Redhibitory vices vs. eviction in sale of forest-financed propertySaneamiento por vicios ocultos en compraventa de finca forestal confundida con evicción

**TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO** **II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04** **Central: 2545-00-03 Fax: 2545-00-33** **Correo Electrónico ...01** **EXPEDIENTE:** 18-005746-1027-CA **PROCESO:** CONOCIMIENTO **ACTORA:** Nombre136762 **DEMANDADO:** BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA **RESOLUCIÓN N° 113-2021 - VI** **TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA - SECCIÓN SEXTA- SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.** Goicoechea, at fourteen hours ten minutes on the thirtieth of August of two thousand twenty-one. - Contentious-administrative proceeding of pure law established by Nombre136762, bearer of identity card number CED110312, represented by Nombre71004, in the capacity of special judicial attorney-in-fact (power of attorney provided with the complaint), against **BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA**, represented by Nombre21788 in the capacity of general judicial attorney-in-fact (on file in the Office's register of authorized representatives).- **CONSIDERANDO:** **I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS, DELIBERATION AND VOTE.-** This resolution is issued in accordance with the formalities established in Law No. 9342, Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), the Corte Plena circular number 96-2018 "Normas Prácticas para la Aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Civil", adopted in article XII of session number 38-18 of August 13, 2018, and the Reglamento sobre Expediente Judicial Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, approved by Corte Plena in article XXXI of session No. 22-13, held on May 20, 2013. The ruling is adopted unanimously, once the respective deliberation has been carried out, with the drafting of the resolution in charge of the reporting judge, Judge Aguilar Méndez, with the concurring vote and opinion of Judges Garita Navarro and Nombre10955.- **II.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.-** The claims that constitute the object of this proceeding were fixed in the preliminary hearing in the same terms in which they were raised in the complaint. In this manner, we proceed then to transcribe said claims, adding digital extracts of the scanned document that is on file in the judicial electronic case file, corresponding to the calculation tables performed by the claimant's legal representation:

"...PRETENSIÓN: Based on the facts set forth and citations of law invoked, I request that the judgment declare:

1- That this administrative claim is granted.

2- That the Defendant must reimburse the undersigned the total amount of the sums for the purchase of the farm plus interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, according to the date on which they were disbursed, that is:

3- That the Defendant must reimburse the expenses incurred for its transfer, and interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, according to the date on which they were disbursed, namely:

4- That the defendant reimburse the INTEREST [sic] PAID [sic], commissions and insurance, plus interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, from the date of having concluded the payment of the loan for the credit that I had to take out with the Asociación Costarricense para Organizaciones de Desarrollo Acorde, according to promissory note No. Placa26794 in the name of my represented company Easy And Express S.A, for 9,000,000.00 Colones (Nine Million Colones) of which [sic] I had to pay over a period of one year the sum of 899,677.00 Colones (Eight Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Colones) Exactly per month, for twelve months, which in its totality amounts to 10,796,124;00, of the nine million requested I only received 8,688,378.00 Colones (Eight Million Six Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Eight Colones), the remainder was paid in commissions and insurance, money that I would never have been obliged to request if I had not made the purchase of the farm in question. I received the money on September 17, 2010, and finished paying it on September 17, 2011.

5- That the defendant reimburse the expenses incurred in improvements, modifications, and repairs made to the farm for the purpose of making use of it, plus interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, from the date recorded on the invoice that I present for the same, Issued [sic] by Excavaciones O.C.Q, LEGAL ID [sic] 3-105-619876, INVOICE NUMBER 0368, DATED 30/12/2014.

6- That the defendant reimburse the costs of the possible civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre140068 as this is a direct consequence of the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Naranjo branch, Nombre140069, with cell phone number at that time 8319-2907, at the time of making the respective purchase, and a direct effect of the overlap problem that the farm presents, plus interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, from the date the lawsuit was filed, 12/02/2015. I clarify that the costs of the trial have not been possible to determine.

7- That the defendant must pay the undersigned the costs of hiring Engineer Georgeanella Flores Muñoz, ID CED110313, the sum of 200,000 (two hundred thousand colones), for professional services in two installments of 100,000 (one hundred thousand colones), according to invoices of which I attach a copy, number 0091 dated 16/01/2017 and number 0090 dated 09/01/2017, and additionally the receipt from the colegio de ingenieros agrónomos de costa rica [sic] NUMBER CED110314 for timbers for the executed supervision for an amount of 39,690, dated 13/01/2017. Plus interest calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, from the date recorded on said documents.

8- That the defendant must pay the undersigned the FUTURE, UNRECEIVED [sic] INCOME by virtue of the contract signed with FONAFIFO, CONTRATO DE PAGO DE SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES POR MANTENIMIENTO DE COBERTURA FORESTAL EN LA ACTIVIDAD DE PROTECCION [sic] DE BOSQUE, with FONAFIFO, contract number SJ-OI-22-0112-2016, dated 26/05/2017, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 6,216,184.80 COLONES (Six Million Two Hundred Sixteen [sic] Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Four Colones With 80/100) 9- That the defendant must pay the undersigned, All [sic] expenses incurred for Municipal Taxes, that have been paid to date on the farm, plus interest, calculated to 25/05/2018, at 24% annual, fixed, from the date recorded on said documents.

10- The damages and losses caused as follows: for damages the TOTAL amount of the sums claimed including interest, which amount to 103,394,400.70 colones (One Hundred Three Million Three Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Four Hundred colones with 70/100) and for losses the moral damages that I have suffered due to this situation.

11- That the defendant must pay both costs of this action.

The damages originate from the amounts paid by my represented party and the losses are the moral damages that the same has [sic] suffered for having paid for a farm which she has not been able [sic] to use due to the overlap problem that it presents and the damages that an unfavorable judgment could cause related to the lawsuit that weighs on the undersigned, filed by Mr. Nombre140068 ..." The claimant bases her claims on the existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos) in the acquisition of the farm of the Partido de Alajuela, registration number Placa26796, which was sold to her by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. She alleges that said public company led her into error, because the property presented anomalies that have prevented her from enjoying that asset; specifically, she criticizes two aspects in particular: first, that as a result of modifications she made to the farm between December 30, 2014, and January 1, 2015, "...based on the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica...", she was the subject of a criminal complaint, processed under summary number 15-000110-0075-PE filed by Mr. Nombre140068, and as a result of which she learned of the existence that he was the owner of a farm that overlapped with hers. She considers that this represents a risk for her of being convicted in criminal proceedings and sued civilly. Secondly, she mentions that in her capacity as owner, she requested the municipal visado from the Municipalidad de Valverde Vega (Sarchí), which she indicates was rejected for presenting a partial registry overlap with the farm of the Partido de Alajuela, registration No. Placa26797, with map Placa26798. She estimates that these situations have prevented her from enjoying the asset acquired in good faith and reveal that there are hidden defects (vicios ocultos), because "...the greater part of the undersigned's farm is located on top of another farm or vice versa, whereby the extension of land that was actually sold to me [...] does not correspond to the real measurement of the farm, which causes a great loss for me...". She also considers that her claim is timely because it is only after this last event, that is, the property being overlapped with another farm, that she is in a position to bring her action. She then points out that as it is a hidden defect (vicio oculto), she was not in a position to claim previously. In summary, the representation of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (hereinafter, Banco Nacional or BNCR) opposes the action brought, by filing the exceptions of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right (falta de Derecho), and requests that the claimant be ordered to pay costs. It alleges that the sale executed on the property occurred based on the powers granted to the Bank it represents by Articles 3 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 72 of the Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, and 438 and 439 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), constituting an ordinary commercial activity exercised by that public entity. It states that, in that sense, the Bank has the legal obligation to dispose of those assets within a maximum period of two years from their acquisition, according to the internal appraisals carried out for that purpose. It alleges that, since this is a commercial sale and given that the registration of the farm in the claimant's name occurred on December 3, 2010, by the time he filed the administrative claim, the four-year period provided in Article 984 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) had been exceeded, thus extinguishing the power to claim from the Bank the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) that he alleges were prior to the acquisition of the property.- **III.- PROVEN FACTS.-** Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are held as duly proven according to the rules of sound criticism, whether they are so recorded or inferred from the evidence provided in the case file and that was duly admitted, or because the parties have so accepted them:

1.- In 2010, the Dirección Regional Alajuela Norte of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica carried out a "concurso Venta DRA-VN-06-2010", through which it put up for sale a farm with forestry vocation (vocación forestal) "composed entirely of Primary Forest" with registration number Placa26795, with cadastral map number A-916649-2004, and with an area of 368,292.20 square meters (ff. 02 to 04 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 2.- Through a note dated August 30, 2010, Mr. Nombre136762 submitted a formal purchase offer to the Banco Nacional, regarding the farm described in the previous proven fact, for the sum of twenty-eight million colones (¢28,000,000.00), in which he also indicated that "I clarify that I know and accept the current conditions of the property, releasing the Banco Nacional from all present and future responsibility for said purchase" (f. 01 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 3.- Through public deed number 50-08 granted before Notary Rolando Miranda Zumbado at 11:15 hours on November 8, 2010, the Banco Nacional and Mr. Nombre136762 signed a purchase agreement for the farm of the partido de Alajuela, registration number Placa26796 previously described, for a price of twenty-eight million colones (¢Placa26799). The sale was made "free of mortgage liens and annotations" (ff. 133 and 134 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 4.- On December 3, 2010, the private property right acquired by the claimant here regarding property registration number Placa26795 was registered with the Registro Nacional. Mr. Nombre136762 maintains, as of the date of this judgment, the ownership of dominion over said property (document provided with the complaint visible in the judicial electronic case file and consultation made on the date of this judgment in the public database of the Registro Nacional); 5.- On February 6, 2015, Mr. Nombre140068, a foreign person of Dutch nationality, appeared before the office of the Organismo de Investigación Judicial (OIJ) located in the town of Grecia, Alajuela, for the purpose of filing a complaint for the crime of damages to the detriment of the environment and his own. Said complaint was assigned judicial case file number 15-000110-0075-PE. On that occasion, he narrated that on January 18 of that year, he had found works carried out on what he said was his farm, located in a protected zone (zona protectora): "... they had made kind of terraces of about three hundred meters which they left cleared and in dirt, in which the greatest damage is the felling of trees [sic]...". He said that upon the indication of the police and MINAE officials, he decided to file a complaint "...since it is unknown who caused the damages and because it is prohibited to carry out works in the same without prior permits in a protected area [...] it is unknown if any of the other owners caused the damages...". Subsequently, through report No. 032-CI-15 of February 12 of that year, the Regional Office of Grecia of the OIJ determined that it was the claimant here who carried out the works, from then on being considered the accused in the mentioned criminal case file (ff. 107 to 116 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 6.- On May 26, 2017, the claimant here and Mr. Nombre81943, the latter acting in his capacity as Director Ejecutivo of the Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal, subscribed a contract for payment of environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales) for maintenance of forest cover (cobertura forestal) in the forest protection activity on farm number 2-401368-000 (ff. 123 to 126 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 7.- Through a document titled "Minuta de calificación para visado" with number 11415-2017 dated June 7, 2017, the Department of Bienes Inmuebles of the then Municipalidad de Valverde Vega (today Municipalidad de Sarchí, according to Law No. 9658 of July 5, 2019), established the following regarding farm number Dirección16834:-- 8.- By means of a written document dated August 1, 2017, Mr. Nombre136762 filed before the Naranjo Branch of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a "...formal claim for compensation for payment of damages and losses that have been Page 1 of 26 caused to me because of the purchase of the property located in the Province of Alajuela, which I made to that institution under the modality of sale of auctioned goods to the highest bidder, which is causing me serious harm..." (ff. 136 to 151 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 9.- In a written document dated November 8, 2017, the claimant here asked the Banco Nacional to respond to his claim for compensation, since as of that day nothing had been answered in that regard (ff. 152 to 154 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 10.- Through an unnumbered official communication dated December 11, 2017, the official Juan Carlos Vindas Molina, in his capacity as Gerente de la Sucursal de Naranjo of BNCR, communicated to the claimant here that his claim was being attended to by the Bank's legal area (f. 155 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 11.- Through an unnumbered official communication dated December 14, 2017, the Gerencia de la Sucursal de Naranjo of BNCR decided to reject the administrative claim raised by the claimant here, based on the opinion of the Bank's Dirección Jurídica number D.J./3712-2017 (Ref. 5976-2017) of December 14 of that year (ff. 156 to 160 of the certified copy of the administrative file); and 12.- Faced with the decision adopted by the Gerencia de la Sucursal de Naranjo of BNCR, Mr. Nombre136762 filed the resources (recursos) of revocation with subsidiary appeal, the first being rejected through an unnumbered office communication consecutively dated January 24, 2017, while the appeal was dismissed by the Bank's Gerencia General in official communication number GG-066-18 of March 5, 2018 (documents provided with the complaint and on file in the judicial electronic case file).- **IV.- UNPROVEN FACTS.-** Of use for this ruling, the following facts are held as not proven, whether because the parties failed to fulfill their evidentiary burdens, or because the Office did not find admitted and suitable evidence which, in the light of sound criticism, allowed them to be accredited:

1.- That Mr. Nombre136762 was prevented from exercising the attributes of dominion in relation to the farm of his property, registration number Placa26795, by Mr. Nombre140068 or any other person; 2.- That Mr. Nombre136762 was unaware of the forestry vocation (vocación forestal) of the farm registration number Placa26795 at the time of its acquisition; 3.- The existence of a final judicial judgment determining the overlap or superimposition of the farm owned by the claimant, registration number Placa26795, with any other property; 4.- That in the criminal process processed in judicial case file No. 15-000110-0075PE, any judicial resolution or judgment was issued that prevented or hindered the use and enjoyment of the farm registration number Placa26795 by Mr. Nombre136762; 5.- That Mr. Nombre136762 suffered an administrative or judicial eviction from the property comprised by the farm of his property registration number Placa26795; 6.- That the claimant here was the subject of a criminal complaint or civil action in criminal proceedings, or sued in civil proceedings by Mr. Nombre140068; 7.- That Mr. Nombre136762 exercised, in any judicial proceeding in which his right of ownership over farm registration number Placa26795 was questioned, the power to call into the proceeding the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in the capacity of guarantor.- **V.- ON THE MATERIAL PREREQUISITES OF THE ACTION.-** This Tribunal is clear that, despite the defendant having raised the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right (falta de Derecho), it is a duty of the Judging persons to review the fulfillment or not of the substantial prerequisites for the issuance of any judgment: those relating to the standing (legitimación) of the intervening parties, the interest in the resolution of the conflict, and the right; which are reviewable even ex officio by any judge, as has been recognized by ample precedents of the Sala Primera and of this Tribunal (see, among others, from the Sala Primera, judgment number 317-F-S12008 of 09:10 hours on May 2, 2008, and number 1548-F-SI-2011 of 09:20 hours on December 22, 2011; and from the Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Octava, number 85-2012 of 08:30 hours on September 14, 2012; Sección Cuarta, judgments number 28-2012 of 07:30 hours on March 16, 2012, and number 17-2015-IV of 08:00 hours on February 25, 2015; and Sección Sexta, judgments number 80-2017-VI of 11:30 hours on June 23, 2017, and 86-2017-VI of 10:00 hours on June 30, 2017, among others). If any of these requirements—or all of them—are not verified by the judging person, whether or not raised in the form of exceptions or defenses, the complaint cannot find a positive response from the Office. It is worth saying that the existence of procedural prerequisites or requirements for the exercise of the right to effective judicial protection, in its aspect of access to justice, that is, of formal restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental and human right, has been recognized even by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has provided in its jurisprudence: "...143. The Court has pointed out that, for reasons of legal certainty, for the correct and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of people's rights, States may and must establish prerequisites and admissibility criteria for domestic resources, whether judicial or of any other nature. In such a way that, although said domestic resources must be available to the interested party and effectively and substantively resolve the matter raised, as well as eventually provide adequate reparation, it would not be possible to consider that always and in any case the domestic bodies and courts must resolve the merits of the matter presented to them, regardless of the verification of the formal prerequisites of admissibility and approval of the particular resource attempted. Likewise, the Court has determined that the application of admissibility grounds for a resource is compatible with the American Convention and the effectiveness of the resource implies that, potentially, when said requirements are met, the judicial body evaluates its merits..." (Case Nombre5486 Vs. Argentina, Judgment of November 22, 2019. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Highlighting is not from the original. See in that same sense: Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Nombre137239 y otros) Vs. Perú, Judgment of November 24, 2006. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Paras. 126 to 128; Case Nombre6602 y otros Vs. Nicaragua, Judgment of March 25, 2017. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Para. 163; Case Trabajadores Cesados de Nombre137240 y otros Vs. Perú, Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Paras. 154 to 156; Case Nombre137241 Vs. Argentina, Judgment of October 15, 2019. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Paras. 135 and 136; Case Nombre156 y Otros Vs. Argentina, Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Paras. 209 to 211, among others). Thus, it is the criterion of this Chamber that, in the sub lite case, it is essential to fully enter into the merits of the matter, that is, into the examination of the Right as a prerequisite of the action brought, given that when examining the temporal prerequisite of the complaint, that is, the statute of limitations (prescripción) alleged by the defendant Bank, the undersigned have encountered an argumentative obstacle in the formulation of the theory of the case of the claimant, which, by its magnitude, prevents the respective analysis from being carried out. We must keep in mind that the study of the temporal prerequisite first involves analyzing and determining the legal regime of the claimed right, since it is therein that the conditions for the timely exercise of the right of action are established. The problem that arises in the subexamine case lies in that the theory of the case of the claimant presents a serious inconsistency, firstly, because it formulates in the complaint an action to enforce a supposed guarantee for hidden defects (vicios ocultos) or redhibitory defects (vicios redhibitorios), in relation to the commercial purchase agreement through which he acquired the farm registration number Placa26795; however, despite this, it does not specify or concretize which type of action is exercised, as we will see infra; in addition, secondly and more importantly, it is detailed that the judicial representation of the claimant employs an argumentation based on a different obligation of the seller, that is, not on supposed hidden defects (vicios ocultos), but on the guarantee against eviction (garantía de evicción). In this way, we must inevitably begin with the examination of the merits of the right claimed, before being able to determine any other aspect of the proceeding.- **VI.- ON THE GUARANTEES FOR HIDDEN DEFECTS, FUNCTIONING, AND EVICTION.-** A guarantee alludes to any of certain legal instruments that the legal system enables in order to make effective the enjoyment of a right; in this way, guarantees can have their origin in the law (legal guarantees) or in a meeting of minds (conventional guarantees); likewise, it is possible to categorize them according to whether they are related to rights in rem or personal rights. The difference in the first of these classifications lies in that legal guarantees do not need to be expressly agreed upon by the parties, since they derive directly from the Law. Thus, among these and regarding the purchase agreement (especially, one of a commercial nature), the national legal system generally provides for three classes of guarantees that the seller must assure in favor of the buyer: the guarantee against eviction (garantía de evicción), the guarantee for hidden or redhibitory defects (vicios ocultos or redhibitorios), and the guarantee of functioning; their definition and distinction have been extensively developed by the jurisprudence of the Sala Primera for decades. Thus we can review the judgments of that High Court, number 320 of 14 hours 20 minutes on November 9, 1990; 227 of 14:15 hours on December 20, 1991; 37 of 11 hours 10 minutes on May 28, 1993; 7 of 14:30 hours on February 2, 1994; 44 of 14:30 hours on June 15, 1994; 77 of 15 hours 30 minutes on July 12, 1995; 86 of 14:50 hours on August 9, 1996; 209-F-04 of 11:20 hours on March 24, 2004; 810-F-04 of 10:00 hours on September 17, 2004; 617-F-2005 of 10:40 hours on August 25, 2005; 963-F2005 of 13:40 hours on December 15, 2005; 999-F-2005 of 14:55 hours on December 21, 2005; 1470-F-S1-2011 of 09:00 hours on November 8, 2011, among others. In summarized terms, through the guarantee against eviction (garantía de evicción), it is sought that the seller assures the buyer the peaceful enjoyment of the transmitted right, against third parties who disturb or threaten to disturb, in fact or in law, said legal situation, thereby also covering the partial or total loss of the thing sold: "...Evicción is the loss or disturbance of the right of ownership over the sold good, suffered by the buyer from a third party, by virtue of a cause prior to the sale.— Evicción is also understood as the obligation that the seller has to assure the buyer the peaceful enjoyment, in fact and in law, of the thing transmitted..." (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original). Based on this conceptual approach by the Sala Primera, the Civil Courts have developed the scope of this guarantee in the following sense: "...Article 1034 of the Civil Code provides that 'Everyone who has transmitted for valuable consideration a right in rem or personal right guarantees its free exercise to the person to whom it was transmitted.' That norm regulates the so-called guarantee against eviction (garantía por evicción), which is an obligation borne by the seller in the case of a purchase agreement. Evicción is, it is known, 'the loss of all or part of the thing sold due to a judicial action brought against the buyer.' (Nombre60957, . Traité des Contrats. Editorial Juricentro. San José, 1985, p. 121). This means that when the buyer has been sued by a third party, with a claim to deprive him of the acquired asset, he can cite the seller in eviction (citar de evicción), so that he may come out in defense of the thing sold, which would be done in accordance with the provisions of Articles 109 and 111 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil)..." (Judgment of the Tribunal Segundo Civil Sección Segunda No. 165 of 09:00 hours on June 25, 2008. Highlighting is not from the original). For its part, civil doctrine has specified that "...this obligation is double or has two parts; the seller must, in effect: 1° defend the buyer against the disturbance, that is, put an end to the cause of the latter; 2° indemnify the buyer when he could not prevent the disturbance, or when the evicción has been consummated. However, these two parts of the guarantee obligation cannot be presented as objects of distinct obligations. To speak with exactness, it must be said that the seller's obligation has as its sole object the protection of the buyer, and that in case of non-fulfillment, this obligation is resolved in the compensation of damages and losses like all obligations to do..." (Planiol, R. and Ripert. G. Traité Élémentaire de Droit Civil. 1st Edition, p. 220-221. Highlighting is not from the original).

Precisely herein lies the very meaning of this guarantee, and Article 1036 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates: “…Article 1036.- The person to whom the guarantee is owed may require from the guarantor: 1º.- To put an end to the judicial proceedings that a third party is pursuing against them, or the resistance that someone opposes to the exercise of their rights; 2º.- Compensation for the consequences of those proceedings, or of the resistance, if these or the latter have been exercised lawfully….” (Emphasis is not original). Regarding the guarantees for hidden defects and for functionality, these share a common root, since through both, the seller obliges itself to assure the purchaser of the fitness of the transferred object to satisfy the intended use for it: “…The interest that the buyer of a good intends to satisfy with its acquisition necessarily presupposes that it is suitable for the destination it normally fulfills. Faced with the possibility that the object of the agreement presents defects, faults, or insufficiencies that render it useless or inadequate to fulfill its nature, or cause it a diminution in value, doctrine and the Legal System have enshrined the guarantees of functionality and hidden defects, which usually accompany this onerous mode of acquiring property…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). Now, regarding this latter one, that is, the guarantee of functionality, suffice it to outline the following given that this scenario bears no relation to the case sub examine: “…the guarantee of functionality is based on the same objective premise as that of hidden defects, that is, that the object presents defects that compromise its use, but unlike those, they manifest in the good after its delivery, meaning they did not accompany it at the moment the buyer could or should have inspected it, but rather arise later, as a result of its normal use […] This means that all functional defects that the good presents within that time must be corrected, provided that, after the breakdown, no more than thirty days are allowed to elapse before communicating what occurred. Therefore, even though the guarantee covers from the delivery of the good and extends for the stipulated period, the time to claim that the acquired object presents a defect that makes it inadequate to fulfill its functions begins to run from when it arises and not from when the thing was delivered. Non-observance of that thirty-day period to give the corresponding notice leads to the expiration of the right. The claim enabled by that rule is not for annulment or for recovery, as occurs for hidden defects in the civil and commercial areas, respectively, but rather the repair or substitution of the thing. The figure is also regulated in consumer matters, in ordinal 43 of the corresponding regulatory body, according to which the guarantee of functionality implicitly accompanies every good or service that is sold or provided, and therefore it must meet the quality standards and technical requirements that for reasons of health, environment, and safety are established by the Legal System […] Moreover, regarding the statute of limitations, the applicable rule is Article 984 in its subsection a), and not its general statement. That subsection establishes an annual period for the extinguishment of rights based on claims for defects of things sold with a guarantee of good functionality; hence, a criterion of specialty prevails over the four-year period provided for other scenarios that lack a specific provision…” (Judgment 999-F-2005 and 1470-F-S1-2011). - VII.- CONTINUES.- Now, with respect to the guarantee for hidden defects, the First Chamber has pointed out that this type of defect corresponds to those defects that, unlike evident or manifest ones, “…are also present in the thing delivered, [but] are not detected through a reasonable examination of the good, meaning they are hidden…” (Judgment 999-F-2005) and that, consequently, affect the use and benefit of the thing to the detriment of the buyer, who in good faith has contributed their will to the formation of the contract unaware of the existence of said defects. Therefore, “…the guarantee for eviction (saneamiento) or for hidden defects is a natural effect of the contract of purchase and sale.- It refers to the obligation of the seller to deliver the sold thing and that it is fit to fulfill the function for which it is normally intended, meaning, they must deliver the thing in good condition, without defects that make it unsuitable, or notably affect its normal use…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Emphasis is not original). This is explained because “… The buyer is interested in receiving a thing suitable for the intended purpose, without a defect that makes it diminish in value. If the thing does not meet these conditions, the buyer will want to return it, rescinding the contract, or will attempt to reduce the price in proportion to the defects noted. The seller is interested, above all, in alienating the thing because their benefit depends on the number of sales made; and, secondarily, if the buyer discovers defects in the merchandise, the seller is interested in the immediate claim by the buyer, in order to conclude the contract as soon as possible…” (Judgments No. 7 and No. 44 of 1994). From this jurisprudential line, the Civil Courts have specified a series of requirements that must be duly demonstrated to prove the presence of hidden or redhibitory defects: “… In relation to this topic, we must point out that, in order to demand civil liability, hidden defects must meet certain requirements, namely: a. They must be hidden defects, not apparent or manifest; b. The thing must have been acquired onerously; c. They must not be known by the acquirer; d. The hidden defect must render the natural or normal use of the thing unsuitable or frustrated, or diminish it substantially, and e. They must be prior to the sale. To this we must add an important aspect: "... It is not necessary for the seller to have known of such defects, nor for them to be perpetual or irremediable." (Decision of the First Chamber number 227 at 14:15 on 12/20/1991), this implies that the seller will be civilly liable even if they are ignorant of the hidden defects. Thus, the buyer must prove bad faith or fraud (dolo) only in those cases where the contract has released the seller from the obligation to indemnify damages and losses (doctrine of ordinal 701 of the Civil Code)…” (Judgment of the Second Civil Court, First Section, No. 52 at 10:40 on February 26, 2015. Name211 is original). Likewise, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber has established three distinct courses of action to claim for this type of defect: “…These are, therefore, three possible actions born from the same fact: defects of the thing that is the object of the contract of purchase and sale. [1] The action for recovery (repetición) for hidden or redhibitory defects, as established in the penultimate paragraph of 450 of the Commercial Code, [2] the action for annulment for error in consent as a result of hidden or redhibitory defects, according to Article 1082 of the Civil Code, and [3] the common contractual liability derived from Article 692 of the Civil Code. According to the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—with each other given the common premise: the defect in the thing worsening it or rendering it unusable. …” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993. Emphasis is not original). Now, in order to clearly address the procedural prerequisites that must be analyzed regarding each of these jurisdictional remedies, we will briefly outline what these actions consist of: 1) The exercise of the action for recovery (repetición) provided for in Article 450 of the Commercial Code occurs within the framework of a commercial purchase and sale and aims to reverse the effects of payment for the acquirer, so that they can return the defective object and thus demand the fulfillment of the obligation: “…Payment, in its technical meaning, is the action through which obligations are fulfilled. Thus, if by contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-crime a person is obliged to a specific performance, at the moment of carrying it out, they will have paid, with the releasing effects this entails for their debtor status. But, on some occasions, the law provides that, despite payment having been made, it cannot produce its effects. In that situation, the legal system provides for the figure of the action to recover payment (acción de repetir el pago). This consists of the possibility, for the creditor of the performance, to return or compel their debtor to take back what was paid or its economic equivalent. Likewise, when it concerns synallagmatic contracts, to impose on the other contracting party the duty to return the counter-performance received in exchange for that returned by the one exercising the action for recovery. Costa Rican legislation contemplates this possibility in two cases. One, unrelated to the sub lite, when there is an undue payment. [...]. The other, concerning the invoked numeral 450 of the Commercial Code, occurs when the buyer receives the acquired goods under two distinct circumstances. The first, when they are delivered packaged or baled and, after being opened, hidden defects or an inaccuracy with the agreed quantity or quality are found. [...] The other hypothesis refers to redhibitory defects, whether the tradition of the purchased thing was delivered packaged or not, within ten days from delivery or from the discovery of the hidden defect. In both cases, if the seller opposes recovering what was paid, the buyer has the possibility of filing a lawsuit to demand it within a period of three months. Although the Commercial Code speaks in that precept of a prescriptive period, in reality such a period is one of expiration (caducidad), because it does not establish any means by which it can be interrupted and only imposes the burden of exercising the action within that quarter. In ordinal 450 of the Commercial Code, the action for recovery aims to dissipate the consequences, for the buyer, of having accepted the delivered thing. By not having opposed the tradition, with that, in principle, it could be considered that the seller was released from their performance of giving the negotiated good. The recovery of payment comes to be assimilated as if, upon the attempted tradition, the buyer had opposed the delivery due to the defects found in what was acquired, with which the seller is not released from their debt, consisting of delivering the good, object of the legal transaction…” (Judgment No. 810-F-04). Under this special hypothesis, as has been defined by the First Chamber, in light of the rule under comment, the temporal prerequisite for the exercise of this action is governed by a term of expiration (caducidad) of three months. 2) Through an action of relative nullity or voidability, insofar as the hidden defects have resulted in a defect of consent due to error: “… Regarding these defects, Article 1082 of the Civil Code provides that: \"The sale may not be annulled due to hidden defects of the thing of the so-called redhibitory type, unless those defects involve an error that annuls consent, or if there is a stipulation to the contrary.\" The article establishes, in reality, an action of relative nullity or voidability, based on a defect of consent: error. Said action is based on the hidden defects and on the error, jointly.- Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of the hidden defects, -unless it also constitutes an error that annuls consent-…” (Judgment 320 of 1990); “…It must be remembered that this last element [consent] is one of the essential prerequisites of contracts (Articles 1007, 1008 ibidem), therefore its absence or defect leads, irremediably, to the nullity—or voidability—of the concluded transaction, as established by canons 835 and 836 of the Civil Code…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). With respect to the time limits for the exercise of this action, first, it must be delineated whether it is a commercial or civil purchase and sale, since in the latter it would be governed by a scenario of expiration (caducidad) of four years according to numeral 841 of the Civil Code, whereas in the commercial hypothesis, it would be a prescriptive period of four years according to the general rule established in Article 984 of the Commercial Code “…based on the arguments presented, the type of commercial contracting and the commercial nature of the companies, it is concluded that in matters of prescription, the Commercial Code is applicable, specifically, Article 984…” (Judgment No. 963-F-2005). In this case, it should be noted that in 2019, subsection e) of the cited canon was repealed by Law No. 9961 of June 3, 2019, since based on that subsection a different period was established, as was provided at the time by the First Chamber (see, for example, Judgment No. 810-F-04). As deduced from the legislative file of the bill, specifically, in the unanimous affirmative opinion, the legislative intent with the repeal was that: “…it is intended that rights derived from commercial purchase-sales have a prescriptive period of four years instead of only one, meaning that debts of credit buyers will prescribe in four years instead of one. Likewise, claims directed against the seller will also see their prescriptive period increased...” (F. 851 of legislative file 19957, as consulted in the public database of the Legislative Assembly. Emphasis is not original). And 3) lastly, the avenue remains for the acquirer to exercise an action for contractual liability due to non-performance: “…Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects, [...] the possibility of the common contractual liability of the seller always remains, who has the obligation to deliver the thing in such a way that it fully fulfills its normal function; a liability that could result in compensation for damages and losses, depending on the nature of the non-performance. If the seller delivers the thing with some defect that makes it unsuitable for its normal function or diminishes it, they incur contractual non-performance, in accordance with Articles 692, 693, 701, 702, 704, and 764 of the Civil Code, the latter insofar as it provides that \"payment shall be made in all respects according to the tenor of the obligation\".- It is an implicit obligation in the purchase and sale to deliver the thing just as the buyer expects to receive it, in accordance with what was agreed (764 and 1022 ibidem)…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Emphasis is not original). It is important to be clear that this compensatory action may or may not be formulated together with a claim for voidability or for resolution of the contract: “…According to the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions [voidability and liability] would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—with each other given the common premise: the defect in the thing worsening it or rendering it unusable. However, they would not be so regarding the action for recovery regulated by Article 450 of the Commercial Code, since given the specialty of the matter, the rules contained therein apply to the exclusion of others when dealing with hidden or redhibitory defects in the case of commercial purchase and sale...” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993). Likewise, it is important to note that its temporal regime for exercise may be dimensioned, in turn, according to whether it involves a commercial or civil purchase and sale: in the former, it is a four-year period, according to the general rule of prescription of rights and actions in that matter, according to Articles 438, 439, and 984 CCOM, while in the latter, the ten-year period of ordinary civil prescription would apply: “… In the sub-judice, neither the nullity of the contract nor its resolution has been requested. Liability for contractual non-performance is being claimed, for failing to deliver the acquired house with the specifications implicit in the contract. The damages and losses occurred, according to the cause alleged by Mr. […] and Mrs. […], as a consequence of the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Before that, the hidden defects of the building were unknown, nor had they suffered any injury to their interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not exercise any action. The Superior Court erred in breaching Article 874 of the Civil Code, by considering that the term of prescription began to run from the date on which the purchase and sale deed was signed. In this regard, it was considered: \"In accordance with numeral 869 in relation to 874 of the Civil Code, both the right and the action to demand liability such as that claimed here against the seller, shall prescribe in ten years, counted from the execution of the contract, which is the moment from which the obligation of that party to answer for the defects of the sold thing became demandable.\" However, the obligation cannot be considered demandable when the hidden defects are not yet known and the damages and losses claimed have not yet occurred. Before that, the exercise of the action for contractual non-performance is unthinkable. […] Here, as on that occasion, we are dealing with situations unknown to the plaintiffs, who were ignorant of the alleged defects for which they claim. These—with regard to the present case—according to the allegation, manifested themselves with the earthquake of December 22, 1990, when the damages they had to repair occurred. Ergo, no period of prescription or expiration could have run beforehand. The present action concerns contractual liability due to the seller's non-performance, whose prescriptive period is ten years. At the time the present action was notified, not even one year had elapsed since the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Consequently, the appeal filed is admissible, and the court's judgment must be annulled in this respect…” (Judgment No. 77 of 1995).- VIII.- SPECIFIC CASE.- As we noted ut supra and can be confirmed from the conceptualization of the legal guarantees to which the seller is subject, in this case, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, it can be easily deduced that the complaint presents a significant inconsistency, since the alleged defect that the plaintiff's legal representation claims does not properly constitute a hidden defect, but a partial eviction of the property registration number Placa26795, because it is not a defect in the quantity or quality of the granted good that affects the economic benefit of the sold thing, given that the real estate with forest vocation continues to fulfill the same utility it originally had and which was known to Mr. Nombre136762. So much so, that even on May 26, 2017, that is, more than two years after Mr. Nombre140068 filed a complaint for damages with the OIJ office in the city of Grecia (judicial file 15-000110-0075-PE), the plaintiff here signed a “contract for payment of environmental services for maintenance of forest cover in the activity of forest protection” with the Executive Director of the Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal, through which the State would pay him a sum of money in exchange for a series of obligations to protect the forest present on the real estate of his property. This inconsistency in the action filed is aggravated by the terms in which the material claims were literally presented. Let us see: In the second to sixth claims, it is requested that Banco Nacional be obligated to “reimburse” different items, such as the value of the property (No. 2), the transfer expenses (No. 3), the financial costs associated with the leverage to which he had to resort to cover the price of the property (No. 4), expenses for “improvements, modifications, and repairs” made to the property (No. 5), and costs of a possible civil lawsuit (No. 6). However, no allegation is made, nor is this claim linked to the legal regime that would correspond to a guarantee for hidden defects. Although in the conclusions delivered at the preliminary hearing he did not expressly invoke it, this Court notes that on folio 15 of the complaint, the plaintiff’s legal representative alleges that: “...from all the foregoing, we haev [sic] that if hidden defects exist, the sale becomes null and void with the liabilities of the selling party…”. However, as we saw before, according to Article 1082 of the Civil Code, merely alleging hidden defects cannot give rise to the relative nullity of the contract; it is additionally necessary to prove a defect of consent: “…Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of the hidden defects, -unless it also constitutes an error that annuls consent...” (Judgment of the First Chamber No. 320 of 1990). However, as we have already pointed out, Mr. Nombre136762 has indeed made effective use of the real estate in accordance with its use regime, precisely because the good has fulfilled the purpose for which it was acquired, a situation that has not been ruled out to date. What the party considers a hidden defect, in reality, consists of the fact that there is a third person who claims a better right over part of the real estate he acquired, and in that sense, the pertinent action would not be one for redhibitory defects, but one for partial eviction because, in principle, we would be in the presence of a factual and legal disturbance produced by that third party regarding the peaceful enjoyment of the property right that was transmitted to him by Banco Nacional. Article 1035 of the Civil Code prescribes: “…The action of guarantee may be exercised by the person to whom it is owed, from the moment that as a consequence of a lawsuit filed against them, or of a defense opposed to their lawsuit, the existence of the transferred right is threatened…” (Emphasis is not original). Precisely, that is the situation that emerges from the plaintiff's own statement, given that when supporting moral damages in the conclusions, his legal representative clearly outlined said situation of threat or disturbance by stating: “… and there is something more, even more serious, which I believe is the most…. the criminal trial is still pending, this criminal complaint... we went and presented all these arguments to the Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office still hasn't decided if it's going to send us to trial because Nombre136762 is being accused of usurpation and damages, damages to private property, I mean he builds… so, he runs the risk of being criminally convicted, for working on his property, for carrying out work on his property…” (recording of the preliminary hearing from minute 41:38 to minute 42:07. Emphasis is our own). That is, it is reiterated that it involves a third party who claims a better right and thus threatens the peaceful enjoyment of the transferred good. In this way, it is evident to this Chamber that the action filed is improper due to a lack of legal basis, given that the party has put forth a claim inconsistent with the very facts on which they base their complaint, as well as the evidence they have provided to the record. Therefore, in observance of the principle of party disposition (principio dispositivo), this Court must limit its pronouncement strictly to the terms presented therein, without the possibility of substituting for the party, nor reinterpreting their legal arguments, under penalty of infringing the principle of procedural equality, the right of defense and due process of their counterparty, and incurring a defect of inconsistency (incongruencia) in the ruling; especially in pure civil estate proceedings (procesos civiles de hacienda puros), such as the one filed here. Lastly, regarding the remaining claims, they have been deduced as ancillary requests to the recognition of the supposed hidden defects, specifically, as a sentencing to the payment of compensatory items: material damages, such as expenses incurred for the exploitation of the good (No. 7 and 8), municipal taxes (No. 9), interest and moral damages (No. 10). Given that these aspects have been raised as accessory, in observance of the general principle of Law whereby the accessory follows the fate of the principal, what is appropriate is to also dismiss these claims for lacking legal basis.- IX.- REGARDING THE FILED DEFENSES. Consistent with the explanation above, this Court considers that the defense of lack of right (falta de Derecho) raised by Banco Nacional must be accepted, and in that sense, the complaint dismissed as improper. It is noted that, although the representation of the defendant Banco also raised the defense of statute of limitations (prescripción), given the way in which this is resolved, it becomes unnecessary to issue any pronouncement in this regard.- X.- ON COSTS.- The obligation to pay costs constitutes an obligation of legal source, in this case, derived from numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, by which the losing party—by the mere fact of being so—is obligated to reimburse the winning party for a variety of categories of expenses arising from the proceeding, which they were not bound to bear. According to the cited rule, exemption from this condemnation may only be granted if one of the two scenarios regulated therein is proven, such that in the absence of allegations or evidence allowing this Court, in this specific case, to weigh and consider any of these grounds as proven, it is not possible then to wholly or partially exempt the losing party from the application of said maxim. Regarding the ground in subsection b) of the numeral under comment, the jurisprudence of both the Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda and the First Chamber has determined, regarding said ground, the following: “… having sufficient reason to litigate implies not only the conviction of the losing party in the thesis defended by them, but also that said conviction has been based on objective data from the proceeding, from which the adjudicator can conclude that the losing party had rationally founded reasons to believe in the soundness of their claim or defense, as the case may be…” (Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 005-F-TC-2020 at 09:20 on January 9, 2020), “… Since olden times, this Chamber has indicated that this scenario does not even consist of the mere conviction in the thesis being sustained. Much less, then, can ignorance about the result of the evidence be accepted as a determining element of this hypothesis for exemption. Conviction in one’s own thesis consists of being founded on objective data from the proceeding that allow deducing the soundness of one’s claims or defenses, such as the subtlety in the “legal question”, which consists, for example, in that what is discussed is based on a pure interpretation of legal norms given that the factual framework is not controverted (in this sense, see resolutions 1692-F-SI-2012 and 1307-F-SI-2014). Or, for example, it is constituted by the compelled participation in the proceeding as a defendant, which derives from the passive procedural standing imposed by Article 12 of the CPCA in some of its subsections (resolution 1283-F-SI-2015)…” (Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 1366-F-S1-2017 at 15:35 on November 7, 2017). Under these circumstances, this Chamber considers that the plaintiff has acted motivated by good faith, facing a supervening situation of threat to his property right, which had been acquired from a financial entity as a product of its ordinary activity. The error in subsuming the facts into the legal framework applicable to the sub lite does not undermine the credibility of the claim made for the fulfillment of the legal guarantee to which Banco Nacional is called in its capacity as seller, that is, to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of Mr. Nombre136762’s right. Therefore, we consider that according to the nature of the matters debated, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff had sufficient reason to litigate and, therefore, the losing party is exempted from the payment of costs.-

POR TANTO

The defense of lack of right (falta de Derecho) raised by the defendant is accepted. As it is unnecessary, a pronouncement on the statute of limitations (prescripción) defense is omitted. Consequently, the complaint filed by Nombre136762 against BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA IS DECLARED WITHOUT MERIT.- The losing party is exempted from the payment of costs.

- Notify.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Roberto Garita Navarro Nombre10955 Page 1 of 26 In this manner, we then proceed to transcribe said claims, adding digital extracts from the scanned document that appears in the electronic judicial file, corresponding to the calculation tables prepared by the judicial representative of the plaintiff: “…CLAIM: Based on the facts presented and legal citations invoked, I request that the judgment declare: 1- That this administrative claim is granted. 2- That the Respondent must reimburse the undersigned the total amount of the sums for the purchase of the property plus interest calculated as of 05/25/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, according to the date they were disbursed, that is: ”

(…)

3- That the Defendant must reimburse the expenses incurred for the transfer of the same, and interest calculated up to 25/05/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, according to the date on which they were disbursed, that is:

Erase una vez, en un reino muy lejano, existía una pequeña aldea llamada Sabana. En ella vivía una joven muy especial, conocida por todos como Marita. Su cabello era tan oscuro y brillante como las alas de un tucán, y sus grandes ojos marrones reflejaban la bondad de los ríos que bañaban la tierra.

Marita amaba la naturaleza más que nadie en toda la aldea. Dedicaba sus mañanas a conversar con las iguanas que tomaban el sol y ayudaba a los monos araguato a cruzar cuando el bosque se hacía denso. Dicen que entendía el lenguaje del viento al rozar las palmas de coyol, y que su risa era como una suave lluvia que calmaba hasta al puma más inquieto.

Cierto día, mientras paseaba por la orilla mágica del río, Marita encontró una tortuga lora que movía sus aletas con angustia. Estaba atrapada entre las raíces de un viejo espavel. Con sumo cuidado, Marita la liberó, acariciando su caparazón moteado. —Vuela libre, tortuguita, que el océano te espera con los brazos abiertos—susurró con ternura, viéndola desaparecer hacia la playa, guiada por la luz de un sol resplandeciente.

El espíritu de la tierra, una inmensa y sabia danta que habitaba en el corazón del bosque nuboso, observó a la niña conmovida. Fascinada por su pureza, bajó de entre la neblina y le habló con una voz que sonaba como el trueno lejano en la cordillera: —Tu amor por mis criaturas es grande, y por ello, vivirás eternamente en el alma de este valle.

Las palabras de la danta se hicieron realidad. Desde entonces, Marita no envejeció. Dicen los campesinos que, cada mañana, con la primerísima luz del alba que tiñe de oro los volcanes, pueden ver a una joven de eterna sonrisa danzar entre los jardínes y los riachuelos.

Por eso, viajero, si andas por el sendero que cruza la escarpada montaña o navegas por los serenos canales, presta atención al murmullo del agua y al verde profundo del follaje. Quizás tengas la suerte de encontrarte con ella y sentir, por un instante, la pura esencia de Costa Rica. Y cuando alces la vista y veas una mariposa morpho azul cruzar tu camino, recuerda que es la bendición de Marita, la novia de la eterna primavera.

<p style="margin:0pt 30.5pt 2.8pt 55.05pt; text-indent:-19.1pt; line-height:152%; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'decimal'; -aw-list-number-values:'4'; -aw-list-padding-sml:9.1pt"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"><span>4-</span><span style="width:9.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span></span><span>That the defendant reimburse the INTEREST PAID [sic], commissions and insurance , plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018 , at a fixed annual rate of 24% , from the date of having concluded the loan payment for the credit I had to take out with the Asociación Costarricense para Organizaciones de Desarrollo Acorde , pursuant to promissory note No Placa26794 in the name of my principal Easy And Express S.A , for 9,000,000.00 Colones (Nine Million Colones) of which [sic] I had to pay within a term of one year the sum of 899,677.00 Colones (Eight Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Colones) Exactly per month , for twelve months, which in its entirety yields the sum of 10,796,124;00, of the nine million requested I only received 8,688,378.00 colones (Eight Million Six Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Eight Colones), the remainder was paid in commissions and insurance, money that I would never have been obliged to request had I not made the purchase of the property in question.</span></p> The [sic] money was received on September 17, 2010, and I finished paying it on September 17, 2011.

5- That the defendant reimburse the expenses incurred in improvements, modifications, and repairs made to the property for the purpose of using it, plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, from the date recorded on the invoice, which I submit for the same, issued by Excavaciones O.C.Q, CEDULA JURIDICA 3-105-619876, FACTURA NUMERO 0368, DATED 30/12/2014.

The Administration is authorized to grant, by means of the corresponding Decree, the tax incentives established in this Law, to any public or private sector company that develops forestry activities, including forestry industrialization, according to the provisions of this article, provided that the projects presented are compatible with the environment and comply with the prerequisites established by law. The Comptroller General of the Republic shall approve the contracts concluded.

6- That the defendant reimburse the costs of the potential civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre140068, as this is a direct consequence of the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Naranjo branch, Nombre140069, with cell phone number at that time 8319-2907, at the time of making the respective purchase and a direct effect of the superposition (superposición) problem that the property presents, plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed 24% annual rate, from the date the lawsuit was filed, 12/02/2015.

I clarify, that the costs of the proceeding (costes del juicio) have not been possible to determine.

<p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-right:65.35pt; margin-bottom:8.4pt; text-align:right; line-height:108%\"><img src=\" <p style="margin:0pt 30.5pt 2.8pt 55.05pt; text-indent:-19.1pt; line-height:152%; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'decimal'; -aw-list-number-values:'7'; -aw-list-padding-sml:9.1pt"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"><span>7-</span><span style="width:9.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span></span><span>That the defendant must pay the undersigned the costs of hiring the engineer Georgeanella Flores Muñoz, identity card CED110313, the sum of 200,000 (two hundred thousand colones), for professional services in two installments of 100,000 (one hundred thousand colones), according to invoices of which I attach copies, number 0091 dated 16/01/2017 and number 0090 dated 09/01/2017, and additionally the receipt from the Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos de Costa Rica [sic] NUMBER CED110314 for the concept of stamps for the oversight (regencia) executed for an amount of 39690, dated 13/01/2017.</span></p> Interest accrued up to 25/05/2018, at 24% per annum, fixed, from the date recorded in said documents.

Of the productive unit A of the forest affected through an activity or project, protected area, and urbanizations of touristic and commercial interest in the same primary and secondary forest territory. For these same purposes, in the name of the State Administration, represented by the Minister of the Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAE), the endorsement or conformity of determinations related to the technical evaluation of incidence in:

1. The fragile zones, protected areas, and other projects, works, or activities with significant environmental impact in the same territory, which due to their interrelation exceed the upper limits established by SETENA’s own methodology for the presentation of an EIA (EsIA), will be the responsibility of the Environmental Administrative Tribunal when it acts as mere executor of jurisdictional decisions issued. 2. Forest fragments, in the case of primary and secondary forests.

With the exception of cuts, uses, and changes in forest land use that are carried out on private property and are carried out with the authorization or approval of the State Administration, previously granted in accordance with the provisions of the Forest Law.

Those lands that in the provision of the respective public service, as a result of their irreversible and continuous use over time, have lost their forest cover, may be subject to a forest land-use change, without this implying any type of compensation mechanism for environmental services, prior approval of the respective management plan and registration with the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), by the respective provider, in the Conservation Area (AC) where it is located.

For the development of projects, works, or activities with significant environmental impact, including earthworks, the prior obtainment of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) license, relating to the sustainability of the potentially affected forest ecosystems, is required. This viability (viabilidad) will be issued by the forestry administration of MINAE.

For the purposes of registering the forest land-use change, the administration will only know of the technical reports that are issued by the Regencies. Without prejudice to the technical-legal review by the MINAE Forestry Administration, based on the regulations of this law, its Regulations, and the provisions established in the PNE.

For the granting of the environmental viability license by SETENA, it will dispose of the evaluation instruments established by the Environmental Organic Law and its regulations, considering the technical criteria related to the forest resource issued by the MINAE Forestry Administration and the respective municipalities.

So that in line with the legal system, the National Environmental Technical Secretariat has within its legally established powers the analysis and resolution regarding the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the development of works, activities, or projects that have significant environmental impact; These criteria are not binding. The resolution of SETENA will proceed in accordance with the regulations of this law, which must be defined within the maximum period established by the Regulations to this Law.

To implement the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs, all projects, works, or activities that require a forest land-use change and that additionally, in accordance with current legislation, require the presentation of an environmental impact assessment, must submit the respective management plan and the EIA before the MINAE Forestry Administration and SETENA, respectively, in a simultaneous manner for processing.

The granting of the forest land-use change will only proceed once the respective EIA has been approved. In those cases in which the Management Plan is filed prior to the EIA, the MINAE Forestry Administration may grant the land-use change in advance, subject to the approval of the EIA.

Provided that it is a project declared of national convenience by the Executive Branch.

In addition, the environmental license contract will incorporate the regulations of this law and its Regulations, as well as the Forest Management Plan and the EIA approved by the respective authorities. Compliance with the environmental license contract will be supervised by the National System of Conservation Areas, without prejudice to the powers of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat.

The MINAE Forestry Administration, within the framework of its powers, will issue the technical criteria regarding the forest resource to SETENA within the legal period and will oversee compliance with the Management Plan. The supervision and monitoring of the EIA will be the responsibility of SETENA. In addition, both administrative authorities must coordinate to carry out joint inspections when required.

This article is declared to be of public order.

7- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff the total amount of SIX MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR COLONES WITH EIGHTY CENTS (6,216,184.80 COLONES) for the cutting of timber (tala de madera) from the tree species (especies forestales) detailed in the Forest Management Plan (Plan de Manejo Forestal) submitted and approved for the property, as recorded in the respective registry entries and the field inspection report (informe de inspección de campo) issued by the corresponding official from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado, AFE) prepared by the pertinent forestry engineer, as well as in the corresponding technical studies (estudios técnicos), which are attached and form an integral part of this filing, plus all damages and losses (daños y perjuicios), as well as interest calculated at the rate of twenty-four percent (24%) per annum, fixed, from the date of the cutting of timber (tala de madera) and until its effective payment.

8- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff the FUTURE INCOME, NOT RECEIVED under the contract signed with FONAFIFO, CONTRACT FOR PAYMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR FOREST COVER MAINTENANCE IN THE FOREST PROTECTION ACTIVITY (CONTRATO DE PAGO DE SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES POR MANTENIMIENTO DE COBERTURA FORESTAL EN LA ACTIVIDAD DE PROTECCIÓN DE BOSQUE), with FONAFIFO, contract number SJ-OI-22-0112-2016, dated 26/05/2017, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 6,216,184.80 COLONES (Six Million Two Hundred Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Four Colones with 80/100).

9- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff all expenses incurred for Municipal Taxes (Impuestos Municipales) that have been paid to date on the property, plus interest, calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed rate of 24% per annum, from the date registered in said documents.

ARTÍCULO 6.—Uso de la tierra que deberá cumplir la totalidad del inmueble. Conforme las reglas de la presente ley, la totalidad del inmueble debe cumplir con los siguientes parámetros de uso de la tierra:

The forest cover (cobertura boscosa) percentage established in this article shall be calculated based on the total area of the property, according to the respective cadastral map. In the event that, for duly justified reasons and after a technical study, the property cannot meet the forest cover percentage indicated, the property owner must compensate by entering into a payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA) contract for the protection of forest (PSA) in an area equivalent to the deficit, in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its amendments, and its Regulations. This contract shall have a lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) equal to that of this law. The technical study will be carried out by the competent authority, which will verify and endorse the corresponding situation. In the case of the properties indicated in Article 19 of this law, the preceding provisions will apply when the land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) permit is processed. For all legal purposes, the forest cover area will be considered a forest area, protected by the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal). Likewise, the implementation of the provisions of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) regarding easements (servidumbre) on the forest cover area is authorized, and the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) provided for in said law and its reforms shall be applicable to this area for all legal purposes.

The "Other Uses" (Otros usos) defined in the previous table shall be understood as the area intended for the development of the authorized physical infrastructure works according to the regulations governing the corresponding subdivision (fraccionamiento) or condominium, provided they are in accordance with the environmental viability granted. Any activity that involves a land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) must have the respective environmental viability granted by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the Environment. Within the "Other Uses" (Otros usos) area, sustainable productive activities may be developed, as long as they are compatible with the environment. In agricultural areas or areas with agricultural potential, the provisions of the Land Use, Management, and Soil Conservation Law and its regulations shall be applicable. The National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), through its respective Conservation Areas, such as the Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA), is responsible for monitoring compliance with the forest cover (cobertura boscosa) parameters established in this article. For all legal purposes, compliance with the land-use parameters described in this article will be verified based on the technical study previously mentioned.

Document not translated: no Costa Rican Spanish legal text found in the input.

The provided chunk is a sequence of alphanumeric/base64 strings, repeated phrases ("Roo0cB+gevp/LRo0aNFFGjRo0UUaNGjRRRo0aNFFGjRo0UUaNGjRRRo0aNFFG"), and HTML/XML style formatting tags mixed with Spanish text at the very end. This does not match the structure or content of a Costa Rican Spanish legal document excerpt as specified in the instructions.

The only translatable content appears at the end:

"10- los daños y perjuicios ocasionados así: por daños el monto TOTAL de las sumas reclamadas incluyendo intereses los cuales ascienden al monto de 103.394.400,70 colones (Ciento tres Millones Trescientos Noventa y Cuatro Mil Cuatrocientos colones con 70/100) y por perjuicios el daño moral que ha sufrido por dicha situación." A faithful translation of that fragment is:

10- the damages and losses caused, as follows: as damages, the TOTAL amount of the claimed sums including interest, which amount to 103,394,400.70 colones (One Hundred Three Million Three Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Four Hundred Colones and 70/100) and as losses, the moral damages suffered due to this situation.

11- That the defendant must pay both sets of costs of this action.

The damages originate from the amounts paid by my client and the losses are the moral damage that she has suffered [sic] for having paid for a property which she has not been able to [sic] use due to the overlap problem that it presents and the damages that an unfavorable judgment related to the lawsuit pending against the undersigned, filed by Mr. Nombre140068, could cause …” The plaintiff bases its claims on the existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos) in the acquisition of the property of the Partido de Alajuela, registration number Placa26796, which was sold to him by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. He argues that said public company led him into error, since the property presented anomalies that have prevented him from enjoying that good; specifically, he criticizes two aspects in particular, first, that as a result of modifications he made to the property between December 30, 2014, and January 1, 2015, “…based on the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica…”, he was the subject of a criminal complaint, which is being processed under summary number 15-000110-0075-PE filed by Mr. Nombre140068 and as a result of which, he learned of the existence that the latter was the owner of a property that overlapped with his own. He considers that this represents a risk for him of being convicted criminally and sued civilly. Secondly, he mentions that in his capacity as owner, he requested the municipal approval (visado municipal) of the property from the Municipality of Valverde Vega (Sarchí), which he indicates was rejected because it presented a partial registry overlap with the property of the Partido de Alajuela, registration no. Placa26797, with plan Placa26798. He estimates that these situations have prevented him from enjoying the good acquired in good faith and reveal that there are hidden defects (vicios ocultos), since “…the greater part of the undersigned's property is located on top of another property or vice versa, in light of which the extent of land that was actually sold to me […] does not correspond to the real measurement of the property, which generates great harm for my person…”. He also considers that his claim is timely because it is only upon this last fact, that is, the property being overlapped with another property, that he is in a position to bring his action. He then points out that, since it is a hidden defect, he was not in a position to claim earlier. In summary, the representation of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (hereinafter, Banco Nacional or BNCR) opposes the action brought, by filing the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right and requests that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs. It alleges that the sale carried out on the property occurred based on the powers granted to the Bank it represents by Articles 3 of the General Law of Public Administration, 72 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, and 438 and 439 of the Commerce Code, constituting an ordinary commercial activity exercised by that public entity. It states that, in that sense, the Bank has the legal obligation to dispose of those assets within a maximum period of two years from their acquisition, according to the internal appraisals carried out for that purpose. It alleges that, since this is a commercial sale and given that the registration of the property in the name of the plaintiff occurred on December 3, 2010, by the time he filed the administrative claim, the four-year period provided for in Article 984 of the Commerce Code had been exceeded, such that the power to claim against the Bank for the hidden defects that he alleges predated the acquisition of the property was extinguished.- III.- PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are taken as duly demonstrated according to the rules of sound criticism, whether as they appear in or are inferred from the evidence provided in the case file and that were duly admitted, or because the parties have so accepted them:

1.- In the year 2010, the Alajuela Norte Regional Directorate of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica held a “contest Sale DRA-VN-06-2010”, through which it put up for sale a property with forestry vocation “composed entirely of Primary Forest” with registration number Placa26795, with surveyed plan number A-916649-2004 and with an area of 368,292.20 square meters (f. 02 to 04 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 2.- Through a note dated August 30, 2010, Mr. Nombre136762 submitted a formal purchase offer to the Banco Nacional, regarding the property described in the previous proven fact, for the sum of twenty-eight million colones (¢28,000,000.00), in which he also indicated that “I clarify that I know and accept the present conditions of the property, releasing the Banco Nacional from all present and future responsibility for said purchase” (f. 01 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 3.- By means of public deed number 50-08 executed before Notary Rolando Miranda Zumbado at 11:15 a.m. on November 8, 2010, the Banco Nacional and Mr. Nombre136762 signed a sale contract for the property of the partido de Alajuela, registration number Placa26796 previously described and for a price of twenty-eight million colones (¢Placa26799). The sale was made “free of mortgage encumbrances and annotations” (f. 133 and 134 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 4.- On December 3, 2010, the private property right acquired by the plaintiff herein over the property registration number Placa26795 was registered before the National Registry. Mr. Nombre136762 maintains, as of the date of this judgment, the ownership of said property (document provided with the complaint visible in the electronic judicial file and query made on the date of this judgment in the public database of the National Registry); 5.- On February 6, 2015, Mr. Nombre140068, a foreign national of Dutch nationality, appeared before the office of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) located in the town of Grecia, Alajuela, for the purpose of filing a complaint for the crime of damages to the detriment of the environment and his own. This complaint was assigned judicial case file number 15-000110-0075-PE. On that occasion, he recounted that on January 18 of that year, he had found works carried out on what he said was his property, located in a protected zone: “… they had made what looked like terraces of about three hundred meters which they left clean and bare earth, in which the greatest damage is the cutting of trees [sic]…”. He stated that, upon the instruction of the police and officials from MINAE, he decided to file a complaint “…since it is unknown who caused the damages and because being in a protected zone, it is prohibited to carry out works in it without prior permits […] it is unknown if any of the other owners caused the damages…”. Subsequently, through report no. 032-CI-15 of February 12 of that year, the Grecia Regional Office of the OIJ determined that the person who carried out the works was the plaintiff herein, who has since been considered a defendant in the aforementioned criminal file (f.

107 to 116 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 6.- On May 26, 2017, the plaintiff here and Mr. Nombre81943 , the latter acting in his capacity as Executive Director of the Forest Financing Fund, signed a contract for the Payment of Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) for maintenance of forest cover (cobertura forestal) under the forest protection activity on farm number 2-401368-000 (f. 123 to 126 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 7.- Through a document titled “Minuta de calificación para visado” with number 11415-2017 dated June 7, 2017, the Real Estate Department of the then Municipality of Valverde Vega (today Municipality of Sarchí, according to Ley N.º 9658 of July 5, 2019), established the following regarding farm number Dirección16834:

8.- By means of a writing dated August 1, 2017, Mr. Nombre136762 filed before the Naranjo Branch of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a “...formal claim for compensation for payment of damages (daños y perjuicios) that have been caused to me due to the purchase of the property located in the Province of Alajuela, which I made from that institution under the modality of sale of goods at auction to the highest bidder, which is causing me serious harm...” (f.

136 a </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 4.05pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:108%"><span>151 of the certified copy of the administrative file);</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>9.- In a writing dated November 8, 2017, the plaintiff here requested that Banco Nacional respond to his claim for indemnification, since up to that day nothing had been responded to in this regard (f. 152 to 154 of the certified copy of the administrative file);</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>10.- By means of an unnumbered official letter dated December 11, 2017, the official Juan Carlos Vindas Molina, in his capacity as Manager of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR, informed the plaintiff here that his claim was being handled by the bank's legal area (f. 155 of the certified copy of the administrative file);</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>11.- By means of an unnumbered official letter dated December 14, 2017, the Management of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR decided to reject the administrative claim filed by the plaintiff here, based on the opinion of the Bank's Legal Directorate number D.J./3712-2017 (Ref. 5976-2017) of December 14 of that year (f. 156 to 160 of the certified copy of the administrative file); and</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 2.4pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>12.- Given the decision adopted by the Management of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR, Mr. Nombre136762 filed a motion for revocation with a subsidiary appeal, the first being rejected by means of an unnumbered official letter dated January 24, 2017, while the appeal was dismissed by the Bank's General Management in official letter number GG-066-18 of March 5, 2018 (documents provided with the complaint and contained in the electronic judicial file).-</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%; font-size:14pt"><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt">IV.- UNPROVEN FACTS.- Of use for the present ruling, the following facts are considered not proven, either because the parties failed to meet their evidentiary burdens, or because the Court did not find admitted and suitable evidence that, in light of sound judicial discretion (sana crítica), would allow their accreditation: </span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%; font-size:14pt"><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt">1.- That Mr. Nombre136762 had been prevented from exercising the attributes of ownership in relation to the property of his ownership, registration number Placa26795, by Mr. Nombre140068 or any other person; </span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt">2.- That Mr. Nombre136762 was unaware of the forest vocation (vocación forestal) of the property, registration number Placa26795, at the time of its acquisition;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>3.- The existence of a final judicial judgment determining the overlap or superimposition of the property owned by the plaintiff, registration number Placa26795, with any other real estate;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%"><span>4.- That in the criminal proceeding processed under judicial file number 15-000110-0075PE, any judicial resolution or judgment had been issued that prevented or hindered the use and enjoyment of the property, registration number Placa26795, by Mr. Nombre136762;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 1.8pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt"><span>5.- That Mr. Nombre136762 had suffered an administrative or judicial eviction from the real estate comprising the property of his ownership, registration number Placa26795;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:43.1pt; margin-bottom:4.6pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:103%"><span>;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt"><span>6.- That the plaintiff here had been the subject of a criminal complaint or civil action joined to a criminal proceeding, or sued in a civil proceeding by Mr. Nombre140068; </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 2.35pt 42.35pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%; font-size:14pt"><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt">7.- That Mr. Nombre136762 had exercised, in any judicial proceeding in which his property right over the property, registration number Placa26795, was questioned, the power to call into the proceeding Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in its capacity as guarantor.- </span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt"><span>V.- ON THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACTION.- This Court is clear that, despite the defendant having raised the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right, it is a duty of the Judges to review compliance or non-compliance with the substantial requirements for the issuance of any judgment: those relating to the legal standing (legitimación) of the intervening parties, the interest in the resolution of the conflict, and the right; which are reviewable even sua sponte by every judge, as has been recognized by ample precedents of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) and of this Court (see, among others, from the First Chamber, judgment number 317-F-S12008 of 09:10 hours on May 2, 2008, and number 1548-F-SI-2011 of 09:20 hours on December 22, 2011, and from the Administrative Litigation Court, Eighth Section, number 85-2012 of 08:30 hours on September 14, 2012, Fourth Section, judgments number 28-2012 of 07:30 hours on March 16, 2012, and number 17-2015-IV of 08:00 hours on February 25, 2015, and Sixth Section, judgments number 80-2017-VI of 11:30 hours on June 23, 2017, and 86-2017-VI of 10:00 hours on June 30, 2017, among others). If any of these requirements—or all—are not proven by the judge, whether or not they are alleged in the form of exceptions or defenses, the complaint cannot find a positive response from the Court. It is worth saying that the existence of procedural requirements or prerequisites for the exercise of the right to effective judicial protection, in its aspect of access to justice, that is, of formal restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental and human right, has been recognized even by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has provided in its jurisprudence: “…143. </span><span style="color:#111820">The Court has indicated that for reasons of legal certainty, for the correct and functional administration of justice, and for the effective protection of the rights of individuals, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">States may and must establish requirements and criteria for the</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">admissibility of domestic remedies, whether judicial or of any other</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">nature</span><span style="color:#111820">. Thus, while such domestic remedies must be available to the interested party and effectively and substantively resolve the matter raised, as well as potentially provide adequate reparation, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">it could not be considered that domestic organs and</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">tribunals must always and in every case resolve the merits of the matter</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">submitted to them, without regard to the verification of the formal</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">requirements of admissibility and appropriateness of the particular</span><span> </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#111820">remedy attempted</span><span style="color:#111820">. Likewise, the Court has determined that the application of grounds for admissibility of a remedy is compatible with the American Convention and that the effectiveness of the remedy implies that, potentially, when said requirements are met, the judicial organ shall evaluate its merits…” (</span><span>Case of </span><span style="color:#111820">Nombre5486 Vs. Argentina, </span><span>Judgment of November 22, 2019. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. </span><span style="color:#111820">Highlighting is not from the original. See in that same sense:</span><span> </span><span style="color:#111820">Dismissed Workers of Congress (Nombre137239</span><span style="color:#111820; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#111820">et al.) Vs. Peru, </span><span>Judgment of November 24, 2006. Preliminary Objections, </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 6.15pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:108%"><span>Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. </span><span style="color:#111820">126 to 128; Case of Nombre6602 et al. Vs. Nicaragua, </span><span>Judgment of March 25, 2017. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 0.25pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt"><span>Costs. Para. </span><span style="color:#111820">163; Case of Dismissed Workers of Nombre137240 et al. Vs. Peru,</span><span> Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:152%"><span>Para. 154 to 156</span><span style="color:#111820">; Case of Nombre137241</span><span style="color:#111820; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#111820">Vs. Argentina, Judgment of October 15, 2019. </span><span>Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 135 and 136; </span><span style="color:#111820">Case of Nombre156 et al. Vs. Argentina, </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 6.15pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:108%"><span>Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Objections, </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.05pt 2.05pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:149%; font-size:14pt"><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt">Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 209 to </span><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt; color:#111820">211,</span><span style="line-height:149%; font-size:12pt"> among others). Thus, it is the criterion of this Chamber that, in the case sub lite, it is essential to fully delve into the merits of the matter, that is, into the examination of the Right as a requirement of the action filed, since when examining the temporal requirement of the complaint, that is, the statute of limitations alleged by the defendant Bank, the undersigned have encountered an argumentative obstacle in the formulation of the plaintiff's theory of the case, which by its magnitude prevents carrying out the respective analysis. We must keep in mind that the study of the temporal requirement first requires analyzing and determining the legal regime of the right claimed, since it is therein where the conditions for the timely exercise of the right of action are established. The problem presented in the case under examination lies in the fact that the plaintiff's theory of the case presents a serious inconsistency, firstly, because the complaint formulates an action to enforce a supposed warranty against hidden defects or redhibitory defects (garantía de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), in relation to the commercial sale through which he acquired the property, registration number Placa26795; however, despite this, he does not specify or state which type of action he is exercising, as we will see below; furthermore, secondly, and more importantly, it is detailed that the plaintiff's judicial representation argues based on a different obligation of the seller, that is, not on alleged hidden defects, but on the warranty against eviction (garantía de evicción). In this way, we must inevitably begin with the examination of the merits of the right claimed, before being able to determine any other aspect of the proceeding.- </span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 0.8pt 4.8pt 0.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:152%"><span>VI.- ON THE WARRANTIES AGAINST HIDDEN DEFECTS, FUNCTIONING, AND EVICTION.- A warranty refers to any of certain legal instruments that the legal system enables in order to make effective the enjoyment of a right; in this way, warranties can originate in the law (legal warranties) or in a meeting of minds (contractual warranties). Likewise, it is possible to categorize them according to whether they are related to real rights or personal rights. The difference in the first of these classifications lies in the fact that legal warranties do not need to be expressly agreed upon by the parties, as they derive directly from the Law. Thus, among these and regarding the contract of sale (especially, commercial sales), the national legal order generally provides for three types of warranties that the seller must ensure in favor of the buyer: the warranty against eviction, the warranty against hidden defects or redhibitory defects (vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), and the warranty of functioning; their definition and distinction have been widely developed by the jurisprudence of the First Chamber for decades. Thus, we can review the judgments of that High Court, number 320 of 14 hours 20 minutes on November 9, 1990; 227 of 14:15 hours on December 20, 1991; 37 of 11 hours 10 minutes on May 28, 1993; 7 of 14:30 hours on February 2, 1994; 44 of 14:30 hours on June 15, 1994; 77 of 15 hours 30 minutes on July 12, 1995; 86 of 14:50 hours on August 9, 1996; 209-F-04 of 11:20 hours on March 24, 2004; 810-F-04 of 10:00 hours on September 17, 2004; 617-F-2005 of 10:40 hours on August 25, 2005; 963-F2005 of 13:40 hours on December 15, 2005; 999-F-2005 of 14:55 hours on December 21, 2005; 1470-F-S1-2011 of 09:00 hours on November 8, 2011; among others. In summarized terms, through the warranty against eviction, it is sought that the seller assures the buyer the peaceful enjoyment of the transmitted right, against third parties who disturb or threaten to disturb, de facto or de jure, said legal situation, thereby including the partial or total loss of the sold thing: “…Eviction (evicción) is the loss or disturbance of the property right over the sold good, suffered by the buyer by a third party, by virtue of a cause prior to the sale.- Eviction is also understood as the obligation that the seller has to assure the buyer the peaceful enjoyment, de facto and de jure, of the transmitted thing…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original). Based on this conceptual approach of the First Chamber, the Civil Courts have developed the scope of this warranty in the following sense: “…Article 1034 of the Civil Code provides that 'Everyone who has transmitted for valuable consideration a real or personal right, guarantees its free exercise to the person to whom it was transmitted.' This norm regulates the so-called warranty against eviction, which is an obligation on the part of the seller in the case of a sale. Eviction is, it is known, 'the loss of all or part of the thing sold due to a judicial action brought against the buyer.' (Nombre60957, . Treatise on Contracts. Editorial Juricentro. San José, 1985, p. 121). This means that when the buyer has been sued by a third party, with the claim of depriving him of the acquired good, he may call the seller in warranty of eviction (citar de evicción), so that he may come to the defense of the sold thing, which would be done in accordance with the provisions of articles 109 and 111 of the Civil Procedure Code…” (Judgment of the Second Civil Court, Second Section, No. 165 of 09:00 hours on June 25, 2008. Highlighting is not from the original). For its part, the civil doctrine has specified that “...this obligation is twofold or has two parts; the seller must, in effect: 1° defend the buyer against the disturbance, that is, make the cause of it cease; 2° indemnify the buyer when he could not prevent the disturbance, or when the eviction has been consummated. However, these two parts of the warranty obligation cannot be presented as objects of distinct obligations. To speak with exactness, it must be said that the seller's obligation has as its sole object the protection of the buyer, and that in case of non-compliance, this obligation is resolved into the indemnification of damages and losses like all obligations to do…” (Planiol, R. and Ripert, G. Elementary Treatise on Civil Law. 1st Edition, p. 220-221. Highlighting is not from the original). Precisely, herein lies the very sense of this warranty and what article 1036 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates: “…Article 1036.- He to whom the warranty is owed may demand from the guarantor: 1º.- That he make cease the judicial persecutions that a third party directs against him, or the resistance that someone opposes to the exercise of his rights; 2º.- The indemnification for the consequences of those persecutions, or of the resistance, if those or that have been exercised with right….” (Highlighting is not from the original). In relation to the warranty against hidden defects and the warranty of functioning, these share a common trunk, since through both, the seller is obliged to assure the acquirer the suitability of the transmitted thing to satisfy the use intended with it: “…The interest that the buyer of a good intends to satisfy with its acquisition necessarily supposes that it is suitable for the destination it normally performs. Given the possibility that the thing subject to the agreement presents defects (vicios), flaws, or insufficiencies that render it useless or inadequate to fulfill its nature, or generate a diminution in value, the doctrine and the Legal Order have consecrated the warranties of functioning and hidden defects, which usually accompany this onerous mode of acquiring property…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). Now, regarding the latter, that is, the warranty of functioning, it suffices to review the following, given that this situation is unrelated to the case sub examine: “...the warranty of functioning is based on the same objective presupposition as that of hidden defects, namely, that the thing presents defects that compromise its use, but unlike those, they manifest in the good after its delivery, that is, they did not accompany it at the moment when the buyer could or should have inspected it, but rather they arise later, as a result of its normal use […] This supposes that all functional defects that the good presents within that time must be corrected, provided that, after the malfunction, no more than thirty days have elapsed to communicate what has occurred. Therefore, even though the warranty covers from the delivery of the good, and extends for the stipulated term, the time to claim that the acquired object presents a defect that makes it inadequate to fulfill its functions, begins to run from when it arises and not from when the thing was delivered. Failure to observe that thirty-day period to give the corresponding notice leads to the expiration (caducidad) of the right. The claim that this rule enables is not one for annulment (anulación) or for recovery (repetición), as occurs for hidden defects in the civil and commercial areas, respectively, but rather the repair or replacement of the thing. The figure is also regulated in consumer matters, in ordinal 43 of the corresponding normative body, according to which the warranty of functioning implicitly accompanies every good or service sold or provided, and therefore must meet the quality standards and technical requirements established by the Legal Order for reasons of health, environment, and safety […] On the other hand, regarding the statute of limitations, the applicable norm is article 984 in its subsection a), and not its general statement. That subsection establishes an annual term for the decay of rights based on claims for defects of things sold with a warranty of good functioning; hence, a criterion of specialty prevails over the four-year term provided for other situations that lack a specific provision…” (Judgment 999-F-2005 and 1470-F-S1-2011). - </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.5pt; margin-bottom:2.8pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:152%"><span>VII.- CONTINUES.- Now, regarding what corresponds to the warranty against hidden defects, the First Chamber has pointed out that this type of defects corresponds to those defects that, unlike evident or manifest ones “...are also present in the thing delivered, [but which] are not detected through a reasonable examination of the good, that is, they are hidden…” (Judgment 999-F-2005) and that, consequently, affect the use and benefit of the thing to the detriment of the buyer, who in good faith has contributed his will to the formation of the contract, unaware of the existence of said defects. Therefore, “...the warranty of remediation or for hidden defects (garantía de saneamiento o por vicios ocultos) is a natural effect of the contract of sale.- It refers to the seller's obligation to deliver the sold thing and that it be suitable to fulfill the function for which it is normally destined, that is, that he must deliver the thing in good condition, without defects or hidden defects that render improper, or notably affect, its normal use…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original). This is explained because “… The buyer is interested in receiving a thing suitable for the intended purpose, without a defect that causes it to lose value. If the thing does not meet these conditions, the buyer will want to return it, rescinding the contract, or will try to reduce the price in proportion to the noted defects. The seller is interested, above all, in alienating the thing because his benefit depends on the number of sales made; and, secondly, if the buyer discovers defects in the merchandise, the seller is interested in the buyer's immediate claim in order to terminate the contract as soon as possible…” (Judgments No. 7 and No. 44 of 1994). From this jurisprudential line, the Civil Courts have specified a series of requirements that must be duly demonstrated in order to accredit the presence of hidden or redhibitory defects: “… In relation to this topic, we must point out that, in order to demand civil liability, hidden defects must meet certain requirements, namely: a. They must be hidden defects, not apparent or manifest; b. The thing must have been acquired for valuable consideration; c. They must not be known by the acquirer; d. The hidden defect must render improper or frustrate the natural or normal use of the thing or diminish it substantially; and </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.5pt; margin-bottom:4.75pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; line-height:152%; font-size:12.5pt"><span style="line-height:152%; font-size:12pt">e. They must be prior to the sale. To this we must add an important aspect: '... It is not necessary that the seller knew of such defects, nor that these be perpetual or irremediable.' (Decision of the First Chamber number 227 of 14:15 hours on 12/20/1991). This implies that the seller will be civilly liable even if he is unaware of the hidden defects. In such a way that, the buyer must accredit bad faith or fraud (dolo), only in those cases in which the contract has released the seller from the obligation to indemnify damages and losses (doctrine of ordinal 701 of the Civil Code)…” (Judgment of the Second Civil Court, First Section, No. 52 of 10:40 hours on February 26, 2015. Nombre211 is from the original). Likewise, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber has established three different avenues of action to claim for this type of defects: “...It concerns, therefore, three possible actions born from a single fact: defects of the thing subject to the contract of sale. [1] The action for recovery due to hidden defects or redhibitory defects (acción de repetición por vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), as established in the penultimate paragraph of article 450 of the Commercial Code, [2] the action for annulment due to error in will as a result of hidden or redhibitory defects (acción de anulación por error en la voluntad como resultado de los vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), according to article 1082 of the Civil Code, and [3] the common contractual responsibility (responsabilidad contractual común) derived from article 692 of the Civil Code. According to the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—with each other, given the common presupposition: the defect in the thing, worsening it or rendering it unusable. …” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993. Highlighting is not from the original). Now, in order to clearly address the procedural requirements that must be analyzed with respect to each of these jurisdictional remedies, we will briefly describe what these actions consist of: </span><span style="line-height:152%; font-size:12pt">1) The exercise of the action for recovery (acción de repetición) provided for in article 450 of the Commercial Code occurs within the framework of a commercial sale and aims to reverse the effects of payment for the acquirer, so that he may return the defective object and thus demand compliance with the obligation: “...Payment, in its technical meaning, is the action through which obligations are fulfilled. In this way, if by contract, quasi-contract, tort or quasi-tort, a person is obligated to a specific performance, at the moment of carrying it out, he will have paid, with the liberatory effects that this would entail for his condition of debtor. </span></p> But, on some occasions the law provides that, despite payment having been made, it cannot produce its effects. In that situation, the legal system provides for the figure of the action to recover payment (acción de repetir el pago). This consists of the possibility, for the creditor of the obligation, to return or compel their debtor to take back what was paid or its economic equivalent. Likewise, in the case of synallagmatic contracts, to impose on the other contracting party the duty to return the consideration (contraprestación) received in exchange for that returned by the party exercising the action to recover (acción de repetición). Costa Rican legislation contemplates that possibility in two cases. One, unrelated to the sub lite, when an undue payment occurs. [...]. The other, concerning the invoked numeral 450 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), occurs when the buyer receives the acquired goods, in two distinct circumstances. The first, when they are delivered packed or baled and, after being opened, hidden defects (vicios ocultos) are found in them or an inaccuracy with the agreed quantity or quality. [...] The other hypothesis refers to redhibitory defects (vicios redhibitorios), whether the transfer (tradición) of the purchased item has been given packed or not, within ten days from delivery or from the discovery of the hidden defect (vicio oculto). In both cases, if the seller refuses to repeat the payment, the buyer has the possibility of filing a lawsuit, to demand it, within a period of three months. Although the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) speaks in that precept of a prescriptive period (lapso prescriptivo), in reality that period is one of expiry (caducidad), because it does not establish any way in which it can be interrupted and only imposes the burden of exercising the action within that quarter. In ordinal 450 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), the action to recover (acción de repetir) has the purpose of dispelling the consequences, for the buyer, of having accepted the thing delivered. By not having opposed the transfer (tradición), with that, in principle, it could be considered that the seller was released from their obligation to give the negotiated good. The recovery of payment (repetición del pago) comes to be assimilated as if, when the transfer (tradición) was attempted, the buyer had opposed the delivery, due to the defects found in the acquired item, thereby not releasing the seller from their debt, consisting of delivering the good, object of the legal transaction…” (Judgment No. 810-F-04). Under this special hypothesis, just as has been defined by the First Chamber (Sala Primera), in light of the rule under discussion, the temporal prerequisite for the exercise of this action is governed by a three-month expiry period (término de caducidad). 2) By means of an action for relative nullity or voidability (nulidad relativa o anulabilidad), insofar as the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) have resulted in a defect of consent due to error: “… Regarding these defects, article 1082 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) provides that: \"The sale may not be annulled for hidden defects or imperfections of the thing called redhibitory, unless those defects or imperfections involve error that annuls consent, or if there is a stipulation to the contrary.\" The article actually establishes an action for relative nullity or voidability (nulidad relativa o anulabilidad), based on a defect of will: error. Said action is founded on the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) and on the error, jointly.- Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), -unless it also constitutes error that annuls consent-…” (Judgment 320 of 1990); “...It must be remembered that this last element [consent] is one of the essential prerequisites of contracts (articles 1007, 1008 ibidem), therefore its absence or defect leads, irremediably, to the nullity –or voidability (nulidad –o anulabilidad)- of the concluded transaction, as established by canons 835 and 836 of the Civil Code (Código Civil)…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). Regarding the deadlines for the exercise of this action, first, it must be determined whether it is a commercial or a civil sale, because in the latter it would be governed by a four-year expiry (caducidad) period in accordance with numeral 841 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), while in the commercial hypothesis, it would be a four-year prescriptive period (plazo de prescripción) in accordance with the general rule established in article 984 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) “...based on the arguments set forth, the type of commercial contracting and the commercial nature of the companies, it is concluded that in matters of prescription, the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) is applicable to the specific case, specifically, article 984…” (Judgment No. 963-F-2005). In this case, it must be specified that in 2019, subsection e) of the cited canon was repealed, by means of Law No. 9961 of June 3, 2019, since based on that subsection a different period was established, as was provided at the time by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) (see for example judgment No. 810-F-04). As inferred from the legislative file of the bill, specifically, in the unanimous affirmative report, the legislative intent with the repeal consisted of: “...it is intended that the rights derived from commercial sales have a four-year prescriptive period (plazo de prescripción) instead of just one, that is, the debts of buyers on credit will prescribe at four years instead of one. Likewise, claims directed to the seller will also see their prescriptive period (plazo de prescripción) increased...” (F. 851 of legislative file 19957, as consulted in the public database of the Legislative Assembly. Highlighting is not from the original). And 3) finally, the avenue remains for the acquirer to exercise an action for contractual liability for non-performance (responsabilidad contractual por incumplimiento): “...Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), […] the possibility always remains of the common contractual liability (responsabilidad contractual común) of the seller, who has the obligation to deliver the thing in such a way that it fully performs its normal function; liability (responsabilidad) that could result in compensation for damages (indemnización por daños y perjuicios), according to the nature of the non-performance. If the seller delivers the thing with some defect or imperfection that makes it unsuitable for its normal function or diminishes it, they incur a contractual breach, in accordance with articles 692, 693, 701, 702, 704 and 764 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), the latter insofar as it provides that \"payment shall be made in all respects in accordance with the terms of the obligation\".- It is an implicit obligation in the sale to deliver the thing just as the buyer expects to receive it, in accordance with what was agreed (764 and 1022 ibidem)…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original). It is important to be clear that this compensatory action (acción resarcitoria) may or may not be formulated together with a claim for voidability (anulabilidad) or for termination (resolución) of the contract: “...In accordance with the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions [voidability (anulabilidad) and liability (responsabilidad)] would be compatible -not mutually exclusive- with each other given the common assumption: the defect in the thing diminishing it or making it unusable. However, they would not be so regarding the action to recover (acción de repetición) regulated by article 450 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), because given the specialty of the matter, the rules contained therein apply to the exclusion of others when it comes to hidden or redhibitory defects (vicios ocultos o redhibitorios) in the case of a commercial sale...” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993). Also, it is important to note that its temporal regime for exercise may be dimensioned in turn depending on whether it is a commercial or civil sale, involving a four-year period in the former, according to the general rule of prescription (prescripción) of rights and actions in that matter, in accordance with articles 438, 439 and 984 CCOM, while in the latter it would correspond to the ten-year period of ordinary civil prescription (prescripción ordinaria civil): “… In the sub-júdice, the nullity (nulidad) of the contract has not been requested, nor its termination (resolución). Liability (responsabilidad) for contractual non-performance is claimed, for not delivering the purchased house with the specifications implicit in the contract. The damages (daños y perjuicios) occurred, according to the cause alleged by Mr. […] and Mrs. […], as a consequence of the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Before that, the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) of the building were not known, nor had they suffered any injury to their interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not exercise any action. The Superior Court incurred in a violation of article 874 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), by estimating that the prescription period (término de la prescripción) began to run from the date on which the sale deed was signed. In this regard, it was considered: \"In accordance with numeral 869 in relation to 874 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), both the right and the action to demand liability (responsabilidad) such as that claimed here against the seller, will prescribe in ten years, counted from the conclusion of the contract, which is the moment from which the obligation of that party to answer for the defects of the sold thing became enforceable.\". However, the obligation cannot be considered enforceable when the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) are not yet known and the claimed damages (daños y perjuicios) have not yet occurred. Before that, the exercise of the action for contractual non-performance (acción por incumplimiento contractual) is unthinkable. […] Here, as on that occasion, it involves situations unknown to the plaintiffs, who were unaware of the supposed defects for which they claim. These -regarding the present case- as alleged, manifested themselves with the earthquake of December 22, 1990, when the damages that they had to repair occurred. Ergo, no prescription (prescripción) or expiry (caducidad) period could run before. The present action deals with contractual liability for non-performance of the seller (responsabilidad contractual por incumplimiento del vendedor), whose prescription period (plazo de prescripción) is ten years. At the time this action was notified, not even a year had elapsed since the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Consequently, it is appropriate to grant the filed appeal and annul, regarding this point, the Court's judgment…” (Judgment No. 77 of 1995).- VIII.- SPECIFIC CASE.- As we pointed out supra and can be verified from the conceptualization of the legal guarantees to which the seller is subject, in this case, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, it can be easily inferred that the lawsuit presents a significant incoherence, because the supposed defect alleged by the plaintiff's legal representation does not properly constitute a hidden defect (vicio oculto), but a partial eviction (evicción parcial) of the farm (finca) registered under folio number Placa26795, since it is not a defect in the quantity or quality of the granted good that affects the economic benefit of the sold thing, as the real estate with forestry purpose (vocación forestal) continues to fulfill the same utility it originally had and which was known to Mr. Nombre136762, so much so that even on May 26, 2017, that is, more than two years after Mr. Nombre140068 filed a complaint for damages before the OIJ office in the city of Grecia (judicial file 15-000110-0075-PE), the plaintiff here signed with the Executive Director of the Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal a “contract for payment of environmental services for maintenance of forest cover in the forest protection activity” (contrato de pago de servicios ambientales por mantenimiento de cobertura forestal en la actividad de protección de bosque), by means of which the State would pay him a sum of money, in exchange for a series of obligations to protect the forest (bosque) present on the real estate of his property. This inconsistency in the filed action is aggravated by the terms in which the material claims were literally raised, let us see: In claims two to six, it is requested that the Banco Nacional be compelled to “reimburse” various items, such as the value of the farm (finca) (no. 2), the transfer expenses (no. 3), the financial costs associated with the leverage he had to resort to in order to cover the property price (no. 4), the expenses for “improvements, modifications and repairs” (mejoras, modificaciones y reparaciones) made on the farm (finca) (no. 5), and costs of a possible civil lawsuit (no. 6), however, that claim is neither adduced nor linked to the legal regime that would correspond to a guarantee for hidden defects (vicios ocultos). Although in the conclusions stated during the preliminary hearing he did not expressly invoke it, this Court takes note that on folio 15 of the lawsuit brief, the plaintiff's judicial representative alleges that: “...from all the aforementioned we have [sic] that if hidden defects (vicios ocultos) exist, the sale becomes null with the liabilities (responsabilidades) of the selling party…”. However, as we saw before, according to article 1082 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), merely alleging hidden defects (vicios ocultos) cannot give rise to the relative nullity (nulidad relativa) of the contract; it is necessary to additionally prove a defect in consent: “...Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), -unless it also constitutes error that annuls consent...” (Judgment of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) No. 320 of 1990). However, as we already pointed out, Mr. Nombre136762 has indeed made effective use of the real estate in accordance with its use regime, precisely, because the good has fulfilled the purpose for which it was acquired, a situation that has not been ruled out to date. What the party considers a hidden defect (vicio oculto) actually consists of the fact that there is a third person who claims to have a better right over part of the real estate he acquired, and in that sense, the pertinent action would not be one for redhibitory defects (vicios redhibitorios), but one for partial eviction (evicción parcial) because, in principle, we would be in the presence of a disturbance of fact and of law produced by that third party, regarding the peaceful enjoyment of the property right that was transmitted to him by the Banco Nacional. Article 1035 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) prescribes: “...The warranty action (acción de garantía) may be exercised by the one to whom it is owed, from the moment that, as a consequence of a lawsuit filed against him, or of an exception opposed to a lawsuit of his, the existence of the transferred right is threatened…” (Highlighting is not from the original). Precisely, that is the situation that emerges from the plaintiff's own statement, since when supporting the moral damage (daño moral) in the conclusions, his judicial representative clearly outlined said situation of threat or disturbance, by stating that: “… and there is something more, even more serious that I think is the most…. the criminal trial is still pending, this criminal lawsuit... we went and presented all these reasonings before the Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office has not yet decided whether to elevate us to trial because Nombre136762 is being accused of usurpation (usurpación) and of damages (daños), of damages to private property, that is, he builds… so, he runs the risk of being criminally convicted, for working on his property, for carrying out work on his property…” (recording of the preliminary hearing from minute 41:38 to minute 42:07. Highlighting is our own). That is to say, it is reiterated that it is a third party claiming a better right and thus threatening the peaceful enjoyment of the transmitted good. In this way, it is evident to this Chamber that the filed action is inadmissible for lacking legal basis, since the party has raised a claim inconsistent with the very facts on which it bases its lawsuit, as well as the evidence it has provided to the record, so that, pursuant to the principle of party disposition (principio dispositivo), this Court must limit its pronouncement strictly to the terms raised therein, without the possibility of substituting for the party, nor redirecting its legal arguments, under penalty of infringing the principle of procedural equality, the right of defense and due process of its counterpart, and incurring a defect of incongruence in the ruling; especially in pure civil treasury processes, such as the one presented here. Finally, regarding the rest of the claims, they have been deduced as accessory petitions to the recognition of the supposed hidden defects (vicios ocultos), specifically, as a condemnation to the payment of compensatory items: material damages (daños materiales), such as expenses incurred for the exploitation of the good (no. 7 and 8), municipal taxes (no. 9), interests and moral damage (daño moral) (no. 10). Given that said aspects have been raised as accessory, in accordance with the general principle of Law by which that which is accessory follows the fate of the principal, what is appropriate is to also dismiss these claims for lacking legal basis.- IX.- ABOUT THE RAISED EXCEPTIONS. In accordance with what was explained above, this Court deems that the defense of lack of Right (falta de Derecho) raised by the Banco Nacional must be granted, and in that sense, the lawsuit dismissed as inadmissible. It is noted that, although the representation of the defendant Bank also raised the defense of prescription (prescripción), due to the way it is resolved, it is unnecessary to issue any pronouncement in that regard.- X.- ABOUT COSTS (COSTAS).- The obligation to pay costs (costas) constitutes an obligation of legal source, in this case, derived from numeral 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), by means of which the losing party -by the mere fact of being so-, is obligated to reimburse the winning party for a variety of categories of expenses occasioned by the process, which they were not obligated to bear. In accordance with the cited rule, dispensation from this condemnation may only occur if one of the two scenarios regulated there is proven, so that in the absence of arguments or evidence allowing this Court, in the specific case, to weigh and consider any of these grounds as accredited, it is not possible then to except, totally or partially, the losing party from the application of said maxim. Regarding the ground of subsection b) of the numeral under discussion, the case law of both the Court of Cassation for Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters (Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) and the First Chamber (Sala Primera), have determined regarding said ground, the following: “… having sufficient reason to litigate implies not only the conviction of the losing party in the thesis defended by them, but also that such conviction was based on objective data from the process, from which the judge can conclude that the losing party had rationally founded reasons to believe in the soundness of their claim, or of their defense, as the case may be…” (Judgment of the Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación) No. 005-F-TC-2020 of 09:20 hours on January 9, 2020), “… Since long ago, this Chamber has pointed out that this scenario does not consist even in the mere conviction in the thesis being sustained. Much less, therefore, can ignorance about the result of the evidence be accepted as a determining element of this hypothesis for dispensation. The conviction about one's own thesis consists of being based on objective data from the process that allow deducing the soundness of their claims or defenses, such as the subtlety in the “legal question”, which consists, for example, in that what is discussed is based on a pure interpretation of legal norms as the factual framework is not controverted (in this sense, resolutions 1692-F-SI-2012 and 1307-F-SI-2014 may be consulted). Or, for example, it is constituted by the obligated participation in the process as a defendant party, deriving from the passive procedural standing (legitimación procesal pasiva) imposed by article 12 of the CPCA in some of its sections (resolution 1283-F-SI-2015)…” (Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) No. 1366-F-S1-2017 of 15:35 hours on November 7, 2017). Under these circumstances, this Chamber considers that the plaintiff has acted motivated by good faith, facing a supervening threatening situation towards his property right, which had been acquired from a financial entity, as a product of its ordinary activity. The error when subsuming the facts into the legal framework applicable to the sub lite does not negate the plausibility of the claim made for the enforcement of the legal guarantee to which the Banco Nacional is called in its capacity as seller, that is, to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right of Mr. Nombre136762. Therefore, we estimate that according to the nature of the debated issues, it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiff had sufficient reason to litigate and, therefore, the losing party is exempted from the payment of costs (costas).-

POR TANTO

The exception of lack of Right (falta de Derecho) raised by the defendant party is granted. As it is unnecessary, a pronouncement on the exception of prescription (prescripción) is omitted. Consequently, THE LAWSUIT filed by Nombre136762 against BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA IS DECLARED WITHOUT MERIT. - The losing party is exempted from the payment of costs (costas).

- Notify.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Roberto Garita Navarro Name10955 Page 1 of 26 Precisely herein lies the very meaning of this guarantee, which Article 1036 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates:</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">“...Article 1036.- He to whom the guarantee is owed may demand from the guarantor: 1st.- That <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the judicial pursuits</span> directed against him by a third party, or the resistance that someone opposes to the exercise of his rights, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">be made to cease</span>; 2nd.- <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The indemnification (indemnización)</span> for the consequences of those pursuits, or of the resistance, if they have been exercised rightfully….” (Highlighting is not from the original). In relation to the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">guarantees for hidden defects (vicios ocultos) and for proper functioning (funcionamiento)</span>, these share a common root, since through both the seller undertakes to assure the purchaser of the fitness of the transferred thing to satisfy the use intended for it: “…The interest that the buyer of a good seeks to satisfy with its acquisition necessarily supposes that it be suitable for the purpose it normally serves. Given the possibility that the thing subject to the agreement presents defects (vicios), flaws, or insufficiencies that render it useless or inadequate to fulfill its nature, or create a diminution in value for it, legal doctrine and the Legal System have enshrined the guarantees of proper functioning (funcionamiento) and hidden defects (vicios ocultos), which usually accompany this onerous mode of acquiring property…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005). Now, regarding the latter, that is, the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">guarantee of proper functioning (garantía de funcionamiento)</span>, it suffices to outline the following given that this assumption is unrelated to the case sub examine: “...the guarantee of proper functioning (garantía de funcionamiento) is based on the same objective premise as that of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), that is, that the thing presents defects that compromise its use, but unlike those, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">they manifest in the good after its delivery, that is, they did not accompany it at the time the buyer could or should have inspected it, but rather arise later, as a result of its normal use</span> […] This means that all functional defects the good presents within that time must be corrected, provided that, after the malfunction, no more than thirty days are allowed to pass before reporting what has occurred. Therefore, even though the guarantee covers the period from the delivery of the good, and extends for the stipulated term, the time to claim that the acquired object presents a defect that makes it inadequate to fulfill its functions begins to run from when it arises and not from when the thing was delivered. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Failure to observe that thirty-day period to give the corresponding notice leads to the expiration (caducidad) of the right. The claim enabled by this rule is not for annulment or recovery (repetición), as occurs for hidden defects (vicios ocultos) in the civil and commercial areas, respectively, but rather the repair or replacement of the thing</span>. The figure is also regulated in consumer matters, in section 43 of the corresponding regulatory body, according to which the guarantee of proper functioning (garantía de funcionamiento) implicitly accompanies every good or service sold or provided, so it must meet the quality standards and technical requirements that, for reasons of health, environment, and safety, are set by the Legal System […] Moreover, concerning <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the statute of limitations (prescripción), the applicable rule is Article 984 in its subsection a), and not its general statement</span>. That subsection establishes an annual term for the extinguishment of rights based on claims for defects (vicios) in things sold with a guarantee of good functioning, hence a criterion of specialty prevails over the four-year term provided for other cases lacking specific provision…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005 and 1470-F-S1-2011). - </span></span></p> <p><span class="example1 306489" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5pt; margin-bottom: 2.8pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 152%;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">VII.- CONTINUES.- Now, regarding the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">guarantee for hidden defects (vicios ocultos)</span>, the First Chamber has noted that this type of defects corresponds to those that, unlike evident or manifest ones, "...are also present in the thing delivered, [but] are not detected through a reasonable examination of the good, that is, they are hidden…" (Sentencia 999-F-2005) and that, consequently, affect the use and benefit of the thing to the detriment of the buyer, who in good faith has contributed their will to the formation of the contract unaware of the existence of said defects. Therefore, "...the guarantee of warranty against eviction or for hidden defects (garantía de saneamiento o por vicios ocultos) is a natural effect of the sales contract.- It refers to the seller's obligation to deliver the thing sold and for it to be fit to fulfill the function for which it is normally intended, that is, that the thing must be delivered in good condition, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">without defects (vicios) or flaws that make its normal use improper, or notably affect it</span>…” (Sentencia 320 of</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">1990. Highlighting is not from the original). This is explained because “… The buyer is interested in receiving a thing fit for the intended purpose, without a defect (vicio) that causes it to lose value. If the thing does not meet these conditions, the buyer will want to return it, rescinding the contract, or will attempt to reduce the price in proportion to the defects noted. The seller is concerned, above all, with selling the thing because their benefit depends on the number of sales made; and, secondly, if the buyer discovers defects in the merchandise, the seller is interested in the buyer's immediate claim, to conclude the contract as soon as possible…”</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">(Sentencias N.º 7 and N.º 44 of 1994). Based on this jurisprudential line, the Civil Tribunals have specified a series of requirements that must be duly demonstrated, in order to prove the presence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos) or redhibitory defects: “… Regarding this issue, we must point out that, in order to demand civil liability, the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) must meet certain requirements, namely: a. They must be hidden defects (vicios ocultos), not apparent or manifest; b. The thing must have been acquired for valuable consideration; c. They must not be known to the acquirer; d. The hidden defect (vicio oculto) must render the natural or normal use of the thing improper or frustrate it, or diminish it substantially, and </span></span></p> <p><span class="example1 306489" style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 0.5pt; margin-bottom: 4.75pt; text-indent: -0.5pt; line-height: 152%; font-size: 12.5pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">e. They must be prior to the sale. To this we must add an important aspect: \"... It is not necessary for the seller to have known of such defects, nor for them to be perpetual or irremediable.\" (Voto de la Sala Primera número 227 of 14:15 hours on 12/20/1991), this implies that the seller will be civilly liable even if they are unaware of the hidden defects (vicios ocultos). In such a way that, the buyer must prove bad faith or fraudulent intent (dolo) only in those cases where, in the contract, the seller has been released from the obligation to indemnify for damages and losses (doctrine of section 701 of the Civil Code),…” (Sentencia del Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera, N.º</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">52 of 10:40 hours on February 26, 2015. Bold is from the original). Likewise, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber has established three distinct courses of action to claim for this type of defects: “...This concerns, therefore, three possible actions arising from the same fact: defects in the thing subject to the sales contract. [1] <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The action for recovery (acción de repetición) for hidden defects (vicios ocultos) or redhibitory defects</span>, as established in the penultimate paragraph of Article 450 of the Commercial Code, [2] <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the action for annulment due to error in consent as a result of the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) or redhibitory defects</span>, according to Article 1082 of the Civil Code, and [3] <span style="text-decoration: underline;">common contractual liability</span> derived from Article 692 of the Civil Code. According to the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—with each other given the common assumption: the defect in the thing diminishing it or rendering it unusable. …” (Sentencia N.º 37 of 1993. Highlighting is not from the original). Now, for the sake of clearly addressing the procedural prerequisites that must be analyzed with respect to each of those jurisdictional remedies, we will briefly outline what these actions consist of:</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">1) The exercise of the action for recovery (acción de repetición) provided in Article 450 of the Commercial Code occurs within the framework of a commercial sale and its purpose is to reverse the effects of payment for the acquirer, so that the latter can return the defective object and thus demand fulfillment of the obligation: “...Payment, in its technical sense, is the action by which obligations are fulfilled. In this way, if by contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-crime a person is obligated to a specific performance, at the moment of carrying it out, they will have paid, with the liberating effects this would entail for their condition as debtor. But, on some occasions, the law provides that, despite having made the payment, it cannot produce its effects. In that situation, the legal system provides the figure of the action to recover the payment (acción de repetir el pago). This consists of the possibility, for the creditor of the performance, to return or oblige their debtor to take back what was paid or its economic equivalent. Likewise, when dealing with synallagmatic contracts, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">to impose on the other contracting party the duty to return the consideration received in exchange for that returned by whoever exercises the action for recovery (acción de repetición). Costa Rican law contemplates this possibility in two cases.</span> One, unrelated to the sub lite, when an undue payment occurs. [...]. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The other, concerning the invoked section 450 of the Commercial Code</span>, occurs when the buyer receives the acquired goods, under two different circumstances. The first, when they are delivered packaged or baled and, after being opened, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">hidden defects (vicios ocultos)</span> or an inaccuracy in the agreed quantity or quality are found in them. [...] The other hypothesis refers to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">redhibitory defects (vicios redhibitorios), whether or not the purchased thing was delivered packaged</span>, within ten days from delivery or from the discovery of the hidden defect (vicio oculto). In both cases, if the seller refuses to recover what was paid, the buyer has the possibility of filing a lawsuit, to demand it, within a period of three months. Although the Commercial Code speaks in that precept of a statutory limitation period (plazo prescriptivo), in reality such period is one of expiration (caducidad), because it does not establish any way in which it can be interrupted and only imposes the burden of exercising the action within that quarter. In section 450 of the Commercial Code, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the action for recovery (acción de repetir) has the purpose of dissipating the consequences, for the buyer, of having accepted the delivered thing.</span> By not having opposed the transfer (tradición), with this, in principle, it could be considered that the seller was released from their obligation to give the negotiated good. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">The recovery of the payment (repetición del pago) comes to be assimilated as if, when the transfer (tradición) was attempted, the buyer had opposed the delivery, due to the defects (vicios) found in the acquired item, thereby not releasing the seller from their debt</span>, consisting of delivering the good, the object of the legal transaction…” (Sentencia N.º 810-F-04). Under this special hypothesis, as defined by the First Chamber, in light of the rule under discussion, the temporal prerequisite for the exercise of this action is governed by an expiration period (término de caducidad) of three months. 2) Through an action for relative nullity or voidability (nulidad relativa o anulabilidad), insofar as the hidden defects (vicios ocultos) have resulted in a defect of consent due to error: “… Regarding these defects, Article 1082 of the Civil Code provides that: \"The sale may not be annulled due to hidden defects (vicios o defectos ocultos) of the thing, of the type called redhibitory, unless those defects (vicios o defectos) involve an error that annuls consent, or if there is a stipulation to the contrary.\" The article actually establishes an action for relative nullity or voidability (<span style="text-decoration: underline;">nulidad</span> relativa or anulabilidad), based on a defect of consent: error. Said action is founded on the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">hidden defects (vicios ocultos) and on the error</span>, jointly.- Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), -unless it also constitutes <span style="text-decoration: underline;">error that annuls consent</span>-…” (Sentencia 320 of</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: spaces;">&nbsp; </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">1990); “...It must be remembered that this last element [consent] is one of the essential prerequisites of contracts (Articles 1007, 1008 ibidem), therefore its absence or defect leads, irremediably, to the nullity—or voidability (anulabilidad)—of the transaction concluded, as established by canons 835 and 836 of the Civil Code…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005). With regard to the time limits for exercising this action, first, it must be determined whether it involves a commercial sale or a civil one, because in the latter it would be governed by an expiration period (caducidad) of four years pursuant to section 841 of the Civil Code, while in the commercial hypothesis, it would involve a statutory limitation period (plazo de prescripción) of four years according to the general rule established in Article 984 of the Commercial Code “...based on the arguments set forth, the type of commercial contracting and the mercantile nature of the companies, it is concluded that in matters of statute of limitations (prescripción), the Commercial Code, specifically, Article 984, is applicable to the specific case…” (Sentencia N.º</span> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;">963-F-2005). In this case, it must be specified that in 2019, subsection e) of the cited canon was repealed, by means of Ley N.º 9961 of June 3, 2019, since that subsection established a different term, as was ruled at the time by the First Chamber (see for example sentencia N.º 810-F-04). As inferred from the legislative record of the bill, specifically, in the unanimous affirmative opinion, the legislative intent with the repeal was that: “...it is intended that rights derived from commercial sales have a statutory limitation period (plazo de prescripción) of four years instead of only one, that is, buyer debts on credit will prescribe at four years instead of one. Likewise, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">claims directed at the seller will also see their statutory limitation period (plazo de prescripción) increased</span>...” (F. 851 of the legislative record 19957, according to consultation in the public database of the Asamblea Legislativa. Highlighting is not from the original). And 3) finally, there remains the avenue for the acquirer to exercise an action for contractual liability for breach: “...Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), […] the possibility of the seller's <span style="text-decoration: underline;">common contractual liability</span> always remains, as the seller has the obligation to deliver the thing in such a way that it fully performs its normal function; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">liability that could result in an indemnification for damages and losses, depending on the nature of the breach</span>. If the seller delivers the thing with some defect (vicio) or flaw that makes it improper for its normal function or diminishes its value, they incur a contractual breach, in accordance with Articles 692, 693, 701, 702, 704 and 764 of the Civil Code, the latter insofar as it provides that \"payment shall be made in all respects according to the terms of the obligation.\"- It is an implicit obligation in the sale to deliver the thing as the buyer expects to receive it, in accordance with what was agreed (764 and 1022 ibidem)…” (Sentencia 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original).</span></span></p> It is important to be clear that this remedial action may or may not be brought together with a claim for annulment or resolution of the contract: "...In accordance with the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions [annulment and liability] would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—given the common premise: the defect in the thing that deteriorates it or renders it unusable. However, they would not be so with respect to the repetition action regulated by Article 450 of the Commercial Code, since, given the special nature of the matter, the rules contained therein apply to the exclusion of others when dealing with hidden defects (vicios ocultos) or redhibitory defects in the case of commercial sales..." (Judgment No. 37 of 1993). Likewise, it is important to note that its temporal framework for exercise may be dimensioned, in turn, according to whether it pertains to a commercial or civil sale, with a four-year term in the former, according to the general rule of prescription for rights and actions in that matter, pursuant to Articles 438, 439, and 984 of the Commercial Code (CCOM), while in the latter, the ordinary ten-year civil prescription period would apply: "... In the sub-judice case, no annulment of the contract has been requested, nor its resolution. Liability for contractual non-performance is claimed, due to the failure to deliver the purchased house with the specifications implicit in the contract. The damages were produced, according to the cause alleged by Mr. […] and Mrs. […], as a consequence of the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Before, the hidden defects of the building were not known, nor had they suffered any harm to their interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not exercise any action. The Superior Court breached Article 874 of the Civil Code, by considering that the prescription term began to run from the date on which the purchase-sale deed was signed. In this regard, it was considered: 'In accordance with numeral 869 in relation to 874 of the Civil Code, both the right and the action to demand liability such as that demanded here against the seller shall prescribe in ten years, counted from the execution of the contract, which is the moment from which that party's obligation to answer for the defects of the thing sold became enforceable.' However, the obligation cannot be considered enforceable when the hidden defects are not yet known and the claimed damages have not yet been produced. Before that, the exercise of the action for contractual non-performance is unthinkable. […] Here, as on that occasion, it concerns situations unknown to the plaintiffs, who ignored the supposed defects for which they claim. These—in regard to the present case—according to what is alleged, manifested themselves with the earthquake of December 22, 1990, when the damages that had to be repaired occurred. Ergo, no period of prescription or expiration could have run before that. The present action concerns contractual liability for the seller's non-performance, whose prescription period is ten years. At the moment this action was served, not even a year had passed since the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Consequently, the remedy filed is admissible and the court's judgment is annulled, with respect to this point..." (Judgment No. 77 of 1995).- X.- REGARDING COSTS.- The obligation to pay costs constitutes an obligation of legal source, in this case, derived from numeral 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), by means of which the losing party—by the sole fact of being so—is obligated to reimburse the winning party for a diversity of categories of expenses occasioned by the process, which they should not have been required to bear. According to the cited provision, the exemption from this condemnation may only occur if one of the two grounds regulated therein is proven, such that in the absence of arguments or evidence allowing this Court, in the specific case, to weigh and consider any of these reasons as accredited, it is not possible then to except the losing party, totally or partially, from the application of said maxim. Regarding the ground under subsection b) of the numeral commented upon, the jurisprudence of both the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) and the First Chamber (Sala Primera) have determined, regarding said ground, the following: "...having sufficient reason to litigate implies not only the conviction of the losing party in the thesis defended by them, but also that this conviction was based on objective data from the process, from which the judge can conclude that the losing party had rationally founded reasons to believe in the soundness of their claim, or their defense, as the case may be..." (Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 005-F-TC-2020 of 09:20 hours on January 9, 2020), "... Since long ago, this Chamber has indicated that this ground does not even consist of the mere conviction in the thesis being sustained. Much less can ignorance about the outcome of the evidence be accepted as a determining element of this hypothesis of exemption. It consists of the conviction regarding one's own thesis founded on objective data from the process that allows one to deduce the soundness of their claims or defenses, such as the subtlety of the 'legal question,' which consists, for example, in the discussion being based on a pure interpretation of the legal norms, as the factual framework is not contested (in this sense, see resolutions 1692-F-SI-2012 and 1307-F-SI-2014). Or, for example, it is constituted by the compulsory participation in the process as a defendant, which derives from the passive procedural standing imposed by Article 12 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (CPCA) in some of its sections (resolution 1283-F-SI-2015)..." (Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 1366-F-S1-2017 of 15:35 hours on November 7, 2017). Under these circumstances, this Chamber considers that the plaintiff has acted in good faith, faced with a supervening threat situation toward their property right, which had been acquired from a financial entity, as a product of its ordinary activity. The error in subsuming the facts into the legal framework applicable to the sub lite does not negate the plausibility of the claim made for compliance with the legal guarantee to which the Banco Nacional is called in its capacity as seller, that is, to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right of Mr. Arce Aguilar. Therefore, we estimate that, in accordance with the nature of the debated issues, it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff had sufficient reason to litigate and, consequently, the losing party is exonerated from the payment of costs.- Thus, we proceed to transcribe said claims, adding digital excerpts from the scanned document that is recorded in the electronic judicial file, corresponding to the calculation tables prepared by the judicial representative of the plaintiff:

“…CLAIM: Based on the facts set forth and legal citations invoked, I request that the judgment declare:

1- This administrative claim is granted.

2- That the Respondent must reimburse the undersigned for the total amount of the sums for the purchase of the farm plus interest calculated as of 05/25/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, according to the date they were disbursed, that is:

The accused party will be sentenced to pay the costs of this lawsuit.” 3- That the Defendant must reimburse the expenses incurred for the transfer of the same, and interest calculated up to 25/05/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, according to the date on which they were disbursed, that is:

Case study area 1-U is applied for land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) to establish tenure security. This area contains isolated trees that will be protected. A request is made to modify the area delimited within Anexo 1 by reducing it, meaning that it would pass from 6.72 hectares to 5.76 hectares for the establishment of coffee cultivation, thereby protecting and maintaining the isolated trees and their buffer zones, as well as protecting the Ujarrás River spring (naciente) to achieve a reduced project that is socially and legally feasible. This reduction is because the area originally presented in Anexo 1 includes the protected zone of the Ujarrás River spring (naciente), which measures 0.96 hectares. In this reduced area, it is requested to proceed with the logging (corta) of the Melina species (Gmelina arborea) that are there.

Here, it is important to point out that the users felled (talaron) the forest cover (cobertura boscosa) in the year 1992, which is proven by the orthophoto from the IGN of that year and the photographs submitted. The Melina species, exotic, appears in the 2005 orthophoto as well as in the current farm plan.

Regarding the Ujarrás River spring (naciente): a protection radius of 100 meters in diameter is established. The Melina species that are within the 100-meter radius will not be felled for any reason. Only those trees located outside this protection zone will be felled, in an area of 5.76 hectares. Regarding the Ujarrás River itself, the protection zone is 15 meters on the west bank and 10 meters on the east bank, in accordance with Article 33 of the Ley Forestal (Forest Law). This is because the west bank has a slope greater than 30%.

The logging (corta) will be selective. The plan is to extract the Melina species only. The Melina is marked with orange paint, with its respective consecutive number, in a pre-harvest inventory. The extracted timber will be used entirely by the users for their own consumption. The felling (tala) will be done with a chainsaw and the logs will be moved to collection points using a tractor. Here, it is important to clarify that no vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal) other than the Melina species will be cut, including the isolated trees. These protected trees are marked with a number, with their respective GPS point, and are found within coffee plantations at distances of 12, 16, and 18 meters. The logging (corta) of the Melina species will not affect the branches of these isolated trees.

The Melina logs will be transported to collection points using a tractor, as previously mentioned. The collection point will be next to the road. In this logging activity (actividad de corta), no new roads will be constructed; instead, the existing coffee plantation roads will be used.

<p style="margin:0pt 30.5pt 2.8pt 55.05pt; text-indent:-19.1pt; line-height:152%; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'decimal'; -aw-list-number-values:'4'; -aw-list-padding-sml:9.1pt"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"><span>4-</span><span style="width:9.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span></span><span>That the defendant reimburse the INTEREST PAID [sic], commissions and insurance , plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018 , at a fixed annual rate of 24% , from the date of having concluded the loan payment for the credit I had to take out with the Asociación Costarricense para Organizaciones de Desarrollo Acorde , pursuant to promissory note No Placa26794 in the name of my principal Easy And Express S.A , for 9,000,000.00 Colones (Nine Million Colones) of which [sic] I had to pay within a term of one year the sum of 899,677.00 Colones (Eight Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Colones) Exactly per month , for twelve months, which in its entirety yields the sum of 10,796,124;00, of the nine million requested I only received 8,688,378.00 colones (Eight Million Six Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Eight Colones), the remainder was paid in commissions and insurance, money that I would never have been obliged to request had I not made the purchase of the property in question.</span></p> The [sic] money was received on September 17, 2010, and I finished paying it on September 17, 2011.

5- That the defendant reimburse the expenses incurred in improvements, modifications, and repairs made to the property for the purpose of using it, plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed annual rate of 24%, from the date recorded on the invoice, which I submit for the same, issued by Excavaciones O.C.Q, CEDULA JURIDICA 3-105-619876, FACTURA NUMERO 0368, DATED 30/12/2014.

The Administration is authorized to grant, by means of the corresponding Decree, the tax incentives established in this Law, to any public or private sector company that develops forestry activities, including forestry industrialization, according to the provisions of this article, provided that the projects presented are compatible with the environment and comply with the prerequisites established by law. The Comptroller General of the Republic shall approve the contracts concluded.

6- That the defendant reimburse the costs of the potential civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Nombre140068, as this is a direct consequence of the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Naranjo branch, Nombre140069, with cell phone number at that time 8319-2907, at the time of making the respective purchase and a direct effect of the superposition (superposición) problem that the property presents, plus interest calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed 24% annual rate, from the date the lawsuit was filed, 12/02/2015.

I clarify, that the costs of the proceeding (costes del juicio) have not been possible to determine.

En cumplimiento del Voto N.° 6543-2003 de la Sala Constitucional, las reglas contenidas en el artículo 19 del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal, Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 25721-MINAE (Anexo 1) y aquellas establecidas en el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 31849-MINAE (Anexo 2), relativas a la protección del recurso hídrico, se integrarán a continuación.

<p style="margin:0pt 30.5pt 2.8pt 55.05pt; text-indent:-19.1pt; line-height:152%; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:0; -aw-list-number-format:'%0-'; -aw-list-number-styles:'decimal'; -aw-list-number-values:'7'; -aw-list-padding-sml:9.1pt"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"><span>7-</span><span style="width:9.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span></span><span>That the defendant must pay the undersigned the costs of hiring the engineer Georgeanella Flores Muñoz, identity card CED110313, the sum of 200,000 (two hundred thousand colones), for professional services in two installments of 100,000 (one hundred thousand colones), according to invoices of which I attach copies, number 0091 dated 16/01/2017 and number 0090 dated 09/01/2017, and additionally the receipt from the Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos de Costa Rica [sic] NUMBER CED110314 for the concept of stamps for the oversight (regencia) executed for an amount of 39690, dated 13/01/2017.</span></p> Interest accrued up to 25/05/2018, at 24% per annum, fixed, from the date recorded in said documents.

Se ejecuta, dentro de un Plan de Mitigación por Compra de Tierras y Pago de Servicios Ambientales, identificando, como su nombre lo indica, dos actividades principales: la compra de tierras y el establecimiento del contrato de pago de servicios ambientales (PSA).

Respecto a esta categoría de proyectos, es importante indicar que ICE no entregó los informes de regencia del Proyecto 2006-003 para los años 2007, 2008, 2010 y 2011, según lo establecido en la Resolución No. 327-2003-SETENA, que indica que deben presentarse dos informes al año. Para el año 2009 se presentó un solo informe y para el año 2012 se presentaron dos informes parciales. Por ende, no es posible determinar el avance en el establecimiento de estos pagos de servicios ambientales (PSA).

7- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff the total amount of SIX MILLION TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR COLONES WITH EIGHTY CENTS (6,216,184.80 COLONES) for the cutting of timber (tala de madera) from the tree species (especies forestales) detailed in the Forest Management Plan (Plan de Manejo Forestal) submitted and approved for the property, as recorded in the respective registry entries and the field inspection report (informe de inspección de campo) issued by the corresponding official from the State Forestry Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado, AFE) prepared by the pertinent forestry engineer, as well as in the corresponding technical studies (estudios técnicos), which are attached and form an integral part of this filing, plus all damages and losses (daños y perjuicios), as well as interest calculated at the rate of twenty-four percent (24%) per annum, fixed, from the date of the cutting of timber (tala de madera) and until its effective payment.

8- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff the FUTURE INCOME, NOT RECEIVED under the contract signed with FONAFIFO, CONTRACT FOR PAYMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR FOREST COVER MAINTENANCE IN THE FOREST PROTECTION ACTIVITY (CONTRATO DE PAGO DE SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES POR MANTENIMIENTO DE COBERTURA FORESTAL EN LA ACTIVIDAD DE PROTECCIÓN DE BOSQUE), with FONAFIFO, contract number SJ-OI-22-0112-2016, dated 26/05/2017, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 6,216,184.80 COLONES (Six Million Two Hundred Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Four Colones with 80/100).

9- That the defendant must pay the plaintiff all expenses incurred for Municipal Taxes (Impuestos Municipales) that have been paid to date on the property, plus interest, calculated as of 25/05/2018, at a fixed rate of 24% per annum, from the date registered in said documents.

No output provided. The input appears to be a base64-encoded string, but it does not match the pattern of a Spanish legal document excerpt as described in the instructions. Therefore, I cannot perform the requested translation. I will output nothing.

Document not translated: no Costa Rican Spanish legal text found in the input.

The provided chunk is a sequence of alphanumeric/base64 strings, repeated phrases ("Roo0cB+gevp/LRo0aNFFGjRo0UUaNGjRRRo0aNFFGjRo0UUaNGjRRRo0aNFFG"), and HTML/XML style formatting tags mixed with Spanish text at the very end. This does not match the structure or content of a Costa Rican Spanish legal document excerpt as specified in the instructions.

The only translatable content appears at the end:

"10- los daños y perjuicios ocasionados así: por daños el monto TOTAL de las sumas reclamadas incluyendo intereses los cuales ascienden al monto de 103.394.400,70 colones (Ciento tres Millones Trescientos Noventa y Cuatro Mil Cuatrocientos colones con 70/100) y por perjuicios el daño moral que ha sufrido por dicha situación." A faithful translation of that fragment is:

10- the damages and losses caused, as follows: as damages, the TOTAL amount of the claimed sums including interest, which amount to 103,394,400.70 colones (One Hundred Three Million Three Hundred Ninety-Four Thousand Four Hundred Colones and 70/100) and as losses, the moral damages suffered due to this situation.

11- That the defendant must pay both sets of costs of this action.

The damages originate from the amounts paid by my client and the losses are the non-pecuniary damage that she has suffered for having paid for a property which she has not been able to use due to the overlap problem that it presents and the damages that an unfavorable judgment could cause in relation to the lawsuit pending against the undersigned, filed by Mr. Nombre140068 …” The plaintiff bases its claims on the existence of hidden defects (vicios ocultos) in the acquisition of the property of the Partido de Alajuela, title number Placa26796, which was sold to him by the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. He argues that said public company misled him, because the property presented anomalies that have prevented him from enjoying that asset; specifically, he criticizes two aspects in particular: first, that as a result of modifications he made to the property between December 30, 2014, and January 1, 2015, “...based on the location specifications made by the official of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica...”, he was the subject of a criminal complaint, processed under summary case number 15-000110-0075-PE filed by Mr. Nombre140068, and as a result of which, he learned of the existence that the latter was the owner of a property that overlapped with his own. He considers that this represents a risk for him of being convicted criminally and sued civilly. Secondly, he mentions that in his capacity as owner, he requested the municipal approval (visado municipal) of the property from the Municipality of Valverde Vega (Sarchí), which he indicates was rejected because it presented a partial registry overlap with the property of the Partido de Alajuela, title number Placa26797, with map Placa26798. He estimates that these situations have prevented him from enjoying the asset acquired in good faith and reveal that there are hidden defects, since “...the majority of the undersigned's property is located on another property or vice versa, in light of which the extent of land that was actually sold to me [...] does not correspond to the real measurement of the property, which generates great harm for me...”. He considers, likewise, that his claim is timely because it was only upon this last fact, i.e., the property being superimposed on another property, that he was in a position to file his action. Therefore, he points out that as it is a hidden defect, he was not in a position to claim earlier. In summary, the representation of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (hereinafter, Banco Nacional or BNCR) opposes the action filed, through the filing of the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right and requests that the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs. It alleges that the purchase and sale operated on the property was based on the powers granted to the Bank it represents by Articles 3 of the General Public Administration Law, 72 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, and 438 and 439 of the Commercial Code, constituting an ordinary commercial activity that this public entity exercises. It states that, in that sense, the Bank has the legal obligation to dispose of those assets within a maximum period of two years from their acquisition, in accordance with the internal appraisals carried out for that purpose. It argues that, being a commercial purchase and sale and given that the registration of the property in the plaintiff's name occurred on December 3, 2010, by the time he filed the administrative claim, the four-year period provided for in Article 984 of the Commercial Code had been exceeded, such that the power to claim from the Bank the hidden defects that he alleges were prior to the acquisition of the property was extinguished.

III.- PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the issuance of this resolution, the following facts are held as duly demonstrated according to the rules of sound judgment, whether they are so recorded or inferred from the evidence provided in the case file and which were duly admitted, or because the parties have so accepted them:

1.- In 2010, the North Alajuela Regional Directorate of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica carried out a “Sale Tender DRA-VN-06-2010”, through which it put up for sale a property with forestry vocation “composed entirely of Primary Forest” with title number Placa26795, with cadastral map number A-916649-2004 and with an area of 368,292.20 square meters (ff. 02 to 04 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 2.- By means of a note dated August 30, 2010, Mr. Nombre136762 submitted a formal purchase offer to the Banco Nacional, regarding the property described in the previous proven fact, for the sum of twenty-eight million colones (¢28,000,000.00), in which he also indicated that “I clarify that I know and accept the current conditions of the property, releasing the Banco Nacional from all present and future liability for said purchase” (f. 01 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 3.- By means of public deed number 50-08 granted before Notary Rolando Miranda Zumbado at 11:15 a.m. on November 8, 2010, the Banco Nacional and Mr. Nombre136762 signed a purchase and sale contract for the property of the partido of Alajuela, title number Placa26796 previously described and for a price of twenty-eight million colones (¢Placa26799). The sale was made “free of mortgage encumbrances and annotations” (ff. 133 and 134 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 4.- On December 3, 2010, the private property right acquired by the plaintiff herein regarding the property with title number Placa26795 was registered before the National Registry. Mr. Nombre136762 maintains ownership of the domain over said property as of the date of this judgment (document provided with the lawsuit visible in the electronic judicial file and query made on the date of this judgment in the public database of the National Registry); 5.- On February 6, 2015, Mr. Nombre140068, a foreign person of Dutch nationality, appeared before the office of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial, OIJ) located in the town of Grecia, Alajuela, for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint for the crime of damages to the detriment of the environment and his own. Said complaint was assigned judicial case file number 15-000110-0075-PE. On that occasion, he reported that on January 18 of that year, he had found works carried out on what he said was his property, located in a protected zone: “… they had made terraces of about three hundred meters which they left cleared and bare, in which the greatest damage is the felling of trees [sic]…”. He stated that upon the instruction of the police and MINAE officials, he decided to file a complaint “…since it is unknown who caused the damages and because being in a protected area, it is prohibited to carry out work in it without prior permits […] it is unknown if any of the other owners caused the damages…”. Subsequently, by means of report No. 032-CI-15 of February 12 of that year, the Regional Office of Grecia of the OIJ determined that the person who carried out the works was the plaintiff herein, who was henceforth listed as the accused in the aforementioned criminal file (f.

107 to 116 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 6.- On May 26, 2017, the plaintiff here and Mr. Nombre81943 , the latter acting in his capacity as Executive Director of the Forest Financing Fund, signed a contract for the Payment of Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) for maintenance of forest cover (cobertura forestal) under the forest protection activity on farm number 2-401368-000 (f. 123 to 126 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 7.- Through a document titled “Minuta de calificación para visado” with number 11415-2017 dated June 7, 2017, the Real Estate Department of the then Municipality of Valverde Vega (today Municipality of Sarchí, according to Ley N.º 9658 of July 5, 2019), established the following regarding farm number Dirección16834:

8.- By means of a writing dated August 1, 2017, Mr. Nombre136762 filed before the Naranjo Branch of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica a “...formal claim for compensation for payment of damages (daños y perjuicios) that have been caused to me due to the purchase of the property located in the Province of Alajuela, which I made from that institution under the modality of sale of goods at auction to the highest bidder, which is causing me serious harm...” (f.

136 to 151 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 9.- In a writing dated November 8, 2017, the plaintiff herein requested Banco Nacional to respond to his claim for compensation, since up to that day nothing had been responded to in this regard (f. 152 to 154 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 10.- By means of an unnumbered official letter dated December 11, 2017, the official Juan Carlos Vindas Molina, in his capacity as Manager of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR, informed the plaintiff herein that his claim was being handled by the Bank's legal area (f. 155 of the certified copy of the administrative file); 11.- By means of an unnumbered official letter dated December 14, 2017, the Management of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR decided to reject the administrative claim filed by the plaintiff herein, based on a ruling by the Bank's Legal Directorate number D.J./3712-2017 (Ref. 5976-2017) of December 14 of that year (f. 156 to 160 of the certified copy of the administrative file); and 12.- In light of the decision adopted by the Management of the Naranjo Branch of BNCR, Mr. Nombre136762 filed remedies of revocation with subsidiary appeal, the first being rejected by means of an unnumbered official letter dated January 24, 2017, while the appeal was dismissed by the General Management of the Bank in official letter number GG-066-18 of March 5, 2018 (documents provided with the lawsuit and which are contained in the electronic judicial file).- IV.- UNPROVEN FACTS.- For the purposes of this judgment, the following facts are deemed not proven, either because the parties failed to meet their evidentiary burdens, or because the Court found no admitted and suitable evidence that, in the light of sound criticism, would allow them to be accredited:

1.- Mr. Nombre136762 was prevented from exercising the attributes of ownership in relation to the property of his ownership, registered folio number Placa26795, by Mr. Nombre140068 or any other person; 2.- Mr. Nombre136762 was unaware of the forest vocation of the property registered folio number Placa26795 at the time of its acquisition; 3.- The existence of a final judicial judgment determining the overlap or superposition of the property owned by the plaintiff, registered folio number Placa26795, with any other real estate; 4.- In the criminal process processed in judicial file No. 15-000110-0075PE, any judicial resolution or judgment was issued that prevented or hindered the use and enjoyment of the property registered folio number Placa26795 by Mr. Nombre136762; 5.- Mr. Nombre136762 suffered an administrative or judicial eviction from the real estate comprised by the property of his ownership, registered folio number Placa26795; 6.- The plaintiff herein was the subject of a criminal complaint or civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings, or sued in civil proceedings by Mr. Nombre140068; 7.- Mr. Nombre136762 exercised, in any judicial process in which his right of ownership over the property registered folio number Placa26795 was questioned, the power to call Banco Nacional de Costa Rica into the process in its capacity as guarantor.- V.- ON THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACTION.- It is clear to this Court that, notwithstanding that the defendant party has raised the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right, it is the duty of the Judges to review the compliance or non-compliance with the substantial requirements for the issuance of every judgment: those relating to the standing of the intervening parties, the interest in the resolution of the conflict, and the right; which are reviewable even ex officio by every judge, as has been recognized by extensive precedents of the First Chamber and this Court (see, among others, from the First Chamber, judgment number 317-F-S12008 of 09:10 hours on May 2, 2008 and number 1548-F-SI-2011 of 09:20 hours on December 22, 2011, and from the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Eighth Section, number 85-2012 of 08:30 hours on September 14, 2012; Fourth Section, judgments number 28-2012 of 07:30 hours on March 16, 2012, and number 17-2015-IV of 08:00 hours on February 25, 2015; and Sixth Section, judgments number 80-2017-VI of 11:30 hours on June 23, 2017 and 86-2017-VI of 10:00 hours on June 30, 2017, among others). If any of these requirements—or all of them—are not verified by the judge, whether or not they are raised as exceptions or defenses, the lawsuit cannot receive a positive response from the Court. It is worth saying that the existence of procedural requirements or requirements for the exercise of the right to effective judicial protection, in its aspect of access to justice, that is, of formal restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental and human right, has been recognized even by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has established in its jurisprudence: “…143. The Court has indicated that, for reasons of legal certainty, for the correct and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of individuals' rights, States may and must establish requirements and criteria for admissibility of internal remedies, whether judicial or of any other nature. Thus, while these internal remedies must be available to the interested party and effectively and substantively resolve the matter raised, as well as potentially provide adequate reparation, it cannot be considered that internal organs and tribunals must always and in any case resolve the merits of the matter submitted to them, regardless of the verification of the formal requirements of admissibility and appropriateness of the particular remedy attempted. Likewise, the Court has determined that the application of admissibility grounds for a remedy is compatible with the American Convention, and the effectiveness of the remedy implies that potentially, when these requirements are met, the judicial body evaluates its merits…” (Case of Nombre5486 Vs. Argentina, Judgment of November 22, 2019. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Highlighting is not in the original. See in that same vein: Workers Dismissed from Congress (Nombre137239 and others) Vs. Peru, Judgment of November 24, 2006. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 126 to 128; Case of Nombre6602 and others Vs. Nicaragua, Judgment of March 25, 2017. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 163; Case of Dismissed Workers of Nombre137240 and others Vs. Peru, Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs.

Para. 154 to 156; Case of Nombre137241 Vs. Argentina, Judgment of October 15, 2019. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 135 and 136; Case of Nombre156 and Others Vs. Argentina, Judgment of November 23, 2017. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Para. 209 to 211, among others). Thus, it is the criterion of this Chamber that, in the sub lite, it is essential to fully enter into the merits of the matter, that is, into the examination of the Right as a requirement of the action filed, since upon examining the temporal requirement of the lawsuit, that is, the statute of limitations (prescripción) alleged by the defendant Bank, the undersigned have encountered an argumentative obstacle in the formulation of the case theory of the plaintiff party, which, by its magnitude, prevents carrying out the respective analysis. We must bear in mind that the study of the temporal requirement first passes through analyzing and determining the legal regime of the claimed right, since it is in this where the conditions for exercising the right of action in time are established. The problem presented in the subexamine case lies in the fact that the plaintiff's case theory presents a serious inconsistency, firstly, because the lawsuit formulates an action to enforce an alleged warranty of hidden defects or redhibitory defects, in relation to the mercantile sale by means of which he acquired the property registered folio number Placa26795, however, despite this, he does not specify, nor does he specify, which type of action he is exercising, as we will see infra; furthermore, secondly and even more importantly, it is detailed that the judicial representation of the plaintiff argues based on a different obligation of the seller, that is, not on alleged hidden defects, but on the warranty of eviction (garantía de evicción). In this manner, we must inevitably begin with the examination on the merits of the right claimed, before being able to determine any other aspect of the process.- VI.- ON THE WARRANTIES OF HIDDEN DEFECTS, FUNCTIONING, AND EVICTION.- A warranty refers to any of certain legal instruments that the legal order enables for the purpose of making effective the enjoyment of a right; in this way, warranties may have their origin in the law (legal warranties) or in an agreement of wills (conventional warranties), and likewise, it is possible to categorize them according to whether they are related to real rights or personal rights. The difference in the former of these classifications lies in the fact that legal warranties do not need to be expressly agreed upon by the parties, as they derive directly from the Law. Thus, among these and regarding the purchase and sale contract (especially that of a mercantile nature), the national legal order generally provides for three classes of warranties that the seller must assure in favor of the buyer: the warranty of eviction (garantía de evicción), that of hidden defects or redhibitory defects (garantía de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), and that of functioning (garantía de funcionamiento); their definition and distinction have been amply developed by the jurisprudence of the First Chamber for decades. Thus, we can review the judgments of that High Court: number 320 of 2:20 p.m. on November 9, 1990; 227 of 2:15 p.m. on December 20, 1991; 37 of 11:10 a.m. on May 28, 1993; 7 of 2:30 p.m. on February 2, 1994; 44 of 2:30 p.m. on June 15, 1994; 77 of 3:30 p.m. on July 12, 1995; 86 of 2:50 p.m. on August 9, 1996; 209-F-04 of 11:20 a.m. on March 24, 2004; 810-F-04 of 10:00 a.m. on September 17, 2004; 617-F-2005 of 10:40 a.m. on August 25, 2005; 963-F2005 of 1:40 p.m. on December 15, 2005; 999-F-2005 of 2:55 p.m. on December 21, 2005; 1470-F-S1-2011 of 9:00 a.m. on November 8, 2011, among others. In summary, through the warranty of eviction (garantía de evicción), the seller ensures for the buyer the peaceful enjoyment of the right transmitted, against third parties who disturb or threaten to disturb, in fact or in law, said legal situation, including thereby the partial or total loss of the thing sold: “…Eviction is the loss or disturbance of the right of ownership over the sold good, suffered by the buyer from a third party, by virtue of a cause prior to the sale.— Eviction is also understood as the obligation that the seller has to assure the buyer the peaceful enjoyment in fact and in law of the thing transmitted…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not in the original). Drawing from this conceptual approach of the First Chamber, the Civil Courts have developed the scope of this warranty in the following sense: “...Article 1034 of the Civil Code establishes that 'Everyone who has transmitted for valuable consideration a real or personal right, guarantees its free exercise to the person to whom it was transmitted.' That norm regulates the so-called warranty of eviction (garantía por evicción), which is an obligation on the part of the seller in the case of a sale. Eviction is, it is known, 'the loss of all or part of the thing sold due to a judicial action brought against the buyer.' (Nombre60957, . Treatise on Contracts. Editorial Juricentro. San José, 1985, p. 121). This means that when the buyer has been sued by a third party, with the aim of depriving him of the acquired good, he may cite the seller in eviction (citar de evicción al vendedor), so that he comes to the defense of the thing sold, which would be done in accordance with the provisions of articles 109 and 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure…” (Judgment of the Second Civil Court, Second Section No. 165 of 9:00 a.m. on June 25, 2008. Highlighting is not in the original). For its part, the civil doctrine has specified that “...this obligation is twofold or has two parts; the seller must, in effect: 1° defend the buyer against disturbance, that is, cause the cause of it to cease; 2° compensate the buyer when he has not been able to prevent the disturbance, or when the eviction has been consummated. However, these two parts of the warranty obligation cannot be presented as objects of distinct obligations. To speak accurately, it must be said that the seller's obligation has as its sole object the protection of the buyer, and in the event of non-compliance, this obligation is resolved into the compensation for damages and losses, like all obligations to do…” (Planiol, R. and Ripert. G. Treatise on Elementary Civil Law. 1st. Edition, p. 220-221. Highlighting is not in the original). Precisely, herein lies the very meaning of this warranty and which is clearly stipulated by article 1036 of the Civil Code: “...Article 1036.- He to whom the warranty is owed, may demand from the guarantor: 1st.- To cause to cease the judicial claims (persecuciones judiciales) that a third party directs against him, or the resistance that someone opposes to the exercise of his rights; 2nd.- The compensation (indemnización) for the consequences of those claims, or of the resistance, if the former or the latter have been exercised rightfully….” (Highlighting is not in the original). In relation to the warranties of hidden defects (vicios ocultos) and functioning (funcionamiento), these share a common core, since through both the seller obligates himself to assure the acquirer of the aptitude of the transmitted thing to satisfy the intended use for it: “…The interest that the buyer of a good intends to satisfy with its acquisition necessarily presupposes that it is apt for the destination it normally performs. Faced with the possibility that the thing object of the agreement presents hidden defects (vicios), defects, or insufficiencies that render it useless or inadequate to fulfill its nature, or that generate a diminution in value, the doctrine and the Legal Order have consecrated the warranties of functioning (garantía de funcionamiento) and hidden defects (vicios ocultos), which usually accompany this onerous mode of acquiring ownership…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). Now, regarding the latter, that is, the warranty of functioning (garantía de funcionamiento), it suffices to outline the following given that this scenario has no relation to the subexamine case: “...the warranty of functioning (garantía de funcionamiento) is based on the same objective premise as that of hidden defects (vicios ocultos), that is, that the thing presents defects that compromise its use, but unlike those, they manifest in the good after its delivery, that is, they did not accompany it at the moment when the buyer could or should have examined it, but instead arise later, as a result of its normal use [...] This supposes that all functional defects that the good presents within that time must be corrected, provided that, after the defect, no more than thirty days elapse before communicating what occurred. Therefore, even though the warranty covers from the delivery of the good, and extends for the period provided, the time to claim that the object acquired presents a defect that makes it inadequate to fulfill its functions, begins to run from when it arises and not from when the thing was delivered. The inobservance of that thirty-day period to give the corresponding notice, leads to the expiration (caducidad) of the right. The claim that enables this rule is not one for annulment or for recovery (repetición), as occurs for hidden defects in the civil and commercial areas, respectively, but one for the repair or substitution of the thing. The figure is also regulated in consumer law, in ordinal 43 of the corresponding regulatory body, according to which the warranty of functioning implicitly accompanies every good or service sold or provided, for which it must meet the quality standards and technical requirements that, for reasons of health, environment, and safety, are set by the Legal Order [...] On the other hand, touching upon the statute of limitations (prescripción), the applicable norm is article 984 in its subsection a), and not its general statement. That subsection establishes an annual term for the expiry of rights based on claims for hidden defects of things sold with a warranty of good functioning, hence a criterion of specialty prevails over the four-year term provided for other scenarios that lack a specific provision…” (Judgment 999-F-2005 and 1470-F-S1-2011). - VII.- CONTINUES.- Now, regarding the warranty of hidden defects (garantía de vicios ocultos), the First Chamber has pointed out that this type of hidden defects (vicios) correspond to those defects that, unlike evident or manifest ones “...are also present in the thing delivered, [but which] are not detected through a reasonable examination of the good, that is, they are hidden…” (Judgment 999-F-2005) and that, consequently, affect the use and benefit of the thing to the detriment of the buyer, who in good faith has concurred with his will for the formation of the contract unaware of the existence of said defects. Therefore, “...the warranty of cure or for hidden defects (garantía de saneamiento o por vicios ocultos) is a natural effect of the purchase and sale contract.— It refers to the seller's obligation to deliver the thing sold and for it to be apt to fulfill the function for which it is normally destined, that is, he must deliver the thing in good condition, without hidden defects or flaws that make its normal use improper or notably affect it…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not in the original). This is explained because “… The buyer is interested in receiving a thing fit for the intended purpose, without a hidden defect that makes it lose value. If the thing does not meet these conditions, the buyer will want to return it, rescinding the contract, or will try to reduce the price in proportion to the defects noted. The seller is interested, above all, in selling the thing because his profit depends on the number of sales made; and, secondly, if the buyer discovers defects in the merchandise, the seller is interested in the immediate claim of the buyer, to conclude the contract as soon as possible…” (Judgments No. 7 and No. 44 of 1994). Starting from this jurisprudential line, the Civil Courts have specified a series of requirements that must be duly demonstrated, in order to prove the presence of hidden defects or redhibitory defects: “… In relation to this matter we must point out, that in order to demand civil liability, hidden defects must meet certain requirements, namely: a. They must be hidden defects (vicios ocultos), not apparent or manifest; b. The thing must have been acquired for valuable consideration; c. They must not be known by the acquirer; d. The hidden defect makes the natural or normal use of the thing improper or frustrates it, or substantially diminishes it, and e. They must be prior to the sale. To this we must add an important aspect: '... It is not necessary for the seller to have known of such defects, nor for them to be perpetual or irremediable.' (Vote of the First Chamber number 227 of 2:15 p.m. on 12/20/1991), this implies that the seller will be civilly liable even if he is unaware of the hidden defects. In such a way that, the buyer must prove bad faith or fraud, only in those cases in which, in the contract, the seller has been relieved of the obligation to compensate for damages and losses (doctrine of ordinal 701 of the Civil Code),…” (Judgment of the Second Civil Court, First Section, No. 52 of 10:40 a.m. on February 26, 2015. Boldface is in the original). Likewise, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber has established three distinct courses of action to claim this type of defects: “...It involves, therefore, three possible actions born from the same fact: defects in the thing object of the purchase and sale contract. [1] The action for recovery for hidden defects or redhibitory defects (acción de repetición por vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), as established in the penultimate paragraph of 450 of the Code of Commerce, [2] the action for annulment for error in will as a result of hidden defects or redhibitory defects (acción de anulación por error en la voluntad como resultado de los vicios ocultos o redhibitorios), according to article 1082 of the Civil Code, and [3] common contractual liability (responsabilidad contractual común) derived from article 692 of the Civil Code. In accordance with the aforementioned judgment, the latter two actions would be compatible—not mutually exclusive—with each other given the common premise: the defect in the thing worsening it or making it unusable. …” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993. Highlighting is not in the original). Now, in order to clearly address the procedural requirements that must be analyzed with respect to each of these jurisdictional remedies, we will briefly outline what these actions consist of: 1) The exercise of the action for recovery (acción de repetición) provided for in article 450 of the Code of Commerce, occurs within the framework of a mercantile sale and its purpose is to reverse the effects of payment for the acquirer, so that he can return the defective object and thus demand the fulfillment of the obligation: “...Payment, in its technical meaning, is the action by which obligations are fulfilled. In this way, if by contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict a person is obligated to a specific provision, at the moment of carrying it out, he will have paid, with the liberatory effects that this would entail on his condition as debtor.

However, on some occasions the law provides that, despite payment having been made, it cannot produce its effects. In that situation, the legal system provides for the action for recovery of payment (acción de repetir el pago). This consists of the possibility, for the creditor of the obligation, to return or compel their debtor to receive back what was paid or its economic equivalent. Likewise, in the case of synallagmatic contracts, to impose on the other contracting party the duty to return the consideration received in exchange for that returned by the party exercising the action for recovery. Costa Rican legislation contemplates this possibility in two cases. One, unrelated to the sub lite, when an undue payment occurs. [...]. The other, concerning the invoked numeral 450 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio), occurs when the buyer receives the purchased goods, in two distinct circumstances. The first, when they are delivered packed or bundled and, after being opened, hidden defects (vicios ocultos) are found in them or an inaccuracy with the agreed quantity or quality. [...] The other scenario refers to redhibitory defects (vicios redhibitorios), whether the delivery (tradición) of the purchased item was packed or not, within ten days from the delivery or the discovery of the hidden defect. In both cases, if the seller opposes the recovery of the payment, the buyer has the possibility of filing a lawsuit to demand it, within a period of three months. Although the Commercial Code speaks in that precept of a statute of limitations (lapso prescriptivo), in reality such a term is one of expiration (caducidad), because it does not establish any way in which it can be interrupted and only imposes the burden of exercising the action within that quarter. In Article 450 of the Commercial Code, the action for recovery aims at the dissipation of the consequences, for the buyer, of having accepted the delivered item. By not having opposed the delivery, with that, in principle, it could be considered that the seller was released from their obligation to give the negotiated good. The recovery of the payment comes to be assimilated as if, when the delivery was attempted, the buyer had opposed it, due to the defects found in the acquisition, thereby not releasing the seller from their debt, consisting of delivering the good, object of the legal transaction…” (Judgment No. 810-F-04). Under this special hypothesis, as has been defined by the First Chamber (Sala Primera), in light of the norm under comment, the temporal prerequisite for the exercise of this action is governed by a three-month expiration period. 2) Through an action for relative nullity or voidability (acción de nulidad relativa o anulabilidad), insofar as the hidden defects have resulted in a defect of consent due to error: “… Regarding these defects, Article 1082 of the Civil Code provides that: 'The sale may not be annulled for hidden defects or defects of the thing called redhibitory, unless those defects or deficiencies involve error that annuls consent, or if there is a stipulation to the contrary.' The article actually establishes an action for relative nullity or voidability, based on a defect of will: error. Said action is based on hidden defects and error, jointly.- Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects, -unless it also constitutes error that annuls consent-…” (Judgment 320 of 1990); “...It must be remembered that this last element [consent] is one of the essential prerequisites of contracts (articles 1007, 1008 ibidem), therefore its absence or defect leads, irremediably, to the nullity –or voidability- of the transaction concluded, as established by canons 835 and 836 of the Civil Code…” (Judgment 999-F-2005). Regarding the time limits for the exercise of this action, first, it must be determined whether it is a commercial or civil sale, since in the latter it would be governed by a four-year expiration period pursuant to numeral 841 of the Civil Code, while in the commercial hypothesis, it would be a four-year statute of limitations pursuant to the general rule established in Article 984 of the Commercial Code “...based on the arguments presented, the type of commercial contracting and the commercial nature of the companies, it is concluded that regarding statutes of limitations, the Commercial Code is applicable to the specific case, specifically, Article 984…” (Judgment No. 963-F-2005). In this case, it must be specified that in 2019, subsection e) of the cited canon was repealed, through Law No. 9961 of June 3, 2019, since based on that subsection a different term was established, as was determined at the time by the First Chamber (see for example judgment No. 810-F-04). As gathered from the legislative record of the bill, specifically, in the unanimous affirmative opinion, the legislative intent with the repeal was that: “...it is intended that the rights derived from commercial sales have a limitation period of four years instead of only one, that is, the debts of buyers on credit will prescribe in four years instead of one. Likewise, claims directed at the seller will also see their limitation period increased...” (F. 851 of legislative record 19957, according to consultation in the public database of the Legislative Assembly. Highlighting is not from the original). And 3) finally, the avenue remains for the acquirer to exercise an action for contractual liability due to non-performance: “...Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects, […] the possibility of the seller's common contractual liability always remains, who has the obligation to deliver the thing in such a way that it fully performs its normal function; liability that could result in compensation for damages, depending on the nature of the non-performance. If the seller delivers the thing with some defect or flaw that makes it unsuitable for its normal function or diminishes it, they incur contractual non-performance, in accordance with articles 692, 693, 701, 702, 704 and 764 of the Civil Code, the latter insofar as it provides that 'payment shall be made under all respects according to the tenor of the obligation'.- It is an implied obligation in the sale to deliver the thing just as the buyer expects to receive it, in accordance with what was agreed (764 and 1022 ibidem)…” (Judgment 320 of 1990. Highlighting is not from the original). It is important to be clear that this compensatory action may or may not be formulated together with a claim for voidability or contract resolution: “...In accordance with the aforementioned judgment, the last two actions [voidability and liability] would be compatible -not mutually exclusive- with each other given the common premise: the defect in the thing, diminishing it or rendering it unusable. However, they would not be so with respect to the action for recovery regulated by article 450 of the Commercial Code, since given the specialty of the matter, the rules contained therein apply to the exclusion of others when dealing with hidden or redhibitory defects in the case of a commercial sale...” (Judgment No. 37 of 1993). Likewise, it is important to note that its temporal regime for exercise may be dimensioned in turn depending on whether it is a commercial or civil sale, being a four-year term in the former, according to the general rule of prescription of rights and actions in that matter, pursuant to articles 438, 439 and 984 CCOM, while in the latter it would correspond to the ten-year term of the ordinary civil statute of limitations: “… In the sub-júdice, neither the annulment of the contract, nor its resolution has been requested. Liability for contractual non-performance is claimed, for not having delivered the purchased house with the specifications implicit in the contract. The damages were produced, according to the cause alleged by Mr. […] and Mrs. […], as a consequence of the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Before that, the hidden defects of the building were unknown, nor had they suffered any injury to their interests. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not exercise any action. The Superior Court incurred a breach of article 874 of the Civil Code, by considering that the statute of limitations term began to run from the date on which the purchase-sale deed was signed. In this regard, it was considered: 'In accordance with numeral 869 in relation to 874 of the Civil Code, both the right and the action to demand liability such as that claimed here against the seller, shall prescribe in ten years, counted from the conclusion of the contract, which is the moment from which the obligation of that party to answer for the defects of the thing sold became enforceable.' However, the obligation cannot be considered enforceable when the hidden defects are still unknown and the claimed damages have not yet occurred. Before that, the exercise of the action for contractual non-performance is unthinkable. […] Here, as on that occasion, it involves situations unknown to the plaintiffs, who were ignorant of the alleged defects for which they claim. These - regarding the present case - it is alleged, manifested themselves with the earthquake of December 22, 1990, when the damages that had to be repaired occurred. Ergo, no period of prescription or expiration could run before. The present action concerns contractual liability for the seller's non-performance, whose statute of limitations is ten years. At the moment this action was notified, not even one year had elapsed since the earthquake of December 22, 1990. Consequently, it is appropriate to uphold the appeal filed and annul, regarding this point, the judgment of the Court…” (Judgment No. 77 of 1995).- VIII.- SPECIFIC CASE.- As we noted ut supra and can be verified from the conceptualization of the legal guarantees to which the seller is subject, in this case, the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, it can easily be inferred that the lawsuit presents a significant incoherence, since the alleged defect claimed by the plaintiff's legal representation does not properly constitute a hidden defect, but rather a partial eviction (evicción parcial) of the farm with registration number Placa26795, because it is not a defect in the quantity or quality of the granted good that affects the economic benefit of the thing sold, since the property with forestry vocation continues to fulfill the same utility it originally had and which was known to Mr. Nombre136762, so much so that even on May 26, 2017, that is, more than two years after Mr. Nombre140068 filed a complaint for damages before the OIJ office in the city of Grecia (judicial file 15-000110-0075-PE), the plaintiff here signed with the Executive Director of the Forestry Financing Fund a "contract for payment for environmental services for maintenance of forest cover in forest protection activity" (contrato de pago de servicios ambientales por mantenimiento de cobertura forestal en la actividad de protección de bosque), through which the State would pay him a sum of money, in exchange for a series of obligations for the protection of the forest present on the property he owns. This inconsistency in the action brought is compounded by the terms in which the material claims were literally framed, let us see: In claims two through six, it is requested that the Banco Nacional be compelled to "reimburse" different items, such as the value of the farm (no. 2), the transfer expenses (no. 3), the financial costs associated with the leverage to which he had to resort to cover the price of the property (no. 4), the expenses for "improvements, modifications and repairs" made to the farm (no. 5) and costs of a possible civil lawsuit (no. 6); however, it is neither alleged nor is that claim linked to the legal regime that would correspond to a guarantee for hidden defects. Although in the conclusions offered at the preliminary hearing he did not invoke it expressly, this Court notes that on page 15 of the lawsuit brief, the plaintiff's legal representative alleges that: “...from all of the foregoing we have [sic] that if hidden defects exist, the sale becomes null with the liabilities of the selling party…”. However, as we saw before, according to article 1082 of the Civil Code, the mere allegation of hidden defects cannot give rise to the relative nullity of the contract; it is necessary to additionally prove a defect in consent: “...Although the sale cannot be annulled by the mere existence of hidden defects, -unless it also constitutes error that annuls consent-...” (Judgment of the First Chamber No. 320 of 1990). However, as we already pointed out, Mr. Nombre136762 has indeed made effective use of the property according to its exploitation regime, precisely because the good has fulfilled the purpose for which it was acquired, a situation that has not been ruled out to date. What the party considers a hidden defect, in reality, consists of the fact that there is a third person who claims to have a better right over part of the property he acquired, and in that sense, the pertinent action would not be one of redhibitory defects, but rather one of partial eviction because, in principle, we would be in the presence of a de facto and de jure disturbance produced by that third party, regarding the peaceful enjoyment of the property right that was transmitted to him by the Banco Nacional. Article 1035 of the Civil Code prescribes: “...The guarantee action can be exercised by the one who is owed, from the moment that as a consequence of a lawsuit filed against him, or of a defense raised against his lawsuit, the existence of the transmitted right is threatened…” (Highlighting is not from the original). Precisely, that is the situation that emerges from the plaintiff's own statement, since at the time of supporting the moral damage in the conclusions, his legal representative clearly outlined said situation of threat or disturbance, by stating that: “… and there is something more, even more serious that I think is the most…. the criminal trial is still pending, this criminal lawsuit... we went and presented all these reasonings before the Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office has not yet decided if it will indict us because Nombre136762 is being accused of usurpation and damages, damages to private property, that is, he builds… so, he faces the risk of being criminally convicted, for working on his property, for carrying out work on his property…” (recording of the preliminary hearing from minute 41:38 to minute 42:07. Highlighting is ours). That is, it is reiterated that it involves a third party who claims a better right and who thus threatens the peaceful enjoyment of the transmitted good. In this way, it is evident to this Chamber that the action brought is inadmissible for lacking legal basis, since the party has wielded a claim inconsistent with the very facts on which they base their lawsuit, as well as the evidence they have contributed to the record, so that in attention to the principle of party disposition (principio dispositivo), this Court must limit its ruling strictly to the terms raised therein, without the possibility of substituting the party, nor redirecting their legal arguments, under penalty of violating the principle of procedural equality, the right of defense, and due process of their counterpart, and incurring a defect of incongruity in the judgment; especially in pure public treasury civil proceedings, such as the one presented here. Finally, regarding the rest of the claims, they have been deduced as accessory requests to the recognition of the alleged hidden defects, specifically, by way of a ruling for the payment of indemnity items: material damages, such as expenses incurred for the exploitation of the good (nos. 7 and 8), municipal taxes (no. 9), interest and moral damage (no. 10). Given that those aspects have been wielded as accessory, in attention to the general principle of Law whereby the accessory follows the fate of the principal, what corresponds is to also dismiss these claims for lacking legal basis.- IX.- ABOUT THE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES) RAISED. In accordance with what was explained above, this Court considers that the defense of lack of Right (falta de Derecho) raised by the Banco Nacional must be upheld and in that sense, the lawsuit dismissed as inadmissible. It is noted that, nevertheless, the representation of the defendant Bank also raised the statute of limitations defense, but due to the way it is resolved, it is unnecessary to issue any pronouncement in that regard.- X.- ON COSTS (COSTAS).- The obligation to pay costs constitutes an obligation of legal origin, in this case, derived from numeral 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), by means of which the losing party - by the mere fact of being so -, is obliged to reimburse the winning party for a variety of categories of expenses arising from the proceedings, which it should not have to bear. According to the cited norm, exemption from this ruling can only be granted if one of the two circumstances regulated therein is proven, so that in the absence of allegations or evidence that allow this Court, in the specific case, to weigh and consider any of these reasons as proven, it is thus not possible to totally or partially exempt the losing party from the application of said maxim. Regarding the ground in subsection b) of the numeral under comment, the jurisprudence of both the Civil and Public Treasury Contentious-Administrative Court of Cassation and the First Chamber has determined, regarding said ground, the following: “… having sufficient reason to litigate implies not only the conviction of the losing party in the thesis defended by it, but also that said conviction was sustained on objective data from the process, from which the adjudicator can conclude that the losing party had rationally founded reasons to believe in the merit of their claim, or their defense, as the case may be…” (Judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 005-F-TC-2020 of 09:20 hrs of January 9, 2020), “… For a long time, this Chamber has indicated that this circumstance does not even consist of the mere conviction in the thesis being sustained. Much less, then, can ignorance of the outcome of the evidence be accepted as a determining element of this hypothesis of exemption. The conviction about one's own thesis must be founded on objective data from the process that allow deducing the merit of its claims or defenses, such as the subtlety in the 'legal question', which consists, for example, of the discussion being based on a pure interpretation of legal norms as the factual picture is not contested (in this sense, resolutions 1692-F-SI-2012 and 1307-F-SI-2014 can be consulted). Or, for example, it is constituted by the mandatory participation in the process as a defendant, which derives from the passive procedural standing (legitimación procesal pasiva) imposed by article 12 of the CPCA in some of its sections (resolution 1283-F-SI-2015)…” (Judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 1366-F-S1-2017 of 15:35 hrs of November 7, 2017). Under these circumstances, this Chamber considers that the plaintiff has acted in good faith, faced with a situation of a supervening threat to his property right, which had been acquired from a financial entity, as a product of its ordinary activity. The error when subsuming the facts under the legal framework applicable to the sub lite, does not undermine the plausibility of the claim made for the fulfillment of the legal guarantee to which the Banco Nacional is called upon in its capacity as seller, that is, to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of Mr. Nombre136762's right. Therefore, we consider that according to the nature of the debated issues, it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiff had sufficient reason to litigate and consequently, the losing party is exempted from the payment of costs.-

POR TANTO

The defense of lack of Right raised by the defendant is upheld. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the statute of limitations defense is omitted. Consequently, THE LAWSUIT FILED by Nombre136762 against BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA IS DECLARED WITHOUT MERIT. - The losing party is exempted from the payment of costs.

- Notify.-</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 8.65pt 5.6pt 8.5pt; text-indent:-0.5pt; text-align:center; line-height:108%\"><span>Daniel Aguilar Méndez</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8.7pt; line-height:108%; font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"width:39.17pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:96.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:12pt\">Roberto Garita Navarro</span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:12pt; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"width:16.57pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:175.7pt\">&#xa0;</span><span> </span><span style=\"width:32.55pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:211.75pt\">&#xa0;</span><span> </span><span style=\"width:32.55pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:247.8pt\">&#xa0;</span><span> </span><span style=\"width:59.19pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:346.65pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:12pt\"> Name10955</span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:12pt; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span></p><div style=\"-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-right:0.45pt; margin-bottom:2.85pt; text-align:right; line-height:108%; font-size:10pt\"><img src=\"\" width=\"32\" height=\"32\" alt=\"\" style=\"margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; -aw-left-pos:30pt; -aw-rel-hpos:page; -aw-rel-vpos:page; -aw-top-pos:678pt; -aw-wrap-type:square; float:left; position:relative\" /><span>Page </span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:9pt\">1</span><span> of </span><span style=\"line-height:108%; font-size:9pt\">26</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:108%; font-size:14pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;</span></p></div></div></body></html>" }

Microsoft Word - Res N° 113-2021-VI 14 hrs 10 mins 30-Ago-2021 - Sentencia TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Central: 2545-00-03 Fax: 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 PROCESO: CONOCIMIENTO ACTORA: Nombre136762 DEMANDADO: BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA RESOLUCIÓN N° 113-2021 - VI TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA - SECCIÓN SEXTA- SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las catorce horas diez minutos del treinta de agosto de dos mil veintiuno. - Proceso contencioso administrativo de puro derecho establecido por Nombre136762 , portador de la cédula de identidad número CED110312, representado por Nombre71004 , en calidad de apoderado especial judicial (poder aportado con la demanda), contra el BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA, representado por Nombre21788 en calidad de apoderado general judicial (consta en el registro de personerías del Despacho).-

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES, DELIBERACIÓN Y VOTO.- Se emite esta resolución según las formalidades establecidas en la Ley N° 9342, Código Procesal Civil, la circular de Corte Plena número 96-2018 "Normas Prácticas para la Aplicación del Nuevo Código Procesal Civil", adoptada en el artículo XII de la sesión número 38-18 del 13 de agosto de 2018 y el Reglamento sobre Expediente Judicial Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial, aprobado por Corte Plena en el artículo XXXI de la sesión N° 22-13, celebrada el 20 de mayo de 2013. El fallo se adopta por unanimidad, una vez realizada la respectiva deliberación, con la redacción de la resolución a cargo del informante, juzgador Aguilar Méndez, con el voto y opinión concurrente de las personas juzgadoras Garita Navarro y Nombre10955 .- II.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO Y ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES.- Las pretensiones que constituyen el objeto de este proceso, fueron fijadas en la audiencia preliminar en los mismos términos con que fueron planteadas en la demanda. De esta manera, se procede entonces a transcribir dichas pretensiones, añadiendo extractos digitales del documento escaneado y que consta en el expediente electrónico judicial, correspondientes a las tablas de cálculo realizadas por la representación judicial del accionante:

“…PRETENSIÓN: Con base en los hechos expuestos y citas de derecho invocadas solicito que en sentencia se declare:

1- Con lugar el presente reclamo administrativo.

2- Que el Demandado debe reintegrar al suscrito el monto total de las sumas por la compra de la finca más intereses calculados al 25/05/2018, al 24% anual, fijo, conforme a la fecha que fueron desembolsados es decir:

3- Que el Demandado debe reintegrar los gastos incurridos por el traspaso de la misma, e intereses calculados al 25/05/2018 , al 24% anual , fijo , conforme a la fecha que fueron desembolsados es decir:

4- Que el demandado reintegre los INTERES [sic] PAGADOS [sic], comisiones y seguros , más intereses calculados al 25/05/2018 , al 24% anual , fijo , desde la fecha de haber concluido el pago del préstamo por el crédito que tuve que tomar con la Asociación Costarricense para Organizaciones de Desarrollo Acorde , según pagaré No Placa26794 a nombre de mi representada Easy And Express S.A , por 9.000.000,00 Colones (Nueve Millones de Colones) del Cual [sic] tuve que pagar en un plazo de un Año la suma de 899.677,00 Colones (Ochocientos Noventa y Nueve Mil Seiscientos Sesenta y Siete Colones) Exactos por mes , durante doce meses lo cual en su totalidad da la suma de 10.796.124;00, de los nueve millones solicitados solo recibí 8.688.378,00 colones (Ocho Millones Seiscientos Ochenta y Ocho Mil Trescientos Setenta y Ocho Colones), el faltante se canceló en comisiones y seguros, dinero que en ningún momento me hubiese obligado a pedir sino hubiese realizado la compra de la finca en cuestión. el [sic] dinero lo recibí el 17 de setiembre del 2010 y lo terminé de pagar el 17 de setiembre de 2011.

5- Que el demandado reintegre los gastos incurridos en mejoras modificaciones y reparaciones realizadas en la finca para efecto de hacer uso de la misma más intereses calculados al 25/05/2018, al 24% anual, fijo, desde la fecha de registrada en la factura, que presento de los mismos, Emitida [sic] por Excavaciones O.C.Q , CEDULA JURIDICA [sic] 3-105-619876 , FACTURA NUMERO 0368, FECHADA EL 30/12/2014.

6- Que el demandado reintegre los costos de la posible demanda civil interpuesta por el Señor Nombre140068 por ser esta consecuencia directa de las especificaciones de ubicación realizadas por el funcionario del banco nacional de costa rica sucursal de naranjo Nombre140069 con número de celular en ese tiempo 8319-2907 a la hora de hacer la compra respectiva y efecto directo del problema de superposición que la finca presenta, más intereses calculados ni 25/05/2018 , al 24% anual , fijo , desde la fecha de interpuesta la demanda 12/02/2015. Aclaro, ·que costes del juicio, no han sido posible determinarlos.

7- Que el demandado debe pagar al suscrito los costos de contratación de la Ingeniera Georgeanella Flores Muñoz, cedula CED110313 , la suma de 200.000 (doscientos mil colones ) , por servicios profesionales en dos tractos de 100.000 (cien ·mil colones ) , según facturas de las cuales adjunto copia numero 0091 con fecha 16/01/2017 y numero 0090 con fecha 09/01/2017, y adicionalmente el recibo del colegio de ingenieros agrónomos de costa rica [sic] NUMERO CED110314 por concepto de timbres por la regencia ejecutada por un monto de 39690 , fechado con fecha 13/01/2017. Más intereses calculados al 25/05/2018, al 24% anual, fijo, desde la fecha registrada en dichos documentos.

8- Que el demandado debe pagar al suscrito los INGRESOS FUTUROS , NO PERSIBIDOS [sic] por concepto del contrato firmado con FONAFIFO, CONTRATO DE PAGO DE SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES POR MANTENIMIENTO DE COBERTURA FORESTAL EN LA ACTIVIDAD DE PROTECCION [sic] DE BOSQUE , con FONAFIFO, contrato numero SJ-OI-22-0112-2016, fechado con fecha 26/05/2017, POR UN MONTO TOTAL DE 6.216.184,80 COLONES ( Seis Millones Doscientos Dieciseis [sic] Mil Ciento Ochenta y Cuatro Colones Con 80/100) 9- Que el demandado debe pagar al suscrito, Todos [sic] los gastos incurridos por concepto de Impuestos Municipales , que se han pagado a la fecha sobre la finca más intereses, calculados al 25/05/2018, al 24% anual, fijo, desde la fecha registrada en dichos documentos.

10- los daños y perjuicios ocasionados así: por daños el monto TOTAL de las sumas reclamadas incluyendo intereses los cuales ascienden al monto de 103.394.400,70 colones (Ciento tres Millones Trescientos Noventa y Cuatro Mil Cuatrocientos colones con 70/100) y por perjuicios el daño moral que ha sufrido por dicha situación.

11- Que el demandado debe pagar ambas costas de la presente acción.

Los daños se originan por los montos pagados por mi representada y los perjuicios son el daño moral que la misma he sufrido [sic] por haber pagado por una finca la cual no ha pido [sic] utilizar debido al problema de superposición que la misma presenta y los daños que pudiese ocasionar una sentencia desfavorable relacionada sobre la demanda que sobre el suscrito pesa, presentada por el señor Nombre140068 …” Fundamenta la parte actora sus pretensiones en la existencia de vicios ocultos en la adquisición de la finca del Partido de Alajuela matrícula Placa26796, que le fue vendida por parte del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. Aduce que dicha empresa pública le llevó a error, pues el inmueble presentaba anomalías que le han impedido el disfrute de ese bien; concretamente, crítica dos aspectos en particular, primero, que a raíz de modificaciones que realizó en la finca entre los días 30 de diciembre de 2014 y 01 de enero de 2015, “...con base en las especificaciones de ubicación realizadas por el funcionario del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica...”, fue objeto de una denuncia penal, que se tramita con la sumaria número 15-000110-0075-PE interpuesta por parte del señor Nombre140068 y a raíz de la cual, se enteró de la existencia de que éste era propietario de una finca que se superponía con la suya. Considera que esto representa un riesgo para él de ser condenado en lo penal y demandado civilmente. En segundo lugar, menciona que en su condición de propietario solicitó a la Municipalidad de Valverde Vega (Sarchí) el visado municipal del inmueble, el cual indica que fue rechazado por presentar una sobre posición registral parcial con la finca del Partido de Alajuela matrícula n.º Placa26797, con plano Placa26798. Estima que estas situaciones le han impedido gozar del bien adquirido de buena fe y revelan que existen vicios ocultos, pues “...la mayor parte de la finca del suscrito se encuentra sobre otra finca o viceversa, ante lo cual la extensión de terreno que realmente se me vendió […] no corresponde a la medida real de la finca, lo que genera un gran perjuicio para mi persona...”. Considera, asimismo, que su reclamo está en tiempo porque es hasta este último hecho, esto es, por estar sobrepuesto el inmueble con otra finca, que está en posibilidad de plantear su acción. Entonces, señala que como vicio oculto que es, no estaba en posibilidad de reclamar con anterioridad. En síntesis, la representación del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica (en adelante, Banco Nacional o BNCR) se opone a la acción incoada, mediante la interposición de las excepciones de prescripción y de falta de Derecho y solicita se condene a la parte actora al pago de las costas. Alega que la compraventa operada sobre el inmueble se dio con base en las facultades que le conceden al Banco que representa, los artículos 3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 72 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional y 438 y 439 del Código de Comercio, constituyéndose en una actividad ordinaria mercantil que ejerce ese ente público. Expresa que, en ese sentido, el Banco tiene la obligación legal de enajenar esos bienes en el plazo máximo de dos años contados a partir de su adquisición, conforme los peritajes internos que se realizan al efecto. Alega que tratándose de una compraventa mercantil y dado que la inscripción de la finca a nombre del actor ocurrió en fecha 03 de diciembre de 2010, para el momento en que éste presentó el reclamo administrativo, se había excedido el plazo de cuatro años previsto en el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio, de modo que se extinguió la facultad de reclamar al Banco los vicios ocultos que aduce eran anteriores a la adquisición del inmueble.- III.- HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para el dictado de esta resolución, se tienen los siguientes hechos como debidamente demostrados conforme las reglas de la sana crítica, sea que así consten o se colijan de las pruebas aportadas en el expediente y que fueron debidamente admitidas, o porque las partes así los han aceptado:

1.- En el año 2010, la Dirección Regional Alajuela Norte del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica llevó a cabo un “concurso Venta DRA-VN-06-2010”, por medio del cual sacó a venta una finca de vocación forestal “compuesta en su totalidad de Bosque Primario” con número de matrícula Placa26795, con plano catastrado número A-916649-2004 y con una cabida de 368,292.20 metros cuadrados (f. 02 a 04 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 2.- Mediante nota fechada 30 de agosto de 2010, el señor Nombre136762 presentó formal oferta de compra al Banco Nacional, respecto de la finca descrita en el hecho probado anterior, por la suma de veintiocho millones de colones (¢28,000,000.00), en la que además indicó que “aclaro que conozco y acepto las condiciones presentes del inmueble, relevando al Banco Nacional de toda responsabilidad presente y futura por dicha compra” (f. 01 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 3.- Por medio de escritura pública número 50-08 otorgada ante el Notario Rolando Miranda Zumbado a las 11:15 horas del día 08 de noviembre de 2010, el Banco Nacional y el señor Nombre136762 suscribieron un contrato de compraventa de la finca del partido de Alajuela, matrícula número Placa26796 antes descrita y por un precio de veintiocho millones de colones (¢Placa26799). La venta se realizó “libre de gravámenes hipotecarios y anotaciones” (f. 133 y 134 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 4.- El 03 de diciembre de 2010 quedó inscrito ante el Registro Nacional, el derecho de propiedad privada adquirido por el aquí actor respecto del inmueble matrícula número Placa26795. El señor Nombre136762 mantiene a la fecha de esta sentencia la titularidad del dominio sobre dicho inmueble (documento aportado con la demanda visible en el expediente electrónico judicial y consulta realizada en la fecha de esta sentencia en la base de datos pública del Registro Nacional); 5.- El día 06 de febrero de 2015, el señor Nombre140068 , persona extranjera de nacionalidad neerlandesa, se apersonó ante la oficina del Organismo de Investigación Judicial (OIJ) ubicada en la localidad de Grecia, Alajuela, a efectos de interponer una denuncia por el delito de daños en perjuicio del ambiente y suyos. A dicha denuncia se le asignó el número de expediente judicial 15-000110-0075-PE. En esa oportunidad narró que el 18 de enero de ese año, había encontrado obras realizadas en la que dijo era su finca, ubicada en una zona protectora: “… habían hecho como terrazas de unos trescientos metros las cuales dejaron limpias y en tierra, en los cuales el mayor daño es la corta de arboles [sic]…”. Dijo que por indicación de la policía y funcionarios del MINAE, decidió poner una denuncia “…ya que se desconoce quien ocasionó los daños y por estar en una zona protegida es prohibido realizar trabajos en la misma sin previos permisos […] se desconoce si alguno de los otros dueños ocasionó los daños…”. Posteriormente, por medio de informe n° 032-CI-15 de 12 de febrero de ese año, la Oficina Regional de Grecia del OIJ determinó que quien realizó las obras fue el aquí actor, teniéndosele en adelante como imputado en el mencionado expediente penal (f. 107 a 116 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 6.- El día 26 de mayo de 2017, el aquí actor y el señor Nombre81943 , éste último actuando en su condición de Director Ejecutivo del Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal suscribieron un contrato de pago de servicios ambientales por mantenimiento de cobertura forestal en la actividad de protección de bosque en la finca número 2-401368-000 (f. 123 a 126 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 7.- Mediante documento titulado “Minuta de calificación para visado” con número 11415-2017 de fecha 07 de junio de 2017, el Departamento de Bienes Inmuebles de la entonces Municipalidad de Valverde Vega (hoy Municipalidad de Sarchí, según Ley N.º 9658 de 05 de julio de 2019), estableció lo siguiente respecto de la finca número Dirección16834:-- 8.- Por medio de escrito fechado 01 de agosto de 2017, el señor Nombre136762 presentó ante la Sucursal de Naranjo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica un “...formal reclamo de indemnización por pago de daños y perjuicios que se me Página 1 de 26 han causado a causa de la compra de la propiedad situada en la Provincia de Alajuela, que le realice a esa institución bajo la modalidad de venta de bienes en remate al mejor postor, lo cual me está causando un grave perjuicio...” (f. 136 a 151 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 9.- En escrito fechado 08 de noviembre de 2017, el aquí actor solicitó al Banco Nacional que diera respuesta a su reclamo de indemnización, pues hasta ese día no se había respondido nada al respecto (f. 152 a 154 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 10.- Por medio de oficio sin número con fecha de 11 de diciembre de 2017, el funcionario Juan Carlos Vindas Molina, en su condición de Gerente de la Sucursal de Naranjo del BNCR le comunicó al aquí actor que su reclamo estaba siendo atendido por el área jurídica del Banco (f. 155 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); 11.- Por medio de oficio sin número fechado el 14 de diciembre de 2017, la Gerencia de la Sucursal de Naranjo del BNCR decidió rechazar el reclamo administrativo planteado por el aquí actor, con base en dictamen de la Dirección Jurídica del Banco número D.J./3712-2017 (Ref. 5976-2017) de 14 de diciembre de ese año (f. 156 a 160 de la copia certificada del expediente administrativo); y 12.- Ante la decisión adoptada por la Gerencia de la Sucursal de Naranjo del BNCR, el señor Nombre136762 interpuso los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, siendo el primero rechazado por medio de oficio sin número de consecutivo de fecha 24 de enero de 2017, mientras que el de apelación fue desestimado por parte de la Gerencia General del Banco en oficio número GG-066-18 de 05 de marzo de 2018 (documentos aportados con la demanda y que constan en el expediente electrónico judicial).- IV.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS.- De utilidad para el presente fallo se tienen por no demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque las partes incumplieron sus cargas probatorias, o bien, porque el Despacho no halló prueba admitida e idónea que, a la luz de la sana crítica, permitiera acreditarlos:

1.- Al señor Nombre136762 se le hubiera impedido el ejercicio de los atributos del dominio en relación con la finca de su propiedad matrícula número Placa26795, por parte del señor Nombre140068 u otra persona; 2.- El señor Nombre136762 desconociera la vocación forestal de la finca matrícula número Placa26795 al momento de su adquisición; 3.- La existencia de sentencia judicial firme en la que se determine el traslape o sobreposición de la finca propiedad del actor, matrícula número Placa26795, con algún otro inmueble; 4.- En el proceso penal tramitado en expediente judicial n° 15-000110-0075PE, se hubiera dictado alguna resolución o sentencia judicial que impidiera u obstaculizara el uso y disfrute de la finca matrícula número Placa26795 por parte del señor Nombre136762 ; 5.- El señor Nombre136762 hubiera sufrido desalojo administrativo o judicial del inmueble comprendido por la finca de su propiedad matrícula número Placa26795- ; 6.- El aquí actor hubiera sido sujeto de querella o demanda civil en vía penal, o demandado en vía civil por parte del señor Nombre140068 ; 7.- El señor Nombre136762 hubiera ejercido, en algún proceso judicial en el que se cuestionara su derecho de propiedad sobre la finca matrícula número Placa26795, la facultad llamar al proceso al Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en condición de garante.- V.- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS MATERIALES DE LA ACCIÓN.- Tiene claro este Tribunal que, no obstante, la parte demandada ha opuesto las defensas de prescripción y falta de Derecho, constituye un deber de las personas Juzgadoras el revisar el cumplimiento o no de los presupuestos sustanciales para el dictado de toda sentencia: los relativos a la legitimación de las partes intervinientes, el interés en la resolución del conflicto y el derecho; los cuales son revisables aún de oficio por todo juzgador, tal y como ha sido reconocido por amplios precedentes de la Sala Primera y de este Tribunal (ver entre otras, de la Sala Primera, la sentencia número 317-F-S12008 de las 09:10 horas del 02 de mayo de 2008 y la número 1548-F-SI-2011 de las 09:20 horas del 22 de diciembre de 2011, y del Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Octava, la número 85-2012 de las 08:30 horas del 14 de setiembre del 2012, Sección Cuarta, sentencias número 28-2012 de las 07:30 horas del 16 de marzo del 2012, y número 17-2015-IV de las 08:00 horas del 25 de febrero 2015 y Sección Sexta, sentencias número 80-2017-VI de las 11:30 horas del 23 de junio del 2017 y 86-2017-VI de las 10:00 horas del 30 de junio del 2017, entre otras). Si alguno de estos requisitos -o todos- no resultan comprobados por la persona juzgadora, sean o no aducidos bajo la forma de excepciones o defensas, la demanda no podrá encontrar respuesta positiva de parte del Despacho. Valga decir que la existencia de presupuestos procesales o requisitos para el ejercicio del derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva, en su vertiente de acceso a la justicia, esto es, de restricciones formales al ejercicio de este derecho fundamental y humano, ha sido reconocido incluso por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, que ha dispuesto en su jurisprudencia: “…143. La Corte ha señalado que por razones de seguridad jurídica, para la correcta y funcional administración de justicia y la efectiva protección de los derechos de las personas, los Estados pueden y deben establecer presupuestos y criterios de admisibilidad de los recursos internos, de carácter judicial o de cualquier otra índole. De tal manera que si bien dichos recursos internos deben estar disponibles para el interesado y resolver efectiva y fundadamente el asunto planteado, así como eventualmente proveer la reparación adecuada, no cabría considerar que siempre y en cualquier caso los órganos y tribunales internos deban resolver el fondo del asunto que les es planteado, sin que importe la verificación de los presupuestos formales de admisibilidad y procedencia del particular recurso intentado. Asimismo, la Corte ha determinado que la aplicación de causales de admisibilidad de un recurso resulta compatible con la Convención Americana y la efectividad del recurso implica que potencialmente, cuando se cumplan dichos requisitos, el órgano judicial evalúe sus méritos…” (Caso Nombre5486 Vs. Argentina, Sentencia de 22 de noviembre de 2019. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Resaltado no es del original. Ver en ese mismo sentido: Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Nombre137239 y otros) Vs. Perú, Sentencia de 24 de noviembre de 2006. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Párr. 126 a 128; Caso Nombre6602 y otros Vs. Nicaragua, Sentencia de 25 de marzo de 2017. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Párr. 163; Caso Trabajadores Cesados de Nombre137240 y otros Vs. Perú, Sentencia de 23 de noviembre de 2017. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas.

Párr. 154 a 156; Caso Nombre137241 Vs. Argentina, Sentencia de 15 de Octubre de 2019. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Párr. 135 y 136; Caso Nombre156 y Otros Vs. Argentina, Sentencia de 23 de noviembre de 2017. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Párr. 209 a 211, entre otros). Así las cosas, es criterio de esta Cámara que, en el sub lite, se hace indispensable entrar de lleno en el fondo del asunto, esto es, en el examen del Derecho como presupuesto de la acción incoada, toda vez que al examinar el presupuesto temporal de la demanda, esto es, de la prescripción aducida por el Banco accionado, los suscritos nos hemos encontrado con un obstáculo argumentativo en la formulación de la teoría del caso de la parte actora, que por su magnitud impide llevar a cabo el análisis respectivo. Debemos tener en mente que el estudio del presupuesto temporal pasa primero por analizar y determinar el régimen jurídico del derecho reclamado, pues es en éste donde se establecen las condiciones para el ejercicio en tiempo del derecho de acción. El problema que se presenta en el caso subexamine estriba en que la teoría del caso del accionante, presenta una grave inconsistencia, en primer lugar, porque formula en la demanda una acción para hacer valer una supuesta garantía de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios, en relación con la compraventa mercantil por medio de la cual adquirió la finca matrícula número Placa26795, sin embargo, pese a ello no precisa, ni concreta, cuál tipo de acción es la que ejerce, tal y como veremos infra; además, en segundo lugar y más importante aún, se detalla que la representación judicial del actor esgrime una argumentación basada en una obligación distinta del vendedor, esto es, no en supuestos vicios ocultos, sino en la garantía de evicción. De esta manera, debemos inevitablemente empezar con el examen de fondo del derecho reclamado, antes de poder determinar cualquier otro aspecto del proceso.- VI.- SOBRE LAS GARANTÍAS DE VICIOS OCULTOS, FUNCIONAMIENTO Y EVICCIÓN.- Una garantía alude a cualquiera de ciertos instrumentos legales que el ordenamiento jurídico posibilita en aras de hacer efectivo el disfrute de un derecho, de este modo las garantías pueden tener su origen en la ley (garantías legales) o en un acuerdo de voluntades (garantías convencionales), asimismo, es posible categorizarlas según estén relacionadas a derechos reales, como personales. La diferencia en la primera de estas clasificaciones radica en que las legales no requieren ser pactadas expresamente por las partes, ya que se derivan directamente de la Ley. Así, entre éstas y respecto del contrato de compraventa (en especial, el de carácter mercantil), el ordenamiento patrio prevé en general tres clases de garantías que el vendedor debe asegurar a favor del comprador: la garantía de evicción, la de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios y la de funcionamiento; su definición y distinción han sido desarrolladas ampliamente por la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera desde décadas atrás. Así podemos revisar las sentencias de ese Alto Tribunal número 320 de las 14 horas 20 minutos del 9 de noviembre de 1990, 227 de las 14:15 horas del 20 de diciembre de 1991, 37 de las 11 horas 10 minutos del 28 de mayo de 1993, 7 de las 14:30 horas del 02 de febrero de 1994, 44 de las 14:30 horas del 15 de junio de 1994, 77 de las 15 horas 30 minutos del 12 de julio de 1995, 86 de las 14:50 horas del 09 de agosto de 1996, 209-F-04 de las 11:20 horas del 24 de marzo de 2004, 810-F-04 de las 10:00 horas del 17 de setiembre de 2004, 617-F-2005 de las 10:40 horas del 25 de agosto de 2005, 963-F2005 de las 13:40 horas del 15 de diciembre de 2005, 999-F-2005 de las 14:55 horas del 21 de diciembre de 2005, 1470-F-S1-2011 de las 09:00 horas del 08 de noviembre de 2011, entre otras. En términos resumidos, mediante la garantía de evicción se procura que el vendedor asegure al comprador el goce pacífico del derecho transmitido, frente a terceras personas que perturben o amenacen con perturbar, de hecho o de derecho, dicha situación jurídica, abarcando con ello inclusive-, la pérdida parcial o total de la cosa vendida: “…La evicción es la pérdida o perturbación del derecho de propiedad sobre el bien vendido, que sufre el comprador de parte de un tercero, en virtud de una causa anterior a la venta.- También se entiende por evicción la obligación que tiene el vendedor de asegurar al comprador el goce pacífico de hecho y de derecho, de la cosa transmitida…” (Sentencia 320 de 1990. Resaltado no es del original). A partir de este abordaje conceptual de la Sala Primera, los Tribunales Civiles han desarrollado los alcances de esta garantía en el siguiente sentido: “...El artículo 1034 del Código Civil dispone que "Todo aquel que ha transmitido a título oneroso un derecho real o personal, garantiza su libre ejercicio a la persona a quien lo transmitió." Esa norma regula la llamada garantía por evicción, que es una obligación a cargo del vendedor en el caso de una compraventa. La evicción es, se sabe, "la pérdida del todo o parte de la cosa vendida a causa de acción judicial intentada contra el comprador." (Nombre60957 , . Tratado de los Contratos. Editorial Juricentro. San José, 1985, p. 121). Eso quiere decir que cuando el comprador ha sido demandado por un tercero, con pretensión de privarle del bien adquirido, puede citar de evicción al vendedor, para que salga en defensa de la cosa vendida, lo que se haría de conformidad con lo establecido en los artículos 109 y 111 del Código Procesal Civil…” (Sentencia del Tribunal Segundo Civil Sección Segunda N.º 165 de las 09:00 horas del 25 de junio de 2008. Resaltado no es del original). Por su parte, la doctrina civil ha precisado que “...esta obligación es doble o que tiene dos partes; el vendedor debe, en efecto: 1° defender al comprador contra la perturbación, es decir, hacer cesar la causa de ésta; 2° indemnizar al comprador cuando no haya podido impedir la perturbación, o cuando se haya consumado la evicción. Sin embargo, no pueden presentarse estas dos partes de la obligación de garantía como objetos de obligaciones distintas. Para hablar con exactitud, debe decirse que la obligación del vendedor tiene como objeto único la protección del comprador, y que en caso de incumplimiento, esta obligación se resuelve en la indemnización de daños y perjuicios como todas las obligaciones de hacer…” (Planiol, R. y Ripert. G. Tratado de Derecho Elemental de Derecho Civil. 1er. Edición, p. 220-221. Resaltado no es del original). Precisamente, aquí estriba el sentido mismo de esta garantía y que el artículo 1036 del Código Civil deja claramente estipulado: “...Artículo 1036.- Aquel a quien se debe la garantía, puede exigir del garante: 1º.- Que haga cesar las persecuciones judiciales que un tercero dirige contra él, o la resistencia que alguien opone al ejercicio de sus derechos; 2º.- La indemnización de las consecuencias de esas persecuciones, o de la resistencia, si aquellas o ésta se han ejercido con derecho….” (Resaltado no es del original). En relación con las garantías de vicios ocultos y de funcionamiento, estas comparten un tronco común, ya que mediante ambas el vendedor se obliga a asegurar al adquirente la aptitud de la cosa transmitida para satisfacer el uso pretendido con ella: “…El interés que el comprador de un bien pretende satisfacer con su adquisición supone, necesariamente, que sea apto para el destino que normalmente desempeña. Ante la posibilidad de que la cosa objeto del convenio presente vicios, defectos, o insuficiencias que la hagan inútil o inadecuada para cumplir con su naturaleza, o le generen minusvalía, la doctrina y el Ordenamiento han consagrado las garantías de funcionamiento y vicios ocultos, que suelen acompañar este modo oneroso de adquirir la propiedad…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005). Ahora bien, respecto de ésta última, es decir, sobre la garantía de funcionamiento, baste reseñar lo siguiente dado que este supuesto no tiene relación con el caso subexamine: “...la garantía de funcionamiento tiene como base el mismo presupuesto objetivo que el de los vicios ocultos, esto es, que la cosa presenta defectos que comprometen su uso, pero a diferencia de aquellos, se manifiestan en el bien en forma posterior a su entrega, es decir, no la acompañaban al momento en que el comprador podía o debía revisarla, sino que se suscitan luego, como resultado de su uso normal […] Esto supone que todos los defectos funcionales que presente el bien dentro de ese tiempo, han de ser corregidos, siempre que, luego del desperfecto, no se dejen transcurrir más de treinta días para comunicar lo acontecido. Por ello, aún cuando la garantía abarca desde la entrega del bien, y se extiende por el plazo previsto, el tiempo para reclamar que el objeto adquirido presenta defecto que lo hacen inadecuado para cumplir con sus funciones, comienza a correr desde que se suscita y no desde que la cosa fue entregada. La inobservancia de ese período de treinta días para dar el aviso correspondiente, conduce a la caducidad del derecho. La pretensión que habilita esa regla, no es anulatoria o de repetición, como ocurre para los vicios ocultos en el área civil y mercantil, respectivamente, sino la reparación o sustitución de la cosa. La figura también se encuentra regulada en materia de consumidor, en el ordinal 43 del cuerpo normativo correspondiente, según el cual la garantía de funcionamiento acompaña de modo implícito a todo bien o servicio que se venda o preste, por lo que debe reunir los estándares de calidad y requerimientos técnicos que por razones de salud, medio ambiente y seguridad, estén fijados por el Ordenamiento […] Por otra parte, tocante a la prescripción, la norma aplicable es el artículo 984 en su acápite a), y no su enunciado general. Ese inciso establece un plazo anual para el decaimiento de los derechos que se funden en reclamaciones por vicios de las cosas vendidas con garantía de buen funcionamiento, de ahí que priva un criterio de especialidad sobre el plazo de cuatro años previsto para los demás supuestos que no cuentan con previsión específica…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005 y 1470-F-S1-2011). - VII.- CONTINÚA.- Ahora bien, en lo que corresponde a la garantía de vicios ocultos, la Sala Primera ha apuntado que este tipo de vicios corresponden a aquellos defectos que, a diferencia de los evidentes o manifiestos “...también están presentes en la cosa que se entrega, [pero que] no se detectan mediante un examen razonable del bien, es decir, están escondidos…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005) y que, consecuentemente, afectan el uso y provecho de la cosa en perjuicio del comprador, quien de buena fe ha concurrido con su voluntad para la formación del contrato desconociendo la existencia de dichos defectos. Por ende, “...la garantía de saneamiento o por vicios ocultos es un efecto natural del contrato de compraventa.- Se refiere a la obligación del vendedor de entregar la cosa vendida y que ésta sea apta para cumplir con la función para la que normalmente está destinada, es decir, que debe entregar la cosa en buen estado, sin vicios o defectos que hagan impropio, o afecten notablemente su uso normal…” (Sentencia 320 de 1990. Resaltado no es del original). Esto se explica porque “… Al comprador le interesa recibir una cosa apta para el destino previsto, sin vicio que la haga desmerecer. Si la cosa no reúne estas condiciones el comprador querrá devolverla, rescindiendo el contrato, o intentará reducir el precio en proporción a los defectos notados. Al vendedor le importa, sobre todo, enajenar la cosa porque su beneficio depende del número de ventas realizadas; y, en segundo término, si el comprador descubre defectos en la mercancía, al vendedor le interesa el reclamo inmediato del comprador, para fenecer lo más pronto el contrato…” (Sentencias N.º 7 y N.º 44 de 1994). A partir de esta línea jurisprudencial, los Tribunales Civiles han precisado una serie de requisitos que deben ser debidamente demostrados, a fin de acreditar la presencia de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios: “… En relación a este tema debemos señalar, que a fin de exigir responsabilidad civil, los vicios ocultos deben cumplir con ciertos requisitos, a saber: a. Debe tratarse de vicios ocultos, no aparentes o manifiestos; b. Que la cosa haya sido adquirida a título oneroso; c. Que no sean conocidos por el adquirente; d. Que el vicio oculto haga impropio o frustre el uso natural o normal de la cosa o lo disminuya de manera sustancial, y e. Deben ser anteriores a la venta. A ello debemos agregar, un aspecto importante: "... No es necesario que el vendedor haya conocido de tales vicios, ni tampoco que estos sean perpetuos o irremediables." (Voto de la Sala Primera número 227 de las 14:15 horas del 20/12/1991), esto implica que, el vendedor será responsable civilmente aún y cuando ignore los vicios ocultos. De tal manera que, el comprador debe acreditar la mala fe o dolo, únicamente en aquellos casos en los que, en el contrato se haya relevado al vendedor de la obligación de indemnizar los daños y perjuicios (doctrina del ordinal 701 del Código Civil),…” (Sentencia del Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Primera, N.º 52 de las 10:40 horas del 26 de febrero de 2015. Nombre211 es del original). Asimismo, la jurisprudencia de Sala Primera ha fijado tres cauces de acción distintos para reclamar este tipo de vicios: “...Se trata, por lo tanto, de tres posibles acciones nacidas de un mismo hecho: defectos de la cosa objeto del contrato de compraventa. [1] La acción de repetición por vicios ocultos o redhibitorios, tal y como lo establece el penúltimo párrafo del 450 del Código de Comercio, [2] la acción de anulación por error en la voluntad como resultado de los vicios ocultos o redhibitorios, según el artículo 1082 del Código Civil y [3] la responsabilidad contractual común derivada del artículo 692 del Código Civil. De conformidad con sentencia precitada, las dos últimas acciones serían compatibles -no excluyentes- entre sí dado el supuesto común: el defecto en la cosa desmejorándola o haciéndola inutilizable. …” (Sentencia N.º 37 de 1993. Resaltado no es del original). Ahora bien, en aras de abordar con claridad los presupuestos procesales que deben ser analizados respecto de cada uno de dichos remedios jurisdiccionales, entraremos brevemente a reseñar en qué consisten estas acciones: 1) El ejercicio de la acción de repetición previsto en el artículo 450 del Código de Comercio, se da en el marco de una compraventa mercantil y tiene por objeto revertir los efectos del pago para el adquirente, de modo que este pueda retornar el objeto viciado y exigir así el cumplimiento de la obligación: “...El pago, en su significado técnico, es la acción mediante la cual se cumplen las obligaciones. De ese modo, si por contrato, cuasicontrato, delito o cuasidelito una persona está obligada a una prestación concreta, en el momento de llevarla a cabo, habrá pagado, con los efectos liberatorios que esto conllevaría a su condición de deudor. Pero, en algunas ocasiones la ley dispone que, a pesar de haberse realizado el pago, éste no puede surtir sus efectos. En esa situación, el ordenamiento prevé la figura de la acción de repetir el pago. Esta consiste en la posibilidad, para el acreedor de la prestación, de devolver u obligar a su deudor a recibir de regreso lo pagado o su equivalencia económica. Asimismo, cuando se trate de contratos sinalagmáticos, de imponer al otro pactante el deber de retornar la contraprestación recibida a cambio de aquella regresada por quien ejercite la acción de repetición. La normativa costarricense contempla esa posibilidad en dos casos. Una, ajena al sub lite, cuando se da un pago indebido. [...]. La otra, concerniente al invocado numeral 450 del Código de Comercio, ocurre cuando el comprador recibe los bienes adquiridos, en dos distintas circunstancias. La primera, cuando se le entregan embalados o enfardados y, luego de ser abiertos, se encuentran en ellos vicios ocultos o una inexactitud con la cantidad o calidad pactada. [...] La otra hipótesis se refiere a los vicios redhibitorios, se haya dado la tradición de la cosa comprada empacada o no, dentro de los diez días a partir de la entrega o del descubrimiento del vicio oculto. En ambos casos, si el vendedor se opone a repetir lo pagado, el comprador tiene la posibilidad de plantear una demanda, para exigírselo, dentro de un plazo de tres meses. Si bien el Código de Comercio habla en ese precepto de lapso prescriptivo, en realidad tal plazo es de caducidad, porque no establece forma alguna en la cual pueda ser interrumpido y sólo impone la carga de ejercer la acción dentro de ese trimestre. En el ordinal 450 del Código de Comercio, la acción de repetir tiene como finalidad la disipación de las consecuencias, para el comprador, de haber aceptado la cosa entregada. Al no haberse opuesto a la tradición, con ello, en principio, podría considerarse que se liberó al vendedor de su prestación de dar el bien negociado. La repetición del pago viene a asimilarse como si, al intentarse la tradición, el comprador se hubiera opuesto a la entrega, debido a los vicios hallados en lo adquirido, con lo cual no libera al vendedor de su deuda, consistente en entregar el bien, objeto del negocio jurídico…” (Sentencia N.º 810-F-04). Bajo esta hipótesis especial, tal y como ha quedado definido por la Sala Primera, a la luz de la norma de comentario, el presupuesto temporal para el ejercicio de esta acción se rige por un término de caducidad de tres meses. 2) Mediante una acción de nulidad relativa o anulabilidad, en el tanto los vicios ocultos hayan derivado en un vicio del consentimiento por error: “… En cuanto a estos vicios, el artículo 1082 del Código Civil dispone que: "La venta no podrá ser anulada por vicios o defectos ocultos de la cosa de los llamados redhibitorios, salvo si esos vicios o defectos envuelven error que anule el consentimiento, o si hay estipulación en contrario." El artículo establece en realidad una acción de nulidad relativa o anulabilidad, basada en un vicio de la voluntad: el error. Dicha acción se funda en los vicios ocultos y en el error, conjuntamente.- Aunque la venta no pueda ser anulada por la sola existencia de los vicios ocultos, -salvo que constituya, además, error que anule el consentimiento-…” (Sentencia 320 de 1990); “...Debe recordarse que ese último elemento [el consentimiento] es uno de los presupuestos esenciales de los contratos (artículos 1007, 1008 ibídem), por lo cual su ausencia o defecto conduce, irremediablemente, a la nulidad –o anulabilidad- del negocio celebrado, según lo fijan los cánones 835 y 836 del Código Civil…” (Sentencia 999-F-2005). En lo que corresponde a los plazos para el ejercicio de esta acción, primero, se debe deslindar si se trata de una compraventa mercantil o una civil, pues en ésta última se regiría por un supuesto de caducidad de cuatro años conforme el numeral 841 del Código Civil, mientras que en la hipótesis mercantil, se trataría de un plazo de prescripción de cuatro años conforme la regla general establecida en el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio “...con fundamento en las argumentaciones expuestas, el tipo de contratación comercial y la naturaleza mercantil de las sociedades, se concluye que en materia de prescripción es aplicable, al caso concreto, el Código de Comercio, propiamente, el artículo 984…” (Sentencia N.º 963-F-2005). En este caso, se debe precisar que en el año 2019 fue derogado el inciso e) del canon de cita, por medio de la Ley N.º 9961 del 03 de junio de 2019, toda vez que con base en ese inciso se establecía un plazo distinto, tal cual fue dispuesto en su momento por la Sala Primera (ver por ejemplo la sentencia N.º 810-F-04). Según se colige del expediente legislativo del proyecto de ley, concretamente, en el dictamen unánime afirmativo, la voluntad legislativa con la derogatoria consistió en que: “...se pretende que los derechos derivados de compraventas comerciales, tengan un plazo de prescripción de cuatro años en lugar de solo uno, es decir, las deudas de compradores a crédito prescribirán a cuatro años en lugar de uno. Asimismo, los reclamos dirigidos al vendedor también verán su plazo de prescripción aumentado...” (F. 851 del expediente legislativo 19957, según consulta en la base de datos pública de la Asamblea Legislativa. Resaltado no es del original). Y 3) por último, queda la vía para el adquirente de ejercer una acción de responsabilidad contractual por incumplimiento: “...Aunque la venta no pueda ser anulada por la sola existencia de los vicios ocultos, […] siempre queda la posibilidad de la responsabilidad contractual común del vendedor, quien tiene la obligación de entregar la cosa en forma tal que cumpla su función normal a cabalidad; responsabilidad que podría derivar en una indemnización por daños y perjuicios, según la naturaleza del incumplimiento. Si el vendedor entrega la cosa con algún vicio o defecto que la haga impropia para su función normal o la desmejore, incurre en un incumplimiento contractual, de conformidad con los artículos 692, 693, 701, 702, 704 y 764 del Código Civil, este último en cuanto dispone que "el pago se hará bajo todos los respectos conforme al tenor de la obligación".- Es una obligación implícita en la compraventa el entregar la cosa tal y como el comprador espera recibirla, de conformidad con lo acordado (764 Y 1022 ibídem)…” (Sentencia 320 de 1990. Resaltado no es del original). Es importante tener claro que esta acción resarcitoria puede o no ser formulada en conjunto con una pretensión de anulabilidad o de resolución del contrato: “...De conformidad con sentencia precitada, las dos últimas acciones [anulabilidad y responsabilidad] serían compatibles -no excluyentes- entre sí dado el supuesto común: el defecto en la cosa desmejorándola o haciéndola inutilizable. Sin embargo, no lo serían respecto a la acción de repetición regulada por el artículo 450 del Código de Comercio, pues dada la especialidad de la materia se aplican las reglas allí contenidas con exclusión de otras cuando de vicios ocultos o redhibitorios se trata en el caso de la compraventa mercantil...” (Sentencia N.º 37 de 1993). Asimismo, es importante tomar nota que su régimen temporal de ejercicio, puede estar dimensionado a su vez según se trate de una compraventa mercantil o civil, en tratándose de un plazo de cuatro años en la primera, según la regla general de prescripción de los derechos y acciones en esa materia, conforme los artículos 438, 439 y 984 CCOM, mientras que en la segunda correspondería al plazo decenal de la prescripción ordinaria civil: “… En el sub-júdice, no se ha solicitado la nulidad del contrato, ni tampoco su resolución. Se reclama la responsabilidad por el incumplimiento contractual, al no entregarse la casa adquirida con las especificaciones implícitas en el contrato. Los daños y perjuicios se produjeron, según la causa alegada por el señor […] y la señora […], como consecuencia del terremoto del 22 de diciembre de 1990. Antes, no se conocían los vicios ocultos de la edificación, ni tampoco habían sufrido lesión alguna en sus intereses. Por ello, los accionantes no podían ejercer alguna acción. El Tribunal Superior incurrió en quebranto del artículo 874 del Código Civil, al estimar que el término de la prescripción comenzaba a contarse desde la fecha en la cual se firmó la escritura de compraventa. Al respecto, se consideró: "De conformidad con el numeral 869 en relación con el 874 del Código Civil, tanto el derecho como la acción para exigir responsabilidad como la que aquí se exige contra del vendedor, prescribirán en diez años, contados desde la celebración del contrato, que es el momento a partir del cual la obligación de esa parte de responder por los defectos de la cosa vendida, se hacía exigible.". Sin embargo, la obligación no puede considerarse exigible cuando aún los vicios ocultos no se conocen y no se han producido los daños y perjuicios reclamados. Antes es impensable el ejercicio de la acción por incumplimiento contractual. […] Aquí, al igual que en dicha ocasión, se trata de situaciones desconocidas por los actores, quienes ignoraban los supuestos vicios por los cuales reclaman. Estos -en lo concerniente al presente caso- según se alega, se manifestaron con el sismo del 22 de diciembre de 1990, cuando se dieron los daños que debieron reparar. Ergo, antes no podía correr plazo alguno de prescripción o caducidad. La presente acción versa sobre la responsabilidad contractual por incumplimiento del vendedor, cuyo plazo de prescripción es de diez años. Al momento de notificarse la presente acción, no había trascurrido ni siquiera un año desde el terremoto del 22 de diciembre de 1990. En consecuencia, cabe acoger el recurso interpuesto y anular, en cuanto a este extremo, la sentencia del Tribunal…” (Sentencia N.º 77 de 1995).- VIII.- CASO CONCRETO.- Como apuntamos ut supra y se puede constatar a partir de la conceptualización de las garantías legales a las que se encuentra sujeto el vendedor, en este caso, el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, se pude colegir con facilidad que la demanda presenta una importante incoherencia, pues el supuesto defecto que aduce la representación judicial del actor no constituye propiamente un vicio oculto, sino una evicción parcial de la finca matrícula número Placa26795, pues no es un defecto en la cantidad o calidad del bien otorgado que afecte el provecho económico de la cosa vendida, ya que el inmueble de vocación forestal sigue cumpliendo la misma utilidad que tenía originalmente y que era de conocimiento del señor Nombre136762 , tan es así que incluso el 26 de mayo de 2017, es decir, más de dos años después de que el señor Nombre140068 , presentara denuncia por daños ante la oficina del OIJ en la ciudad de Grecia (expediente judicial 15-000110-0075-PE), el aquí actor suscribió con el Director Ejecutivo del Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal un “contrato de pago de servicios ambientales por mantenimiento de cobertura forestal en la actividad de protección de bosque”, por medio del cual el Estado le cancelaría una suma de dinero, a cambio de una serie de obligaciones de protección del bosque presente en el inmueble de su propiedad. Esta inconsistencia en la acción incoada se agrava por los términos en los que literalmente fueron planteadas las pretensiones materiales, veamos: En las pretensiones segunda a sexta, se pide que se obligue al Banco Nacional a que “reintegre” distintos rubros, tales como el valor de la finca (n.º 2), los gastos de traspaso (n.º 3), los costos financieros asociados con el apalancamiento al cual tuvo que recurrir para cubrir el precio de la propiedad (n.º 4), los gastos por concepto de “mejoras, modificaciones y reparaciones” realizadas en la finca (n.º 5) y costos de una posible demanda civil (n.º 6), sin embargo, no se aduce, ni se vincula ese reclamo con el régimen jurídico que correspondería a una garantía de vicios ocultos. Si bien en las conclusiones vertidas en la audiencia preliminar no lo invocó expresamente, este Tribunal toma nota que en el folio 15 del escrito de demanda, el represente judicial del actor alega que: “...de todo lo anterior teneos [sic] que de existir vicios ocultos la venta deviene en nula con las responsabilidades de la parte vendedora…”. Sin embargo, como vimos antes, de acuerdo al artículo 1082 del Código Civil, el sólo alegar vicios ocultos no puede dar lugar a la nulidad relativa del contrato, es necesario acreditar adicionalmente un vicio en el consentimiento: “...Aunque la venta no pueda ser anulada por la sola existencia de los vicios ocultos, -salvo que constituya, además, error que anule el consentimiento...” (Sentencia de la Sala Primera n.º 320 de 1990). Sin embargo, como ya señalamos, el señor Nombre136762 sí ha hecho un uso efectivo del inmueble conforme su régimen de aprovechamiento, precisamente, porque el bien ha cumplido la finalidad para la cual fue adquirido, situación que no ha sido descartada hasta la fecha. Lo que la parte considera como un vicio oculto, en realidad, consiste en el hecho de que hay una tercera persona que aduce tener un mejor derecho sobre parte del inmueble que adquirió y en ese sentido, la acción pertinente no sería una de vicios redhibitorios, sino una de evicción parcial porque, en principio, estaríamos en presencia de una perturbación de hecho y de derecho producida por ese tercero, respecto del disfrute pacífico del derecho de propiedad que le fue transmitido por parte del Banco Nacional. Preceptúa el artículo 1035 del Código Civil: “...La acción de garantía puede ejercitarse por aquel a quien se debe, desde que a consecuencia de una demanda intentada contra él, o de una excepción opuesta a una demanda suya, la existencia del derecho trasmitido se encuentra amenazada…” (Resaltado no es del original). Precisamente, esa es la situación que se desprende del propio dicho del actor, toda vez que a la hora de sustentar el daño moral en las conclusiones, su represente judicial esbozó claramente dicha situación de amenaza o perturbación, al manifestar que: “… y hay algo más, más grave todavía que creo que es la parte más…. el juicio penal aún está pendiente, esta demanda penal... fuimos y expusimos todos estos razonamientos ante la Fiscalía y la Fiscalía todavía no ha decidido si nos va a elevar a juicio porque a Nombre136762 lo están acusando de usurpación y de daños, de daños a una propiedad privada, o sea él construye… entonces, tiene el riesgo de ser condenado penalmente, por estar trabajando en su propiedad, por estar realizando labores en su propiedad…” (grabación de la audiencia preliminar del minuto 41:38 al minuto 42:07. Resaltado es propio). Es decir, se reitera que se trata de un tercero que aduce un mejor derecho y que amenaza así, el goce pacífico del bien transmitido. De este modo, resulta evidente para esta Cámara que la acción incoada resulta improcedente por carecer de sustento jurídico, toda vez que la parte ha esgrimido un reclamo inconsistente con los propios hechos en los que funda su demanda, así como las probanzas que ha aportado a los autos, de modo que en atención al principio dispositivo, este Tribunal debe limitar su pronunciamiento estrictamente a los términos planteados en aquella, sin posibilidad de sustituir a la parte, ni reconducir sus argumentos jurídicos, so pena de infringir el principio de igualdad procesal, el derecho defensa y debido proceso de su contraparte, e incurrir en un vicio de incongruencia en el fallo; máxime en procesos civiles de hacienda puros, como el que aquí se ha presentado. Por último, respecto del resto de pretensiones, las mismas han sido deducidas como peticiones accesorias al reconocimiento de los supuestos vicios ocultos, en concreto, a manera de condenatoria al pago de extremos indemnizatorios: daños materiales, como gastos incurridos para la explotación del bien (n.º 7 y 8) , impuestos municipales (n.º 9), intereses y daño moral (n.º 10). Dado que dichos aspectos han sido esgrimidos en condición de accesoriedad, en atención al principio general de Derecho por el cual se tiene que lo accesorio sigue la suerte del principal, lo que corresponde es desestimar también estas pretensiones por carecer de sustento jurídico.- IX.- ACERCA DE LAS EXCEPCIONES INTERPUESTAS. Acorde con lo explicado anteriormente, estima este Tribunal que la defensa de falta de Derecho opuesta por el Banco Nacional debe ser acogida y en ese sentido, desestimada la demanda por improcedente. Se advierte que, no obstante, la representación del Banco demandado opuso también la defensa de prescripción, por la forma en que se resuelve, resulta innecesario emitir pronunciamiento alguno al respecto.- X.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS.- La obligación al pago de las costas constituye una obligación de fuente legal, en este caso, derivada del numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, por medio de la cual la parte perdidosa -por el sólo hecho de serlo-, queda obligada a reintegrar a la vencedora una diversidad de categorías de gastos con motivo del proceso, los cuales no estaba en deber de soportar. Conforme la norma de cita, la dispensa de esta condenatoria sólo podrá darse en caso de que se compruebe alguno de los dos supuestos allí regulados, de manera que en ausencia de alegatos o pruebas que permitan a este Tribunal, en el caso concreto, ponderar y tener por acreditado alguno de estos motivos, no es posible entonces excepcionar total o parcialmente a la parte vencida de la aplicación de dicha máxima. Respecto de la causal del inciso b) del numeral de comentario, la jurisprudencia tanto del Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, como de la Sala Primera, han determinado respecto de dicha causal, lo siguiente: “… tener motivo suficiente para litigar implica no sólo la convicción de la parte vencida en la tesis defendida por ella, sino también que ese convencimiento se haya sustentado en datos objetivos del proceso, a partir de los cuales la persona juzgadora pueda concluir que la parte perdidosa tenía motivos racionalmente fundados para creer en la bondad de su pretensión, o de su defensa, según sea el caso…” (Sentencia del Tribunal de Casación N° 005-F-TC-2020 de las 09:20 horas del 09 de enero de 2020), “… Desde vieja data, esta Cámara ha señalado que este supuesto no consiste siquiera en la mera convicción en la tesis que se sustenta. Mucho menos aún puede entonces aceptarse el desconocimiento sobre el resultado de las probanzas como elemento determinante de esta hipótesis de dispensa. Consiste el convencimiento sobre la propia tesis fundado en datos objetivos del proceso que permitan deducir la bondad de sus pretensiones o defensas, tales como la sutileza en la “cuestión legal ”, que consiste, por ejemplo, en que lo discutido se funde en una interpretación pura de las normas jurídicas al no resultar controvertido el cuadro fáctico (en este sentido puede consultarse las resoluciones 1692-F-SI-2012 y 1307-F-SI-2014). O, por ejemplo, lo constituye la obligada participación en el proceso como parte demandada, que deriva de la legitimación procesal pasiva que impone el artículo 12 del CPCA en algunos de sus apartados (resolución 1283-F-SI-2015)…” (Sentencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia N° 1366-F-S1-2017 de las 15:35 horas del 07 de noviembre de 2017). Bajo estas circunstancias, esta Cámara considera que el actor ha actuado motivado de buena fe, ante una situación de amenaza sobreviniente hacia su derecho de propiedad, el cual había sido adquirido de una entidad financiera, producto de su actividad ordinaria. El error a la hora de subsumir los hechos en el marco jurídico aplicable al sub lite, no enerva la verosimilitud del reclamo efectuado para el cumplimiento de la garantía legal a la que está llamado el Banco Nacional en su condición de vendedor, esto es, de asegurar el goce pacífico del derecho del señor Nombre136762 . Por ende, estimamos que acorde con la naturaleza de las cuestiones debatidas, resulta razonable colegir que asistía al actor motivo suficiente para litigar y por lo tanto, se exonera a la parte vencida del pago de las costas.-

POR TANTO

Se acoge la excepción de falta de Derecho opuesta por la parte demandada. Por resultar innecesario, se omite pronunciamiento sobre la excepción de prescripción. En consecuencia, SE DECLARA SIN LUGAR la demanda incoada por Nombre136762 , contra el BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA. - Se exonera a la parte vencida del pago de las costas. - Notifíquese.- Daniel Aguilar Méndez Roberto Garita Navarro Nombre10955 Página 1 de 26