Nature of expropriation settlement as a purchase contractNaturaleza del avenimiento expropiatorio como contrato de compraventa

XXX.- Expropriation is carried out through a general procedure; however, the legislator has gradually conceived specific procedures, depending on the interests pursued, which can be divided into two phases: a) the administrative phase, of settlement (avenimiento), friendly agreement (acuerdo amigable), friendly cession (cesión amistosa) or extrajudicial phase, and b) the judicial phase. A triangle will be present, composed of the expropriatory power of the State, the right to equitable economic compensation in favor of the dispossessed owner, and the judicial guarantee of executing the expropriation in accordance with the legal system. The administrative phase was devised by the legislator in conciliatory terms, with criteria of voluntary acquisition, to avoid contention between the expropriating party and the expropriated party. The first stage generates favorable consequences for both subjects, since the expropriating party does not incur a series of expenses, but also achieves speed and immediacy in the settlement. For its part, the expropriated party immediately obtains economic compensation and is absolved from the compulsoriness regarding the compensation, typical of judicial proceedings. The expropriating party offers the value determined in the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo), and if the expropriated party accepts, the judicial route will not be pursued. The meeting of minds falls exclusively on the amount of the price. Its legal nature can be classified as a meeting of minds produced within the scope of public law, since it involves an unnamed administrative contract in a strict sense—it is neither a direct contracting nor a public tender—due to its purpose, object, and because it constitutes a phase of the expropriation procedure. It can also be considered a sale contract whose civil or administrative nature depends on its object, content, and circumstances. Depending on which position is adopted, the transfer of ownership (dominio) occurs, respectively, through approval by decree of the friendly agreement or as an effect of the transfer contract itself. The sum of money delivered by the State in the settlement constitutes a "price" and not a compensation, because the former is typical of a contract. The practical effect of such a distinction lies in the difference between just compensation, composed of a series of items provided by the legal system, while the "price" is set by the parties from the outset. Compensation implies an obligation of value, while the price is a pecuniary or monetary obligation. The "friendly agreement" on the amount of the price has the main effect of irrevocably determining the value of the property sought through expropriation. The expropriated party expresses their acceptance of the quantum of what is offered (agreement or friendly fixing) — that is, the expropriated party states and accepts the quantum of the sacrifice, being the only one who knows the magnitude and entity of their sacrifice, and the only one who can deem themselves satisfied; but they can also assess whether it is convenient to accept the offer or continue the process, opposing the appraisal. The expropriated party cannot claim defenselessness or any injury, since the law has prearranged an entire apparatus of protection—procedure—for the owner's right to obtain compensation to the extent foreseen: appraisal, expert examination (peritaje), and jurisdictional review of the just price (justiprecio). The owner is not obligated to take the offer and follow the path of settlement; they may opt for the judicial procedure, because if the offered compensation seems insufficient, they have the means to challenge it. That the agreement is foreseen as a normal instrument for the quantification of the deprivation is a consequence of the importance that the law gives to the moment relating to the determination of the quantum of the sacrifice. In the absence of a friendly cession, a discrepancy regarding the just price is raised, which must be resolved.

It is appropriate to analyze the nature of the settlement. Law number 1371 of November 10, 1951 (Ley de expropiaciones para la Construcción del Aeropuerto Internacional del Coco), stipulates in its Articles 2 and 3 that, at the request of the Procuraduría General de la República, the Tribunal de Avalúos de la Tributación Directa, now the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, following an expert report, shall determine and fix the possible compensation to be paid to the property owner, and once the appraisal has been made, it shall require the owner to state whether they are willing to sell the respective property or portion thereof to the State, for the price indicated in the appraisal, in order to execute the respective deed. Similar provisions (regarding sale and price) are contained in the following laws: number 1550 of April 13, 1953, Article 4 (expropriations of land necessary for the construction, expansion, rectification, or repair of landing fields); number 1851 of February 28, 1955, Article 30, subsection a, (Ley General de Caminos -repealed-); number 1882 of June 7, 1955, Article 4 (Expropiaciones del INVU); number 4574 of May 5, 1979 and its amendments, Article 161 (Código Municipal); number 5060 of August 22, 1972, Article 23, subsection a (Ley General de Caminos Públicos); numbers 6313 of January 4, 1979, Article 7 (Ley de Adquisiciones, Expropiaciones y Constitución de Servidumbres del ICE); number 6653 of September 16, 1981, Articles 2 and 4 (Ley de Expropiación de Propiedades para los Fines de la Universidad de Costa Rica); number 6695 of November 10, 1981, Article 7 (Ley de Zonas Procesadores de Exportación y Parques Industriales) insofar as it refers to number 6313. Obviously, those laws that refer to number 1371 regarding the procedure also incorporate these norms, such as the following: number 2825 of October 14, 1961, Article 152 (Ley de Tierras y Colonización); number 3226 of October 28, 1963, Article 3, first paragraph (Ley del ICE -repealed-); number 3489 of January 29, 1965, Article 1 (Authorizes Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for the lands it needs); number 4985 of May 30, 1972, Article 1 (Expropiación para el inmueble del Liceo J.J. Vargas Calvo).

If the settlement is not achieved, the expropriating party must resort to the judicial route. In this venue, the parties are the expropriating party and the expropriated party. In this trial, the expropriated party may basically question the amount of the compensation. The law empowers the expropriating party to obtain possession of the property once the amount of the compensation fixed at the time by the administrative body has been deposited. This trial has two essential characteristics: 1) it is summary, meaning its processing must be done with speed and has short deadlines, and 2) it is urgent, because the expropriating party may dispose of the property if it first deposits the provisional compensation, whose definitive amount is established subsequently. The competent judge is that of the Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa (except in cases of agrarian expropriations, in which the judge of that branch shall be competent), as it concerns an institution of public law, since it is a real action exercised by the State. When there are disputed facts, the trial must be opened to evidence, regarding the value of the expropriated property. The expropriation procedure has a universal character, in that all issues that affect or concern the purpose or consequences of that institution (transfer of the property, compensation, legitimacy of the taking, individualization of the property, etc.) must be raised and resolved therein. The judgment shall fix the corresponding amount of the compensation.

Therefore, the expropriatory power must be exercised through a formal procedure; prior to its initiation, there must be a legally proven public interest. The procedure serves to achieve its objective: the patrimonial deprivation of the expropriated party. [...] In the sub judice case, since the expropriation procedure did not proceed to its judicial phase, there was a friendly cession or settlement, which constitutes a contract and in which there is a "price," that is, an obligation to deliver a specific amount of money, and not a compensation. Thus, if according to Article 706 of the Civil Code, in the case of monetary obligations, damages consist of the payment of interest on the capital from the expiration of the term, it is impossible for there to have been an illicit enrichment on the part of the State and the ITCO, now IDA. In this way, Articles 732, first paragraph, 733, 735, and 737 of the Civil Code were not infringed." The law empowers the expropriating party to obtain possession of the property once the amount of the compensation (indemnización) set in due course by the administrative body has been deposited. This proceeding has two essential characteristics; 1) it is summary, meaning its processing must be carried out with speed and involves short deadlines, and, 2) it is urgent, because the expropriating party may dispose of the property if it deposits beforehand the provisional compensation (indemnización provisional), the final amount of which is established later. The competent judge is that of the Administrative-Contentious Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa), (except when dealing with agrarian expropriations, in which case the judge of that branch shall be competent), since it involves a public law institution, for it involves a real action (acción real) exercised by the State. When there are disputed facts, the proceeding must be opened to evidence, regarding the value of the expropriated property. The expropriation procedure (procedimiento expropiatorio) has a universal character insofar as all issues affecting or concerning the purpose or consequences of that institute must be raised and resolved within it (transfer of the property, compensation (indemnización), legitimacy of the taking (afectación), identification of the property, etc.). The judgment shall set the corresponding amount of the compensation (indemnización). Therefore, the expropriation power (potestad expropiatoria) must be exercised through a formal procedure (procedimiento formal), and prior to its initiation there must be a legally proven public interest. The procedure (procedimiento) serves to achieve its objective: the patrimonial deprivation of the expropriated party. [...] In the sub-júdice, since the expropriation procedure (procedimiento expropiatorio) did not proceed to its judicial phase, there was an amicable transfer or agreement (avenimiento), which constitutes a contract and in which there is a "price," that is, an obligation to deliver a specific amount of money, and not a compensation (indemnización). Therefore, if according to Article 706 of the Civil Code, regarding monetary obligations, damages consist of the payment of interest on the principal, from the expiration of the term, it is impossible for there to have been an illicit enrichment on the part of the State and of ITCO, now, IDA. Thus, Articles 732 paragraph 1, 733, 735, and 737 of the Civil Code were not infringed." For its part, the expropriated party immediately obtains financial compensation and is removed from the compulsory nature regarding compensation, typical of the judicial process. The expropriating party offers the value determined in the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo), and if the expropriated party accepts, the judicial route will not be pursued. The agreement of wills falls exclusively on the amount of the price. Its legal nature can be classified as an agreement of wills produced in the realm of public law, since it involves an innominate administrative contract in the strict sense—it is neither a direct award nor a tender—due to its purpose, object, and because it constitutes a phase of the expropriation procedure. It can also be regarded as a contract of sale whose civil or administrative nature depends on its object, content, and circumstances. Depending on which position is taken, the transfer of ownership occurs, respectively, through approval by decree of the friendly agreement or as an effect of the transfer contract itself. The sum of money delivered by the State in the settlement (avenimiento) constitutes a "price" and not compensation, since the former is typical of a contract. The practical effect of such a distinction lies in the difference between just compensation, composed of a series of items provided for by the legal system, whereas the "price" is set by the parties from the outset. Compensation implies a value obligation, whereas the price is a pecuniary or monetary obligation. The "friendly agreement" (acuerdo amistoso) on the amount of the price has the principal effect of determining, irrevocably, the value of the property sought in the expropriation. The expropriated party manifests their acceptance of the quantum of what is offered (agreement or friendly fixing), that is, the expropriated party manifests and accepts the quantum of the sacrifice, being the only one who knows the magnitude and entity of their sacrifice, and the only one who can deem themselves satisfied; but they can also assess whether it suits them to accept the offer or to continue the process, opposing the appraisal (avalúo). The expropriated party cannot allege defenselessness or any injury, since the law has predisposed an entire apparatus of protection—procedure—for the owner's right to obtain compensation to the extent provided: appraisal (avalúo), expert report (peritaje), and judicial review of the just price (justiprecio). The owner is not obliged to take the offer and follow the path of settlement (avenimiento); they may opt for the judicial procedure, for if the compensation offered seems insufficient to them, they have the means to challenge it. That the agreement is envisaged as the normal instrument for quantifying the deprivation is a consequence of the relevance that the moment relating to the determination of the quantum of the sacrifice has for the law. In the absence of a friendly transfer, a discrepancy regarding the just price (justiprecio) is raised, which must be resolved. It is appropriate to analyze the nature of the settlement (avenimiento). Law number 1371 of November 10, 1951 (Ley de expropiaciones para la Construcción del Aeropuerto Internacional del Coco), stipulates in its articles 2 and 3 that, at the request of the Procuraduría General de la República, the Tribunal de Avalúos de la Tributación Directa, today the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, following an expert report (informe pericial), shall determine and fix the possible compensation to be paid to the property owner, and once the appraisal (avalúo) is completed, shall require the owner to state whether they are willing to sell to the State the respective property or portion, for the price indicated in the appraisal (avalúo), for the purpose of executing the respective deed. Similar provisions (insofar as they refer to sale and price) are contained in the following laws: number 1550 of April 13, 1953, article 4 (expropriations of lands necessary for the construction, expansion, rectification, or repair of landing fields); number 1851 of February 28, 1955, article 30, subsection a, (Ley General de Caminos -repealed-); number 1882 of June 7, 1955, article 4 (Expropriations of the INVU); number 4574 of May 5, 1979 and its amendments, article 161 (Código Municipal); number 5060 of August 22, 1972, article 23, subsection a (Ley General de Caminos Públicos); numbers 6313 of January 4, 1979, article 7 (Ley de Adquisiciones, Expropiaciones y Constitución de Servidumbres del ICE); number 6653 of September 16, 1981, articles 2 and 4 (Ley de Expropiación de Propiedades para los Fines de la Universidad de Costa Rica); number 6695 of November 10, 1981, article 7 (Ley de Zonas Procesadores de Exportación y Parques Industriales) insofar as it refers to number 6313. Obviously, those laws that refer to number 1371 also incorporate these norms, regarding the procedure, such as the following: number 2825 of October 14, 1961, article 152 (Ley de Tierras y Colonización); number 3226 of October 28, 1963, article 3, first paragraph (Ley del ICE -repealed-); number 3489 of January 29, 1965, article 1 (Authorizes the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for the lands it needs); number 4985 of May 30, 1972, article 1 (Expropriation for the property of the Liceo J.J. Vargas Calvo). If the settlement (avenimiento) is not achieved, the expropriating party must resort to the judicial route. In this venue, the parties are the expropriating party and the expropriated party. In this trial, the expropriated party may basically challenge the amount of compensation. The law empowers the expropriating party to obtain possession of the property once the amount of compensation fixed in due course by the administrative body is deposited. This trial has two essential characteristics: 1) it is summary, meaning its processing must be done with speed and it has short time limits, and, 2) it is urgent, because the expropriating party may dispose of the property if they first deposit the provisional compensation, the definitive amount of which is established subsequently. The competent judge is that of the Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, (except when dealing with agrarian expropriations, where the judge of that branch shall be competent), since it concerns an institution of public law and a real action brought by the State. When there are disputed facts, the trial must be opened to evidence, regarding the value of the expropriated assets. The expropriation procedure has a universal character, in that all issues that affect or concern the purpose or consequences of that institution (transfer of the property, compensation, legitimacy of the taking, individualization of the property, etc.) must be raised and resolved within it. The judgment shall fix the corresponding amount of compensation. Therefore, the expropriation power must be exercised through a formal procedure, and prior to its commencement there must be a legally verified public interest. The procedure serves to achieve its objective: the patrimonial deprivation of the expropriated party. [...] In the sub-júdice, since the expropriation procedure did not proceed to its judicial phase, there was a friendly transfer or settlement (avenimiento), which constitutes a contract and in which there is a "price," that is, an obligation to deliver a specific amount of money, and not compensation, so that if, according to article 706 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), in the case of monetary obligations, damages consist of the payment of interest on the principal, from the maturity of the term, it is impossible for there to have been unjust enrichment (enriquecimiento ilícito) on the part of the State and the ITCO, today, IDA. Thus, articles 732, first paragraph, 733, 735, and 737 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) were not infringed."

"XXX.- La expropiación se cumple a través de un procedimiento general, no obstante, paulatinamente el legislador ha concebido procedimientos específicos, en función de los intereses perseguidos, puede ser dividido en dos fases: a) la administrativa, de avenimiento, acuerdo amigable, cesión amistosa o extrajudicial, y b) la judicial. Va a estar presente un triángulo integrado por la potestad expropiatoria del Estado, el derecho a la compensación económica equitativa a favor del propietario desposeído, y la garantía judicial de ejecutar la expropiación conforme al ordenamiento jurídico. La fase administrativa fue ideada por el legislador en términos conciliatorios, con criterios de adquisición voluntaria, para evitar la contención entre expropiante y expropiado. La primera etapa genera consecuencias favorables para ambos sujetos, pues el expropiante no incurre en una serie de gastos, pero además se obtiene celeridad e inmediatez en la liquidación. Por su parte, el expropiado logra de manera inmediata la compensación económica y se abstrae de la forzocidad en punto a la indemnización, típico del trámite judicial. EL expropiante ofrece el valor determinado en el avalúo administrativo, y si el expropiado acepta no se recurrirá a la vía judicial. El acuerdo de voluntades recae exclusivamente sobre el monto del precio. Su naturaleza jurídica puede calificarse como un acuerdo de voluntades producido en el ámbito del derecho público, pues media un contrato administrativo innominado en sentido estricto -no se trata de una contratación directa ni de una licitación-, por su finalidad, objeto, y por tratarse de una fase del procedimiento expropiatorio. También puede reputarse como un contrato de compraventa cuya naturaleza civil o administrativa depende de su objeto, contenido y circunstancias. Según sea una u otra la posición asumida, la transferencia del dominio se produce, respectivamente, por la aprobación vía decreto, del acuerdo amigable o como efecto del contrato traslativo mismo. La suma de dinero entregada por el Estado en el avenimiento constituye un "precio" y no una indemnización, por ser aquél típico del contrato. El efecto práctico de tal distinción reside en la diferencia entre la indemnización justa, compuesta por una serie de rubros dispuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico, en tanto el "precio" lo fijan las partes desde su inicio. La indemnización implica una obligación de valor, en tanto el precio es una obligación pecuniaria o de dinero. El "acuerdo amistoso" sobre la cuantía del precio tiene por efecto principal determinar, de modo irrevocable, el valor del bien pretendido en la expropiación. El expropiado manifiesta su aceptación del quántum de lo ofrecido (acuerdo o fijación amigable) es decir, el expropiado manifiesta y acepta el quántum del sacrificio, por ser el único en conocer la magnitud y entidad de su sacrificio, y el único en darse por satisfecho; pero también puede valorar si le conviene aceptar la oferta o seguir el proceso, oponiéndose al avalúo. El expropiado no puede alegar indefensión o lesión alguna, pues la ley ha predispuesto todo un aparato de tutela -procedimiento- del derecho del propietario a conseguir la indemnización en la medida prevista: avalúo, peritaje y revisión jurisdiccional del justiprecio. El propietario no está obligado a tomar la oferta y seguir la vía del avenimiento, puede optar por el procedimiento judicial, pues si la indemnización ofrecida le parece insuficiente tiene los medios para impugnarla. Que el acuerdo sea previsto como instrumento normal para la cuantificación de la privación es consecuencia de la relevancia que para la ley tiene el momento relativo a la determinación del quántum del sacrificio. A falta de cesión amistosa queda planteada una discrepancia sobre el justiprecio la cual deberá dirimirse. Conviene analizar la naturaleza del avenimiento. La ley número 1371 del 10 de noviembre de 1951 (Ley de expropiaciones para la Construcción del Aeropuerto Internacional del Coco), estipula en sus artículos 2 y 3 que a solicitud de la Procuraduría General de la República, el Tribunal de Avalúos de la Tributación Directa, hoy Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, previo informe pericial, determinará y fijará la posible indemnización a pagar al propietario del inmueble, y efectuado el avalúo requerirá al propietario para que manifieste si está dispuesto a vender al Estado el respectivo inmueble o porción, por el precio indicado en el avalúo, a efecto de otorgar la respectiva escritura. Disposiciones similares (en cuanto refiere a venta y precio) están contenidas en las siguientes leyes: número 1550 del 13 de abril de 1953, artículo 4 (expropiaciones terrenos necesarios para la construcción, ampliación, rectificación o reparación de campos de aterrizaje); número 1851 del 28 de febrero de 1955, artículo 30, inciso a, (Ley General de Caminos -derogada-); número 1882 del 7 de junio de 1955, artículo 4 (Expropiaciones del INVU); número 4574 del 5 de mayo de 1979 y sus reformas, artículo 161 (Código Municipal); número 5060 del 22 de agosto de 1972, artículo 23, inciso a (Ley General de Caminos Públicos); números 6313 del 4 de enero de 1979, artículo 7 (Ley de Adquisiciones, Expropiaciones y Constitución de Servidumbres del ICE); número 6653 del 16 de setiembre de 1981, artículos 2 y 4 (Ley de Expropiación de Propiedades para los Fines de la Universidad de Costa Rica); número 6695 del 10 de noviembre de 1981, artículo 7 (Ley de Zonas Procesadores de Exportación y Parques Industriales) en cuanto remite a la número 6313. Obviamente, también incorporan esas normas las leyes que remiten a la número 1371, en cuanto al procedimiento, como las siguientes: número 2825 del 14 de octubre de 1961, artículo 152 (Ley de Tierras y Colonización); número 3226 del 28 de octubre de 1963, artículo 3, primer párrafo (Ley del ICE -derogada-); número 3489 del 29 de enero de 1965, artículo 1 (Autoriza al Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados los terrenos que necesite); número 4985 del 30 de mayo de 1972, artículo 1º (Expropiación para el inmueble del Liceo J.J. Vargas Calvo). De no lograrse el avenimiento el expropiante debe acudir a la vía jurisdiccional. En esta sede son partes expropiante y expropiado. En este juicio el expropiado podrá cuestionar básicamente el monto de la indemnización. La ley faculta al expropiante a obtener la posesión del bien una vez depositado el monto de la indemnización fijada en su oportunidad por el órgano administrativo. Este juicio tiene dos características esenciales; 1) es sumario, sea su tramitación debe hacerse con celeridad y cuenta con plazos cortos, y, 2) es urgente, porque el expropiante puede disponer del bien si deposita de previo la indemnización provisional, cuyo monto definitivo se establece posteriormente. El juez competente es el de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, (salvo cuando se trata de expropiaciones agrarias que será competente la del ramo), pues se trata de una institución de derecho público, pues se trata de una acción real ejercitada por el Estado. Cuando hay hechos controvertidos el juicio debe abrirse a pruebas, sobre el valor de los bienes expropiados. El procedimiento expropiatorio tiene un carácter universal en cuanto en él deben ser planteadas y resueltas todas las cuestiones que afecten o interesen la finalidad o consecuencias de ese instituto (transmisión del bien, indemnización, legitimidad de la afectación, individualización del bien, etc.). La sentencia fijará el monto correspondiente de la indemnización. Entonces la potestad expropiatoria es menester ejercitarla mediante un procedimiento formal, de previo a su inicio debe haber un interés público legalmente comprobado. El procedimiento sirve para el logro de su objetivo: la privación patrimonial del expropiado. [...] En el sub-júdice, al no haber pasado el procedimiento expropiatorio a su fase judicial, hubo una cesión amistosa o avenimiento, el cual constituye un contrato y en el cual hay un "precio", sea una obligación de entregar una determinada cantidad de dinero, y no una indemnización, por lo que si de acuerdo al artículo 706 del Código Civil, entratándose de obligaciones dinerarias, los daños y perjuicios consisten en el pago de los intereses sobre el capital, desde el vencimiento del plazo, resulta imposible que existiera un enriquecimiento ilícito de parte del Estado y del ITCO, hoy, IDA. Es así como no resultaron infringidos los artículos 732 párrafo 1º, 733, 735, 737 del Código Civil."