← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 01058-2021 Tribunal Agrario · Tribunal Agrario · 03/11/2021
OutcomeResultado
The Agrarian Court annulled the first-instance judgment for incongruity for failing to analyze the defendant's acquiescence to the subsidiary claims for return of the pasture area.El Tribunal Agrario anuló la sentencia de primera instancia por incongruencia al omitir analizar el allanamiento de la demandada a las pretensiones subsidiarias de devolución del área de potrero.
SummaryResumen
The Agrarian Court heard an ordinary agrarian proceeding in which the plaintiffs sought to annul several real estate sale-purchase deeds, claiming they were in fact a temporary loan to help the defendant corporation resolve a problem with SETENA. The defendant expressly acquiesced to the subsidiary claims, which sought the return of the pasture areas promised in a later deed. The Agrarian Court of first instance dismissed all claims without analyzing or ruling on that acquiescence. The Agrarian Court found that the appealed judgment suffered from incongruity due to omission (citra petita), since the acquiescence was a disputed point that had to be resolved, thereby violating due process and Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law. Consequently, the Court annulled the first-instance judgment while rejecting the other grounds of concomitant nullity, such as the argument against the court's power to raise the material defense of lack of right ex officio.El Tribunal Agrario conoció de un proceso ordinario agrario en el que los actores reclamaron la nulidad de varias escrituras de compraventa de inmuebles, alegando que en realidad se trató de un contrato de préstamo temporal para resolver un problema de la empresa demandada con la SETENA. La parte demandada se allanó expresamente a las pretensiones subsidiarias, que solicitaban la devolución de las áreas de potrero comprometidas en una escritura posterior. En primera instancia, el Juzgado Agrario declaró sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos, sin analizar ni pronunciarse sobre dicho allanamiento. El Tribunal Agrario determinó que la sentencia apelada incurrió en incongruencia por omisión (citra petita), ya que el allanamiento constituía un punto sometido a debate que debió ser resuelto, vulnerando el debido proceso y el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Por ello, anuló la sentencia de primera instancia, aunque rechazó los demás motivos de nulidad concomitante, como la alegada imposibilidad de decretar oficiosamente la excepción material de falta de derecho.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The complaint is well-founded. The claim includes both primary and subsidiary prayers. ... For his part, the defendant answered the action negatively, requested that the claim be denied, and expressed his acquiescence to the subsidiary claims. ... The contested judgment rejects both the primary and subsidiary claims, but neither considers nor analyzes whether the defendant's acquiescence to the first, second, and third subsidiary claims is appropriate or not. ... This renders the judgment absolutely null for incongruity and lack of reasoning, in violation of Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law; since the acquiescence to said subsidiary claims was neither analyzed nor resolved, thereby violating due process.El agravio es de recibo. La demanda presenta pretensiones tanto principales como subsidiarias. ... Por su parte, el demandado contestó negativamente la acción instaurada en su contra, solicitó se declare sin lugar la demanda y manifestó su allanamiento a las pretensiones subsidiarias ... La sentencia impugnada rechaza las principales y subsidiarias, pero no toma en cuenta ni analiza si el allanamiento del demandado a las pretensiones primera, segunda y tercera procede o no. ... Ello implica que la sentencia sea absolutamente nula por incongruencia y falta de fundamentación, en infracción del artículo 54 de la ley de Jurisdicción Agraria; ya que el allanamiento de las pretensiones subsidiarias dichas no fueron analizadas ni resueltas, violentándose el debido proceso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Las excepciones materiales, como la falta de derecho, la falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva y la falta de interés actual, son decretables de oficio, pues examinan los presupuestos de fondo de toda acción."
"Material defenses, such as lack of right, lack of active or passive standing to sue, and lack of present interest, are subject to being raised ex officio, as they examine the substantive prerequisites of any action."
Considerando IX
"Las excepciones materiales, como la falta de derecho, la falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva y la falta de interés actual, son decretables de oficio, pues examinan los presupuestos de fondo de toda acción."
Considerando IX
"Ello implica que la sentencia sea absolutamente nula por incongruencia y falta de fundamentación, en infracción del artículo 54 de la ley de Jurisdicción Agraria; ya que el allanamiento de las pretensiones subsidiarias dichas no fueron analizadas ni resueltas, violentándose el debido proceso."
"This renders the judgment absolutely null for incongruity and lack of reasoning, in violation of Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law; since the acquiescence to said subsidiary claims was neither analyzed nor resolved, thereby violating due process."
Considerando X
"Ello implica que la sentencia sea absolutamente nula por incongruencia y falta de fundamentación, en infracción del artículo 54 de la ley de Jurisdicción Agraria; ya que el allanamiento de las pretensiones subsidiarias dichas no fueron analizadas ni resueltas, violentándose el debido proceso."
Considerando X
Full documentDocumento completo
VOTE N° 1058-F-21 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.- At fifteen hours and fifty-two minutes on November third, two thousand twenty-one.- ORDINARY PROCEEDING filed by [[Nombre1]], of legal age, single, student, identity card number [...]; [[Nombre2]], of legal age, single, chef, identity card number [...]; [[Nombre3]], of legal age, married, farmer, identity card number [CED1]; and [[Nombre4]], of legal age, married, homemaker, identity card number [...], all residents of Alajuela; against [[Nombre5]] SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number [CED2], represented by its president with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact, [[Nombre6]], of legal age, married, cattle rancher, resident of Alajuela, identity card number [CED3]. Acting as special judicial attorneys: for the plaintiffs, attorney Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, bar number twelve thousand sixteen; and for the defendant entity, attorney Neftalí Madrigal Chaverri, bar number five thousand six hundred ninety-seven. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela.- Drafted by Judge Picado Vargas; and
CONSIDERING:
I.The plaintiffs filed an ordinary lawsuit, valued at six hundred sixty million colones, seeking a judgment declaring: 1.A- That it be declared that given the longstanding relationship of friendship, trust, and family ties that existed between Don [[Nombre8]], both personally and in his other capacity as unlimited general attorney-in-fact of [Nombre 005] S.A., and the plaintiffs in this proceeding, they verbally entered into the following negotiation: The plaintiffs, as of April 4, 2018, were the registered owners and possessors of 3 properties in the Province of Alajuela, numbers: A) [Valor 004]. B) [Valor 005]. C) [Valor 006]. 1.B- That prior to April 4, 2018, [[Nombre6]] called and visited the plaintiffs at their home, together with his adoptive father, [[Nombre8]], to tell them that DON [[Nombre8]] had a very serious and grave judicial problem with SETENA, that it was urgent to give SETENA a property with mountain to solve the serious judicial matter they were facing, that they begged them, please, to return the mountain portion possessed by the lands that the defendant company had donated to them. 1.C- That it be declared that the plaintiffs transferred the properties of the Province of Alajuela, numbers: A) [Valor 004].
B.- Deed number: 123-19, executed at 11:00 a.m. on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 140 back and 141 front of volume number 19 of the protocol of the aforementioned notary public, in which it was falsely recorded that it is a purchase and sale of the Alajuela District property number: [Valor 005], in which the plaintiffs [[Nombre3]] and [[Nombre4]], which is false and so it will be held, sold to the defendant company for the laughable and paltry sum of one hundred thousand colones the said property, a deed that was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Real Property Registry, in volume 2018, entry [Valor 010], on April 19, 2018, which is declared null for lack of cause and will. C- Deed number: 124-19, executed at 11:30 a.m. on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 141 back and 142 front of volume number 19 of the protocol of the aforementioned notary public, in which it was falsely recorded that it is a purchase and sale of the Alajuela District property number: [Valor 006], in which the plaintiffs [[Nombre1]] and [[Nombre2]] sold to the defendant company for the laughable and paltry sum of one hundred thousand colones the said property, a deed that was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Real Property Registry, in volume 2018, entry [Valor 008], on April 16, 2018, which is declared null for lack of cause and will.
D.- Deed number: 125-19, executed at 12:15 p.m. on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 142 front and back, and 143 front of volume number 19 of the protocol of the aforementioned notary public, in which it was falsely recorded that [[Nombre5]] is the owner of 3 properties of the Province of Alajuela, numbers: A) [Valor 004]. B) [Valor 004]..C) [Valor 006], which IS FALSE, the plaintiffs are the true and current owners of said properties, and the real cause of the transfers of the cited properties was a loan contract (contrato de préstamo), therefore, there never was a purchase and sale contract, and the will of the plaintiffs materialized in the referenced public instruments, in the belief that if the defendant company managed to solve the problem with SETENA in a different manner, they would return the properties that the plaintiffs were lending to the defendant company. That even though it was indicated in the cited public instrument that at least the area of land corresponding to pastureland would be returned to the plaintiffs, no later than December 31, 2018, this DID NOT HAPPEN, despite multiple requests made to the defendant company in that regard by the plaintiffs, the defendant company BREACHED without any justification, what they contractually obligated themselves to.
All the instrumental falsehoods described were carried out by the defendant company, with the sole intention of dispossessing the plaintiffs by registration of the cited properties, since despite the transfers having been made in the indicated terms, the plaintiffs continue to exercise possession of all the properties in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, and the agricultural activities continued to be carried out without any limitation.
II.For its part, the defendant answered the action filed against it in the negative, requested the lawsuit be dismissed, and expressed its acquiescence to the subsidiary claims (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of San Carlos, in the Filing Tray, files of 2/13/19 at 3:09:00 p.m.).-
III.Judge William Arburola Castillo, of the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, in judgment No. 04-2021 at thirteen hours and fifty-nine minutes on January eighteenth, two thousand twenty-one, resolved: "THEREFORE: In accordance with the cited legal provisions, transcribed doctrine, and the substantive arguments set forth, the existence of a lack of right on the part of the plaintiff is established and THE LAWSUIT IS DISMISSED IN ALL ITS EXTREMES filed by [[Nombre1]], [[Nombre2]], [[Nombre3]], and [[Nombre4]], against; [[Nombre5]] SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, represented by [[Nombre6]]. The plaintiffs in this proceeding are ordered to pay both costs thereof in favor of the defendant," (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of San Carlos, in Associated Documents, file of 1/18/21 at 13:59:56 p.m.).-
IV.Attorney Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, in his capacity as special judicial attorney for the plaintiffs, filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons on which they relied to refute the thesis of the trial court (See Virtual Desktop of the Agrarian Court of San Carlos, in the Filing Tray, file of 2/18/21 at 8:31:47 a.m.).-
V.In the processing of the proceeding, the legal requirements have not been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions capable of producing the nullity of the judgment is noted.-
VIII.Attorney Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, in his capacity as special judicial attorney for the plaintiffs, filed an appeal with concomitant nullity against said resolution, stating the following: GRIEVANCES: "FIRST GROUND: LACK OF ASSESSMENT REGARDING TACIT ACQUIESCENCE BY NOT RAISING DEFENSES: Regarding active and passive legal standing, the appealed judgment stated: '…Every judge must know the active and passive legal standing and the right of the proceedings, in this case, it is considered that the legal standing of the parties both actively and passively derives from the contractual relationship that existed between them, but what the proceeding lacks for the plaintiffs is the lack of right, since it was amply demonstrated that they are not correct in their allegations and that they did not suffer any impairment to their patrimonial interests because all the acts that occurred were with their full consent and volitional capacity.
Thus, what corresponds is to declare that there is a lack of right, and indicate that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant is dismissed both in its main and subsidiary claims.' This pronouncement was made sua sponte, given that the defendant did not raise any type of defense. In accordance with the principle of party presentation, the A-Quo ignores that the Judge cannot remedy the deficiencies of the parties, and even less, assist the defendant in the litigation, helping it to correct its procedural errors, and assuming sua sponte that the defendant raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active and passive legal standing, when this did not occur; the A-Quo cannot supply the procedural inertia of the defendant, because this injures not only the principle of party presentation, but also the principle of objectivity, the principle of impartiality, and equality between the parties.
Now, it is of utmost importance to establish the importance of raising defenses to the lawsuit, and to determine with certainty what they are for. In other words, it is indispensable to know their nature, knowing their concept and purpose. Legal practitioners know that the term 'defense' (excepción) is a word derived from the Latin exceptio, exception. The exceptio originated in the 'formulary procedure' stage of Roman law as a means of defense for the defendant; it consisted of a clause that the magistrate, at the request of the defendant, inserted into the formula so that the judge, if the factual circumstances alleged by the defendant were proven, would absolve him, even if the plaintiff's intentio was considered founded. The position of the exceptio in the formula was between the intentio and the condemnatio. Dr. Arellano García defines the defense as the subjective right that the natural or legal person who has the character of defendant or counter-defendant in a proceeding possesses, before the judge and before the plaintiff or counterclaimant, as the case may be, to contradict what is established by the plaintiff in the lawsuit or determined by the counterclaimant in the counterclaim, and whose purpose is to stop the proceeding or obtain a favorable judgment partially or totally.
([Nombre9], Carlos. Derecho procesal civil, 4th ed., Mexico, Porrúa, 1997). According to the definition and the legal nature of the defense, the defendant must raise defenses to be able to combat the facts and the claim of the lawsuit; failing to do so, it is unable to inhibit the action filed against it, in which case, the lawsuit must be upheld in all its extremes. In the case at hand, the defendants did not raise any type of procedural or substantive action (defenses), so given such procedural insufficiency, the A-Quo should have upheld the lawsuit in all its extremes; the preceding reasoning finds support in Article 41 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction, which establishes that: '…The defendant who does not agree with the terms of the lawsuit, or with the claims deduced therefrom, shall state in its answer all the circumstances and reasons upon which its denial is based, with reference, in each case, to the different facts set forth in the lawsuit, following the same order thereof.
Likewise, the defendant or counterclaimant party must raise, in the same act of the answer or reply, all the defenses it has in its favor, except as provided in subparagraph b) of Article 16…' From the preceding norm, the obligation of the defendant to raise defenses is inferred, since a negative answer to the lawsuit without raising defenses is equivalent to a defective answer without legal force to validly oppose the plaintiff's claims. This same criterion is followed by the Labor legislation in its Article 469, in force at the time this action was filed. And in the same sense, it is established in the Civil Procedure Code, both in the one currently in force and in the previous one. Thus, the former Civil Procedure Code, in its Articles 298 and 306, regulated the need to raise preliminary defenses and those on the merits, respectively. The current Civil Procedure Code also regulates in its numeral 37.2 the obligation to raise the corresponding defenses.
This brief analysis of the regulations in Labor and Civil matters, which are legislations supplementary to agrarian matters, is made with the aim of establishing the indispensability of raising defenses to the lawsuit and that the consequence of not doing so is to tacitly acquiesce to the lawsuit. It is clear that the three referenced matters establish the obligation of the defendant party to raise the defenses it deems appropriate when answering the lawsuit; this cannot under any perspective be considered a power of the party, rather it is a procedural obligation. Note that Article 41 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction establishes that: '…The defendant or counterclaimant party must raise, in the same act of the answer or reply, all the defenses it has in its favor…' (The bold and underlining are supplied) This duty is an imposition of the legislator, which, if not complied with, must be sanctioned by not regarding the opposition as made, and the lawsuit must be upheld.
The Agrarian Tribunal has also upheld the obligation to raise defenses (excepciones) and for that purpose has analyzed the appropriate procedural moment for such effects. Thus, in vote No. 624-F-2020, issued at eleven hours and fifty-seven minutes on July tenth, two thousand twenty, it resolved in relevant part: “…From the reading of the response (contestación) it is not evident that the extinction of the action due to negative statute of limitations (prescripción negativa) had been claimed, nor before the judgment was issued. The Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establishes regarding procedural and substantive defenses (excepciones procesales y de fondo) in Article 41, that all those available must be raised at the time of responding to the claim or counterclaim (contestación de la demanda o contrademanda), except as provided in subsection b) of Article 16 (defense of lack of jurisdiction (excepción de incompetencia) with its own deadline).
Article 44 of the same legal body regulates the defenses in the agrarian proceeding and combines, in its list, those of a procedural and substantive nature; including that of the statute of limitations (prescripción). Citing that norm, they must be presented when responding to the action or in the reply (réplica), except for that of res judicata (cosa juzgada) which could be presented at any stage of the trial. As is evident, that special procedural norm does not contain a regulation regarding a procedural opportunity subsequent to that indicated for raising the defense of negative statute of limitations (excepción de prescripción negativa). Therefore, the current Código de Trabajo must be used as a supplementary source, which establishes a new procedural regime regarding this matter. Article 503 of the same legal body prescribes: \"The following defenses (excepciones) shall be resolved preliminarily: 1.- Arbitration agreement (Compromiso arbitral). 2.- Lack of jurisdiction (Falta de competencia). 3.- Failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa), when the party had opted for that procedure. 4.- Lack of capacity of the party (Falta de capacidad de la parte), non-existence or insufficiency of representation (inexistencia o insuficiencia de la representación). 5.- Existence of defects in the claim or counterclaim (escrito de demanda o contrademanda) that, in the opinion of the party raising it, prevent issuing a valid ruling on the merits. 6.- Lis pendens (Litispendencia). 7.- Improper joinder of claims (Indebida acumulación de pretensiones). 8.- Improper choice of proceeding (Improcedencia del proceso elegido). 9.- Improper joinder of parties (Indebida integración de la litis).
The defense of lack of jurisdiction (excepción de incompetencia) must be resolved before the hearing stage and shall be governed by the provisions of section III of chapter one of this title. The other preliminary defenses (excepciones previas) shall be reserved to be heard at the preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar) or in the preliminary phase of that procedural act in single-hearing proceedings (procesos de única audiencia), with the evidentiary support for them being presented. The impropriety of the chosen procedural path (improcedencia de la vía escogida) may also be assessed sua sponte (de oficio), for the purpose of guiding the processing of the proceeding.\" For its part, regarding the procedural opportunity to raise defenses, Article 504 of the labor procedure code states: \"Although all substantive defenses (excepciones materiales) may be raised up to the point of responding to the claim or counterclaim (contestación de la demanda o contrademanda), those of settlement (transacción) and statute of limitations (prescripción) may be alleged up to the preliminary phase of the hearing in single-hearing proceedings (procesos de única audiencia).
In this case, they shall be substantiated summarily in that same act. Other substantive defenses may also be raised at that same opportunity, when the facts on which they are based occurred after the response (contestación) or came to the knowledge of the party after the deadline to respond. Those same defenses may be raised at the trial hearing (audiencia de juicio), when the facts supporting them occurred or were consolidated after the preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar). The substantive defenses of res judicata (cosa juzgada), settlement (transacción), and the defenses of expiration (caducidad), expressly authorized by substantive law, may be alleged up to the supplementary or trial hearing (audiencia complementaria o de juicio), in order to avoid the issuance of contradictory judgments.\" This Tribunal thus understands, based on Article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, that with the entry into force of the new procedural code, a temporal and procedural limit was established for raising the defense of negative statute of limitations (excepción de prescripción negativa).
Given that in accordance with the cited norms, defenses are raised in the response to the claim or counterclaim (contestación de demanda o contrademanda), or, in the case of settlement (transacción) and statute of limitations (prescripción), even in the preliminary phase of the hearing of single-hearing proceedings. That is to say, it should have been alleged before the issuance of the first-instance judgment in the case in question and within the trial hearing that had been held. In the sub judice case, it is raised when the ruling on the merits had already been issued and with the appeal (recurso de apelación). It is necessary to note that before the entry into force of the Código de Trabajo Law 9343, the labor procedural norm did not regulate anything in this regard, and in agrarian proceedings the 1989 Código Procesal Civil (currently repealed) was applied. Its Article 298, in relation with Article 307, established the power to raise the defense of res judicata (cosa juzgada), settlement (transacción), statute of limitations (prescripción), and expiration (caducidad) at any stage of the proceeding, before the second-instance judgment was issued.
Privileged defenses (Defensas privilegiadas) that, as a matter of public interest and in order to avoid contradictory judgments, were granted that differentiated treatment. With the entry into force of the new Código Procesal Civil, the foregoing is modified and the defense of statute of limitations (excepción de prescripción) is excluded from this group, because it is not declarable sua sponte (de oficio) and therefore depends on its invocation, under penalty of being tacitly or expressly waivable. Procedural philosophy that inspires modern procedural codes, including the labor one, by virtue of the regulations transcribed supra. It is worth noting that the national doctrine on this matter states: \"The code maintains the possibility that in ordinary proceedings (procesos ordinarios), the defenses (excepciones) of res judicata (cosa juzgada), settlement (transacción), and expiration (caducidad) may be formulated up until the beginning of the closing arguments (alegación de conclusiones).
These defenses are among those that the previous code called privileged (privilegiadas), defenses regarding which there is a marked public interest. As for those of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and settlement (transacción), their purpose is to avoid contradictory judgments or, what is the same, contradictory solutions and procedural economy. And with respect to expiration (caducidad), it is justified that the possibilities for its allegation be broad, because expiration (caducidad) can be declared sua sponte (de oficio) and is not susceptible to interruption. Those of us who were accustomed to what the previous code called privileged defenses (excepciones privilegiadas), will notice that among those defenses listed by the new code, the statute of limitations (prescripción) is not found. The reason is clear, the defenses of res judicata (cosa juzgada), settlement (transacción), and expiration (caducidad) have the effect of extinguishing the proceeding for a cause independent of the will of the litigants.
Let us remember that expiration (caducidad) is not susceptible to interruption and is declarable sua sponte. The statute of limitations (prescripción) does depend on the will of the litigants and, as a consequence, the defendant should have alleged it when responding. If he did not do so, he waived the benefits of that legal institution, one could even say that he waived invoking this cause for extinction of obligations, to assume his duty of performance. But there is another reason why it was not included among those that can be raised almost at the end of the proceeding, and that is that the statute of limitations (prescripción) can give rise to extensive discussion regarding questions of interruption, which is not convenient, at this stage of the proceeding, for the celerity of the procedure and to make the principle of prompt and complete justice (justicia pronta y cumplida) a reality.\" (López González Jorge Alberto.
Curso de Derecho Procesal Civil Costarricense. Editorial Edinexo. I edition 2017, pages 246 and 247) (the boldface does not correspond to the original). It is appropriate to cite, for further support, that this same procedural philosophy is shared in the Código Procesal Agraria that would enter into force as of February 2021. In addition to the foregoing, for the reasons stated, this Chamber considers that Articles 503 and 504 of the Código de Trabajo and Articles 37.1, 37.2, and 37.3 of the Código Procesal Civil tacitly repealed Article 851 of the Civil Code (Código Civil) which regulated the tacit waiver of the statute of limitations (prescripción), which was applicable due to non-opposition before a final judgment. A procedural norm included in a substantive code. Therefore, the new Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily, by regulating the procedural opportunity to invoke the statute of limitations (prescripción) as a defense and the procedure, repeals that norm of the Civil Code for being special, of a procedural nature, and later in its issuance…” In the case under study, the trial judge omitted to perform the analysis due to the non-opposition of defenses (excepciones), and instead, as already indicated, sua sponte (de oficio) supplied that procedural obligation of the party, which grants an undue procedural advantage to the defendant party, given that if the first instance Tribunal does not maintain the equality of the parties, disrespecting due process (debido proceso), this causes a defenseless state (indefensión) for those I represent.
In this understanding, Article 42 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria provides that a hearing must be granted regarding the defenses raised (excepciones interpuestas), this is so, to safeguard the right of defense and due process in its modality of procedural equilibrium, but, if the defendant party does not raise defenses and the trial judge proceeds sua sponte - as occurs in the specific case -, to issue a ruling in the judgment on the lack of right (falta de derecho) and lack of standing (falta de legitimación) (which are defenses), it violates the principle of equality, for note that my clients could not attack those defenses in accordance with the provisions of Article 42 of reference. In summary, the negative response to this claim (contestación negativa de la presente demanda), without raising substantive defenses (excepciones de fondo) such as lack of right (falta de derecho), translates into the non-observance of a legal duty expressly provided for in the law, an omission that provokes a situation analogous to a tacit acquiescence to the claim (allanamiento tácito de la demanda), that is, the A-Quo could not analyze the negative response to this claim, if defenses were not raised in it, consequently the claim should have been granted due to that procedural error of the defendant party.
If in order for the statute of limitations (prescripción) to be declared granted it is necessary to expressly raise the defense (excepción), under the principles of equality before the law and reasonability, it is also essential that for the judge to rule on active and passive standing (legitimación activa y pasiva), the party must raise the pertinent defenses, otherwise, Article 33 of the national Magna Carta is flagrantly violated. SECOND GROUND: IMPROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE: In the appealed judgment, the following facts were held as proven: “…I) Through public deed (escritura pública) 325-50 executed before notary public Gonzalo Alfonso Monge Corrales at nine hours on April 6, 2017, the Company [[Nombre5]] represented by [[Nombre8]] segregates and donates: in favor of [[Nombre3]] a lot measuring 5139 m2 with surveyed plan (plano catastrado) [Value 012], in favor of [[Nombre3]] and [[Nombre4]] a lot measuring 10,000 m2 with surveyed plan [Value 013], in favor of [[Nombre10]] and [[Nombre11]] a lot measuring 5000 m2 with surveyed plan [Value 014] and in favor of [[Nombre2]] and [[Nombre12]] a lot measuring 6599 m2 with surveyed plan [Value 015] (deed testimony visible from image 17 to 20 of the digital file visualized as a pdf format file in ascending order).
There is no controversy in this regard and that public document is completely valid, and has the nature of full evidence (plena prueba). With that evidence, the will of Mr. [[Nombre8]] to donate to the [[Nombre2]] family the properties in question was clearly accredited. On that point, the defendant party did not make any claim, so when Mr. [Nombre7] issues assessments and considerations about it, he is making an improper assessment of the evidence, while also ruling on aspects that are not the object of the proceeding. If the defendant party is dissatisfied with the manner in which that public document was executed, it should have filed a judicial action, but as long as that action does not exist, Mr. [Nombre7] is unable to rule on the alleged ineffectiveness and even less to attack said evidence based on subjective reasoning, since the effectiveness of said public document to date is full, it has not been declared false or ineffective, ergo, its validity and legal effectiveness cannot be attacked as the A-Quo does with a basis in subjective arguments.
What is real, certain, and true, is that to date no one has objected to that authentic public document, so it has full effectiveness and validity and its probative value is absolute. Evaluating it as the judge did with respect to such public deed, issuing a criterion on its possible invalidity, violates Article 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, as well as the most elemental principles of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica). Thereby causing a violation of the right of defense and due process with respect to the plaintiffs. But also, the defendant party, when responding to the first fact of the claim, accepted the validity of that public instrument, without providing any evidence that would detract from the nature of full evidence of said public document, given its express acceptance, therefore the questions of the A-Quo regarding such public instrument violate the rules of evidence analysis.
Regarding the proven facts number IV, V and VI, which refer that through public deeds 124-19 before Notary Public Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, at eleven hours thirty minutes on April fourth, two thousand eighteen, [[Nombre1]] and [[Nombre2]] sold for the sum of one hundred thousand colones to [[Nombre5]] the property registered in the public registry, Alajuela section, under real folio registry number [Value [Placa9]] and [Placa10]. That through public deed 123-19 executed before Notary Public Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, at eleven hours on April fourth, two thousand eighteen, [[Nombre3]] and [[Nombre4]] sold for the sum of one hundred thousand colones to [[Nombre5]] the property registered in the public registry, Alajuela section, under real folio registry number [Value [Placa11]] and [Value [Placa12]] (deed testimony visible from image 11 to 12). And that through public deed 122-19 before Notary Public Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, at ten hours thirty minutes on April fourth, two thousand eighteen, [[Nombre3]] sold for the sum of one hundred thousand colones to [[Nombre5]] the property registered in the public registry, Alajuela section, under real folio registry number [[Placa8] [Placa7]], an improper assessment of that evidence was also made, in relation to the other evidence offered and presented.
It was shown that it was notary AVALOS SEQUEIRA who drafted unilaterally, and in accordance with the plan previously established with the defendant, the deeds numbers: 122-19, executed at 10:30 hours on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 140 recto and verso of volume number 19 of the protocol of the referenced notary public, in which it is falsely recorded that it is a sale (compra venta) of property Alajuela Section number: [Value 004], in which plaintiff [[Nombre3]] supposedly sells to the defendant company for the ludicrous and minuscule sum of one hundred thousand colones the said property, a deed that was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, in volume 2018, entry [Value 007], on April 16, 2018. Number 123-19, executed at 11:00 hours on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 140 verso and 141 recto of volume number 19 of the protocol of the referenced notary public, in which it is falsely recorded that it is a sale of property Alajuela Section number: [Value 005], in which plaintiffs [[Nombre3]] and [[Nombre4]] supposedly sell to the defendant company for the ludicrous and minuscule sum of one hundred thousand colones the said property, a deed that was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, in volume 2018, entry [Value 010], on April 119, 2018.
Number 124-19, executed at 11:30 hours on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 141 verso and 142 recto of volume number 19 of the protocol of the referenced notary public, in which it is falsely recorded that it is a sale of property Alajuela Section number: [Value 006], in which plaintiffs [[Nombre1]], and [[Nombre2]], sell to the defendant company for the ludicrous and minuscule sum of one hundred thousand colones the said property, a deed that was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, in volume 2018, entry [Value 008], on April 16, 2018. Number 125-19, executed at 12:15 hours on April 4, 2018, deed visible on folio 142 recto and verso, and 143 recto of volume number 19 of the protocol of the referenced notary public. Deeds in which it was falsely inserted that it was a pure and simple sale, when that is not true, as it was a property loan contract, it was reliably demonstrated that THERE WAS NO PAYMENT, and given that payment is an essential element of the legal transaction (negocio jurídico) of sale, lacking this essential requirement, said contract CANNOT be held as valid and effective.
Likewise, he falsely inserted that the price of the supposed sale of each of those properties was the sum of one hundred thousand colones, a sum that is not only pyrrhic, ludicrous, removed from reality, A SALE NEVER EXISTED, therefore THERE WAS NO PAYMENT OF ANY PRICE. But essentially, there was never the will of any of the parties to carry out that supposed sale contract, the foregoing is accredited by the party statement evidence (declaración de parte) of the legal representative of the defendant, who categorically affirmed that [[Nombre5]] never paid any price for the lots object of this litigation, and that it was NEVER the will of the defendant or the plaintiffs to carry out a sale contract. The defendant did not demonstrate – as was its obligation, given that the burden of proof so obliges it – that the deeds made by notary ÁVALOS SEQUEIRA had been read to the plaintiffs, nor did it demonstrate that they correspond to the real and free will of the plaintiffs, quite the opposite, by not demonstrating any payment and accepting that it was not a sale contract, the defect in the will (vicio en la voluntad) of the plaintiffs is actualized by the plan devised by the defendant, in association with notary BAYARDO AVÁLOS SEQUEIRA.
Given the high esteem and moral value that Mr. [[Nombre8]] represents for the plaintiffs (which was accredited by the testimony of [[Nombre14]] and by the express statement in this regard made by the defendant party), they limited themselves to signing, without reading, the public instruments made by notary AVALOS SEQUEIRA, since they would never have doubted the word, honorability, and great reputation that the figure of DON [[Nombre8]] represented for them. The fact that the plaintiffs, despite supposedly having "sold" to the defendant company all the properties object of this litigation, continued to exercise possession of them in a quiet, public, peaceful manner and as owners, undeniably accredits that the public deeds prepared by Notary Ávalos Sequeira are FALSE, lack cause (causa), and it was never the contracting parties' will to celebrate a sale. On this point it is also necessary to insist that the defendant party, despite having alleged supposed acts that made it impossible to fulfill the obligation contracted in public deed 125-19 executed before Notary Public Bayardo Ávalos Sequeira, at twelve hours fifteen minutes on April fourth, two thousand eighteen, in which [Name 005] S.A. undertook to donate in favor of [[Nombre3]], [[Nombre4]], [[Nombre1]] and [[Nombre2]], the extension of land corresponding to pastureland of the properties registered in the public registry in the Alajuela section under real folio number [Value 006], [Value 005] and [Value 004] (copy of deed visible from image 43 to 46), did not in any way accredit an impeding fact that prevented it from fulfilling such commitment, as is its obligation, as provided by Articles 477 of the Código de Trabajo and 41.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily in this matter.
This obliged granting the present claim in all its aspects, however, the first-instance Tribunal, by improperly assessing the evidence and failing to apply the legal precepts indicated above, dismissed this action in all its aspects. Regarding public deed 125-19 executed before Notary Public Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, at twelve hours fifteen minutes on April fourth, two thousand eighteen, in which [Name 005] S.A. undertook to donate in favor of [[Nombre3]], [[Nombre4]], [[Nombre1]] and [[Nombre2]], the extension of land corresponding to pastureland of the properties registered in the public registry in the Alajuela section under real folio number [Value 006], [Value 005] and [Value 004] (copy of deed visible from image 43 to 46), there is no controversy whatsoever. In which case that commitment is valid and should have been granted, especially given the existing acquiescence (allanamiento) in this regard.
Once again, it is necessary to consider that the defendant, once the deadline to fulfill that obligation arrived, without any reason refused to carry out and/or comply with what had been agreed. And despite the fact that in the response to the claim (contestación de la demanda), it alleged impeding facts, namely the supposed problem with SETENA, it did not in any way accredit that impeding fact, as is its obligation, as provided by Articles 477 of the Código de Trabajo and 41.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, applied supplementarily in this matter. As clearly emerges from the facts motivating this action, we are in the presence of a case of transactional pathology (patología negocial), specifically of contractual invalidity (invalidez contractual), partial nullity (nulidad parcial) and/or absolute partial invalidity (invalidez parcial absoluta), due to absence and/or defects of the essential elements of the legal transaction (negocio jurídico) with concomitant contractual civil liability.
But, prior to determining the foregoing in the specific case, it is necessary to refer, in general terms, to the ELEMENTS OF THE LEGAL TRANSACTION (NEGOCIO JURÍDICO). The legal transaction is an objective programming of interests. It is traditionally defined as a manifestation of will directed at a practical purpose protected by the legal system. Modernly, doctrine distinguishes the figure of the legal transaction, as a broader category that comprises all acts of private autonomy, as such relevant for the law, from the figure of the contract which represents a type of transaction; the bilateral or plurilateral one of patrimonial content. The legal transaction is a human act that expresses a life interest, relevant to the Law, and to which the latter grants legal consequences. The legal effect is a conditioned value, that is, assumed by the law under the condition that a preceding factual situation occurs, a concrete "factual species", which is the "cause" of that effect.
Two figures are thus distinguished in the transaction: a causal one, which is always a temporal phenomenon, a behavior; and another, effectual one, which is the value attributed to the fact. It is necessary to start considering what those elements are that constitute the causal transactional figure, to then proceed to the study of its position regarding the validity of the transaction. It is necessary beforehand to make some terminological clarifications. What are the presuppositions (presupuestos) of the legal transaction? One part of the doctrine distinguishes the "presuppositions," which are circumstances extrinsic to the transaction, to its scheme or structure, which constitute true validity requirements (for example, the opening of the succession regarding the acceptance of the inheritance), and sometimes, of effectiveness. Perhaps in this case it would be more convenient to speak of logical and legal antecedents of the transaction.
A second, more widespread and acceptable meaning, calls presuppositions certain circumstances extrinsic to the transaction considered in itself, but which have an integrating function with respect to it, for without them the transaction is not valid; they come to form part of it within the complex initial factual situation, to which they belong, and in which the transaction is inserted. The subject is the necessary point of connection between the legal fact and the legal effect. The object (as a spatial phenomenon) is a possible but not necessary point of connection between fact and effect. They have also been called "terms of reference, coefficients of the legal relationship." The presuppositions of the transaction are referred precisely to them, and that is why they are distinguished into subjective and objective. The subjective ones refer to the potentiality of the subject to express, through their own behavior, legally relevant interests: capacity to act (which presupposes legal capacity at the same time), standing (legitimación), and ownership (titularidad), which combined give the power of disposition (facultad de disposición).
These presuppositions must exist at the moment the transaction is formed. The objective presuppositions refer to the object's suitability to serve as the matter of the transaction, and to operate as a possible point of connection between fact and effect: existence, lawfulness, possibility (material and legal), and determinability of the object. It must exist, and be in accordance with the interests of the legal system.
Having distinguished the preconditions and requirements (in the strict sense) of the transaction, it is necessary to consider what elements configure it. The term “elements” refers to the functional and structural requirements, which have a current, dynamic sense and are concomitant with the formation of the transaction, in which they diverge from the preconditions, which are rather prior requirements. They belong to the causal zone, that is, to the transactional fact. The essential structural elements of the juridical transaction are of two types: a subjective, internal, and material one: the will (voluntad), and an objective, external, and formal one: the manifestation or form (which may have a particular configuration: form in the strict sense or formality (formalidad)) of that will. Functionally, the transaction has what is called a “causa”, which is the conformity of the programmed interests with the other interests or values accepted by the legal system.
When this relationship of conformity exists, the transaction becomes effective, and therefore, can fulfill its function. The causa is thus configured as an essential functional element of the transaction. As has been observed, a good part of the doctrine uses the terms “element” and “requirement” indistinctly. But in a stricter sense, it is convenient to reserve the use of “requirements” to designate the qualities of the elements of the transaction (and even of the preconditions). Thus, for example, the element will must have the requirement of not being vitiated. The element causa must have the requirement of being licit. In a specific transaction, an element may exist, but it may lack the necessary requirements.
Will and manifestation turn out to be the essential elements of the structure of the juridical transaction. The causa is the functional element. Alongside this minimum core for a fact relevant as a transaction to arise in the juridical world, there is a wide margin of action for the will of the subjects in the sphere of the already mentioned non-essential, marginal elements or concausas, among which the traditionally called accidental elements stand out: the condition, the term, and the mode, and also included are all kinds of accessory determinations, self-limitations, and clauses that the parties wish to introduce (and which can have diverse relevance from the point of view of validity). Will and manifestation are the minimum necessary for the juridical existence of the transaction, for a specific fact to be relevant as a transactional fact. One can speak, in relation to them, of existential elements.
A juridical transaction cannot exist if at least one externalized will does not exist. A potentially efficacious requirement would be lacking. Now, the elements of will and manifestation in turn have a series of requirements, with a different interference in transactional life: the will must be free and clearly manifested (Art. 1008 C.C.); the manifestation sometimes requires a specific direction. A will vitiated by error, psychological violence, etc., makes the transaction voidable; that it be free is a requirement for validity (Arts. 1008, 1014 and 1015 C.C.). The formalities may be important for the proof of the transaction or for its validity, depending on the case. It must be remembered that the validity or invalidity of an act is a judgment that can only be made starting from the assumption that the act exists. When a formality ad substantiam is not fulfilled, the transaction becomes absolutely null.
The situation is also diverse when the invalidity is nullity (nulidad) or voidability (anulabilidad). In the first case, the act has a defect such that it practically disappears from the world of Law, so that the consequences are similar to those of non-existent acts. In the second case, however, the transaction has a vice in one of its essential elements or constitutive preconditions, so that it can be challenged, but it can be validated. Other aspects are required for the erga omnes effectiveness of the transaction, such as declarative publicity. As for the preconditions, their lack or defect gives rise to diverse situations. The absence of capacity to act (capacidad de actuar) affects the validity of the transaction, giving rise to nullity (absolute incapacity: minors under fifteen years of age, persons in a state of interdiction, the deaf-mute who cannot read or write) or to voidability (relative incapacity, natural incapacity).
The power of disposition (facultad de disposición), in general, is a precondition for validity of juridical transactions. Aspects relating to the subject can have an impact on the effectiveness of the transaction. Thus, a transaction with a future subject, or one to be designated by a third party, or whose decision must be awaited, is ineffective. As for the objective preconditions, existence, possibility, licitness, and the required value are requirements for validity. Of course, a transaction in which they are lacking cannot be effective either, and above all, determination is a requirement for effectiveness when the object is future, or is designated in a generic form, or its indication by a third party is awaited. The causa has relevance with respect to validity when it is lacking or is illicit. The invalidity derived from the illicitness of the object or the causa does not have a restitutionary effect (Art. 844 C.C.).
Our Civil Code does not contain the systematic category of the juridical transaction typical of modern codes. One must, therefore, consider the general provisions regarding obligations and contracts. If the contract is the agreement of wills that generates obligations between the parties, the theory of obligations is the antecedent of the contractual theory. The contract being one of the sources and forms of the obligation, all the essential conditions relating to it must exist with respect to it. From this premise, it is possible to attempt to construct theories of the juridical transaction in our civil law. Article 627 of the Civil Code expresses that “For the validity of the obligation, the following is essentially indispensable:
From the relationship between Articles 627 and 1007 of the Civil Code result the general conditions for the validity of the juridical transaction. In addition to the general requirements, the following are required: will and manifestation. As was previously advanced, the “power of disposition” is also a precondition for the validity of juridical transactions. It is not an autonomous subjective right, but rather results from the concrete conjunction of certain elements or preconditions: legitimation (legitimación), title (titularidad), and capacity to act. Now then, why are we in the presence of what is known in both Doctrine and Jurisprudence as a case of Contractual Invalidity? Because the public deeds (escrituras) numbers: 122-19, granted at 10:30 hours on April 4, 2018, a deed visible on folio 140 front and back of volume number 19 of the protocol of the notary public Bayardo Avalos Sequeira, which was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, at volume 2018, entry [Valor 007], on April 16, 2018.
The deed number: 123-19, granted at 11:00 hours on April 4, 2018, a deed visible on folio 140 back and 141 front of volume number 19 of the protocol of the aforementioned notary public, which was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, at volume 2018, entry [Valor 010], on April 119, 2018. The deed number: 124-19, granted at 11:30 hours on April 4, 2018, a deed visible on folio 141 back and 142 front of volume number 19 of the protocol of the aforementioned notary public, which was duly registered in favor of the defendant in the Public Registry of Real Property, at volume 2018, entry [Valor 008], on April 16, 2018. Were registered in an illegitimate and/or fraudulent manner, since the properties registered in the Public Registry of Real Property, District of Alajuela, registration numbers: [CED10], [CED11 CED12], [CED13], the plaintiffs gave them in a loan contract to the defendant company here, but they never alienated the registered title (titularidad registral) of the same, nor consented to such a situation; thus, such a juridical transaction lacks a just causa as there is no relationship of conformity between the interest of the loan of properties programmed in the transaction carried out between the Plaintiffs and the defendant company, with the values of good faith, equity, and justice that the National Legal System protects, while at the same time it constitutes an enrichment without cause (enriquecimiento sin causa) in illegitimate benefit of the defendant given the harmfulness to the Plaintiffs' patrimony of alienating the cited property, for the irrational, pyrrhic, and derisory sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES, each of them, as fallaciously indicated in the cited public deeds; as fallaciously indicated in the cited public deeds; likewise due to error in the consent of the plaintiffs, regarding the alienation of the registered title of the indicated properties; its granting was induced with fraud (dolo) by the defendant company, as the content of the indicated deed was neither read nor explained to the plaintiffs, fraud without which the plaintiffs would never have contracted, since they were made to believe that they were formalizing a loan contract for properties subject to a condition precedent, when in reality they signed a purchase-sale (compraventa) and because the tradition (tradición) did not operate.
Thus, in synthesis, the juridical transaction challenged herein is absolutely null, because in the related contract, both the essential structural element of the transaction, properly the subjective, internal, or material one: the will, and the essential functional element of the transaction, the just causa, are nonexistent. “Causa”, which is the conformity of the programmed interests with the other interests or values accepted by the legal system. Thus, the causa has relevance with respect to validity when it is lacking or is illicit. According to Article 627 subsection 3) of the Civil Code, the causa is one of the requirements for the validity of the obligation, and is an essential element, which must coexist with the consent and the object. The transaction without a causa is null, as occurs in the specific case, since there is no relationship of conformity between the interest of the loan of properties programmed in the transaction carried out between the Plaintiffs and the defendant, with the values of good faith, equity, and justice that the National Legal System protects, while at the same time it constitutes an enrichment without cause in illegitimate benefit of the defendant given the harmfulness to the Plaintiffs' patrimony of alienating the cited properties, for the irrational, pyrrhic, and derisory sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES, each of them, as fallaciously indicated in the cited public deeds. (Articles 627 subsection 3), 835 subsection 1), 1007 of the Civil Code).
In bilateral or plurilateral acts (fundamentally contracts) like the present one, the will takes the [Nombre8] of consent, which is the agreement of the wills of two or more subjects. The absence of the related will actualizes the doctrinal hypothesis of lack of will in the manifestation and the consequent lack of will in the content, by virtue of the fraud inflicted by the counterparty in the negotiation, without which the plaintiff party would never have contracted, since they were made to believe that they were formalizing a loan contract when in reality they signed a purchase-sale, as well as due to the error in which the plaintiffs were kept regarding the kind of act or contract being executed, since it was a loan of properties subject to a condition precedent, never a purchase-sale (Doctrine of Articles 627, 628, 835 subsection 1), 1007, 1008, 1015 and 1020 of the Civil Code). Every juridical transaction contains a manifestation of will; therefore, it can only be concluded by subjects who are in a situation of being able to express an independent and serious will, and to consciously dispose over their juridical relations.
It is necessary to have the corresponding capacity to act, since this is a quality recognized in subjects, from the point of view of their intellectual and volitional maturity, to validly bring a transaction into existence, that is, to consciously will and, correspondingly, to issue declarations of will. It is for this reason that the capacity to act has been considered a requirement of the will, as the will implies the consciousness of the transaction being conducted. (PÉREZ VARGAS (Víctor). Op.cit. P. 224.). In this context, the juridical figure relating to the transactional pathology by virtue of the vicissitudes of the transaction that is actualized in the case under examination is the nullity and/or absolute invalidity of the juridical transaction materialized in the cited public deeds, with respect to the alienation of the registered title of the described properties, executed between the related parties, because both essential or constitutive elements of the transaction and the functional element thereof were lacking, with the cited doctrinal and positive (legal) requirements concurring in the case under examination, so that the cited “annulment” right can be actualized in favor of the Plaintiff party (Articles 627 subsections 1) and 3), 835 subsection 1), 837, 844 of the Civil Code).
The theory of abuse of right (abuso del derecho), of great doctrinal development, tends to repress selfishness, bad faith, and any illicit motive in the exercise of the rights of individuals, in such a way and manner that the use of subjective rights does not impede the fulfillment of the function that juridical institutions seek to fulfill in the social environment where they originate; and such doctrine has been widely received in the Civil Code, with norms of very broad content, which allow the resolution of the consequences born from any illicit exercise of the mentioned rights (Arts. 20, 21 and 22). Any act or omission in a contract that, due to the intention of its author, its object, or the circumstances in which it is performed, manifestly exceeds the normal limits of the exercise of a right, causing damage to a third party or to the counterparty, will give rise to the corresponding compensation and the adoption of judicial or administrative measures that prevent the persistence of the abuse.
THIRD GROUND: OMISSION TO RESOLVE CONCERNING THE EXPRESS ACQUIESCENCE (ALLANAMIENTO) REGARDING THE SUBSIDIARY CLAIM OF THE COMPLAINT: In the appealed judgment, it was held as proven that “…VII) Through public deed 125-19 before Notary Public Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, at twelve hours fifteen minutes on April four, two thousand eighteen, [[Nombre5] ] undertakes to donate in favor of [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ], [[Nombre1] ] and [[Nombre2] ], the extension of land corresponding to pastureland of the properties registered in the public registry in the district of Alajuela under real folio number [Valor 006] , [Valor 005] and [Valor 004] (copy of the deed visible from image 43 to 46). VIII) That undertaking indicated that the donation had to be made before December 31, 2018 (copy of the deed visible from image 43 to 46)…” When answering the complaint, specifically fact eight, the defendant expressly acknowledges that my clients continue in possession of the properties in litis, and acknowledges its obligation to return them, even if it were the pastureland area.
(See answer to fact 8, second and third paragraphs). In this regard, it expressly accepts subsidiary claims one, two, and three. Despite the existence of the express acquiescence regarding those claims, the Trial Court declared the complaint without merit in all its extremes. This decision violates the provisions of Articles 40, 41, and 54 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction, as well as ordinal 506 of the Labor Code, applied supplementarily by express authorization of numeral 26 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction. Article 40 referred to states, in what is relevant: “…At the act of summons, the [Nombre7] will warn the defendant that they must answer, one by one, the facts, stating whether they acknowledge them as true or reject them as inaccurate, or if they admit them with variations or rectifications; under the warning that, if they do not do so, those facts about which they have not given a proper answer may be taken as proven…” In turn, numeral 41 states, in what is relevant: “…The defendant who is not in conformity with the terms of the complaint, or with the petitions deduced from it, will set out in their answer all the circumstances and reasons on which their denial is based, with reference, in each case, to the different facts stated in the complaint, following the same order thereof…” Those two articles clearly establish the obligation of the defendant to answer the complaint, as well as the power to acquiesce to it, either partially or totally, a thing that the defendant company expressly did regarding the first three subsidiary claims; notwithstanding, the [Nombre7] of first instance rejected the complaint in all its extremes and omitted a pronouncement regarding that acquiescence.
For its part, Article 506 of the Labor Code, applied supplementarily to this matter, indicates that: “… If the defendant party acquiesces to the claims of the plaintiff, does not opportunely answer the complaint, or has not responded to all the facts of the complaint, in the form provided in this Code, an anticipated judgment will be issued, in which those facts will be taken as true and a pronouncement will be issued on the claims deduced, provided that exceptions have not been filed which, independently of the answer, require debate in a hearing…” (The highlighting is supplied). It is clear that in the case under study, as it concerns an acquiescence regarding the subsidiary claim, an anticipated judgment could not be issued, given that it was necessary to evacuate the evidence to know about the main claim and assess its appropriateness; but if the judge considered the main claim inappropriate, unless facing procedural fraud or a prohibited motive, they had to pronounce and declare with merit the claims on which the acquiescence was given.
But that pronouncement was not made, whereby numeral 54 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction was violated, which obligates the [Nombre7] to resolve all points that have been the subject of debate. In this case, by the [Nombre7] omitting pronouncement or assessment regarding the acquiescence, we are facing what is known as Infra petita or citra petita, which is when the [Nombre7] omits to pronounce on some point of the complaint, or grants less than what was conceded by the defendant party.
FOURTH GROUND: IMPROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE UNPROVEN FACTS, AS WELL AS THE IMPROPER REVERSAL OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF: In the sentence in question, the following were taken as unproven facts: “…I) That there existed a verbal donation since the year 2013 of the lots indicated in deed 325-50. II) That Mr. [[Nombre8] ] through [[Nombre5] ] had wanted to donate more than 10,000 m2 in favor of the plaintiffs here. III) That the act of alienation of properties [Valor 006], [Valor 005] and [Valor 004] was performed by the plaintiffs with the conviction that they were making a loan of the property. IV) That the defendant [[Nombre5] ] had undertaken to return the entirety of the properties [Valor 006], [Valor 005] and [Valor 004] in favor of the plaintiffs here. V) That there existed a scheme between the notary Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, [[Nombre5] ] and [[Nombre8] ] to illegitimately dispossess the plaintiffs of the properties cited above.
None of what was previously indicated was analyzed in the appealed judgment, and hence originates the error that led the A-Quo to take the verbal donation as unproven. Continuing the analysis of the illogicality of the unproven facts, the challenged judgment states “That Mr. [[Nombre8] ] through [[Nombre5] ] had wanted to donate more than 10,000 m2 in favor of the plaintiffs here” To unfoundedly maintain such an affirmation, as the challenged sentence does, implies ignoring the character of full proof and public instrument of deed 325-50 granted before the notary public Gonzalo Alfonso Monge Corrales at nine hours on April 6, 2017, in which it was expressed that the will of [Nombre 005] S.A., represented in the person of Mr. [[Nombre8] ], was to effectively donate the quantity of land equivalent to 26,738 square meters. Thus, contrary to what the appealed judgment illegitimately maintains in unproven fact number two, there exists direct, categorical, and uncontroverted evidence that proves the real quantity of the square meters donated (26,738).
In addition to the foregoing, the defendant party never disproven the juridical effectiveness and/or validity of the referred donation deed. It has thus been demonstrated that it should have been taken as proven that [Nombre 005] S.A. donated to the plaintiffs the real quantity of twenty-six thousand seven hundred thirty-eight square meters (26,738). It can even be analyzed from another perspective, as is done below, and the same conclusion is reached: it cannot validly be taken as unproven “That Mr. [[Nombre8] ] through [[Nombre5] ] had wanted to donate more than 10,000 m2 in favor of the plaintiffs here.” It is indispensable to again indicate that this second fact that the [Nombre7] takes as unaccredited was not a fact that was debated and upon which there existed a claim from the defendant party. And as it concerns a fact not debated and without any claim, the Judge is prevented from issuing any criterion, since in accordance with numeral 54 of the Law of the Agrarian Jurisdiction, the [Nombre7] must resolve the points that have been the subject of debate. In this case, by resolving on an aspect not debated, we are facing what is known as extra petita.
It is likewise an illogicality to take as an unproven fact “That the act of alienation of properties [Valor 006], [Valor 005] and [Valor 004] was performed by the plaintiffs with the conviction that they were making a loan of the property.” To accredit the error of the A-Quo, it is necessary to make this deduction: The deeds questioned in this process by the plaintiff party indicate that the form of transfer of ownership of the properties in dispute was through a purchase-sale contract; however, it was accredited that the defendant made no payment to the plaintiffs for the purchase of the mentioned lots; it was likewise accredited that said lands have a value excessively superior to one hundred thousand colones each, since the present action was estimated in the sum of six hundred sixty million colones and the defendant did not object to the amount, that is, they acknowledged the millionaire value of the properties of interest.
Moreover, the defendant party could not even prove the derisory payment of one hundred thousand colones for each lot that the questioned deeds recite. Now then, if there was no payment, nor did a purchase-sale contract exist, which is also demonstrated by the permanence of the plaintiff party in possession under title of owners of the lots in question, the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the plaintiffs alienated the properties registered in the Public Registry of Property, District of Alajuela, registration numbers: [CED10], [CED14] , [CED6], with the conviction that they were performing a loan contract for those lands, leaving evidenced another error of the challenged sentence. The A-quo maintains as unproven fact number four “That the defendant [[Nombre5] ] had undertaken to return the entirety of the properties [Valor 006], [Valor 005] and [Valor 004] in favor of the plaintiffs here.“ It is worth asking whether if a purchase-sale contract did not exist as was demonstrated, if the plaintiffs continued in possession of the properties under title of owners for several years, if the transfer of the cited properties was due to a temporary loan of the farms, if it was argued by the plaintiff party that the cause of the transfer was covered by a supposed problem with SETENA (it effectively occurred in the same temporal space as the transfer of the lots) that the defendant had at the time, it is clear that [Nombre 005] S.A.
[Name 005] S.A. must have promised the plaintiffs the return of all the properties, and not only the pasture area, since it is contrary to the rules of logic and common sense that the plaintiffs would have returned what had been donated to them. A corollary of the foregoing is that without a purchase-sale contract, without any payment for the alienation of the aforementioned lands, there was a scheme (ardid) concocted between [Name 005] S.A. and Notary Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira to have the plaintiffs sign the mentioned deeds; it is understood that scheme (ardid) is precisely defined as the skillful action by which someone is deceived to achieve something. And it has been demonstrated that if there was no purchase-sale, there was no payment of a price, there was no transfer of the lands, the plaintiffs believed they were making a temporary loan of the lands, and that was precisely the scheme (ardid) of [Name 005] S.A. to convince the plaintiffs of the transfer of the properties at issue.
And Notary Ávalos Sequeira condoned this situation, since far from indicating that it was a temporary loan contract for the properties, he indicated that it was a sale; it has been demonstrated, then, that the following cannot be held as unproven facts: “That there was a scheme (ardid) between the notary Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, [Name 5], and [Name 8] to illegitimately dispossess the plaintiffs of the aforementioned goods.” and “That deeds 122-19, 123-19, 124-19, and 125-19 were drafted at the free will of notary Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira.” The following cannot be validly sustained as unproven facts seven and eight: “That through deceit the defendant despoiled the real property in litigation (inmuebles en litis) from the plaintiffs herein” and “That there is a defect (vicio) in the plaintiffs' consent at the time of signing the deeds of sale of the goods and the donation commitment.” Since if a purchase-sale contract did not exist as was demonstrated, if the plaintiffs continued in possession of the properties as owners for several years, if the transfer of the cited properties was due to a temporary loan of the farms, if the plaintiffs argued that the cause of the transfer was supported by a supposed problem with SETENA (which indeed occurred in the same temporal space as the transfer of the lots) that the defendant had at the time, for which they relied on the figure of authority and respect that Mr. [Name 8] provoked in the psyche of the plaintiffs, one cannot reach any other conclusion than that in the questioned legal transaction, there was a defect (vicio) in the plaintiffs' consent, who, I reiterate once more, signed the public deeds under the erroneous belief that they were entering into a temporary loan contract for properties, and it is here where the fraud (dolo) of the defendant lies, to achieve through deceit the inducement of the plaintiffs to carry out a transaction that would never have been entered into without the existence of that deceit or scheme (ardid).
The invalidity noted in the legal transaction cited so many times entails the obligation to return the thing (doctrine of Article 846 of the Civil Code), which did not occur voluntarily, hence the need for effective judicial protection, since contrary to what unproven facts nine and ten contain, which state: “IX) That economic harm exceeding the plaintiffs has been caused. X) That moral harm (daño moral) has been caused to the plaintiffs.” The land-registry dispossession suffered by the plaintiffs of the properties at issue translates into extremely serious economic harm, and as a direct consequence thereof, affliction, anguish, anxiety, frustration, etcetera, in summary, extremely serious and very great moral harm (daño moral) to the plaintiffs. In conclusion, holding the aforementioned as a list of unproven facts, without having conducted the analysis outlined in this appeal, translates into a flagrant violation of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, which causes the nullity of the judgment as the defects of lack of reasoning (fundamentación) and illegitimate reasoning (fundamentación ilegítima) are actualized, as extensively indicated.
At this point, it is also necessary to insist that the defendant, despite alleging supposed acts that made the fulfillment of the contracted obligation impossible, did not credit that impeditive fact in any way, as is their obligation, as disposed by numerals 477 of the Labor Code and 41.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied supplementarily in this matter. This obligated a declaration in favor of the present claim in all its aspects; however, the Court (Tribunal) of first instance, by improperly evaluating the evidence and failing to apply the legal precepts indicated above, declared the present action without merit in all its aspects. FIFTH GROUND: REGARDING THE IMPROPER ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE RULES OF LOGIC, EXPERIENCE, AND COMMON SENSE: When the Judge refers in Considerando (Recital) fifth “REGARDING THE LEGAL TRANSACTION HEREIN CHALLENGED,” he indicates that “…This derives in another of the grounds for challenging the notarial act, according to which the parties decided to sign without having read or participated in the act they were signing; this judge cannot explain how, of four signatory persons (on the part of the plaintiffs) and four signed public deeds, none of the plaintiffs wanted to read the act they were signing (it is understood that they say the notary acted irregularly, but rather the irregularity of the action should have awakened in the plaintiffs suspicion of the act 'harmful' to their interests); this is so because it was not demonstrated in the process that the plaintiffs have diminished volitional capacities or that for the act they suffered a grave diminishment thereof; it is not possible that four persons of legal age with full capacity to act did not see the 'bad intentions' of being stripped of their real property as they thus claim.
Now, the plaintiffs say they suspected nothing because of the extreme trust, appreciation, and well-known integrity of Mr. [Name 8] towards them; the strange thing is that it is denoted from deed 350-25 executed before Public Notary Gonzalo Monge, that the plaintiffs were not united by that sentiment to allow, at the time of making the donation of the lots in litigation (en litis) in their favor, a non-existent piece of data to be inserted in the same (extraordinary general assembly held by [Name 005] S.A. at eighteen hours on April first, two thousand seventeen) to achieve their end and going to the detriment of the interests of [Name 005] S.A., for which reason this judge does not consider it possible, moreover, that there is no evidence supporting this statement by the plaintiffs, that they let themselves be led by complacency to the will of Mr. [Name 8]; it bears noting at this point that the testimony of Mr. [Name 14] is not acceptable to this judge, not because it lacks credibility, but because he is a hearsay witness (testigo de referencia) who only mentions facts that are not personally known to him, but were mostly narrated to him by plaintiff [Name 3], so in this case he is dismissed as a witness capable of giving veracity to the facts narrated by the plaintiffs…” The reasoning transcribed above does not withstand analysis according to logic and common sense; let us see: it is affirmed that the challenged deeds were not read by the plaintiffs for two reasons, 1) the belief that they were signing a temporary loan contract for properties, as already explained, and 2) that they would never be deceived by the then legal representative of the defendant [Name 8], as indeed occurred; therefore, analyzing whether the plaintiffs had diminished volitional capacities, as the judgment does, lacks interest (that is not the defect (vicio) of consent being alleged).
In line with the previously stated, the plaintiffs' affirmation that the Notary acted irregularly becomes actualized at the moment of filing the present claim; never ever is it affirmed that my clients knew at the time of the execution of the deeds at issue that the executing Notary was acting irregularly at that moment, as the lower court judge (A-Quo) erroneously analyzes. If at the moment the deeds were signed my principals had known of the irregular action of the Notary, they would never have signed them. Now, in his failed attempt to distort the extreme trust, appreciation, and integrity that the plaintiffs considered in the then legal representative of the defendant corporation, the lower court judge (A-Quo) makes them responsible for having supposedly allowed a non-existent piece of data to be inserted in Deed Number CED15 executed before Notary Gonzalo Monge Corrales, so that the lots in question would be donated to my clients, attributing to them an alien responsibility.
The one who had to attest to the minutes of the Shareholders’ Assembly of [Name 005] S.A. was the Public Notary, and not the appearing parties. And in the same sense, its existence was the responsibility of Mr. [Name 8], but never the plaintiffs herein; what is more, this indication is unequivocal in demonstrating that the plaintiffs do not read or review the legal acts in which Mr. [Name 8] is involved; proof of this is that [Name 14] testified regarding the influence, persuasion, and dominion over the will that Mr. [Name 8] has over the plaintiffs. Regarding what is the subject of challenge in this ground, the attacked decision continues to indicate: “The plaintiffs allege that the contract they signed, in their intention, was a loan of lands and not a sale; again, the lack of evidence showing that the plaintiffs' conviction was not to sell generates the impossibility of accrediting this fact; absolutely nothing indicates that the plaintiffs did not want to sell, the deed is executed, signed by four persons with their volitional capacities, there were three acts of sale and then one of donation commitment; it is not possible for this judge to think that after so many concatenated acts of transfer of ownership, they were not clear about what they were doing…” It is not true that there is a lack of evidence as the lower court judge (A-Quo) maintains in his reasoning; what exists is an improper analysis of the evidence in contravention of the rules of logic, experience, and common sense.
Let us see: The circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria) in this matter is categorical, unequivocal, and only allows reaching one conclusion: the plaintiffs signed the questioned deeds under the belief that they were signing a temporary loan of lands; otherwise, how can one explain that they did not receive a single colón for a supposed sale, they were never displaced from possession of the properties in question, they continued working the said land as an agricultural enterprise; therefore, the lower court judge (A-Quo) reasons to the detriment of what Article 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria orders him, and his judgment is not validly sustained, therefore, the procedural sanction of its nullity is appropriate. The appealed judgment erroneously maintains that: “As a last point of nullity, the plaintiffs allege that the transfers were made for a miniscule, paltry, and derisory sum, and analyzing the records, they are correct that the sum of one hundred thousand colones does not match the reality of the properties, but the genesis of that amount does not correspond to the deeds of sale, but to the estimate given to each lot in the act that gives legal origin to the farms [Value 006], [Value 005], and [Value 004], that is, to donation deed 350-25, where they were estimated at one hundred thousand colones, and it is reproachable that for the purposes of evading the tax authorities, persons in association with notaries stipulate derisory sums, but that is not a ground for their nullity.
Now, whether payment was made or not is not proper to the topic of discussion as the forced execution thereof is not being discussed, but rather their nullity.” The reasoning of the lower court judge (A-Quo) is not only illegitimate but does not resolve the theory of the case of my clients, as detailed below: In the questioned deeds, it was falsely inserted that it was a pure and simple purchase-sale, when that is not true, since it was a loan contract for properties; it was convincingly demonstrated that NO PAYMENT OCCURRED, and since payment is an essential element of the legal transaction of purchase-sale, in the absence of this essential requirement, said contract CANNOT be held as valid and effective. Similarly, it was falsely inserted that the price of the supposed purchase-sale of each of those properties was the sum of one hundred thousand colones, a sum that is not only paltry, derisory, removed from reality; A PURCHASE-SALE NEVER EXISTED, so NO PAYMENT OF ANY PRICE OCCURRED.
But essentially, there never was a will by either of the parties to carry out that supposed purchase-sale contract; the foregoing is accredited by the admission by a party (prueba de declaración de parte) of the legal representative of the defendant, who categorically affirmed that [Name 005] never paid any price for the lots subject to this litigation (litis), and that it was NEVER the will of the defendant nor of the plaintiffs to carry out a purchase-sale contract. None of the foregoing was analyzed in the appealed judgment, and therefore the claimed defect is actualized. SIXTH GROUND: REGARDING THE AWARD OF COSTS, FAILURE TO ASSESS THE PLAINTIFFS' GOOD FAITH IN LITIGATING: Regarding the awarding of costs, based on ordinal 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the plaintiffs' good faith (buena fe) in litigating is evident; note that their main claim concerns an obligation the party had to fulfill: the donation before December 31, 2018 (copy of deed visible from image 43 to 46).
Without having to carry out a deep analysis, it is evident and manifest that the defendant did not fulfill that obligation. And that this is sufficient to consider the plaintiffs as litigants in good faith (buena fe). But there are also sufficient elements for the plaintiffs to be considered as litigants in good faith (buena fe): the acquiescence (allanamiento) that the defendant makes regarding their subsidiary claims, which perfectly allows considering the good faith (buena fe) that the plaintiffs have in resorting to this declarative proceeding in protection of their rights. Sufficient reason so that, in accordance with Article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the plaintiffs be exonerated from the payment of costs." (See Virtual Desktop of the Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, at [Dirección2], file of 2/18/21 at 8:31:47 a.m.).-
The appellant is not correct. Material pleas (excepciones materiales), such as lack of right (falta de derecho), lack of active and passive standing to be sued (falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva), and lack of current interest (falta de interés actual), can be decreed ex officio (de oficio), as they examine the substantive presuppositions of every action. Therefore, there is no nullity for their ex officio pronouncement (pronunciamiento oficioso), nor a state of defenselessness (indefensión) because of it. The first concomitant ground of nullity is rejected.-
X.REGARDING THE SECOND CONCOMITANT GROUND OF NULLITY RELATING TO THE OMISSION TO RULE ON THE DEFENDANT'S ACQUIESCENCE (ALLANAMIENTO) TO THE PLAINTIFF'S SUBSIDIARY CLAIMS: The grievance is receivable. The claim presents both primary and subsidiary claims. See Virtual Desktop of the Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, in the Written Submissions Folder (Bandeja de Escritos), files of 1/7/19 at 7:32:49 a.m., images from [Dirección1], and clarification of claims 1/10/19 at 2:48:21 p.m.). For his part, the defendant negatively answered the action brought against him, requested the claim be declared without merit, and expressed his acquiescence (allanamiento) to the subsidiary claims (see Virtual Desktop of the Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, in the Written Submissions Folder (Bandeja de Escritos), files of 2/13/19 at 3:09:00 p.m.). The challenged judgment rejects both the primary and subsidiary claims, but does not take into account or analyze whether the defendant's acquiescence (allanamiento) to the first, second, and third claims proceeds or not.
The appellant even filed a request for clarification and addition on this point in a brief incorporated on 02/01/2021, and it was rejected without reasoning in a resolution at seven hours thirty minutes on February ninth, two thousand twenty-one: "IT IS RESOLVED: The aforementioned request is rejected, as this authority considers there is no omitted aspect to be resolved regarding the 'Por tanto' (operative part) of the judgment." (Associated documents folder 02/09/2021 09:30). This implies that the judgment is absolutely null due to incongruence (incongruencia) and lack of reasoning (fundamentación), in infraction of Article 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria; since the acquiescence (allanamiento) to said subsidiary claims was not analyzed or resolved, violating due process (debido proceso). On this aspect, the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) has stated: "VI.- Incongruence (incongruencia), as a ground for cassation (casación) due to form, as a procedural defect (vicio de actividad), occurs, as this Chamber has said repeatedly, when the judgment: a) does not coincide with what was requested by the parties (extra petita) b) does not resolve any of the claims opportunely raised (mínima petitta); c) contains contradictory provisions.
Through this, the aim is to guarantee order, certainty, balance, and the right of defense of each of the parties within the judicial process. If the ruling is accused of being incongruent (incongruente), it is necessary to identify the defect (vicio) and invoke as violated numerals 99 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), as these impose the obligation to resolve in accordance with the claims opportunely raised by the parties." (Judgment No. 727 of 11:35 hours on October 29, 2003, of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia)). "VII. Regarding canon 155 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), the violation of which is blamed, this Chamber has repeatedly resolved that its transgression only allows entry to the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) when it affects the incongruence (incongruencia). In this regard, consult, among others, judgment number 88 of 15 hours 15 minutes on August 9, 1996.
Consequently, the appeal will be analyzed for procedural reasons. The incongruence (incongruencia) lies in the lack of relationship between what was requested by the parties, not throughout the process, but in their statements of claim or counterclaim as in their respective answers, and what was resolved in the ruling, not because the latter decides something different from what was desired by the litigants, but because a pronouncement on some point submitted to debate is omitted, or more than what was requested is granted, or because what was resolved does not correspond with what was requested, or because it contains contradictory provisions." (Judgment No. 728 of 11:40 hours on October 29, 2003, of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia)). Consequently, the concomitant nullity is upheld, and the appealed resolution is annulled.-
THEREFORE (POR TANTO) The concomitant nullity is upheld, and the appealed resolution is annulled.- *JMIVPSHB2W861* [Name 15] - JUDGE (JUEZ/A DECISOR/A) *TNE6PMU1BZG61* [Name 16] - JUDGE (JUEZ/A DECISOR/A) *U8C47GYENUUS61* [Name 17] - JUDGE (JUEZ/A DECISOR/A) It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 09-05-2026 00:18:27.
VOTO N° 1058-F-21 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las quince horas cincuenta y dos minutos del tres de noviembre de dos mil veintiuno.- PROCESO ORDINARIO interpuesto por [[Nombre1] ] , mayor, soltera, estudiante, célula de identidad número [...]; [[Nombre2] ] , mayor, soltera, chef, cédula de identidad número [...]; [[Nombre3] ] , mayor, casado, agricultor, cédula de identidad número [CED1 ]; y [[Nombre4] ] , mayor, casada, ama de casa, cédula de identidad número [...], todos vecinos de Alajuela; contra [[Nombre5] ] SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica [CED2 ], representada por su presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, [[Nombre6] ], mayor, casado, ganadero, vecino de Alajuela, cédula de identidad número [CED3 ]. Actúan como apoderados especiales judiciales: de la parte actora, el licenciado Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, carné doce mil dieciséis; y de la entidad demandada el letrado Neftalí Madrigal Chaverri, colegiado cinco mil seiscientos noventa y siete. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela.- Redacta el [Nombre7] Picado Vargas; y
CONSIDERANDO:
I.La parte actora planteó demanda ordinaria, estimada en la suma de seiscientos sesenta millones de colones para que en sentencia se declare: 1.A- Se declare que dada la longeva relación de amistad, confianza y lazos familiares que existían entre Don [[Nombre8] ] , tanto a título personal como en su otra condición de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de [Nombre 005] S.A., y los actores de este proceso, realizaron verbalmente la siguiente negociación: Los actores, para el día 4 de abril del año 2018, eran propietarios registrales y poseedores de 3 inmuebles e la Provincia de Alajuela, números: A) [Valor 004] . B) [Valor 005]. C) [Valor 006]. 1.B- Que con anterioridad al 4 de abril del año 2018, [[Nombre6] ] , llamó y visitó a los actores a su casa de habitación, junto con su padre adoptivo, [[Nombre8] ] , para decirles que DON [[Nombre8] ], tenía un gravísimo y serio problema judicial con el SETENA, que era urgente entregarle a Setena una propiedad con montaña para poder solucionar el grave asunto judicial que estaban afrontando, que por favor les imploraba, que le regresaran la pone de montaña que posee los terrenos que la compañía demandada les había donado. 1.C- Que se declare que los actores traspasaron registralmente los inmuebles de la Provincia de Alajuela, números: A) [Valor 004] .
B.- Escritura número: 123-19, otorgada a las 11:00 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 140 vuelto y 141 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consignó falsamente que se trata de una compra venta del inmueble Partido de Alajuela número: [Valor 005] , en la cual los actores [[Nombre3] ] y [[Nombre4] ], lo cual es falso y así se dudara, le vendieron a la sociedad demandada por la irrisoria e ínfima suma de cien mil colones el inmueble dicho, escritura que quedó debidamente inscrita en favor de la demandada en el Registro Público Propiedad Inmueble, al tomo 2018, asiento [Valor 010], el día 119 de abril del año 2018, la cual se declara nula por ausencia de causa y voluntad. C- La escritura número: 124-19, otorgada a las 11:30 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 141 vuelto y 142 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consignó falsamente que se trata de una compra venta del inmueble Partido de Alajuela número: [Valor 006], en la cual las actoras [[Nombre1] ], y [[Nombre2] ], le vendieron a la sociedad demandada por la irrisoria e ínfima suma de cien mil colones el inmueble dicho, escritura que quedó debidamente inscrita en favor de la demandada en el Registro Público Propiedad Inmueble, al tomo 2018, asiento [Valor 008], el día 16 de abril del año 2018, Ya cual se declara nula por ausencia de causa y voluntad.
D.- La escritura número: 125-19, otorgada a las 12:15 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 142 frente y vuelto, y 143 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consignó falsamente que [[Nombre5] ] es propietaria de 3 inmuebles de la Provincia de Alajuela, números: A) [Valor 004] . B) [Valor 004]..C) [Valor 006], lo cual ES FALSO, son los actores los verdaderos y actuales propietarios de dichos inmuebles, y la causa real de los traspasos de los inmueble citados fue un contrato de préstamo, por lo tanto, nunca existió contrato de compra venta, y la voluntad de los actores se materializó en los referidos instrumentos públicos, en la creen da que si la compañía demandada, lograba solucionar el problema con Setena de forma diversa, les devolverían los inmuebles que los actores le estaban prestando a la compañía demandada. Que aún y cuando se indicó en el citado instrumento público que se devolvería a los actores, al menos, el área de terreno que corresponde a potrero, a más tardar el 31 de diciembre del año 2018, ello NO SUCEDIÓ , a pesar de los múltiples requerimientos que se le hicieron a la compañía demandada en ese sentido por parte de los actores, la compañía demanda (sic) INCUMPLIÓ sin justificación alguna, a lo que contractualmente se obligaron.
Todas las falsedades instrumentales descritas, fueron realizadas por la compañía demandada, con la única intención de despojar registralmente a los actores de los inmuebles citados, ya que a pesar de haberse efectuado los traspasos en los términos indicados, los actores continúan ejerciendo la posesión de todos los inmuebles en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y a título de dueños y las actividades agropecuarias las continuaron ejecutando sin ninguna limitación.
II.Por su parte el demandado contestó negativamente la acción instaurada en su contra, solicitó se declare sin lugar la demanda y manifestó su allanamiento a las pretensionmes subsidiarias, (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, en Bandeja de Escritos archivos del 13/2/19 de las 3:09:00 p.m.).-
III.El [Nombre7] William Arburola Castillo, del Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, en sentencia Nº 04-2021 de las trece horas cincuenta y nueve minutos del dieciocho de enero de dos mil veintiuno, resolvió: “POR TANTO : De conformidad con las citas legales expuestas, doctrina transcrita y argumentos de fondo expuestos, se establece la existencia de una falta de derecho de la demanda y SE DECLARA SIN LUGAR EN TODOS LOS EXTREMOS la demanda interpuesta por [[Nombre1] ], [[Nombre2] ], [[Nombre3] ] y [[Nombre4] ], contra; [[Nombre5] ] SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, representada por [[Nombre6] ] . Se condena a los actores de este proceso al pago de ambas costas del mismo en favor del demandado," (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, en Documentos Asociados, archivo del 18/1/21 de las 13:59:56 p.m.).-
IV.El licenciado Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de los actores, interpuso recurso de apelación con indicación expresa de las razones en que se apoyaron para refutar la tesis del juzgado de instancia, (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, en Bandeja de Escritos, archivo del 18/2/21 de las 8:31:47 a.m.).-
V.En la substanciación del proceso no se han observado las prescripciones legales, y se nota la existencia de errores u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo.-
VIII.El licenciado Néstor Alfredo Gamboa Salazar, en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de los actores, interpuso recurso de apelación con nulidad concomitante contra dicha resolución, manifestando lo siguiente: AGRAVIOS: "PRIMER MOTIVO: FALTA DE VALORACION RESPETO DEL ALLANAMIENTO TÁCITO AL NO OPONER EXCEPCIONES: En relación a la legitimación activa y pasiva, en la sentencia recurrida se indicó: “…Todo juzgador debe conocer la legitimación activa, pasiva y el derecho de los procesos, en este caso considera que la legitimación de las partes tanto de forma activa como pasiva deriva de la relación contractual que existió entre los mismos, pero lo que adolece el proceso para los actores es la falta de derecho, por cuanto quedo harto demostrado que no llevan razón en sus alegatos y que los mismos no sufrieron ningún menoscabo a sus intereses patrimoniales por cuanto todos los actos que se producieron fue con su pleno consentimiento y capacidad volitiva.
Así las cosas lo que corresponde es declarar que existe una falta de derecho, e indicar que se declara sin lugar la demanda presentada por los actores en contra de la demandada tanto en sus pretensiones principales como subsidiarias..” Ese pronunciamiento se hizo de oficio, dado que la parte demandada no interpuso ningún tipo de excepción. De conformidad con el principio dispositivo, deja de lado la A-Quo que el [Nombre7] no puede solventar las falencias de las partes, y menos aún, coadyudar a la parte demandada en el litigio, ayudándole a subsanar sus errores procesales, y asumiendo de oficio que la parte demandada interpuso las excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, cuando ello no ocurrió; no puede el A-Quo suplir la inercia procesal de la parte demandada, porque ello lesiona no sólo el principio dispositivo, sino también el principio de objetividad, el principio de imparcialidad, y la igualdad entre las partes.
Ahora bien, es de suma importancia establecer cuál es la importancia de interponer excepciones a la demanda, y determinar a ciencia cierta para qué sirven. En otras palabras, es indispensable conocer la naturaleza de las mismas, sabiendo su concepto y su finalidad. Los operadores del derecho conocemos que el término “excepción” es un vocablo derivado del latín exceptio, excepción. La exceptio se originó en la etapa del “proceso por fórmulas” del derecho romano como un medio de defensa del demandado; consistía en una cláusula que el magistrado, a petición del demandado, insertaba en la fórmula para que el juez, si resultaban probadas las circunstancias de hecho alegadas por el demandado, absolviera a éste, aun cuando se consideraba fundada la intentio del actor. La posición de la exceptio en la fórmula era entre la intentio y la condemnatio. El doctor Arellano García, define la excepción como el derecho subjetivo que posee la persona física o moral que tiene el carácter de demandada o de contrademandada en un proceso, frente al juzgador y frente a la parte actora o reconviniente en su caso, para contradecir lo establecido por el actor en la demanda o lo determinado por el reconviniente en la contrademanda y, cuyo objeto es detener el proceso o bien obtener sentencia favorable en forma parcial o total.
([Nombre9] , Carlos. Derecho procesal civil, 4ª ed., México, Porrúa, 1997). De acuerdo con la definición y la naturaleza jurídica de la excepción, el demandado tiene que interponer excepciones para poder combatir los hechos y la pretensión de la demanda; de no hacerlo, se ve imposibilitado de inhibir la acción entablada en su contra, en cuyo caso, la demanda debe ser declarada con lugar en todos sus extremos. En el caso que nos ocupa, los demandados no interpusieron ningún tipo de acción procesal ni sustantiva (excepciones), por lo que ante tal insuficiencia procesal debió el A-Quo de declarar con lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda; el anterior razonamiento cobra asidero en el numeral 41 de la ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, el cual establece que: “…El accionado que no estuviere conforme con los términos de la demanda, o con las peticiones que de ellas se deducen, expondrá en su contestación todas las circunstancias y razones en que se funda su negativa, con referencia, en cada caso, a los distintos hechos enunciados en la demanda, siguiendo el mismo orden de ésta.
Igualmente, la parte demandada o reconvenida deberá oponer, en el mismo acto de la contestación o réplica, todas las excepciones que tenga a su favor, salvo lo previsto en el inciso b) del artículo 16…” De la anterior norma se colige la obligatoriedad del demandado de interponer excepciones, puesto que la contestación negativa de la demanda sin la interposición de excepciones, equivale a una contestación defectuosa sin fuerza legal para oponerse válidamente a las pretensiones del actor. Ese mismo criterio sigue la legislación de Trabajo en su artículo 469, vigente para el momento de la interposición de la presente acción. Y en igual sentido se establece en el Código Procesal Civil, tanto en el vigente actualmente como en el anterior. Así, el antiguo Código Procesal Civil, en sus artículos 298 y 306 regulaban la necesidad de oponer las excepciones previas y las de fondo respectivamente. El Código Procesal Civil vigente, también regula en su ordinal 37.2 la obligación de interponer las excepciones correspondientes.
Ese breve análisis de las regulaciones en materia Laboral y Civil, que son legislaciones e aplicación supletoria en la materia agraria, se efectúa con el ánimo de establecer la indispensabilidad de interponer excepciones a la demanda y que la consecuencia de no hacerlo, es tener por allanada de forma tácita la demanda. Es claro que las tres materias referidas, establecen la obligación de la parte de demandada de interponer las excepciones que considere oportunas al contestar la demanda, ello no puede bajo ninguna óptica, considerarse como una facultad de la parte, sino que es una obligación procesal. Nótese que el numeral 41 de la ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria establece que: “…La parte demandada o reconvenida deberá oponer, en el mismo acto de la contestación o réplica, todas las excepciones que tenga a su favor…” (La negrita y el subrayado son suplidos) Ese deber es una imposición del legislador, que de no acatarse, debe ser sancionado con no tener por hecha la oposición, debiéndose declarar con lugar la demanda.
El Tribunal Agrario también ha sostenido la obligación de interponer excepciones y para ello ha analizado el momento procesal oportuno para tales efectos, así, en el voto N° 624-F-2020, dictado a las once horas y cincuenta y siete minutos del diez de julio de dos mil veinte, en lo que interesa resolvió: “…De la lectura de la contestación no se denota que hubiera reclamado la extinción de la acción por prescripción negativa, ni antes de que se emitiera sentencia. La Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establece respecto a las excepciones procesales y de fondo en el artículo 41, se deben oponer en el acto de contestación de la demanda o contrademanda, todas las que tenga a su favor, salvo lo previsto en el inciso b) del artículo 16 (excepción de incompetencia con plazo propio). El ordinal 44 ibídem regula las defensas del proceso agrario y mezcla en el listado, las de tipo procesal y de fondo; en cuenta la de prescripción.
Citando esa norma, que deben presentarse al contestar la acción o en la réplica, salvo la de cosa juzgada que podría presentarse en cualquier estado del juicio. Como se denota, esa norma procesal especial no contiene regulación respecto a la oportunidad procesal posterior a la ahí señalada para interponer la excepción de prescripción negativa. Por lo que ha de acudirse como fuente supletoria al vigente Código de Trabajo que establece un nuevo régimen procesal respecto a este tema. El artículo 503 ibídem prescribe: "Serán de previa resolución las siguientes excepciones: 1.- Compromiso arbitral. 2.- Falta de competencia. 3.- Falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa, cuando la parte hubiera optado por ese trámite. 4.- Falta de capacidad de la parte, inexistencia o insuficiencia de la representación. 5.- Existencia de defectos en el escrito de demanda o contrademanda que a juicio de la parte que la interpone impiden verter pronunciamiento válido sobre el fondo. 6.- Litispendencia. 7.- Indebida acumulación de pretensiones. 8.- Improcedencia del proceso elegido. 9.- Indebida integración de la litis.
La excepción de incompetencia deberá ser resuelta antes de la etapa de audiencias y se estará a lo dispuesto en la sección III del capítulo primero de este título. Las otras excepciones previas se reservarán para ser conocidas en la audiencia preliminar o en la fase preliminar de ese acto procesal en los procesos de única audiencia, con evacuación de las pruebas que las respalden. La improcedencia de la vía escogida podrá apreciarse también de oficio, para efectos de orientar la tramitación del proceso." Por su parte, respecto a la oportunidad procesal para interponer defensas, el artículo 504 del código del rito laboral señala: "Si bien todas las excepciones materiales pueden oponerse hasta en la contestación de la demanda o contrademanda, las de transacción y prescripción podrán alegarse hasta en la fase preliminar de la audiencia en los procesos de única audiencia. En este caso, serán sustanciadas sumariamente en ese mismo acto.
También podrán oponerse en esa misma oportunidad otras excepciones materiales, cuando los hechos en que se funden hubieran ocurrido con posterioridad a la contestación o hubieran llegado a conocimiento de la parte después del plazo para contestar. Esas mismas excepciones podrán oponerse en la audiencia de juicio, cuando los hechos que las sustentan se hubieran dado o consolidado con posterioridad a la audiencia preliminar. Las excepciones materiales de cosa juzgada, transacción y las excepciones de caducidad, autorizadas expresamente por el ordenamiento sustantivo, podrán ser alegadas hasta la audiencia complementaria o de juicio, con el fin de evitar la promulgación de sentencias contradictorias.". Entiende así este Tribunal, con fundamento en el artículo 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, que con la entrada en vigencia del nuevo código del rito procesal, se estableció un límite temporal y procesal para interponer la excepción de prescripción negativa.
Dado que de conformidad con las normas citadas, se oponen las excepciones en la contestación de demanda o contrademanda, o bien la de transacción y prescripción, hasta en la fase preliminar de la audiencia de procesos de única audiencia. Es decir, debió haber sido alegada antes de la emisión de la sentencia de primera instancia en el caso en cuestión y dentro de la audiencia que juicio que se hubiera celebrado. En el subjúdice se interpone cuando ya se había emitido el fallo de fondo y con el recurso de apelación. Es necesario reseñar, que antes de la entrada en vigencia del Código de Trabajo Ley 9343, la norma procesal laboral no regulaba nada al respecto, y en los procesos agrarios se aplicaba el Código Procesal Civil de 1989 (derogado actualmente). En donde su artículo 298 en relación con el ordinal 307, establecía la potestad de oponerse la excepción de cosa juzgada, transacción, prescripción y caducidad en cualquier estado del proceso, antes de dictarse la sentencia de segunda instancia.
Defensas privilegiadas que por una cuestión de interés público público y a fin de evitar sentencias contradictorias se les otorgaba ese trato diferenciado. Con la entrada en vigencia del nuevo Código Procesal Civil, se modifica lo anterior y se excluye la excepción de prescripción de este grupo, debido a que no es declarable de oficio y por tanto depende de su invocación, so pena de ser renunciable tácita o expresamente. Filosofía procesal que inspiran los modernos códigos procesales, en cuenta el laboral en virtud de las regulaciones transcritas supra. Cabe acotar que la doctrina nacional al respecto expone: "El código mantiene la posibilidad de que en procesos ordinarios, las excepciones de cosa juzgada, transacción, y caducidad se formulen hasta antes de que inicie la alegación de conclusiones. Estas excepciones se encuentran entre las que el código anterior denominaba privilegiadas, excepciones respecto de las cuales existe un marcado interés público.
En cuanto a las de cosa juzgada y transacción, tienen como finalidad evitar sentencias contradictorias o lo que es lo mismo, soluciones contradictorias y economía procesal. Y en lo que respecta a la caducidad, se justifica que las posibilidades de su alegación sean amplias, porque la caducidad se puede declarar de oficio y no es susceptible de interrupción. Quienes estuvimos acostumbrados a las que el código anterior denominaba excepciones privilegiadas, notaremos que entre esas excepciones, que enumera el nuevo código, no se encuentra la de prescripción. La razón es clara, las excepciones de cosa juzgada, transacción y caducidad, tienen como efecto la extinción del proceso por una causa independiente de la voluntad de los litigantes. Recordemos que la caducidad no es susceptible de interrupción y es declarable de oficio. La prescripción sí depende de la voluntad de los litigantes y como consecuencia, el demandado debió alegarla al contestar.
Si no lo hizo, renunció a los beneficios de ese Instituto, incluso, se puede decir, que renunció a invocar está causal de extinción de las obligaciones, para asumir su deber de cumplimiento. Pero existe otra razón por la que no se incluyó entre las que pueden interponerse casi terminando el proceso y es que la prescripción puede dar lugar a una amplia discusión en cuanto a cuestiones de interrupción, lo que no es conveniente, en este estado del proceso, para la celeridad del procedimiento y para hacer realidad el principio de justicia pronta y cumplida “ (López González Jorge Alberto. Curso de Derecho Procesal Civil Costarricense. Editorial Edinexo. I edición 2017, páginas 246 y 247) (la negrita no corresponde a su original). Resulta atinado citar para mayor abundamiento que esa misma filosofía procesal se comparte en el Código Procesal Agraria que entraría en vigencia a partir del mes de febrero del año 2021.
Aunado a lo anterior, por los motivos expuestos, estima esta Cámara que los ordinales 503 y 504 del Código de Trabajo y los ordinales 37.1, 37.2, y 37.3 del Código Procesal Civil derogaron tácitamente el artículo 851 del Código Civil que regulaba respecto a la renuncia tácita de la prescripción, que resultaba aplicable por la no oposición antes de la sentencia firme. Norma procesal incluida en un código de fondo. Por lo que el nuevo Código de Trabajo, aplicado supletoriamente, al regular la oportunidad procesal para invocar la prescripción como defensa y el procedimiento, deroga a esa norma del Código Civil por ser especial, de naturaleza procesal y posterior en su emisión…” En el caso bajo estudio, el Juzgador de instancia omitió realizar el análisis por la no oposición de excepciones, y en su lugar, como ya se indicó, suplió de oficio esa obligación procesal de la parte, lo cual le otorga una ventaja procesal indebida a la parte demandada, siendo que si el Tribunal de primera instancia no mantiene la igualdad de las partes irrespetando el debido proceso, ello le provoca indefensión a mis representados.
En esta inteligencia, el numeral 42 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria prevé que de las excepciones interpuestas se tenga que dar audiencia, ello es así, para resguardar el derecho de defensa y el debido proceso en su modalidad de equilibrio procesal, pero, si la parte demandada no interpone excepciones y el Juzgador de instancia de oficio procede -como ocurre en el caso concreto-, a emitir pronunciamiento en sentencia sobre la falta de derecho y la falta de legitimación (que son excepciones) violenta el principio de igualdad, pues nótese que no pudieron mis representados atacar esas excepciones de conformidad con lo normado por el artículo 42 de referencia. En síntesis, la contestación negativa de la presente demanda, sin la interposición de excepciones de fondo como lo es la falta de derecho, se traduce en la inobservancia de un deber legal expresamente previsto en la ley, omisión que provoca una situación análoga a un allanamiento tácito de la demanda, es decir, el A-Quo no podía analizar la contestación negativa de la presente demanda, si en esta no se interpusieron excepciones, consecuentemente la demanda debió declararse con lugar por ese yerro procesal de la parte demandada.
Si para que se declare con lugar la prescripción es necesario interponer expresamente la excepción, bajo los principios de igualdad ante la ley y de razonabilidad, también es indispensable que para resolver sobe la legitimación activa y pasiva, la parte deba interponer las excepciones pertinentes, de lo contrario, se violenta flagrantemente el numeral 33 de la Carta Magna patria. SEGUNDO MOTIVO: INDEBIDA VALORACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA: En la sentencia recurrida, se tuvieron por demostrados los siguientes hechos: “…I) Mediante escritura pública 325-50 otorgada ante el notario público Gonzalo Alfonso Monge Corrales a las nueve horas del 06 de abril del año 2017, al Sociedad [[Nombre5] ] representada por [[Nombre8] ] segrega y dona: en favor de [[Nombre3] ] un lote cuya medida es de 5139 m2 con plano catastrado [Valor 012], en favor de [[Nombre3] ] y [[Nombre4] ] un lote cuya medida es de 10.000 m2 con plano catastrado [Valor 013], en favor de [[Nombre10] ] y [[Nombre11] ] un lote cuya medida es de 5000 m2 con plano catastrado [Valor 014] y en favor de [[Nombre2] ] y [[Nombre12] ] un lote cuya medida es de 6599 m2 con plano catastrado [Valor 015] (testimonio de escritura visible de imagen 17 a 20 del expediente digital visualizado como archivo en formato pdf en orden ascendente).
No existe controversia al respecto y ese documento público es completamente válido, y tiene carácter de plena prueba. Con esa prueba quedó claramente acreditada la voluntad del señor [[Nombre8] ] de donar a favor de la familia [[Nombre2] ], los inmuebles en cuestión. Sobre ese extremo la parte accionada no efectuó pretensión alguna, de manera que cuando el señor [Nombre7] emite valoraciones y consideraciones sobre la misma, está haciendo una indebida valoración de la prueba, a la vez que resuelve sobre aspectos que no son el objeto del proceso. Si la parte demandada está inconforme sobre la forma en que se realizó ese documento público, debió plantear una acción judicial, pero mientras esa acción no exista, el señor [Nombre7] está imposibilitado para pronunciarse sobre la supuesta ineficacia y menos aún atacar dicha prueba con fundamento en razonamientos subjetivos, puesto que la eficacia de dicho documento público al día de hoy es plena, no ha sido declarado falso u ineficaz, ergo, nos puede atacar su validez ni su eficacia jurídica como lo hace el A-Quo con un fundamento es argumentos subjetivos.
Lo que es real, cierto y verdadero, es que ese documento público y auténtico al día de hoy nadie lo ha objetado, por lo que tiene plena eficacia y validez y su valor probatorio es absoluto. Valorar como lo hizo el señor juzgador respecto de tal escritura pública, emitiendo un criterio sobre su posible invalidez, violenta el ordinal 54 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, así como los más elementales principios de la seguridad jurídica. Causando con ello violación al derecho de defensa y del debido proceso respecto de los actores. Pero también, la parte demandada al contestar el hecho primero de la demanda, aceptó la validez de ese instrumento público, sin que aportara prueba alguna que desvirtuará el carácter de plena prueba de dicho documento público, dada su aceptación expresa, por lo tanto los cuestionamiento del A-Quo en torno a tal instrumento público violentan las reglas del análisis de la prueba.
Respecto de los hechos probados número IV, V y VI, en los que refiere a que mediante escrituras pública 124-19 ante el Notario Público Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, de las once horas treinta minutos del cuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho, [[Nombre1] ] y [[Nombre2] ] vendieron por la suma de cien mil colones a [[Nombre5] ] la finca inscrita en el registro público partido de Alajuela la finca matrícula de folio real [Valor [Placa9]] y [Placa10]. Que por intermedio de escritura pública 123-19 otorgada ante el Notario Público Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, de las once horas del cuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho, [[Nombre3] ] y [[Nombre4] ] vendieron por la suma de cien mil colones a [[Nombre5] ] la finca inscrita en el registro público partido de Alajuela la finca matrícula de folio real [Valor [Placa11]] y [Valor [Placa12]] (testimonio de escritura visible de imagen 11 a 12). Y que mediante la escritura pública 122-19 ante el Notario Público Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, de las diez horas treinta minutos del cuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho, [[Nombre3] ] vendió por la suma de cien mil colones a [[Nombre5] ] la finca inscrita en el registro público partido de Alajuela matrícula de folio real [[Placa8] [Placa7]], también se realizó una indebida valoración de esa prueba, en relación a la demás prueba ofrecidas y evacuadas.
Se demostró que fue el notario AVALOS SEQUEIRA, fue quien redactó de forma unilateral, y de conformidad con el plan previamente establecido con la demandada, las escrituras números: 122-19, otorgada a las 10:30 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 140 frente y vuelto del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consigna falsamente que se trata de una compra venta del inmueble Partido de Alajuela número: [Valor 004], en la cual el actor [[Nombre3] ], supuestamente le venden a la sociedad demandada por la irrisoria e ínfima suma de cien mil colones el inmueble dicho, escritura que quedó debidamente inscrita en favor de la demandada en el Registro Público Propiedad Inmueble, al tomo 2018, asiento [Valor 007], el día 16 de abril del año 2018. La número 123-19, otorgada a las 11:00 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 140 vuelto y 141 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consigna falsamente que se trata de una compra venta del inmueble Partido de Alajuela número: [Valor 005], en la cual los actores [[Nombre3] ] y [[Nombre4] ], supuestamente le venden a la sociedad demandada por la irrisoria e ínfima suma de cien mil colones el inmueble dicho, escritura que quedó debidamente inscrita en favor de la demandada en el Registro Público Propiedad Inmueble, al tomo 2018, asiento [Valor 010], el día 119 de abril del año 2018.
La número 124-19, otorgada a las 11:30 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 141 vuelyo0 y 142 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público, en la cual se consigna falsamente que se trata de una compraventa del inmueble Partido de Alajuela número: [Valor 006], en la cual las actoras [[Nombre1] ], y [[Nombre2] ], le venden a la sociedad demandada por la irrisoria e ínfima suma de cien mil colones el inmueble dicho, escritura que quedó debidamente inscrita en favor de la demandada en el Registro Público Propiedad Inmueble, al tomo 2018, asiento [Valor 008], el día 16 de abril del año 2018. La número 125-19, otorgada a las 12:15 horas del 4 de abril del año 2018, escritura visible al folio 142 frente y vuelto, y 143 frente del tomo número 19 del protocolo del referido notario público. Escrituras en las cuales se insertó falsamente se trataba de una compra venta pura y simple, cuando ello no es cierto, pues se trataba de un contrato de préstamo de inmuebles, se demostró fehacientemente que NO HUBO PAGO, y siendo que el pago es un elemento esencial del negocio jurídico de compra venta, al faltar este requisito esencial NO PUEDE tenerse por válido y eficaz dicho contrato.
De igual forma insertó falsamente que el precio de la supuesta compra venta de cada uno de esos inmuebles lo fue la suma de cien mil colones, suma que no sólo es pírrica, irrisoria, alejada de la realidad, NUNCA EXISTIÓ COMPRA VENTA, por lo que NO HUBO PAGO DE PRECIO ALGUNO. Pero esencialmente, nunca existió voluntad de ninguna de las partes de efectuar ese supuesto contrato de compraventa, lo anterior se acredita con la prueba de declaración de parte del representante legal de la demandada, quien afirmó categóricamente que [[Nombre5] ] , nunca pagó precio alguno por los lotes objeto de esta litis, y que NUNCA fue la voluntad de la demandada ni de los actores realizar un contrato de compra venta. No demostró la demandada –tal y como era su obligación, dado que la carga de la prueba así la obliga-, que las escrituras realizadas por el notario ÁVALOS SEQUEIRA, hubiesen sido leídas a los actores, tampoco demostró que las mismas correspondan a la voluntad real y libre de los actores, todo lo contrario, al no demostrar la demandada pago alguno y aceptar que no fue un contrato de compra venta, se actualiza el vicio en la voluntad de los actores por el plan ideado por la demandada, en asocio con el notario BAYARDO AVÁLOS SEQUEIRA.
Dado el altísimo aprecio, y valor moral que representa para los actores el señor [[Nombre8] ] (lo cual se acreditó con el testimonio de [[Nombre14] ] y con la manifestación expresa en tono a ello que realiza la parte demandada), estos se limitaron a firmar, sin leer, los instrumentos públicos realizados por el notario AVALOS SEQUEIRA, dado que jamás hubieran dudado de la palabra, de la honorabilidad y de la gran reputación que representaba para ellos la figura de DON [[Nombre8] ]. El hecho de que los actores muy a pesar de que supuestamente “vendieron” a la compañía demanda todos los inmuebles objeto de esta litis, hayan continuado ejerciendo la posesión de estos en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y a título de dueños, acredita de forma indubitable que las escrituras públicas confeccionadas por el Notario Ávalos Sequeira, son FALSAS, carecen de causa y nunca fue la voluntad de los contratantes el celebrar un compra venta.
En este punto también es necesario insistir que la parte demandada, a pesar de que alegó supuestos actos que imposibilitaron el cumplimiento de la obligación contraída en la escritura pública 125-19 otorgada ante el Notario Público Bayardo Ávalos Sequeira, a las doce horas quince minutos del cuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho, en la que [Nombre 005] S.A. se comprometió a donar en favor de [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] , [[Nombre1] ] y [[Nombre2] ], la extensión de terreno que corresponda a potrero de las propiedades inscritas en el registro público en el partido de Alajuela bajo número de folio real [Valor 006], [Valor 005] y [Valor 004] (copia de escritura visible de imagen 43 a 46), no acreditó de manera alguna hecho impeditivo que le imposibilitara de cumplir con tal compromiso, tal y como es su obligación, por así disponerlo los numerales 477 del Código de Trabajo y 41.1 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicados supletoriamente en esta materia.
Ello obligada a declarar con lugar en todos sus extremos la presente demanda, no obstante, el Tribunal de primera instancia, al valorar indebidamente la prueba y dejar de aplicar los preceptos jurídicos antes indicados, declaró sin lugar en todos sus extremos la presente acción. En relación a la escritura pública 125-19 otorgada ante el Notario Público Ballardo Ávalos Sequeira, a las doce horas quince minutos del cuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho, en la que [Nombre 005] S.A. se comprometió a donar en favor de [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ], [[Nombre1] ] y [[Nombre2] ], la extensión de terreno que corresponda a potrero de las propiedades inscritas en el registro público en el partido de Alajuela bajo número de folio real [Valor 006], [Valor 005] y [Valor 004] (copia de escritura visible de imagen 43 a 46), no existe controversia alguna. En cuyo caso ese compromiso es válido y debió declararse con lugar, máxime el allanamiento existente al respecto.
Una vez más, es necesario tener en cuenta que la accionada una vez que llegó la fecha límite para cumplir con esa obligación, sin motivo alguno se negó a realizar y/o cumplir lo que había pactado. Y muy a pesar de que en la contestación de la demanda, alegó hechos impeditivos, a saber el supuesto problema con SETENA, no acreditó de manera alguna ese hecho impeditivo, tal y como es su obligación, por así disponerlo los numerales 477 del Código de Trabajo y 41.1 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicados supletoriamente en esta materia. Como claramente se desprende de los hechos que motivan esta acción, estamos en presencia de un caso de patología negocial, propiamente de invalidez contractual, nulidad parcial y/o invalidez parcial absoluta, por ausencia y/o vicios de los elementos esenciales del negocio jurídico con concomitante responsabilidad civil contractual. Pero, previo a determinar en el caso concreto lo anterior, es menester referirse, en términos generales, a los ELEMENTOS DEL NEGOCIO JURÍDICO.
El negocio jurídico es una programación objetiva de intereses. Tradicionalmente se le define como una manifestación de voluntad dirigida a un fin práctico tutelado por el ordenamiento jurídico. Modernamente, la doctrina distingue la figura del negocio jurídico, como categoría más amplia que comprende todos los actos de autonomía privada, como tales relevantes para el derecho, de la figura del contrato que representa una especie de negocio; el bilateral o plurilateral del contenido patrimonial. El negocio jurídico es un acto humano que expresa un interés de la vida, relevante para el Derecho, y al que éste otorga consecuencias jurídicas. El efecto jurídico es un valor condicionado, es decir, asumido por el derecho bajo la condición de que se produzca una situación de hecho precedente, una “especie fáctica” concreta, que es “ causa” de aquel efecto. Se distinguen así dos figuras en el negocio: una causal, que es siempre un fenómeno temporal, un comportamiento; y otra, efectual, que es el valor atribuido al hecho.
Se impone entrar a considerar cuáles son esos elementos que constituyen la figura causal negocial, para pasar luego al estudio de su posición respecto a la validez del negocio. Es necesario previamente realizar algunas aclaraciones terminológicas. ¿Qué son los presupuestos del negocio jurídico? Una parte de la doctrina distingue los “presupuestos”, que son circunstancias extrínsecas al negocio, a su esquema o estructura, que constituyen verdaderos requisitos de validez (por ejemplo la apertura de la sucesión respecto de la aceptación de la herencia), y a veces, de eficacia. Tal vez en este caso sería más conveniente hablar de antecedentes lógicos y jurídicos del negocio. Una segunda acepción, más difundida y aceptable, llama presupuesto a ciertas circunstancias extrínsecas al negocio considerado en sí mismo, pero que tienen una función integradora respecto de él, pues sin ellos el negocio no es válido; vienen a formar parte de él en el seno de la compleja situación de hecho inicial, a la que pertenecen, y en la que el negocio se inserta.
El sujeto es el punto de conexión necesario entre el hecho jurídico y el efecto jurídico. El objeto (como fenómeno espacial) es un punto de vinculación posible pero no necesario entre hecho y efecto. Se le ha llamado también “términos de referencia, coeficientes de la relación jurídica”. Los presupuestos del negocio están referidos a ellos precisamente, y es por eso que se distinguen en subjetivos y objetivos. Los subjetivos se refieren a la potencialidad del sujeto de expresar mediante un comportamiento propio intereses jurídicamente relevantes: capacidad de actuar (que supone a la vez la capacidad jurídica), legitimación y titularidad, que reunidas dan la facultad de disposición. Estos presupuestos deben existir en el momento en que el negocio se forma. Los presupuestos objetivos se refieren a la idoneidad del objeto para servir como materia del negocio, y operar como posible punto de conexión entre hecho y efecto: existencia, licitud, posibilidad (material y jurídica) y determinabilidad del objeto.
Debe existir, y ser conforme con los intereses del ordenamiento. Habiendo distinguido los presupuestos y requisitos (en sentido estricto) del negocio, se impone considerar cuáles son los elementos que lo configuran. Con el término “elementos” se hace referencia a los requisitos funcionales y estructurales, que tienen un sentido actual, dinámico, y son concomitantes a la formación del negocio, en lo que divergen de los presupuestos, que son más bien requisitos previos. Pertenecen a la zona causal, es decir, al hecho negocial. Los elementos esenciales estructurales del negocio jurídico son de dos tipos: uno subjetivo interno y material: la voluntad, y el otro objetivo externo y formal: la manifestación o forma (que puede tener una particular configuración: forma en sentido estricto o formalidad) de esa voluntad. Funcionalmente, el negocio tiene lo que se denomina una “causa”, que es la conformidad de los intereses programados, con el resto de intereses o valores acogidos por el ordenamiento.
Cuando se da esta relación de conformidad, el negocio deviene eficaz, y por ende, puede cumplir su función. La causa configura así como elemento esencial funcional del negocio. Como se ha observado, buena parte de la doctrina utiliza indistintamente los términos “elemento” y “requisito”. Pero en un sentido más estricto es conveniente reservar el uso de “requisitos” para denominar las cualidades de los elementos del negocio, (y aún de los presupuestos). Así por ejemplo, el elemento voluntad debe tener el requisito de no estar viciado. El elemento causa debe tener el requisito de ser lícito. En un negocio concreto un elemento puede existir, pero este puede carecer de los requisitos necesarios. Voluntad y manifestación resultar ser los elementos esenciales de la estructura del negocio jurídico. La causa es el elemento funcional. Al lado de este núcleo mínimo para que surja en el mundo jurídico un hecho relevante como negocio, existe un amplio margen de acción de la voluntad de los sujetos en la esfera de los ya mencionados elementos no esenciales, marginales o concausas, dentro de los cuales sobresales los llamados tradicionalmente elementos accidentales; la condición, el término y el modo y entran además toda clase de determinaciones accesorias, auto-limitaciones y cláusulas que las partes quieran introducir (y que pueden tener diverso relieve desde el punto de vista de la validez).
La voluntad y la manifestación son el mínimo necesario para la existencia jurídica del negocio, para que un hecho concreto sea relevante como hecho negocial. Puede hablarse en relación con ellos de elementos existenciales. No puede existir un negocio jurídico si no existe al menos una voluntad exteriorizada. Faltaría un requisito potencialmente eficaz. Ahora bien, los elementos voluntad y manifestación tienen a su vez una serie de requisitos, con una diferente ingerencia en la vida negocial: la voluntad debe ser libre y claramente manifestada (art. 1008 C.C.); la manifestación requiere a veces una dirección determinada. La voluntad viciada por error, violencia psíquica, etc., hace anulable el negocio; que sea libre es requisito de validez (atrs. 1008, 1014 y 1015 C.C.). Las formalidades pueden tener importancia para la prueba del negocio o bien para su validez, según el caso. Debe recordarse que la validez o invalidez de un acto es un juicio que sólo puede hacerse partiendo del supuesto de que el acto exista.
Cuando no se cumple una formalidad ad sustantiam, el negocio deviene absolutamente nulo. También es diversa la situación cuando la invalidez es nulidad o anulabilidad. En el primer caso el acto tiene un defecto tal que prácticamente desaparece del mundo del Derecho, con lo que las consecuencias son semejantes a la de los inexistentes. En el segundo caso, en cambio, el negocio tiene un vicio en uno de sus elementos esenciales o presupuestos constitutivos, de modo que puede ser impugnado, pero puede convalidarse. Otros aspectos son exigidos para la eficacia erga omnes del negocio, como la publicidad declarativa. En cuanto a los presupuestos, su falta o defecto da lugar a diversas situaciones. La ausencia de capacidad de actuar incide en la validez del negocio, dando lugar a nulidad (incapacidad absoluta: menores de quince años, personas en estado de interdicción, el sordomudo que no sabe leer ni escribir) o a anulabilidad (incapacidad relativa, incapacidad natural).
La facultad de disposición, en general, es presupuesto de validez de los negocios jurídicos. Aspectos relativos al sujeto pueden tener incidencia en la eficacia del negocio. Así es ineficaz el negocio con sujeto futuro, o a designar por un tercero, o cuya decisión debe esperarse. En cuanto a los presupuestos objetivos la existencia, la posibilidad, la licitud y el valor exigible, son requisitos de validez. Por supuesto tampoco puede ser eficaz el negocio en que ellos falten, y sobre todo es requisito de eficacia la determinación cuando el objeto es futuro, o se designa en forma genérica, o se espera su indicación por un tercero. La causa tiene relevancia con respecto a la validez cuando falta o es ilícita. La invalidez derivada de la ilicitud del objeto o de la causa no tiene efecto restitutorio (art. 844 C.C.). Nuestro Código Civil no contiene la categoría sistemática del negocio jurídico propia de los códigos modernos.
Debe, por ello, considerarse, las disposiciones generales en materia de obligaciones y contratos. Si el contrato es el acuerdo de voluntades que genera obligaciones entre las partes, la teoría de las obligaciones resulta el antecedente de la contractual. Siendo el contrato una de las fuentes y formas de la obligación, todas las condiciones esenciales relativas a ésta, deben existir respecto de él. A partir de esta premisa es posible intentar construir teorías del negocio jurídico en nuestro derecho civil. El artículo 627 del Código Civil expresa que “Para la validez de la obligación es esencialmente indispensable:1) Capacidad de parte de quien se obliga.
No lleva razón el recurrente. Las excepciones materiales, como la falta de derecho, la falta de legitimacvión ad causam activa y pasiva y la falta de interés actual, son decretables de oficio, pues examinan los presupuestos de fondo de toda acción. Por ende, no existe nulidad por su pronunciamiento oficioso, ni estado de indefensión por ello. Se rechaza el primer motivo de nulidad concomitante.-
X.SOBRE EL SEGUNDO MOTIVO DE NULIDAD CONCOMITANTE RELATIVO RELATIVO A LA OMISIÓN DE PRONUNCIARSE SOBRE EL ALLANAMIENTO DEL DEMANDADO A LAS PRETENSIONES SUBSIDIARIAS DEL ACTOR: El agravio es de recibo. La demanda presenta pretensiones tanto principales como subsidiarias. Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, en Bandeja de Escritos, archivos del 7/1/19 de las 7:32:49 a.m., imágenes de la [Dirección1] , y aclaración de pretensiones 10/1/19 de las 2:48:21 p.m.). Por su parte, el demandado contestó negativamente la acción instaurada en su contra, solicitó se declare sin lugar la demanda y manifestó su allanamiento a las pretensiones subsidiarias, (Ver Escritorio Virtual del Juzgado Agrario de San Carlos, en Bandeja de Escritos archivos del 13/2/19 de las 3:09:00 p.m.). La sentencia impugnada rechaza las principales y subsidiarias, pero no toma en cuenta ni analiza si el allanamiento del demandado a las pretensiones primera, segunda y tercera procede o no. Incluso, el recurrente presentó solicitud de aclaración y adición sobre ese extremo en memorial incorporado en fecha 01/02/2021 y fue rechazado sin fundamentación en resolución de las siete horas treinta minutos del nueve de febrero de dos mil veintiuno: "SE RESUELVE: Se rechaza la solicitud antes indicada, por cuanto considera esta autoridad que no hay aspecto omiso por resolver respecto al por tanto de la sentencia." (Bandeja de documentos asociados 09/02/2021 09:30).
Ello implica que la sentencia sea absolutamente nula por incongruencia y falta de fundamentación, en infracción del artículo 54 de la ley de Jurisdicción Agraria; ya que el allanamiento de las pretensiones subsidiarias dichas no fueron analizadas ni resueltas, violentándose el debido proceso. Sobre tal aspecto la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha dicho: "VI.- La incongruencia, como causal de casación por la forma, por vicio de actividad, sucede, según lo ha dicho esta Sala en reiteradas oportunidades, cuando la sentencia: a) no coincide con lo solicitado por las partes (extra petita) b) no resuelve alguna de las pretensiones oportunamente deducidas (mínima petitta); c) contiene disposiciones contradictorias. Por su medio, se busca garantizar el orden, la certeza, el equilibrio y el derecho de defensa de cada una de las partes dentro del proceso judicial. Si el fallo se acusa de incongruente, es preciso identificar el vicio e invocar vulnerados los numerales 99 y 153 del Código Procesal Civil, al ser los que imponen la obligación de resolver de acuerdo con las pretensiones oportunamente deducidas por las partes.
"(Sentencia Nº 727 de las 11:35 horas del 29 de octubre de 2003 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). "VII. Tocante al canon 155 del Código Procesal Civil, cuya violación se endilga, reiteradamente esta Sala ha resuelto que su transgresión sólo da entrada al recurso de casación, cuando ella incide en la incongruencia. En relación, puede consultarse, entre otras, la sentencia número 88 de las 15 horas 15 minutos del 9 de agosto de 1996. En consecuencia, el recurso será analizado por razones procesales. La incongruencia estriba en la falta de relación entre lo pedido por las partes, no a lo largo del proceso, sino en sus escritos de demanda o contrademanda como en sus respectivas contestaciones, y lo resuelto en el fallo, no porque en éste se decida algo diferente a lo querido por los litigantes, sino porque se omite pronunciamiento sobre algún extremo sometido a debate, o se otorga más de lo pedido, o porque lo resuelto no guarda correspondencia con lo pedido, o porque contiene disposiciones contradictorias." (Sentencia Nº 728 de las 11:40 horas del 29 de octubre de 2003 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). En consecuencia, se acoge la nulidad concomitante y se anula la resolución recurrida.-
POR TANTO
Se acoge la nulidad concomitante y se anula la resolución recurrida.- *JMIVPSHB2W861* [Nombre15] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *TNE6PMU1BZG61* [Nombre16] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *U8C47GYENUUS61* [Nombre17] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.