Modifications to dominant tenement must not aggravate natural water drainage easementModificaciones en fundo dominante no pueden agravar la servidumbre natural de aguas

"VII.- Now, regarding the merits of the case and the problems of water filtration (filtración de aguas) that the plaintiff attributes to the defendant entity, we must take into consideration the legislation on water contained in our Legal System. First of all, it should be noted that Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, and its amendments, in Article 94 states: "Lower-lying lands are obliged to receive the waters that naturally, and without human intervention, flow from higher lands, as well as the earth or stones they carry along their course...". The foregoing therefore constitutes a natural easement (servidumbre natural), as it originates in nature, in the topography of the land, by establishing as an obligation of the owners of lower-lying properties to allow all waters coming from higher-lying properties to flow through their real estate, but naturally and without human intervention, as indicated by the rule just cited.- This is reinforced by the provisions of Article 20 of Law No. 5069 of August 22, 1972, and its amendments, in that: "All possessors of real estate, by any title, are obliged to receive and allow to flow within their properties the waters from the roads when so determined by the slope of the land...". Don Alberto Brenes Córdoba, in his Tratado de los Bienes, tells us on this point: "From the situation of the places and by the work of nature, some advantages called natural easements arise, which some properties obtain over others. Properly speaking, there is only one natural easement, that which burdens lower-lying lands to receive rainwater or waters that are a spontaneous product of nature which by themselves, that is to say without the work of man, descend from higher lands, as well as the earth, sand, or stones they carry along their course..." (See cited work, Editorial Juricentro S.A., San José, Costa Rica, 1981. Pg. 115).- In this regard, it must first be highlighted that the land on which the properties of the parties involved in this litigation are located is on a slope and has a natural gradient due to its topography. Upon purchasing the property, the plaintiff was perfectly aware of this situation, because the slope is perceptible to the naked eye. Therefore, if one acquires a land with a topography as indicated, the necessary measures must be taken for an adequate and safe use of the property in relation to the waters that, naturally and by virtue of its topography, one is obliged to receive. As Professor Brenes Córdoba points out in the cited work: "He who is obliged to suffer a natural easement, although he has no right to limit or hinder in any way its exercise, has the power to undertake the necessary works in order to reduce the harm he receives..." (Op. Cit. Pg. 116).- This therefore corresponds to the owner of the lower-lying property. However, if man intervenes, as in this case, where the defendant company performs fill (relleno) work to level its land and build a parking lot, then that entity, as the owner of the higher-lying property, must take the required measures to prevent, by virtue of the alteration of the subsoil equilibrium (equilibrio del subsuelo), moisture problems in the walls of the plaintiff's property, since, as the expert appointed in this proceeding has already determined, the fill produces moisture problems and lateral thrust (empuje lateral) on the walls.- It is worth noting that the expert opinion rendered by Engineer Randall Elizondo Murillo, analyzed according to the rules of sound judgment (sana crítica)—which are those of logic and correct human understanding—together with the other probative elements existing in the expediente, in accordance with the provisions of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), is credible to this Tribunal, for it is considered a thorough expert opinion (experticia) with regard to the statements made about being on sloping lands, and suitable regarding the indications proposed to solve the problems that have given rise to this litigation.- Now, we must consequently analyze, necessarily, what refers to the retaining wall (muro de retención) that the plaintiff demands the defendant company build. As has been stated, the lands of both parties are on a slope, and while it is true that those who build on lower lands must take the necessary precautions to prevent their property from suffering any damage due to the topography characteristic of the properties, if the owner of the higher-lying property at a certain time wishes to level his property to, as in this case, build parking lots, this already involves an alteration in the subsoil equilibrium and on this matter, Article 9 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) No. 833 of November 4, 1949, and its amendments, provides that: "When it concerns the execution of works that may alter the equilibrium of the subsoil, the necessary technical measures must be taken, with citation and hearing of the interested parties, in the judgment of the Engineering Department or the Municipal Engineer, or the Engineer appointed ad-hoc, to avoid all damage to the properties...".- Consequently, the owner of the higher-lying property, in this case the defendant, who wishes to carry out a work like the one at hand must build a retaining wall to prevent the removal of that earth, fill, and subsequent construction of the parking lot from affecting the lower property and thereby avoid the damage it may suffer due to those circumstances, since whether the plaintiff has only a boundary wall (tapia) or the house wall is on the boundary, the function of a boundary wall is basically to serve as a divider between two lands, but it is not intended to contain materials, and much less so in this case, where the fill carried out by the defendant rests upon the plaintiff's boundary wall, producing a lateral thrust on the walls of the dwelling, and if the defendant company wished to carry out the works at hand, it could not be done in a way that meant a load on the boundary wall of the plaintiff's property, with the risks that this, of course, entails.- The expert appointed in this proceeding even considers that the most appropriate measure to solve the problems existing at the boundary between the plaintiff's and defendant's properties is the construction of a retaining wall, its waterproofing (impermeabilización), and an adequate disposal of stormwater. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that in this regard, the plaintiff's claim to compel the defendant to build the retaining wall (muro de contención) on the boundary of their properties is accepted, according to the technical specifications to be determined by expert opinion in the stage of execution of the judgment, a wall that must be independent of the existing boundary wall on the plaintiff's property and built in such a way that it does not mean a load against said boundary wall or the house walls, and building gutters (cunetas) for it so that the evacuation of rainwater falling on its property goes toward the general sewer network, thus avoiding additional pressure on the wall and the boundary wall. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant build a boundary wall of at least three meters above ground level was also correctly accepted, which must be understood to be on the boundary of the defendant's property with the plaintiff's, and this is justified to provide security for the plaintiff's property and to protect its privacy as well.- The plaintiff's claim to separate the fill from the existing boundary wall is not accepted, as it is considered totally unnecessary, because to prevent the damages that may be caused as a result of the fill and the construction of the parking lot carried out by the defendant, its obligation is to build the retaining wall, which it omitted to build at the appropriate time, according to the technical specifications to be determined, so as to provide the required protection, not only for the fill itself that was done to build the already mentioned parking lot, but also to prevent a load of that wall against the boundary wall or walls of the plaintiff's property, as well as to prevent the fill from causing dampness (humedad) on the plaintiff's property. Therefore, the appealed judgment will be confirmed, insofar as it accepts the petitionary portion of the claim, in the sense that the defendant company must build a retaining wall that supports the fill and has the necessary drainage (drenajes) and plastering (repellos) to prevent seepage (filtraciones), and it will be revoked with respect to the claim accepted in the contested decision to separate the fill from the boundary wall.

p.115).- In this regard, it must first be noted that the land on which the properties of the parties to this litigation are located is sloping and presents a natural gradient due to its topography. When purchasing the property, the plaintiff was perfectly aware of this situation, because the slope is perceptible to the naked eye. Thus, if one acquires land with such topography, one must take the necessary measures for the adequate and safe use of the property, in relation to the waters that, naturally and by virtue of its topography, one is obliged to receive. As Professor Brenes Córdoba highlights in the cited work: “He who is obliged to suffer a natural easement (servidumbre natural), while not having the right to limit or hinder its exercise in any way, enjoys the power to carry out the necessary works to reduce the harm he receives...” (Op. Cit. p. 116).- This corresponds, therefore, to the owner of the lower tenement (fundo inferior). However, if man intervenes, as in this matter, where the defendant company carried out fill (relleno) to level its land and build a parking lot, in this case said entity, as the owner of the upper tenement (fundo superior), must take the measures required to prevent the alteration in the subsoil equilibrium from causing moisture problems in the walls of the plaintiff’s property, since, as the expert appointed in this proceeding has already opined, the fill produces moisture problems and lateral thrust on the walls.- It is worth noting that the expert opinion rendered by Engineer Randall Elizondo Murillo, analyzed according to the rules of sound judgment, which are those of logic and correct human understanding, together with the other evidentiary elements existing in the case file, pursuant to the provisions of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, deserves the faith of this Court, as it is considered a complete expertise regarding the assertions made when dealing with sloping lands, and suitable regarding the indications proposed to solve the problems that have given rise to this litigation.- Now then, we must consequently analyze here, necessarily, what refers to the retaining wall (muro de retención) that the plaintiff seeks to have the defendant company construct. As has been stated, the lands of both parties are on a slope, and while it is true that those who build on lower lands must take the necessary precautions to prevent their property from suffering any damage due to the inherent topography of the properties, if the owner of the upper tenement at a given time wishes to level their property to, as in this case, build parking spaces, this already entails an alteration in the subsoil equilibrium, and on this matter, Article 9 of the Construction Law No. 833 of November 4, 1949, and its reforms, provides that: “When dealing with the execution of works that may alter the subsoil equilibrium, the necessary technical measures must be taken, with summons and hearing of the interested parties, in the judgment of the Engineering Department or the Municipal Engineer, or the Engineer appointed ad-hoc, to avoid any damage to the properties....”- Consequently, the owner of the upper tenement, in this case the defendant party, who wishes to carry out a work like the one at hand, must build a retaining wall to prevent the removal of that earth, the fill, and the subsequent construction of the parking lot from affecting the lower property, and thus avoid any damage it may suffer under those circumstances, since whether the plaintiff has only a wall (tapia) or whether the house wall is on the boundary line, the function of a wall is basically to serve as a divider between two lands, but it is not designed to contain materials, much less in this case, where the fill carried out by the defendant is leaning against the plaintiff's wall, producing a lateral thrust on the dwelling’s walls, and if the defendant company wished to carry out the works at hand, this could not be done in a way that would impose a load on the wall of the plaintiff’s property, with the risks this of course entails.- Even the expert appointed in this proceeding considers that the most suitable measure for solving the problems existing on the boundary between the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant is the construction of a retaining wall, its waterproofing, and adequate disposal of rainwater. Consequently, the Court considers that under this particular, the plaintiff's claim is receivable insofar as it seeks to oblige the defendant to construct the retaining wall on the boundary of their properties, according to the technical specifications to be determined by expert opinion in the judgment execution stage, a wall that must be independent of the existing wall on the plaintiff’s property and constructed in such a way that it does not impose a load against said wall or the house walls, and building gutters so that the evacuation of rainwater falling on its property goes toward the general sewer network, thus avoiding additional pressure on the wall and the dividing wall. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant build a wall of at least three meters above ground level, which is to be understood as on the boundary of the defendant's property with the plaintiff's, was also correctly accepted, and this is justified to provide security for the plaintiff's property and to protect their privacy as well.- The plaintiff's claim to separate the fill from the existing wall is not receivable, as this is considered totally unnecessary, because to prevent the damage that may be caused as a consequence of the fill and the construction of the parking lot carried out by the defendant, its obligation is to build the retaining wall, which it omitted to build at the appropriate time, according to the technical specifications to be determined, so as to provide the required protection, not only for the fill itself made to build the aforementioned parking lot, but also to prevent a load from that wall against the dividing wall or walls of the plaintiff's property, as well as to prevent the fill from causing moisture on the plaintiff’s property. Therefore, the appealed judgment shall be confirmed, in that it accepts the petitionary part of the complaint, meaning that the defendant company must construct a retaining wall that supports the fill and has the necessary drains and plastering to prevent seepage, and it shall be revoked with respect to the claim accepted in the challenged ruling to separate the fill from the dividing wall."

"VII.- Ahora bien, en lo que se refiere al fondo del asunto y en cuanto a los problemas de filtración de aguas que la parte actora le achaca a la entidad demandada, debemos tomar en consideración la legislación que sobre aguas contiene nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico. En primer lugar cabe destacar que la Ley de Aguas Nº 276 del 27 de agosto de 1942 y sus reformas, en su artículo 94 dispone: Los terrenos inferiores están obligados a recibir las aguas que naturalmente, y sin intervención del hombre, fluyan de los superiores, así como la tierra o piedras que arrastren en su curso.... Lo anterior constituye, por lo tanto, una servidumbre natural, pues se origina en la naturaleza, en la topografía del terreno, al establecer como obligación de los propietarios de fundos inferiores, el dejar discurrir por sus inmuebles, todas las aguas que vengan de predios superiores, pero naturalmente y sin intervención del hombre, como lo señala la norma recién citada.- Lo dicho se refuerza con lo que dispone el artículo 20 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos Nº 5069 del 22 de agosto de 1972 y sus reformas, en cuanto a que: Todos los poseedores de bienes raíces, por cualquier título, están obligados a recibir y dejar discurrir dentro de sus predios, las aguas de los caminos cuando así lo determine el desnivel del terreno.... Don Alberto Brenes Córdoba, en su Tratado de los Bienes, sobre este punto nos señala: De la situación de los lugares y por obra de la naturaleza, nacen algunas ventajas llamadas servidumbres naturales, que unos fundos obtienen sobre otros. Propiamente, sólo existe una servidumbre natural, la que pesa sobre los terrenos inferiores de recibir las aguas de lluvia o las que son producto espontáneo de la naturaleza que por sí mismas, o sea sin obra del hombre, descienden de los terrenos superiores, así como la tierra, arena o piedras que arrastren en su curso... (Ver obra citada, Editorial Juricentro S.A., San José, Costa Rica, 1981. Pág.115).- Al respecto, en primer lugar ha de destacarse que el terreno en el que se encuentran las propiedades de las partes que participan en este litigio, es en declive y que presenta una gradiente natural por la topografía del mismo. Al comprar el inmueble el actor conocía perfectamente de esta situación, porque el declive es perceptible a simple vista. De manera que si se adquiere un terreno con una topografía como la indicada, se deben tomar las medidas que sean necesarias para un adecuado y seguro uso del inmueble, en relación con las aguas que, naturalmente y en virtud de la topografía del mismo está obligado a recibir. Como nos destaca el Maestro Brenes Córdoba en la obra citada: El que está en la obligación de sufrir una servidumbre natural, si bien no tiene derecho a limitar o estorbar en ninguna forma su ejercicio, goza de la facultad de hacer las obras necesarias a efecto de disminuir el perjuicio que reciba... (Op. Cit. Pág. 116).- Ello corresponde por lo tanto al propietario del fundo inferior. Sin embargo, si interviene el hombre, como en este asunto, en que la sociedad demandada hace un relleno para nivelar su terreno y construir un parqueo, en este caso sí debe dicha entidad, como propietaria del fundo superior, tomar las medidas que se requieran para evitar que, en virtud de la alteración en el equilibrio del subsuelo, se produzcan problemas de humedad en las paredes del inmueble del actor, pues como ya lo dictaminó el señor perito nombrado en este proceso, el relleno produce problemas de humedad y empuje lateral de las paredes.- Valga destacar que el dictamen rendido por el Ingeniero Randall Elizondo Murillo, analizado de acuerdo con las reglas de la sana crítica y que son las de la lógica y del correcto entendimiento humano, en conjunto con los demás elementos probatorios que existen en el expediente, al tenor de lo previsto por el artículo 330 del Código Procesal Civil, le merece fe a este Tribunal, pues se considera una experticia cabal en lo referente a las afirmaciones que se hacen al estar ante terrenos en declive, e idónea en cuanto a las indicaciones propuestas para solucionar los problemas que han dado lugar a este litigio.- Ahora bien, aquí debemos analizar en consecuencia, necesariamente lo que se refiere al muro de retención que pretende el demandante construya la empresa accionada. Como se ha expuesto, los terrenos de ambas partes se encuentran en pendiente y si bien es cierto los que construyan en terrenos inferiores deben tomar las previsiones necesarias, para evitar que por la topografía propia de los inmuebles, pueda sufrir algún daño su propiedad, si el dueño del fundo superior en determinado momento desea nivelar su propiedad, para, como en este caso, construir unos parqueos, ello ya conlleva una alteración en el equilibrio del subsuelo y sobre el particular el artículo 9 de la Ley de Construcciones Nº 833 del 4 de noviembre de 1949 y sus reformas, dispone que: Cuando se trate de la ejecución de obras que puedan alterar el equilibrio del subsuelo, deberán tomarse, con citación y audiencia de los interesados, las medidas técnicas necesarias, a juicio del Departamento de Ingeniería o del Ingeniero Municipal, o del Ingeniero nombrado ad-hoc, para evitar todo daño a las propiedades....- Consecuentemente el dueño del fundo superior, en este caso la parte demandada, que desee hacer una obra como la que aquí nos ocupa, debe construir un muro de retención para impedir que la remoción de esas tierras, relleno y posterior construcción del parqueo, puedan afectar al inmueble inferior y así evitar el daño que pueda sufrir por esas circunstancias, pues ya sea que el actor cuente solamente con una tapia o bien que en la colindancia se encuentre la pared de la casa, la función de una tapia es básicamente servir de divisoria entre dos terrenos, pero no es para contener materiales y mucho menos en este caso, en que el relleno que realizó la demandada, se encuentra recargado sobre la tapia de la actora, produciendo un empuje lateral sobre las paredes de la vivienda y si la empresa accionada deseaba realizar las obras que aquí nos ocupan, ello no podía hacerse de manera que significara una carga sobre la tapia del inmueble del actor, con los riesgos que por supuesto ello conlleva.- Inclusive el perito nombrado en este proceso considera que la medida más adecuada para la solución de los problemas que existen en la colindancia de las propiedades de la parte actora y la demandada, es la construcción de un muro de retención, su impermeabilización y una adecuada disposición de las aguas pluviales. Consecuentemente estima el Tribunal que bajo este particular es de recibo la pretensión de la parte actora en cuanto a obligar a la demandada a construir el muro de contención en la colindancia de sus propiedades, de acuerdo con las especificaciones técnicas que se lleguen a determinar pericialmente en etapa de ejecución del fallo, muro que deberá ser independiente de la tapia existente en el inmueble del actor y construído de manera que no signifique una carga contra la citada tapia o paredes de la casa y construyéndole cunetas para que la evacuación de las aguas de lluvia que caigan sobre su propiedad, vayan hacia la red general de alcantarillado y así evitar una presión adicional sobre el muro y la tapia. También fue correctamente acogida la pretensión de la parte actora en cuanto a que la demandada construya una tapia de por lo menos tres metros sobre el nivel del suelo, que ha de entenderse lo es en la colindancia de la propiedad de la demandada con la del actor y ello se justifica para brindar seguridad a la propiedad del actor y que su privacidad quede también protegida.- La pretensión de la parte actora de separar el relleno de la tapia existente, no es de recibo, pues ello se considera totalmente innecesario, porque para evitar los daños que se puedan causar como consecuencia del relleno y la construcción del parqueo que realizó la demandada, su obligación es hacer el muro de contención, que omitió construir en la oportunidad que correspondía, de acuerdo con las especificaciones técnicas, que se lleguen a determinar, de modo que se brinde la protección que se requiere, no solo para el propio relleno que se hizo para construir el parqueo ya mencionado, sino también para evitar una carga de ese muro contra la tapia o paredes del inmueble del actor, así como que el relleno sea causa de humedad en la propiedad del demandante. Por lo tanto se confirmará la sentencia apelada, en cuanto acoge el extremo petitorio de la demanda, en el sentido de que deberá la sociedad accionada construir un muro de retención que soporte el relleno y tenga los drenajes y repellos necesarios para evitar filtraciones y se revocará en lo que respecta a la pretensión acogida en el fallo impugnado, de separar el relleno de la tapia."