Inadmissibility of action against Possessory Information Law due to subjective objectInadmisibilidad de acción contra Ley de Informaciones Posesorias por objeto subjetivo

*170034920007CO* Res. No. 2017003994 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on March fifteen, two thousand seventeen.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by RAJAN BALAKRISHNA MENON MENON, identity card No. 8-0069-0657; against the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro.

WHEREAS:

1.- By writ received in the Secretariat of the Constitutional Chamber at 8:58 hrs. on March 3, 2017, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro be declared. He indicates that properties Folio No. 1-33654-000 and No. 1-6541 5A-000 were registered on January 24, 1984. He adds that the parent property No. 1-318792-000 was created from the merger of those two properties and that the registered survey plan SJ-533255-84, of the parent property, was submitted to the Catastro Nacional in April 1984 (months before the merger of properties) and was registered as "part of the real folios 1-056415A-000 and 1-033554-000". He clarifies that the aforementioned plan was unknown to him until the end of November 2016. He states that the topographic area indicated by the plan is 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, while the registral area indicated by the plan is 1747.24 and 2 hectares 0379.12 m2. The area, he continues, according to the Registro is not delineated on the map of the plan; there is no way to distinguish which is the registral area and which the excess area (on the map of the plan). He specifies that, because of the way the plan was introduced, months before the deed of merger of properties, the plan does not appear as that of property 1318-792000 because said folio number did not yet exist when the plan was prepared and when the plan was submitted to the Catastro Nacional. The plan and the deed were accepted and registered in the Registro Nacional with registration number 533255. He points out that there is no evidence of a judicial process to justify the registration of the excess area indicated in the plan over the registral area. He adds that the indicated plan SJ-533255-84 had two subdivisions (segregaciones) that were made from the parent property 1-318792-000 and are registered survey plan 1-824809-89 -property 1-544875- and registered survey plan 1-774349-2002 -property 1-438025. He indicates that the deed of the parent property and the registered survey plan SJ-533255-84 were an attempt to register areas in excess of what was registered, using the boundaries described in the deed of merger of properties in 1984. He believes that if the Registro accepted the plan and the property described with its boundaries in the deed of merger of properties and allowed its registration, a kind of legitimization (by the Registro) occurred for an almost double expansion of the area that the two properties combined had been registering. There is a difference between the 2 hectares, 2126.36 m2, described in the deed and the 4 hectares, 1525.70 m2, of topographic area in the plan, for which the Registro Nacional incurred a very serious action in accepting the documents and allowing their registration. He believes that articles 11 and 45 of the Constitución Política were violated because the Registro Público, furthermore, accepted topographic boundaries and areas without the due judicial process to verify the ownership of the excess land registered in the plan. He disagrees with the Registro Nacional, with reference to the administrative management process -case file 2017-0041-RIM- regarding that “the registered survey plan SJ-533255-1984 was never brought to the registral entry” for the reasons already stated. He reiterates that the Registro and Catastro Nacional extended tacit or open cooperation in recording a serious inconsistency in the registration of the real estate. He adds that on October 23, 1992, he purchased, jointly with another person, a lot measuring 1 hectare 0062.81 m2, from the parent property 1-318-792-000 and that the registered survey plan SJ-80241-1992 (of the cited lot) is not a child of the registered survey plan SJ-533255-84, (of the parent property). The registered survey plan SJ-533255-84 was unknown to him until the end of November 2016. He points out that the parent property had annotations, for which reason it could not be registered and, going through a series of minor deficiencies and delays, the Registro refused to register the property due to a shortage of registral area. He states that, for the Registro Nacional, the sale of the lot was legitimate because in 1992 the area, according to the Registro, was 18973.10 m2, although there were annotations. He specifies that, in addition to not rejecting or correcting the measurements and rectifying the total area, the prevailing system in the Registro allowed the owner to sell and donate all the area of the parent property comprised by the registered survey plan SJ-633265-84. He believes that the Registro, by allowing the sale and donation in that manner, violated article 11 of the Constitución Política. He adds that the Registro did not register the properties that did not arrive on time and therefore these were left without registral area, and one of these was the one he purchased. He clarifies that he has physical possession (posesión física) of the property but the property is not registered; the Registro Nacional denies them the legitimization of owners of a property acquired by purchase, with its registered and inscribed survey plan, but registrally non-existent. To realize article 45 of the Constitución Política and the inviolability of property, he continues, it must physically exist and be registered in the Registro followed by the identification of the owner and characteristics of the property. He states that, for the moment, only the deed of purchase exists, still pending registration, and the right of possession (posesión) by purchase, which the Registro refuses to legalize. He considers that the Registro has the responsibility of allowing a series of anomalies regarding the parent property 1-318792-000 in its records. It has been suggested to him, he continues, the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias as a possibility for registration, but that implies distorting the same law because he has the right of possession (posesión) by a legal purchase, of a lot from a registered property with a series of defects, in the Registro. To date, the Registro has refused to register this property, violating article 46 of the Constitución Política. Regarding case file No. 01-1006840217-CI, he indicates that Miguel Ángel sold most of the total area of 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, with the exception of a parcel of 7,381.91 m2. His only son was awarded the parcel, through the Process of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, registered in the Registro, registered survey plan SJ-0732490-2001, property folio number 548608-000, Canton of San José. In the aforementioned process, he continues, Miguel Ángel sells his right of possession (posesión) and improvements over an unregistered property located in San Gerardo, with its qualities, etc. to his son, thus exonerating him from all culpability and protecting him from the consequences of article 1, subsection f), of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. He specifies that this parcel was part of the parent property 1-318-792-000; there is an overlap (traslape) between the registered survey plan of this parcel and the registered survey plan of the parent property. He adds that the cited process, by omission, does not request evidence from the Registro Público to verify the veracity of the oath and the writings and documents submitted. Likewise, the Registro and the Catastro Nacional do not verify if there is an overlap (traslape) of the registered survey plan with coexisting registered plans with the same coordinates and at the same time verify that the property or parcel is registered or not, or is part of a larger property. Especially, in the cited case, that of the parent property 1-318-792-000, there exists a violation of constitutional right that this process overlooked without being detected. He considers that there is a serious deficiency in the rectitude of the process, which generates negative consequences. He adds that, in said process, the topographical engineer prepared a registered survey plan “for possessory information (información posesoria)”, without specifying if there is an overlap (traslape) between this plan and the registered survey plan SJ-633266-84. He appreciates that if the Registro had intervention in the matter it would have investigated the background of the parent property and the annotations that still exist on property 1-318792-000. When a judicial process of possessory information (informaciones posesorias) ends, the Registro Nacional, under the orders of the judicial authorities, registers the property without further investigations of its own on the matter. He believes that, as is proven in this case, in the first instance, the law itself was violated and, second, the Registro and the Catastro Nacional did not intervene in the process, nor did they point out deficiencies. He considers that the law is inconsistent; there are gaps and the process violates article 11 by omission of the rectors of the Registro Nacional and Catastro Nacional. He considers that the process violates article 45 of the Constitución Política, by not verifying, beyond all doubt, if a property is registered or not and if there is an overlap (traslape) of the registered survey plan with a plan already existing in the Registro Nacional, before or after the process of legalization of registration via that route. Additionally, article 19 of the Constitución was violated when the registered survey plan SJ-732490-2001 and the property folio number 648608-000 of the Canton of San José were registered in the name of José Miguel Acosta Granados. He reiterates that the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is deficient and inconsistent insofar as the private law subject managed to register a part of an already registered property violating article 1, subsection f), of the Law itself due to deficiency and omission of preventive and legal rectors during and after the process.

2.- Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Chamber to dismiss on procedural grounds or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition that is brought to its attention that is manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient grounds to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar previous petition that was rejected.

Drafted by Magistrate Jinesta Lobo, and;

WHEREAS:

I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION DUE TO ITS OBJECT. The Chamber appreciates that, in this process, what is challenged by the petitioner constitutes acts of a subjective nature, that is, concrete acts and not a normative provision with abstract efficacy. In this regard, article 73 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional allows the filing of actions of unconstitutionality against subjective acts of public authorities, “…if they are not susceptible to the remedies of hábeas corpus or amparo”. This clearly demarcates the fields of action, assigning to this Court the competence to review general and abstract norms and provisions through the action of unconstitutionality, while that which refers to supposedly unconstitutional actions are analyzed within the remedies of amparo or hábeas corpus, if the defense of fundamental rights is at stake. The petitioner's claim focuses on actions and omissions of the Registro Nacional and the Catastro Nacional regarding a real estate, which he claims is his property and has not been able to register. In this regard, he cites two judicial processes -case files No. 16-000249-0217-CI and No. 01-100528-0217-CI- an administrative proceeding before the Registro Nacional -case file No. 2017-0041-RIM- and four certifications from the Registro Nacional. Likewise, the evidence he provides to the case file refers solely to his particular situation in the mentioned processes and procedure. The Chamber concludes that what is claimed by the petitioner is outside the competences granted to this Court, via action of unconstitutionality. Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible due to its object.

II.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are warned that if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material that is not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

THEREFORE:

The action is dismissed on procedural grounds.- Ernesto Jinesta L. President Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- *YC0RVCLIEV061* CASE FILE N° 17-003492-0007-CO Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712.

Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6 *170034920007CO* **Exp:** 17-003492-0007-CO **Res. Nº 2017003994** **SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours and fifteen minutes on the fifteenth of March of two thousand and seventeen.** Action of unconstitutionality filed by **RAJAN BALAKRISHNA MENON MENON**, identity card No. 8-0069-0657; against the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro.

**RESULTANDO:** **1.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Constitutional Chamber at 8:58 hrs. on March 3, 2017, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro be declared. He indicates that farms Matrícula No. 1-33654-000 and No. 1-6541 5A-000 were registered on January 24, 1984. He adds that the parent farm No. 1-318792-000 was born from the reunification of those two farms and that the cadastral map (plano catastrado) SJ-533255-84, of the parent farm, was filed with the Catastro Nacional in April of 1984 (months before the reunification of the farms) and was recorded as "part of the real folios (folios reales) 1-056415A-000 and 1-033554-000". He clarifies that the aforementioned map was unknown to him until late November of 2016. He states that the topographic area indicated by the map is 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, while the registration area (área registral) indicated by the map is 1747.24 and 2 hectares 0379.12 m2. The area, he continues, according to the Registry is not highlighted on the map drawing; there is no way to distinguish which is the registration area and which is the excess area (excedente) (on the map drawing). He specifies that, because of the way the map was introduced, months before the deed of reunification of farms, the map does not appear as that of farm 1318-792000 because said registration number did not yet exist when the map was prepared and when the map was filed with the Catastro Nacional. The map and the deed were accepted and recorded in the Registro Nacional with the registration number 533255. He indicates that there is no evidence of a judicial proceeding to justify the registration of the excess area that is indicated on the map over the registration area. He adds that the indicated map SJ-533255-84 had two segregations that were made from the parent farm 1-318792-000 and they are the cadastral map 1-824809-89 -farm 1-544875- and cadastral map 1-774349-2002 -farm 1-438025. He indicates that the deed of the parent farm and the cadastral map SJ-533255-84 were an attempt to register areas in excess of what was registered, using the boundaries (linderos) described in the deed of the reunification of farms in 1984. He believes that if the Registry accepted the map and the property described with its boundaries in the deed of the reunification of farms and allowed its registration, a kind of legitimization (by the Registry) occurred for an expansion of almost double the area that the two farms had been registering when added together.

There is a difference between the 2 hectares, 2126.36 m2, described in the deed and the 4 hectares, 1525.70 m2, of topographic area on the survey plan (plano), for which the National Registry (Registro Nacional) engaged in a very serious action by accepting the documents and allowing their registration. He considers that articles 11 and 45 of the Political Constitution were violated because the Public Registry (Registro Público), furthermore, accepted boundaries and topographic areas without the due judicial process to verify the ownership of the surplus land registered on the survey plan (plano). He disagrees with the National Registry, regarding the administrative management process -file 2017-0041-RIM- in that “the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-533255-1984 was never taken to the registry entry (asiento registral)” for the reasons already stated. He reiterates that the National Registry and Cadastre (Registro y Catastro Nacional) extended tacit or open cooperation in recording a serious incongruity in the real estate’s registration. He adds that on October 23, 1992, he purchased, jointly with another person, a lot measuring 1 hectare 0062.81 m2, from the parent property (finca madre) 1-318-792-000 and that the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-80241-1992 (of the cited lot) is not a child of the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-533255-84 (of the parent property). The cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-533255-84 was unknown to him until late November 2016. He points out that the parent property (finca madre) had notations (anotaciones), which is why it could not be registered, and after going through a series of minor deficiencies and delays, the Registry refused to register the property due to a shortage of registry area (área registral). He states that, for the National Registry, the sale of the lot was legitimate because in 1992 the area, according to the Registry, was 18973.10 m2, although there were notations (anotaciones). He specifies that, besides not rejecting or correcting the measurements and rectifying the total area, the prevailing system in the Registry allowed the owner to sell and donate all the area of the parent property (finca madre) encompassed by the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-633265-84. He considers that the Registry, by allowing the sale and donation in that manner, violated article 11 of the Political Constitution. He adds that the Registry did not register the properties that did not arrive on time and therefore these were left without registry area (área registral), and one of these was the one he purchased. He clarifies that he has physical possession of the property but the property is not registered; the National Registry denies them the legitimacy as owners of a property acquired by purchase, with its cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) prepared and registered, but registry-wise non-existent. To materialize article 45 of the Political Constitution and the inviolability of property, he continues, it must exist physically and be registered in the Registry, followed by the identification of the owner and the property’s characteristics. He states that, for the moment, only the purchase deed exists, still pending registration, and the right of possession by purchase, which the Registry refuses to legalize. He considers that the Registry bears the responsibility for allowing a series of anomalies regarding the parent property (finca madre) 1-318792-000 in its records. He has been suggested, he continues, the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) as a possibility for registration, but that implies distorting the same law because he has the right of possession from a legal purchase, of a lot from a registered property (finca) with a series of defects, in the Registry. To date, the Registry has refused to register this property, violating article 46 of the Political Constitution. Regarding file No. 01-1006840217-CI, he indicates that Miguel Ángel sold the majority of the total area of 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, with the exception of a parcel of 7,381.91 m2. His only son was awarded the parcel, through the Law of Possessory Information Process (Proceso de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), registered in the Registry, cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-0732490-2001, property registration number (finca matricula) 548608-000, Partido de San José. In the aforementioned process, he continues, Miguel Ángel sells his right of possession and improvements on an unregistered property located in San Gerardo, with its qualities, etc., to his son, thus exonerating him from all culpability and protecting him from the consequences of article 1, subsection f), of the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). He specifies that this parcel was part of the parent property (finca madre) 1-318-792-000; there is an overlap (traslape) between the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) of this parcel and the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) of the parent property. He adds that the cited process, by omission, does not request evidence from the Public Registry to verify the truthfulness of the oath and the writings and documents presented. Likewise, the National Registry and Cadastre (Registro y Catastro Nacional) do not verify if there is an overlap (traslape) of the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) with co-existing registered survey plans with the same coordinates and at the same time verify whether the property or parcel is registered or not, or is part of a larger property. Especially, in the cited case, that of the parent property (finca madre) 1-318-792-000, there exists a violation of constitutional right that this process overlooked without being detected. He considers there is a serious deficiency in the rectitude of the process, which generates negative consequences. He adds that, in said process, the survey engineer prepared a cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) “for possessory information”, without specifying if there is an overlap (traslape) between this plan and the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-633266-84. He believes that if the Registry had intervened in the matter, it would have investigated the background of the parent property (finca madre) and the notations (anotaciones) that still exist on property 1-318792-000. When a judicial process of possessory information ends, the National Registry, under the orders of the judicial authorities, registers the property without further investigations of its own on the matter. He considers that, as proven in this case, in the first instance, the law itself was violated and, second, the National Registry and Cadastre (Registro y Catastro Nacional) did not intervene in the process, nor point out deficiencies. He considers that the law is inconsistent; there are gaps and the process violates article 11 by the omission of the leadership of the National Registry and National Cadastre. He considers that the process violates article 45 of the Political Constitution, by not verifying, beyond all doubt, whether a property is registered or not and whether there is an overlap (traslape) of the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) with a plan already existing in the National Registry, before or after the process of legalization of registration via that route. Additionally, article 19 of the Constitution was violated when it registered the cadastral survey plan (plano catastrado) SJ-732490-2001 and the property registration number (finca matricula) 648608-000 of the Partido de San José, in the name of José Miguel Acosta Granados. He reiterates that the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) is deficient and inconsistent because the subject of private law managed to register a part of an already registered property violating article 1, subsection f), of the same Law due to deficiency and omission of preventive and legal leadership during and after the process.

2.- Article 9 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber to reject outright (de plano) or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any filing brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that sufficient elements of judgment exist to reject it, or that it is the simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous equal or similar rejected filing.

Drafted by Magistrate Jinesta Lobo, and;

WHEREAS:

I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION BY REASON OF THE OBJECT. The Chamber notes that, in this process, what is challenged by the plaintiff constitutes acts of a subjective nature, that is, concrete acts and not a normative provision with abstract effect. In this regard, article 73 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) allows the filing of unconstitutionality actions (acciones de inconstitucionalidad) against subjective acts of public authorities, “…if they are not susceptible to the remedies of habeas corpus or amparo.” With this, the fields of action are clearly delineated, assigning to this Court the jurisdiction to review general and abstract norms and provisions through the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad), while that referring to supposedly unconstitutional actions are analyzed within the remedies of amparo or habeas corpus, if the defense of fundamental rights is at stake. The plaintiff’s claim focuses on actions and omissions of the National Registry and the National Cadastre regarding a real estate property, which he claims is his own and has been unable to register. In this regard, he cites two judicial processes -files No. 16-000249-0217-CI and No. 01-100528-0217-CI- an administrative procedure before the National Registry -file No. 2017-0041-RIM- and four certifications from the National Registry. Likewise, the evidence he provides to the file refers solely to his particular situation in the aforementioned processes and procedure. The Chamber concludes that what is claimed by the plaintiff is alien to the jurisdiction granted to this Court, via unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad). Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible by reason of its object.

II.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE. The parties are warned that if any document on paper has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not removed within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

THEREFORE:

The action is rejected outright (de plano).-

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- *YC0RVCLIEV061* Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6 *170034920007CO* **Exp: 17-003492-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2017003994** **SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on March fifteenth, two thousand seventeen.** Action of unconstitutionality (Acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by **RAJAN BALAKRISHNA MENON MENON**, identity card No. 8-0069-0657; against the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro.

**RESULTANDO:** **1.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Constitutional Chamber at 8:58 a.m. on March 3, 2017, the claimant requests that the unconstitutionality of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the Registro Nacional y de Catastro be declared. He indicates that properties Folio Real (Matrícula) No. 1-33654-000 and No. 1-6541 5A-000 were registered on January 24, 1984. He adds that the parent property No. 1-318792-000 was created from the amalgamation (reunión) of those two properties and that the cadastral map (plano catastrado) SJ-533255-84, for the parent property, was submitted to the Catastro Nacional in April 1984 (months before the amalgamation of properties) and was registered as "part of folios reales 1-056415A-000 and 1-033554-000". He clarifies that the aforementioned map was unknown to him until late November 2016. He states that the topographic area indicated by the map is 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, while the registered area indicated by the map is 1747.24 and 2 hectares 0379.12 m2. The area, he continues, according to the Registry is not highlighted on the map of the plan; there is no way to distinguish which is the registered area and which the excess area (excedente) (on the map of the plan).

He specifies that, due to the way the map was introduced, months before the deed of the reunification of properties, the map does not appear as that of property 1318-792000 because that registration number did not yet exist when the map was prepared and when the map was entered into the National Cadastre. The map and the deed were accepted and registered in the National Registry under registration number 533255. He points out that there is no evidence of a judicial process to justify the registration of the surplus area indicated on the map over the registered area. He adds that the indicated map SJ-533255-84 had two segregations made from the parent property 1-318792-000 and these are cadastral map 1-824809-89 -property 1-544875- and cadastral map 1-774349-2002 -property 1-438025. He indicates that the deed of the parent property and the cadastral map SJ-533255-84 were an attempt to register areas in excess of what was recorded, using the boundaries described in the deed of the reunification of properties in 1984. He considers that if the Registry accepted the map and the property described with its boundaries in the deed of the reunification of properties and allowed its registration, a kind of legitimization (by the Registry) occurred for an expansion almost double the area that the two combined properties had been registering. There is a difference between the 2 hectares, 2126.36 m2, described in the deed and the 4 hectares, 1525.70 m2, of topographic area on the map, for which the National Registry incurred a very serious action in accepting the documents and allowing their registration. He considers that articles 11 and 45 of the Political Constitution were violated because the Public Registry, furthermore, accepted boundaries and topographic areas without the due judicial process to verify the ownership of the surplus land registered on the map. He disagrees with the National Registry, with reference to the administrative management process -expediente 2017-0041-RIM- regarding the fact that “cadastral map SJ-533255-1984 was never brought to the registry entry” for the reasons already stated. He reiterates that the National Registry and Cadastre extended tacit or open cooperation in recording a serious inconsistency in the registration of the real estate property. He adds that on October 23, 1992, he purchased, jointly with another person, a lot measuring 1 hectare 0062.81 m2, from the parent property 1-318-792-000 and that the cadastral map SJ-80241-1992 (of the cited lot) is not a child of cadastral map SJ-533255-84, (of the parent property). Cadastral map SJ-533255-84 was unknown to him until late November 2016. He points out that the parent property had notations, which is why it could not be registered and, after going through a series of minor deficiencies and delays, the Registry refused to register the property due to a shortage of registered area. He states that, for the National Registry, the sale of the lot was legitimate because in 1992 the area, according to the Registry, was 18973.10 m2, although there were notations. He specifies that, in addition to not rejecting or correcting the measurements and rectifying the total area, the system prevailing in the Registry allowed the owner to sell and donate the entire area of the parent property comprised by cadastral map SJ- 633265-84. He considers that the Registry, by allowing the sale and donation in that manner, violated article 11 of the Political Constitution. He adds that the Registry did not register the properties that did not arrive on time and therefore these were left without registered area, and one of these was the one he purchased. He clarifies that he has physical possession of the property but the property is not registered, the National Registry denies them the legitimization as owners of a property acquired by purchase, with its cadastral map and registered, but registry-wise non-existent. To materialize article 45 of the Political Constitution and the inviolability of property, he continues, it must physically exist and be registered in the Registry followed by the identification of the owner and characteristics of the property. He states that, for the moment, only the purchase deed exists, still pending registration, and the right of possession by purchase, which the Registry refuses to legalize. He considers that the Registry has the responsibility of allowing a series of anomalies regarding the parent property 1-318792-000 in its records. He has been suggested, he continues, the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) as a possibility for registration, but that implies distorting the same law because he has the right of possession from a legal purchase, of a lot from a registered property with a series of defects, in the Registry. To date, the Registry has refused to register this property, violating article 46 of the Political Constitution. Regarding expediente No. 01-1006840217-CI, he indicates that Miguel Ángel sold most of the total area of 4 hectares 1525.70 m2, with the exception of a parcel of 7,381.91 m2. His only child was awarded the parcel, through the Process of the Law of Possessory Informations, registered in the Registry, cadastral map SJ-0732490-2001, property registration number 548608-000, Partido de San José. In the mentioned process, he continues, Miguel Ángel sells his right of possession and improvements over an unregistered property located in San Gerardo, with its qualities, etc. to his son, thus exonerating him from all culpability and protecting him from the consequences of article 1, subsection f), of the Law of Possessory Informations. He specifies that this parcel was part of the parent property 1-318-792-000; there is an overlap between the cadastral map of this parcel and the cadastral map of the parent property. He adds that the cited process, by omission, does not request proof from the Public Registry to verify the truthfulness of the oath and of the writings and documents presented. Likewise, the National Registry and Cadastre do not verify if there is an overlap of the cadastral map with coexisting registered maps with the same coordinates and at the same time verify that the property or parcel is registered or not, or is part of a larger property. Especially, in the cited case, that of the parent property 1-318-792-000, there exists a violation of constitutional law that this process overlooked without being detected. He considers that there is a serious deficiency in the rectitude of the process, which generates negative consequences. He adds that, in said process, the surveyor engineer prepared a cadastral map “for possessory information (información posesoria)”, without specifying if there is an overlap between this map and cadastral map SJ- 633266-84. He observes that if the Registry had intervened in the matter, it would have investigated the background of the parent property and the notations that still exist on property 1-318792-000. When a judicial process of possessory informations concludes, the National Registry, on the orders of the judicial authorities, registers the property without further investigations of its own on the matter. He considers that, as is proven in this case, in the first instance, the law itself was violated and, second, the National Registry and Cadastre did not intervene in the process, nor did they point out deficiencies. He considers that the law is inconsistent; there are gaps and the process violates article 11 by omission of the governing bodies of the National Registry and National Cadastre. He considers that the process violates article 45 of the Political Constitution, by not verifying, beyond all doubt, whether a property is registered or not and whether there is an overlap of the cadastral map with a map already existing in the National Registry, before or after the process of legalization of registration by that means. Additionally, article 19 of the Constitution was violated when cadastral map SJ-732490-2001 and property registration number 648608-000 of the Partido de San José were registered, in the name of José Miguel Acosta Granados. He reiterates that the Law of Possessory Informations is deficient and inconsistent because the subject of private law managed to register a part of an already registered property, violating article 1, subsection f), of the Law itself due to deficiency and omission of preventive and legal governing bodies during and after the process.

**2.-** Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any motion submitted for its knowledge that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous, identical or similar motion that was rejected.

Drafted by Magistrate **Jinesta Lobo**, and; **CONSIDERING:** **I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION DUE TO ITS OBJECT.** The Chamber observes that, in this process, what is challenged by the plaintiff constitutes acts of a subjective nature, that is, concrete acts and not a normative provision with abstract effect. In this regard, article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction allows the filing of unconstitutionality actions against subjective acts of public authorities, *"…if they are not susceptible to the remedies of habeas corpus or amparo."* With this, the fields of action are clearly delineated, assigning this Tribunal the competence to review general and abstract norms and provisions through the unconstitutionality action, while matters referring to supposedly unconstitutional actions are analyzed within the remedies of amparo or habeas corpus, if the defense of fundamental rights is at stake. The claimant's complaint focuses on actions and omissions of the National Registry and the National Cadastre regarding a real estate property, which he claims is his property and has not been able to register. In this regard, he cites two judicial processes -expedientes No. 16-000249-0217-CI and No. 01-100528-0217-CI- an administrative procedure before the National Registry -expediente No. 2017-0041-RIM- and four certifications from the National Registry. Likewise, the evidence he provides to the expediente refers solely to his particular situation in the mentioned processes and procedure. The Chamber concludes that what is claimed by the plaintiff is outside the competencies granted to this Tribunal, via unconstitutionality action. Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible due to its object.

**II.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPEDIENTE** . The parties are warned that if any document was provided on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Regulation on Electronic Expediente before the Judicial Branch (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial)", approved by the Full Court in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

**THEREFORE:** Se rechaza de plano la acción.- (The action is rejected outright.-)

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *YC0RVCLIEV061*

*170034920007CO* Res. Nº 2017003994 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas quince minutos del quince de marzo de dos mil diecisiete .

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por RAJAN BALAKRISHNA MENON MENON, cédula de identidad No. 8-0069-0657; contra la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y el Registro Nacional y de Catastro.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala Constitucional a las 8:58 hrs. del 3 de marzo de 2017, el accionante solicita se declare la inconstitucionalidad de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y el Registro Nacional y de Catastro. Señala que las fincas Matrícula No. 1-33654-000 y No. 1-6541 5A-000 fueron inscritas el 24 de enero de 1984. Añade que la finca madre No. 1-318792-000 nació de la reunión de esas dos fincas y que el plano catastrado SJ-533255-84, de la finca madre, ingresó al Catastro Nacional en abril de 1984 (meses antes de la reunión de fincas) y fue inscrito como "parte de los folios reales 1-056415A-000 y 1-033554-000". Aclara que el mencionado plano le era desconocido hasta finales de noviembre de 2016. Manifiesta que el área topográfica que indica el plano es 4 hectáreas 1525.70 m2, mientras el área registral que indica el plano es 1747.24 y 2 hectáreas 0379.12 m2. El área, continúa, según Registro no está destacada en el mapa del plano; no existe manera para distinguir cuál es el área registral y cual el excedente (en el mapa del plano). Precisa que, por la manera en que fue introducido el plano, meses antes de la escritura de la reunión de fincas, el plano no aparece como el de la finca 1318-792000 porque dicha matricula todavía no existía cuando se confeccionó el plano y cuando el plano ingresó al Catastro Nacional. El plano y la escritura fueron aceptados e inscritos en el Registro Nacional con el número de inscripción 533255. Señala que no hay evidencia de un proceso judicial para justificar la inscripción del excedente del área que se indica en el plano sobre el área registral. Agrega que el indicado plano SJ-533255-84 tuvo dos segregaciones se hicieron de la finca madre 1-318792-000 y son el plano catastrado 1-824809-89 -finca 1-544875- y plano catastrado 1-774349-2002 -finca 1-438025. Indica que la escritura de la finca madre y el plano catastrado SJ-533255-84 fueron un intento de inscribir áreas en exceso de lo registrado, valiéndose de los linderos descritos en la escritura de la reunión de fincas en 1984. Estima que si el Registro aceptó el piano y la propiedad descrita con sus linderos en la escritura de la reunión de fincas y permitió su inscripción, se dio una especie de legitimación (del Registro) a una ampliación casi doble del área que venían registrando las dos fincas sumadas. Hay una diferencia entre las 2 hectáreas, 2126,36 m2, descrita en la escritura y los 4 hectáreas, 1525,70 m2, de área topográfica en el plano, por lo que el Registro Nacional incurrió en una gravísima acción en aceptar los documentos y permitir su inscripción. Estima que se lesionaron los artículos 11 y 45 de la Constitución Política porque el Registro Público, además, aceptó linderos y áreas topográficos sin el debido proceso judicial para verificar la titularidad del excedente de tierra registrado en el plano. Discrepa del Registro Nacional, con referencia al proceso de gestión administrativa -expediente 2017-0041-RIM- en cuanto a que “el plano catastrado SJ-533255-1984 nunca fue llevado al asiento registral” por las razones ya expuestas. Reitera que el Registro y Catastro Nacional extendieron una cooperación tácita o abierta en asentar una seria incongruencia en la registración del bien inmueble. Agrega que el 23 de octubre de 1992, compró, en conjunto con otra persona, un lote que mide 1 hectárea 0062.81 m2, de la finca madre 1-318-792-000 y que el plano catastrado SJ-80241-1992 (del citado lote) no es hijo del plano catastrado SJ-533255-84, (de la finca madre). El plano catastrado SJ-533255-84 le era desconocido hasta finales de noviembre de 2016. Señala que la finca madre tenía anotaciones, razón por la cual no se pudo inscribir y pasando por una serie de pequeñas deficiencias y atrasos, el Registro se negó a inscribir la finca por escasez de área registral. Manifiesta que, para el Registro Nacional, la venta del lote era legitima porque en 1992 el área, según el Registro, era 18973.10 m2, aunque hubo anotaciones. Precisa que, además de no rechazar o corregir las medidas y rectificar el área total, el sistema imperante en el Registro permitió que el dueño vendiera y diera en donación todo el área de la finca madre comprendido por el plano catastrado SJ- 633265-84. Estima que el Registro, al permitir la venta y donación de esa manera, lesionó el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política. Añade que el Registro no inscribió las propiedades que no llegaron a tiempo y por lo tanto estas quedaron sin área registral, y una de estas fue la que él compró. Aclara que, tiene posesión física de la propiedad pero la propiedad no está inscrita, el Registro Nacional les niega la legitimación de propietarios de una finca adquirida por compra, con su plano catastrado e inscrito, pero registralmente inexistente. Para materializar el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política y la inviolabilidad de la propiedad, continúa, debe existir físicamente e inscrita en el Registro seguido por la identificación del titular y características de la propiedad. Manifiesta que, por el momento, sólo existe la escritura de compra, todavía pendiente de inscribir y el derecho de posesión por compra, que el Registro niega legalizar. Considera que el Registro tiene la responsabilidad de permitir una serie de anomalías sobre la finca madre 1-318792-000 en sus registros. Se le ha sugerido, continúa, la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias como una posibilidad de inscripción, pero eso implica tergiversar la misma ley porque tiene el derecho de posesión por una compra legal, de un lote de una finca inscrita con una serie de defectos, en el Registro. Hasta la fecha el Registro ha negado a inscribir esta propiedad, lesionando el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política. Sobre el expediente No. 01-1006840217-CI, indica que Miguel Ángel vendió la mayor parte del área total de 4 hectáreas 1525,70 m2, con la excepción de una parcela de 7,381.91 m2. Su único hijo se adjudicó la parcela, mediante el Proceso de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, inscrita en el Registro, plano catastrado SJ-0732490-2001, finca matricula 548608-000, Partido de San José. En el mencionado proceso, continúa, Miguel Ángel vende su derecho de posesión y mejoras sobre una finca no inscrita situada en San Gerardo, con sus calidades, etc. a su hijo, exonerándolo así de toda culpabilidad y protegiéndolo de las consecuencias del artículo 1, inciso f), de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. Precisa que esa parcela era parte de la finca madre 1-318-792-000; existe un traslape entre el plano catastrado de esa parcela y el plano catastrado de la finca madre. Agrega que el citado proceso, por omisión, no pide pruebas al Registro Público para comprobar la veracidad del juramento y de los escritos y documentos presentados. Asimismo, el Registro y el Catastro Nacional no verifica si existe un traslape del plano catastrado con planos coexistentes inscritos con las mismas coordenadas y a la vez comprobar que la finca o parcela este inscrita o no, os es parte de una finca más extensa. Especialmente, en el caso citado, la de la finca madre 1-318-792-000, existe violación de derecho constitucional que este proceso pasó por encima sin ser detectada. Considera que existe una seria deficiencia en la rectitud del proceso, la cual genera consecuencias negativas. Añade que, en dicho proceso, el ingeniero topógrafo confeccionó un plano catastrado “para información posesoria”, sin precisar si hay traslape entre este plano y el plano catastrado SJ- 633266-84. Aprecia que si el Registro tuviera intervención en el asunto hubiese indagado los antecedentes de la finca madre y las anotaciones que todavía existen sobre la finca 1-318792-000. Cuando termina un proceso judicial de informaciones posesorias, el Registro Nacional, a las órdenes de las autoridades judiciales, inscribe la finca sin más investigaciones propias sobre el asunto. Estima que, como se comprueba en este caso, en primera instancia, la propia ley fue violada y, segundo, el Registro y el Catastro Nacional no intervinieron en el proceso, ni señalaron deficiencias. Considera que la ley es inconsistente; hay lagunas y el proceso viola el artículo 11 por omisión de rectores del Registro Nacional y Catastro Nacional. Considera que el proceso viola el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, al no verificar, fuera de toda duda, si una finca está inscrita o no y si hay un traslape del plano catastrado con un plano ya existente en el Registro Nacional, antes o después del proceso de legalización de inscripción por esa vía. Adicionalmente, se lesionó el artículo 19 de la Constitución cuando inscribió al plano catastrado SJ-732490-2001 y la finca matricula 648608-000 del Partido de San José, a nombre de José Miguel Acosta Granados. Reitera que la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias es deficiente e inconsistente por cuanto el sujeto de derecho privado logró inscribir una parte de una finca ya inscrita violando el artículo 1, inciso f), de la propia Ley por deficiencia y omisión de rectores preventivos y legales durante y después del proceso.

2.- El artículo 9º de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.

Redacta el Magistrado Jinesta Lobo, y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- SOBRE LA INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA ACCIóN EN RAZóN DEL OBJETO. La Sala aprecia que, e n este proceso, lo impugnado por el actor constituye actos de carácter subjetivo, esto es, concretos y no una disposición normativa con eficacia abstracta. Al respecto, el artículo 73 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional permite la presentación de acciones de inconstitucionalidad contra actos subjetivos de las autoridades públicas, “…si no fueren susceptibles de los recursos de hábeas corpus o amparo”. Con esto se deslindan claramente los campos de actuación, asignando a este Tribunal la competencia de revisión de normas y disposiciones generales y abstractas a través de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, mientras que lo referido a actuaciones supuestamente inconstitucionales se analizan dentro de los recursos de amparo o hábeas corpus, si estuvieren de por medio la defensa de derechos fundamentales. El reclamo del accionante se centra en actuaciones y omisiones del Registro Nacional y el Catastro Nacional sobre un bien inmueble, que alega es de su propiedad y no hay podido inscribir. Al respecto cita dos procesos judiciales -expedientes No. 16-000249-0217-CI y No. 01-100528-0217-CI- una gestión administrativa ante el Registro Nacional -expediente No. 2017-0041-RIM- y cuatro certificaciones del Registro Nacional. Asimismo, la prueba que aporta al expediente se refiere, únicamente, a su situación particular en los mencionados procesos y procedimiento. La Sala concluye que se lo reclamado por el accionante resulta ajeno a las competencias otorgadas a este Tribunal, vía acción de inconstitucionalidad. Bajo tales circunstancias, la acción resulta inadmisible en razón de su objeto.

II.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE . Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

POR TANTO:

Se rechaza de plano la acción.- Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *YC0RVCLIEV061* 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6