colones, with the guarantee of the referenced property. In the same vein, the plaintiff acknowledges that the other acts through which his client is harmed were granted before the notary Adolfo Ledezma Vargas, independently. What is not correct, and where the plaintiff's representatives lack reason in their grievances, is that the damages claimed by the plaintiff derive, as a causal link, from deed number sixteen, granted before the respondent, since they are totally autonomous acts involving other subjects, namely [Name1] and her spouse [Name2], as detailed by the plaintiff in his complaint brief, with another professional intervening in the granting of the acts. Regarding what is adduced as proof that the notary Ledezma carried out the prior registry studies, a consultation that proved positive since the property was correctly registered, a fundamental aspect for the action planned by Mrs. [Name1] and her spouse to materialize, it must be said that this in no way connects the unlawful conduct of the respondent to that topic, given that the false registration was made by the Registry erroneously, and, in any case, as previously stated, the plan indicates the existence of the culvert. Moreover, what the records prove is that the plaintiff cancels the mortgage in favor of [Name1] guaranteed by the referenced property, for having received the principal and respective interest from her, with no mention made of any other underlying transaction. Regarding the point that a registry error occurred in the processing of said deed, which was taken advantage of by [Name1], for whom the respondent notary authorized deed number sixteen, a document that should not have been authorized because the notary attested that it was approved (visado) by the Catastro Office, and even so, the notary made corrections for its registry registration, knowing it had a defect that rendered it ineffective, this fact by itself also does not give grounds to link the conduct deployed by the notary with the damage and loss the complainant claims to have suffered. There is no doubt that a registry error existed that motivated the immobilization of the referenced property, but as the complainant equally acknowledges, it was [Name1] who, together with her spouse, traveled to Cañas to request the loan from the complainant, and in this, as well as in the failed registration, there is no direct participation or responsibility of the notary. With respect to the fact that the mortgage of the asset, as well as the transfer, were carried out by Mrs. [Name1], what was stated above must be reiterated, in the sense that both acts were granted independently before another notary, where the respondent had no participation whatsoever. Therefore, the claim for the loan, plus interest at two point eight percent monthly and default interest, starting from November 25, 1999, and totaling five million six hundred thousand colones, cannot be collected from her as damages. Likewise, documentarily, what is recorded is the cancellation of the mortgage that the plaintiff granted in favor of Mrs. [Name1] for having received the principal due, and a subsequent transfer by way of donation of the property given as collateral, without any dation in payment having been proven. Also, the sum of five hundred thousand colones cannot be approved as damages claimed from the notary, based on the fact that the plaintiff paid the spouse of Mrs. [Name3], as an advance on the sum that Mr. [Name4] committed to pay, a thirty percent commission, up to seven million colones, since this constitutes a private business decision between both parties, in exercise of the autonomy of will, when concluding a property transfer deal in which the notary's conduct has no direct or indirect relationship. The same applies to the seven hundred thousand colones he delivered to Lic. Luis Gustavo Ocampo Rojas for legally sponsoring him in the "fraud" of which he claims to have been a victim, given that any eventual procedural costs arising from a criminal case are not liquidable in this venue. Likewise, the sums the defendant claims to have paid for the numerous trips made from his community to San José to discuss this case do not qualify as damages, since, as stated, that causal relationship does not exist. Consequently, the decision of the lower authority dismissing the claim for damages against the respondent notary must be upheld."

"III. Este Tribunal avala lo resuelto por la autoridad de primera instancia por encontrarse ajustado a derecho. El día 27 de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, la denunciada autorizó la escritura número dieciséis, por medio de la cual [Nombre1] segrega un lote, constante de trescientos treinta metros cuadrados, parte de la finca de [Dirección1] y lo vende a su hija [Nombre1] . Ese lote, se ajustaba en un todo al plano debidamente inscrito en el Catastro bajo el número CED1, el que para la fecha en que se realizó dicha segregación, no se encontraba visado por la Municipalidad para los efectos de lo dispuesto en los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, según se advierte de la nota consignada por la notaria, sin que tomara nota el Registro. Esa nota, aunado a la carencia de una dación de fe notarial en el sentido de que el plano catastrado se encontraba visado por la Municipalidad no pueden asumirse como propiciatorios de que se haya inducido en error al Registrador a la hora de inscribir el documento, toda vez que este funcionario por su condición profesional y especial conocimiento que tiene de la materia registral, al ejercer el control de legalidad sobre los documentos que se van a inscribir, según lo disponen los artículos 4 de la Ley sobre inscripción de documentos en el Registro Público y artículo 49 inciso b) del Reglamento del Registro Público, no puede desconocer la diferencia entre el visado de un plano por la Oficina de Catastro y el visado hecho por la Municipalidad respectiva y autorizar la inscripción de un documento en esas condiciones. Es así por lo que de ningún modo cabe asimilar que la expresión “visado por la Oficina de Catastro” más la nota aludida fueron las causantes del yerro, porque el término “visado” no es de exclusiva utilización por parte de las municipalidades, aspecto único del cual se discrepa del fallo recurrido y en lo que lleva razón la agraviada, pero que no incide sustancialmente como para modificar la sanción impuesta. De lo que si es responsable dicha profesional y por ello incurrió en falta grave que la hace susceptible de la sanción que se le impuso, es por haber autorizado un documento de segregación y venta de un lote, sin contar previamente con el visado municipal prescrito en los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana y de haberlo presentado en estas condiciones al Registro. Ello es así, porque ese visado lo que busca es que la Municipalidad certifique si el lote cumple con las normas urbanísticas que rigen la materia y disponga de los servicios básicos, razón por la cual, si este requisito preescriturario se hubiera observado desde un inicio, el quehacer funcional de la notaria le imponía abstenerse de otorgar la escritura dieciséis para la cual se habían rogado sus servicios, pues el contrato a la postre iba a resultar ineficaz, como así sucedió. Además, si bien en la información registral no se publicitaba ninguna restricción o limitación del dominio, o que el terreno fuera un Relleno Municipal o se tratare de una Zona de Protección Absoluta, el plano catastrado que motiva la segregación si indica con claridad que por el rumbo norte, el predio segregado era atravesado de este a oeste por una alcantarilla enterrada con una caja de registro, por lo que el deber de asesoría de la profesional autorizante la obligaba a ser aún más cautelosa con la exigencia de dicho visado en forma previa, pues el sentido común sugiere que un terreno en esas condiciones difícilmente es apto para levantar cualquier construcción, ya que requiere de bases profundas que destruirían parcial o totalmente la alcantarilla, afectando con ello el interés público. Sin embargo, como se dijo, su actuación no fue en ese sentido sino que otorgó el instrumento y lo presentó al Registro para su anotación, propiciando que con base en un error de concepto por parte del Registrador encargado de inscribirlo, la inscripción se materializara, careciendo de un requisito prescrito por la ley a saber, el visado municipal, aunque ha de reconocerse que esa inscripción no fue producto de su acción directa. De ahí que la falta por la cual se le sanciona es esa, ya que inobservó un deber funcional que le prescribe la ley, según lo dispuesto en los artículos 6 y 36 del Código Notarial, que la obliga a abstenerse de otorgar actos o contratos que puedan ser ineficaces y no solo por infracción a lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 inciso d), como señala la sentencia apelada. No comparte este Tribunal, el reproche que hace la agraviada de que no tiene responsabilidad alguna sobre la falta cometida, en el sentido de que no es su culpa que el Registrador se equivocara al inscribir el documento que ella autorizo y se dieran las acciones de terceros que desembocaran en el perjuicio que reclama el demandante. Ciertamente de ese error como de esas acciones no tiene participación directa. Sin embargo, debe decirse que dicha profesional, en forma anticipada, tenía conocimiento pleno de que la segregación supradicha no contaba con el respectivo visado municipal tanto por el asesoramiento que dispensó a los otorgantes en la fase preescrituraria como por haber redactado ese documento con la nota de que se carecía de ese requisito, motivo por el cual sorprende que no se extrañara, por su condición de fedataria y encargada de ejercer un control de legalidad de los documentos que ella autoriza, de que el Registro no le señalara el defecto referente al visado desde un inicio, procediera a corregir los otros defectos que le apuntaron, así como de que se le haya inscrito prescindiendo de ese requisito, lo haya retirado de esa Institución en ese estado y lo entregara a la adquirente [Nombre1] , pues aunque el Registrador se haya equivocado, estaba en posición de evitar que se diera un abuso del derecho, conforme lo prescrito en el artículo 22 del Código Civil, dando cuenta de esa situación para evitar daños a terceros. Así las cosas, ha de confirmarse la sanción que se le impone a dicha profesional por haber incurrido en una falta grave, al haber autorizado un documento de segregación de lote que carecía del visado municipal correspondiente, cuando su deber le imponía abstenerse. IV. En cuanto a la pretensión resarcitoria, estima este Tribunal que lo resuelto por la autoridad de instancia también se encuentra a derecho, pues no existe un nexo causal entre la conducta antijurídica que se le reprocha a la notaria y los daños y perjuicios que dice haber sufrido el reclamante. Aducen los apoderados del quejoso, que todo el perjuicio sufrido por su poderdante, parte del hecho que la notaria denunciada autorizó indebidamente la escritura número dieciséis, referida a la segregación y venta a favor de [Nombre1] , sin contar que el plano se encontrara visado por la Municipalidad, lo que constituye un defecto y omisión grave de su parte, que es insubsanable, ya que es un requisito previo e indispensable. Que si se elimina esta escritura, todo lo demás se desploma por añadidura. Ciertamente la denunciada autorizó el documento cuestionado sin haber obtenido previamente, como era lo correcto, el respectivo visado municipal. El haber así procedido es lo que, como se dijo antes, la hace acreedora a la sanción disciplinaria que se le impuso, pero ese hecho, por si solo, no la hace responsable de los daños y perjuicios que reclama el quejoso, por cuanto la acción de la denunciada se limitó a otorgar la escritura, advertir que no se contaba aún con el visado municipal y presentarla así al Registro. El acto de inscripción fue realizado por el registrador, quien conforme lo establece el artículo 454 del Código Civil es el responsable final por esa actuación, error administrativo que no puede reprochársele en forma alguna a la denunciada, al punto que el mismo Registro reconoció la existencia del error y dispuso consignar advertencia e inmovilización al margen del inmueble número CED2 para prevenir a terceros de la existencia de un error en el asiento de inscripción de éste. Que el terreno tuviera una naturaleza distinta a la que publicitaba el plano catastrado y el Registro, es un asunto que también escapa a su esfera de responsabilidad, pues para otorgar el instrumento, la denunciada se basó en la publicidad derivada de los asientos de dicha institución, tanto es así que al documento no se le señaló ningún defecto respecto a la libre disposición del bien y el Registro no publicitó ninguna limitación, que restringiera los derechos de transformación o enajenación, conforme al artículo 292 del Código Civil. Por otro lado, el notario Adolfo Ledezma que, después autorizó la hipoteca a favor de la parte demandante también se basó en dicha información y necesariamente tuvo a la vista el plano catastrado que reflejaba la existencia de la alcantarilla que atravesaba el bien dado en garantía y tampoco la objetó, ni para realizar ese acto ni en el posterior traspaso a favor del demandante. Además, la misma parte demandante reconoce que fue la acción desplegada por [Nombre1] , quien se aprovecha de esta inscripción, otorgando la hipoteca, pues se trasladó junto con su esposo a la ciudad de Cañas, donde obtiene del denunciante la suma de diez millones de colones, con garantía de la finca referida. En igual sentido reconoce la parte demandante que los demás actos por los cuales se perjudica a su poderdante son otorgados ante el notario Adolfo Ledezma Vargas, en forma independiente. Lo que si no es correcto y no llevan razón en su agravios los apoderados del denunciante es que los daños que reclama el demandante, derivan, como nexo causal, de la escritura número dieciséis, otorgada ante la denunciada, ya que son actos totalmente autónomos en los que intervienen otros sujetos, cuáles son [Nombre1] y su esposo [Nombre2] , según lo detalla el demandante en su escrito de denuncia, interviniendo otro profesional en el otorgamiento de los actos. En lo que se aduce como prueba de que el notario Ledezma, realizó los estudios registrales previos, consulta que resultó positiva, pues la finca se encontraba inscrita correctamente, aspecto fundamental para que se pudiera materializar la acción planeada por la señora [Nombre1] y su esposo, debe decirse que eso en modo alguno relaciona la conducta antijurídica de la denunciada con ese tópico, toda vez que la inscripción fementida fue realizada por el Registro en forma errónea y, de todas formas, como antes se dijo, el plano indica la existencia de la alcantarilla. Además, en autos lo que se acredita es que el demandante cancela la hipoteca a favor de [Nombre1] garantizado con la finca referida, por haber recibido de ésta el capital y los respectivos intereses, no haciéndose alusión a ningún otro negocio causal. En lo que se refiere al punto de que en el trámite de dicha escritura se presentó un error registral, de lo que se aprovechó [Nombre1] , a quien la notaria denunciada, le autorizó la escritura número dieciséis, documento que no se debió autorizar porque la notaria dio fe de que estaba visado por la Oficina del Catastro y aún así, la notaria le hizo correcciones para su inscripción registral a sabiendas que tenía un vicio que la tornaba ineficaz, este hecho por si solo, tampoco da pie para relacionar la conducta desplegada por la notaria con el daño y perjuicio que dice haber sufrido el denunciante. No hay duda de que existió un error registral que motivó la inmovilización del inmueble referido, pero como igualmente reconoce el denunciante, fue [Nombre1] , quien junto con su esposo se desplazó hasta Cañas a solicitar el préstamo al denunciante, y en esto, así como en la inscripción fallida, no existe participación ni responsabilidad directa de la notaria. Con respecto de que la hipoteca del bien, así como el traspaso fueron realizados por la señora [Nombre1] , debe reiterarse lo dicho líneas atrás en el sentido de que ambos actos fueron otorgados en forma independiente ante otro notario, donde no tuvo participación alguna la denunciada, por lo que el reclamo del préstamo, más los intereses al dos punto ocho por ciento mensual y los moratorios, a partir del veinticinco de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, y que ascienden a cinco millones seiscientos mil colones no pueden ser cobrados a ella a título de daños y perjuicios. Asimismo, documentalmente, lo que consta es la cancelación de la hipoteca que otorgó el denunciante a favor de doña [Nombre1] por haber recibido el capital debido y un posterior traspaso a título de donación del inmueble dado en garantía, sin que se haya acreditado dación en pago alguna. Tampoco se puede aprobar la suma de quinientos mil colones como daños y perjuicios que se reclaman a la notaria, debido a que el demandante canceló al esposo de la señora [Nombre3], como adelanto de la suma que se obligó el señor [Nombre4] a pagar treinta por ciento en comisión, hasta por siete millones de colones, pues ello constituye una decisión negocial privada entre ambas partes, en ejercicio de la autonomía de la voluntad, a la hora de celebrar un negocio de traspaso de una propiedad en la que no tiene relación directa ni indirecta la conducta de la notaria, al igual que los setecientos mil colones que entregó al licenciado Luis Gustavo Ocampo Rojas por patrocinarlo legalmente en la “estafa” que dice haber sido objeto, toda vez que las eventuales costas procesales que conlleve el trámite de una causa penal no son liquidables en esta vía. Asimismo, no califican como daños las sumas que dice el demandado haber sufragado por los numerosos viajes hechos desde su comunidad hasta San José, para conversar sobre esta causa, ya que como se expresó, no existe esa relación causal. En consecuencia, ha de confirmarse lo que resolvió la autoridad de primera instancia al declarar sin lugar el reclamo resarcitorio en contra de la notaria demandada."