← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00079-2013 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · 06/08/2013
OutcomeResultado
The claim is dismissed due to failure to prove the causal link between municipal omission and alleged damages, classifying the road as unclassified and upholding the defenses of lack of cause and lack of right.Se declara sin lugar la demanda por falta de demostración del nexo causal entre la omisión municipal y los daños alegados, clasificando el camino como no clasificado y acogiendo las defensas de falta de causa y falta de derecho.
SummaryResumen
The plaintiff, a developer who subdivided a property and transferred a portion to the Municipality of Aserrí for community facilities, sued the municipality for failure to maintain that lot and the public road, alleging that such omission caused landslides and cracks affecting his property. The Administrative Appeals Court, Section V, dismissed the claim. It determined that the resulting public road did not meet the minimum width required by law to be classified as a local road, thus categorizing it as an 'unclassified road' whose maintenance falls on users, not the municipality. Regarding the strict liability of the Administration, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the causal link between the alleged municipal inaction and the claimed damages. The terrain's steep slope and clay soil suggested landslides are a likely natural phenomenon, and it was not shown that lack of maintenance was the cause. The defenses of lack of cause and lack of right were upheld, and costs were imposed on the plaintiff.El demandante, un urbanizador que fraccionó un terreno y entregó una porción a la Municipalidad de Aserrí para facilidades comunales, reclamó a la municipalidad por la falta de mantenimiento en ese lote y en la calle pública, alegando que dicha omisión causó deslizamientos y agrietamientos que afectaron su propiedad. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección V, declaró sin lugar la demanda. Determinó que el camino público resultante no alcanza el ancho mínimo legal para ser considerado camino vecinal, clasificándolo como 'camino no clasificado', cuyo mantenimiento recae en los usuarios y no en la municipalidad. En cuanto a la responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración, el Tribunal concluyó que el actor no demostró el nexo causal entre la supuesta inactividad municipal y los daños alegados. La topografía del terreno, de pendiente pronunciada y suelo arcilloso, sugiere que los deslizamientos son un fenómeno natural probable, sin que se acreditara que la falta de mantenimiento fuera la causa. Se acogieron las defensas de falta de causa y falta de derecho, y se condenó en costas al actor.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In the present case, this causal link depends on the demonstration of the alleged omission, namely the lack of maintenance of the donated lot and the claimed damage. This aspect was not proven in the case file, and it was so recorded in this ruling, under the section of Unproven Facts, as no evidence was provided to support it. This Chamber lacks any evidence that could prove that the lack of lot maintenance is the cause of the natural events that resulted in the landslide on said lot, since the judicial inspection only allowed us to observe that a landslide occurred; however, this collegiate body cannot determine that such an event was caused by the lack of maintenance. On the contrary, given the topography of the place, the slope of nearly twenty meters on which the lot sits, and the clay soil type, it can be estimated with a high degree of certainty that it is unstable terrain, where the occurrence of landslides is a fairly probable phenomenon given the characteristics of the lot outlined above. As for proving this causal link, it is a burden of proof that falls on the plaintiff, in accordance with Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (applied supplementarily pursuant to Article 220 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code). Consequently, it is the duty of the party seeking redress to provide the court with evidence establishing the certainty of the fact claimed as the source of administrative liability; however, in the present case, such burden of proof was devoid of elements that would confirm the existence of a causal link, which is required between the alleged omission in this case and the damage.En el caso concreto, ese nexo causal parte de la demostración de la conducta omisiva que se acusa, sea la falta de mantenimiento del lote donado y el daño que se alega. Dicho aspecto no se acreditó en autos, y así fue consignado en la presente resolución, dentro del Considerando de Hechos No Probados, dado que no se aportó ningún elemento probatorio que lo fundamentara. Carece esta Cámara de algún elemento probatorio que pueda acreditar que la falta de mantenimiento al lote sea la causa por la que se produjeron los eventos naturales que tuvieron como consecuencia el deslizamiento de tierra en dicho lote, ya que del reconocimiento judicial realizado sólo se pudo observar que hubo un deslizamiento, sin embargo, no puede determinar este órgano colegiado que tal evento se produjo por la falta de mantenimiento, por el contrario, de la topografía del lugar, la pendiente de casi veinte metros en la que se encuentra el lote y el tipo de suelo arcilloso, se puede estimar con un alto grado de certeza que se trata de un terreno inestable, en el que la ocurrencia de deslizamientos es un fenómeno bastante probable dadas las características del lote apuntadas anteriormente. En cuanto a la demostración de este nexo de causalidad, es una carga probatoria que corresponde al actor, de conformidad con lo que dispone el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil ( de aplicación supletoria, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). En consecuencia, quien debe velar por el aporte al juzgador de los instrumentos que le den certeza de la existencia del hecho que se reclama como generador de la responsabilidad administrativa es la parte actora, sin embargo en autos, tal carga probatoria se vio ayuna de elementos que den certeza de la existencia de un nexo de causalidad, el que es requerido entre la conducta omisiva que se acusa en este caso y el daño.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Se les denomina zonas verdes o de facilidades comunales, a aquellas áreas resultantes de proyectos urbanísticos, que tiene su origen en la carga que se impone al urbanizador (o desarrollador) según el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, de ceder 'gratuitamente' a los entes municipales una porción de terreno -entre el cinco y el veinte por ciento del terreno que se dispone al proyecto-, para uso de las vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales, cuyo costo se traslada al valor de las parcelas o lotes resultantes."
"Green areas or community facilities are those areas resulting from urban development projects, which originate from the burden imposed on the developer (or urbanizer) under Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law, to 'gratuitously' transfer to municipal entities a portion of land—between five and twenty percent of the land allocated to the project—for use as public roads, parks, and community facilities, the cost of which is shifted to the value of the resulting parcels or lots."
Considerando IV
"Se les denomina zonas verdes o de facilidades comunales, a aquellas áreas resultantes de proyectos urbanísticos, que tiene su origen en la carga que se impone al urbanizador (o desarrollador) según el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, de ceder 'gratuitamente' a los entes municipales una porción de terreno -entre el cinco y el veinte por ciento del terreno que se dispone al proyecto-, para uso de las vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales, cuyo costo se traslada al valor de las parcelas o lotes resultantes."
Considerando IV
"En el caso concreto, ese nexo causal parte de la demostración de la conducta omisiva que se acusa, sea la falta de mantenimiento del lote donado y el daño que se alega. Dicho aspecto no se acreditó en autos, y así fue consignado en la presente resolución, dentro del Considerando de Hechos No Probados, dado que no se aportó ningún elemento probatorio que lo fundamentara."
"In the present case, this causal link depends on the demonstration of the alleged omission, namely the lack of maintenance of the donated lot and the claimed damage. This aspect was not proven in the case file, and it was so recorded in this ruling, under the section of Unproven Facts, as no evidence was provided to support it."
Considerando VIII
"En el caso concreto, ese nexo causal parte de la demostración de la conducta omisiva que se acusa, sea la falta de mantenimiento del lote donado y el daño que se alega. Dicho aspecto no se acreditó en autos, y así fue consignado en la presente resolución, dentro del Considerando de Hechos No Probados, dado que no se aportó ningún elemento probatorio que lo fundamentara."
Considerando VIII
"De manera que la vía pública resultante del fraccionamiento efectuado por el accionante no puede considerarse una calle local al no formar parte del cuadrante del área urbana del cantón, tampoco puede considerarse un camino vecinal al no cumplir con el ancho mínimo de catorce metros que establece el numeral 4 de la mencionada Ley General de Caminos Públicos, únicamente se le puede tener como un Camino no clasificado, que si bien es un camino público cuya administración corresponde a la Municipalidad de Aserrí, el costo del mantenimiento y mejoras que se le introduzcan deberá ser sufragado por los usuarios a quienes les proporcione acceso."
"Therefore, the public road resulting from the subdivision carried out by the plaintiff cannot be considered a local street, as it is not part of the urban area quadrant of the canton; nor can it be considered a local road, as it does not meet the minimum width of fourteen meters established in Section 4 of the aforementioned General Highways Law. It can only be classified as an Unclassified Road, which, while it is a public road whose administration corresponds to the Municipality of Aserrí, the cost of its maintenance and improvements must be borne by the users it provides access to."
Considerando V
"De manera que la vía pública resultante del fraccionamiento efectuado por el accionante no puede considerarse una calle local al no formar parte del cuadrante del área urbana del cantón, tampoco puede considerarse un camino vecinal al no cumplir con el ancho mínimo de catorce metros que establece el numeral 4 de la mencionada Ley General de Caminos Públicos, únicamente se le puede tener como un Camino no clasificado, que si bien es un camino público cuya administración corresponde a la Municipalidad de Aserrí, el costo del mantenimiento y mejoras que se le introduzcan deberá ser sufragado por los usuarios a quienes les proporcione acceso."
Considerando V
"La licenciada Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, quien figura como ponente en este asunto, disfrutó de vacaciones los días 23, 24 y 26 del mes de julio. Lo anterior para entender que se tiene por prorrogado en forma automática el plazo para el dictado de la sentencia."
"Licenciada Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, who serves as the reporting judge in this matter, was on vacation on the 23rd, 24th, and 26th of July. This is to clarify that the deadline for the issuance of this ruling is automatically extended."
Resultando 5
"La licenciada Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, quien figura como ponente en este asunto, disfrutó de vacaciones los días 23, 24 y 26 del mes de julio. Lo anterior para entender que se tiene por prorrogado en forma automática el plazo para el dictado de la sentencia."
Resultando 5
Full documentDocumento completo
PROCESS OF COGNITION CASE FILE No. 12-002663-1027-CA PLAINTIFF: Nombre115504 DEFENDANT: Municipalidad de Aserrí No. 79-2013-V SECTION FIVE OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. ANNEX A. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at nine o'clock on August sixth, two thousand thirteen.- Process of cognition filed by Nombre115504, of legal age, married once, United States passport number 46113979, resident of Salitrillos de Aserrí, against the Municipalidad de Aserrí, represented by its Mayor, Víctor Morales Mora, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Aserrí, identity card number CED91289. Appearing as special judicial representative of the plaintiff is licenciado Luis Gerardo Ballestero Mora, of legal age, married once, attorney, resident of San José, identity card number CED13694, and as special judicial representative of the Municipality is licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Aserrí, identity card number CED91290.
RECITALS 1.- According to the facts set forth and the law on which it is based, this process is filed by the plaintiff so that the judgment may: " 1.- Order the Municipality to carry out the studies and technical actions necessary to prevent the continuation of the damage, both to the municipal property where the problem originates and to the affected public street. 2. Order the payment of costs and damages (daños y perjuicios), which are of unquantifiable amount, to be determined by expert appraisal." 2.- - The representative of the Municipalidad de Aserrí answered in the negative and raised the preliminary defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and unrectified defects that prevent a ruling on the merits, which were resolved at the preliminary hearing (folio 55), and the substantive defenses of lack of right and lack of cause, also requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed (folios 25 to 31 of the judicial file).
3.- On April twenty-second, two thousand thirteen, the preliminary hearing was held (see minutes at folios 54 to 56 of the judicial file).
4.- On the morning of July eleventh, two thousand thirteen, a judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was conducted at the lot in question, located in Salitrillos de Aserrí, and subsequently, on that same date, the oral and public trial of this process was held (see the recording of the inspection on digital media, as well as the trial hearing recorded in digital format).
5.- Licenciada Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, who is the reporting judge (ponente) in this matter, was on vacation on the 23rd, 24th, and 26th of July. The foregoing is noted to confirm that the deadline for issuing the judgment has been automatically extended.
6.- The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings, there are no defects capable of causing nullity, and this resolution is issued within the term established in Article 111.1 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code for complex matters, following deliberation and unanimously.
Judge Vargas Vargas writes the opinion.
WHEREAS
I.- PROVEN FACTS: 1.- That Mr. Nombre115504 subdivided (fraccionó) a property owned by him, registered in the Partido de San José, number 1-00037114-000, called Proyecto de Lotificación Colinas de Aserrí, giving rise to the following properties: a) Placa21691, b) Placa21692; c) 00548022-000; d) Placa21693; Placa21694; f) Placa21695; g) 00548027-000; h) 00548028-000; i) 00548029-000; j) Placa21696; k) 00548032-000; l) 00548033-000; m) 00548034-000; n) 00548035-000; o) 00548036-000 (uncontested first fact of the complaint, certified copy of Agreement No. 24-47, fourth article, issued by the Concejo Municipal de Aserrí in ordinary session No. 47 of March 26, 2006, at folio 33 of the judicial file, testimony of Nombre113794 ); 2.- That as a consequence of that subdivision (fraccionamiento), Mr. Nombre115504 was required to deliver ten percent of public area to the Municipalidad de Aserrí for community facilities (facilidades comunales), transferring lot number Placa21697 (third fact of the answer to the complaint, certified copy of Agreement No. 24-47 of March 26, 2007 at folio 33 of the judicial file, copy of the registry report at folio 42 of the judicial file, declaration of Nombre113794 ); 3.- That the aforementioned lot is irregularly shaped, with a street frontage of 69.36 meters. Its topography is rolling-broken, with a steep slope (pendiente) of more than twenty meters that ends at the boundary with the Río Cañas. (copy of the cadastral plan at folio 2, report of engineer Didi Valverde Montoya at folios 35 to 42 of the judicial file, declaration of engineer Didi Valverde Montoya and engineer Sergio Sáenz Aguilar, judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) on digital media); 4.- That several landslides have occurred in the area where the lot donated to the Municipality is located, and it is classified as a risk zone (see judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) on digital media, copy of land-use certificate at folio 18 of the judicial file, appraisal 024-2012 conducted by engineer Didi Valverde at folios 35 to 43 of the judicial file); 5.- That the access road to the aforementioned lot does not measure fourteen meters (see copy of the cadastral plan at folios 2 and 43 of the judicial file, judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) on digital media); 6.- That the plaintiff's house is located northeast of the lot donated to the Municipality, across the street (see copies of photographs at folio 5 verso, and judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) on CD media).
II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1.- That the lack of maintenance of the lot donated to the Municipality is the cause of the landslides, the cracks in the street, and the proximity to the plaintiff's house (this fact was not demonstrated, testimony of Sergio Sáenz Aguilar ); 2.- That the damages (daños y perjuicios) claimed by the plaintiff arise from the lack of action by the Municipalidad de Aserrí on the donated lot (no evidentiary element was provided to prove this).
III.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
Plaintiff's theory: The plaintiff's representative states that the Municipality's lack of action endangers people and also the properties established on the public thoroughfare, which, he affirms, always existed because there was access to the farms; what was done afterwards, he indicates, was to adapt it. He maintains that his client carried out a subdivision (fraccionamiento) and donated to the Municipality a plot of land of approximately two thousand eight hundred meters (2,800 meters). He states that the Municipality should have taken the necessary measures to avoid the harmful consequences of a natural event. He points out that the Municipality's generalized attitude of not addressing that demand led to the filing of this process, which was also filed in search of an extrajudicial resolution. He affirms that an amicable proceeding appears at folio 47 of the judicial file; however, subsequently, in official letter at folio 52 of the file, there is record of actions for the process to continue, because after the parties met, they never heard anything more about the process. He notes that at folio 50 there is an official letter indicating that the Municipality only delayed the proceedings. He affirms that the donated land exceeds the river protection zone, affecting not only that zone but also destabilizing the rest, making damage to people more likely, due to the neglect of the Municipalidad de Aserrí, since it has no Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). He says that the actions do not appear in documents and that there are no studies. In addition, that at times the plaintiff has carried out some mitigation works to eliminate the cracking, but that the solution has not been complete and nothing has been done. He argues that there is no action on the part of the municipality and that it forms part of the State's planning duty. Therefore, he requests that the Municipality be ordered to carry out mitigation works and reverse the harmful consequences produced by the lack of positive action by the municipality on the lot it owns, in the river protection areas, and on the public street.
Theory of the Municipalidad de Aserrí: The representative of the Municipality affirms that this process stems from a subdivision (fraccionamiento) project that the plaintiff carried out and, by legal provision, he had to cede ten percent of the subdivided area. He adds that the area he ceded was the most risky part, and he knew he could not sell that area. The municipal representative considers that there is an abuse of right by wanting to take advantage of his own fraud. He maintains that even though it is a public road, it is of the type called unclassified, according to Article 1 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), whose maintenance corresponds to the property owners. Regarding the substantive aspects, he notes that in any case, it would be a natural phenomenon, so it would be a fortuitous event, and the Municipality would have no liability there. He indicates that although there were prior meetings in which he participated, the truth is that the final document was not authenticated by him. He adds that there is no action by the Municipality nor an omission of a formal duty, so liability cannot be attributed, and he requests that the lawsuit be dismissed.
IV.- REGARDING COMMUNAL ASSETS OR FACILITIES (BIENES O FACILIDADES COMUNALES).- Green zones or community facilities (facilidades comunales) are those areas resulting from urban development projects, originating from the charge imposed on the developer (urbanizador) according to Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), to cede "gratuitously" to municipal entities a portion of land—between five and twenty percent of the land intended for the project—for use as public roads, parks, and community facilities (facilidades comunales), the cost of which is transferred to the value of the resulting parcels or lots. Thus, they "nominally" belong to the municipalities (as they hold the bare ownership of the property), but are strictly classified as communal assets, as they are intended for neighborhood use. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has made several clarifications:
"XX. The gratuitous cession to municipalities of land to be subdivided (fraccionar) or urbanized is made to allocate certain services for the community within them, such as public roads and green zones—the latter, which are the ones of interest to us—will be used to build parks, gardens, educational centers, sports, and recreational areas. The basis for this obligation must be placed in a kind of consideration owed by the developer for the higher value that the urbanization or parceling process will give to the urbanized land; that is, it is ultimately an in-kind contribution in urban planning law, as a mechanism to ensure that the surplus value acquired by the properties due to the urbanization or subdivision (fraccionamiento) reverts to the community. Before this regulation, there was a serious social situation, derived from the fact that landowners received the full prices obtained from their land as net profit, while the new neighborhoods were left without service provisions, a deficiency that was intended to be made the responsibility of the municipal Administration, which was unable to cover that deficit effectively. One of the principles of urban planning law consists precisely of the fact that the considerable surplus values generated by the urban development process must be the primary sources to cover the costs in services that this same development creates. The contested obligation—to cede a percentage of land gratuitously to the municipality—precisely aims to make effective the principle of economic compensation and retribution in services for the needs of the community being created, as a correlate of the enrichment received from the urban development.
XXI.In this way, the content of property is configured from the criterion of its social function; it is a refinement of that function that ceases to be a simple moral admonishment to the consciences of the owners to become a system of legally enforceable positive duties. Thus, the owners may exercise as their own all the faculties of urban use of the resulting plots, only that simultaneously, they must also assume the positive duties with which the legal system attempts to compensate the economic gain. The urbanization or subdivision (fraccionador) plan must contemplate beforehand all the provisions for communal services—roads, water connections, and electric lighting, green zones, children's parks, etc.—before commencing the construction and individual use of the lots; execution falls on the owner. ... , and it will be the new owners who will ultimately benefit from the green areas and facilities referred to in Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana)." (Judgment number 4205-96, at fourteen hours thirty-three minutes on August twentieth, nineteen ninety-six.)
In the present case, it is an uncontested fact that as a result of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) carried out by Mr. Nombre115504 on his property located in Salitrillos de Aserrí, he was required to donate an area destined for community facilities (facilidades comunales), which consists of a lot of approximately two thousand eight hundred square meters, which was ceded to the municipal entity. Regarding this lot, the Tribunal was able to verify during the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) that it is irregular in shape, and its topography is rolling and broken, with a slope (pendiente) of approximately twenty meters, which ends at the western boundary with the Río Cañas, making it impossible to traverse; only part of its eastern boundary, which borders the public street, could be traversed. It was observed that the land has clayey soil, reddish in color, and is covered with tall grass and some trees. Subsequently, when this Tribunal stood facing the western boundary of the lot, on the other side of the Río Cañas, the lot is observed, and on the slope (pendiente) it has, a landslide (desprendimiento de tierra) could be seen, without this collegial body being able to specify the causes or the time when it occurred.
V.- ON THE PUBLIC NATURE OF THE ROAD. UNCLASSIFIED. MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF USERS.
Regarding the determination of the public nature of a road, Articles 4, 7, and 8 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) state in order the following:
"Article 4.- Definition. Public road (Vía pública) is any land of public domain and common use, which, by provision of the administrative authority, is destined for free transit in accordance with planning Laws and Regulations and which is, in fact, already destined for that public use. According to its class, public roads (vías públicas) shall also be destined to ensure the aeration and lighting conditions of the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to adjoining properties; for the installation of any pipeline, artifact, apparatus, or accessory belonging to a public work or destined for a public service.
"Article 7.- Property. Any land that in the existing plans of the Municipality, or in the Archive of the Dirección General de Obras Públicas, or that of the Dirección General de Caminos, or in the Catastro, or in any other public archive, museum, or library, appears as a public road (vía pública) shall be presumed to have such status, barring full proof to the contrary, which must be provided by whoever affirms that the land in question is private property or claims to have any exclusive right to its use. As long as a final judgment declaring so has not been issued, no one may impede or obstruct the public use of the land in question." "Article 8.- Subdivisions or Lot Divisions. Once a plan for subdivisions (fraccionamientos) or lot divisions is approved, in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations (Reglamentos sobre fraccionamiento), the lands that in said plans appear as destined for public roads (vías públicas) shall, by that sole fact, leave the developer's domain and pass to the public domain. The approval of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) shall be granted by public deed, which must be registered in the Property Registry for the purpose of canceling private property with respect to the lands destined for public roads (vía pública)." According to the cited rules, any area that appears described as a public street in cadastral plans is presumed to have such status and, therefore, is also considered incorporated into the public domain, barring proof to the contrary that must be proven by the party opposing that presumption. In this sense, it is important to note that there is no doubt about the ownership of the asset, as the Municipalidad de Aserrí itself has accepted that it is a public road (vía pública); therefore, the administration corresponds to said municipal corporation. Furthermore, the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) reaffirms the nature of full proof that official maps, plans, and the cadastre constitute regarding the affectation to public domain of lands or spaces delivered for public use, as can be deduced from numerals 43 and 44 of the aforementioned legislation, which expressly state:
"Article 43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complement it, shall constitute a special, reliable registry on property and affectation to public domain of lands or spaces already delivered for public uses." "Article 44.- Municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks, or other open spaces for general public use is constituted by that same use and its registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with if it is recorded on the Official Map. Said Registry shall close the record of those properties, remnants, or lots that the owner, as developer (fraccionador), cedes to the municipality by mandate of this law, if the registrable document states the public purpose given to the property and the Notary attests to the municipal agreement approving the cession and ordering the delivery of said asset for that same purpose." In the specific case, as already indicated, the road is the product of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) carried out by Mr. Nombre115504, so it is an area destined for a public road (vía pública), about which there is no controversy; however, this Chamber must indicate that in accordance with numeral 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), the minimum width for a local road (camino vecinal) is fourteen meters.
"Article 4: The width of highways and local roads (caminos vecinales) shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, without it being less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter." A measurement not reached by the public road in question, which, although indicated in the cadastral plan at folio 2 of the judicial file as having a measurement of six meters, the truth is that when this measurement was taken at different sections on the day the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was conducted, it has an average width of four meters thirty centimeters, a measurement that does not reach the minimum of fourteen meters to be considered a local road (camino vecinal); it could only be considered an Unclassified Road (Camino No Clasificado), according to Article 1, subsection c) of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), Cantonal Road Network (Red Vial Cantonal), which states:
"Article 1. ...CANTONAL ROAD NETWORK (RED VIAL CANTONAL): Its administration corresponds to the municipalities. It shall be constituted by the following public roads (caminos públicos), not included by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes within the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional): a) Local roads (Caminos vecinales): Public roads (Caminos públicos) that provide direct access to farms and other rural economic activities; link hamlets and towns with the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional) and are characterized by low traffic volumes and high proportions of short-distance local trips. b) Local streets (Calles locales): public roads (vías públicas) included within the quadrant of the urban area, not classified as urban crossings of the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional).
VI.- REGARDING STRICT LIABILITY (RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA) . :
In accordance with Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, the Administration is liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal operation, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. The foregoing coupled with what our jurisprudence has stated, which also recognizes in the institute of liability one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic Rule of Law State, as a derivation of the constitutional requirements of liability of the public powers and effective judicial protection, provided and guaranteed in the Fundamental Charter in its numerals 9 and 41; particularly the latter insofar as it orders that: "By resorting to the law, all must find reparation for the injuries or damages they have received in their person, property, or moral interests. They must be done prompt, complete justice, without denial and in strict conformity with the law." Now, for the duty to indemnify to arise, three elements must be present, namely, a) the existence of damage or injury that there is no legal duty to bear, and which must be certain, real, and effective—not merely eventual or hypothetical—and assessable in money, b) an action or omission by a public authority, and c) a causal link between both things, so that the harm caused is attributable to the State or its institutions. In the present case, the plaintiff claims from the Municipalidad de Aserrí liability for the omission in the maintenance it should have provided to its lot and the street, which he says has caused him damages (daños y perjuicios), and that this lack of attention by the Municipality to the lot donated for community facilities (facilidades comunales) is what has caused natural events such as landslides, which in turn have caused cracking on the public street and near his dwelling house.
VII.- REGARDING OMMISSION OR MATERIAL INACTIVITY The abnormal functioning of the Administration can manifest as deficient, tardy administrative action or as an omission in the required conduct; thus, omission can be seen as a criterion of abnormality: "VII.- Omission as a criterion of abnormality and illegality. The indemnification obligation for damages (daños y perjuicios) caused by inaction. (…) At present, it is peacefully accepted that administrative conduct encompasses not only the active behavior of the Administration (and within it, the administrative act) but also, omissive conduct, that ' non-doing ' that has been called inactivity of the Administration, both in its formal aspect (to the extent that it results in an act presumed by administrative silence) and material aspect (referring basically to the provision area of the administrative organization). In this way, material administrative inactivity must be understood as that derived from the omission in compliance with a pre-established legal obligation, which occurs when, outside an administrative procedure, the Administration fails, by omission, to comply with an obligation imposed by the Legal System or by any other self-binding mechanism, as is the case of an own act or consensual instruments, with direct injury to a legitimate interest or a subjective right, whether or not it alters a pre-existing legal-administrative relationship. More simply, there is inactivity of this type when, for the public entity or body, an obligation to give or to do exists, imposed by the legal system or by a prior decision of its own, within or outside an administrative procedure, the required factual or legal activity is not deployed to bring the granted function to successful completion, to the detriment of the rights or interests of one or several passive subjects, whether private or public, individual or collective. This is that 'culpa in ommittendo' in which the functional duty to act is breached by inaction. It goes without saying that administrative indolence can produce (and indeed produces) more serious injuries than the restrictive action of the public organ or entity itself. Hence, it must be categorically affirmed (with foundation in and in accordance with what was stated in previous considerations) that the Public Administration is also liable for the damages (daños y perjuicios) caused by its administrative inactivity. That passivity in the face of compliance with pre-existing obligations is framed, for the purposes of non-contractual civil liability, as abnormal functioning of the Administration (insofar as it corresponds to a required material activity) and as illegitimate conduct, which in this case can be concurrent, to the extent that the non-compliance with what is required not only violates the rules of good administration, but also infringes upon legality as it breaches the functional administrative powers that emanate from the Legal System itself…".(First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. No. 584-F-2005, at 10:40 on August 11, 2005).
In the present case, the plaintiff complains of what he terms an omissive conduct on the part of the Municipalidad de Aserrí for what he considers a lack of attention and maintenance to the lot donated for community facilities (facilidades comunales). VIII.- REGARDING THE CAUSAL LINK AND THE DAMAGES (DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS).
For this liability to arise, the criterion of Imputation by the party claiming the damage must be demonstrated. Imputation of liability to the Municipalidad de Aserrí would be possible as long as the damage was a consequence of its abnormal functioning, such that a cause-effect relationship may arise, i.e., the injury is the result of that omissive conduct. As already mentioned, the existence of the causal link is a prerequisite for the emergence of liability. "In this regard, it is worth recalling that multiple factors often concur in the production of damage, among which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the efficient and adequate cause of the harm caused (on the proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, see the already cited judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 252-F-01, at 16 hours 15 minutes on March 28, 2001). In that confluence of factual or legal elements surrounding the harmful situation, there will be a need to establish the apt action or omission that caused the consequence. Displacing those that have had no influence on the result (external causes), from those which, had they not occurred, would have avoided the harm. This is a type of objective analysis, through which it can be affirmed that with such action or omission, it is logical or probable that the specific damage would be produced" (No. 584-F-2005. First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 10:40 on August 11, 2005). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the damage to prove the existence of an administrative conduct or omission to which the harmful result can be attributed, that is, they must prove the existence of a causal link between that functioning and the injury they request be repaired. In the specific case, that causal link stems from the demonstration of the alleged omissive conduct, i.e., the lack of maintenance of the donated lot, and the alleged damage. This aspect was not proven in the record, and was so recorded in this resolution, within the Considering of Unproven Facts, given that no evidentiary element was provided to support it.
This Chamber lacks any evidentiary element that could prove that the lack of maintenance of the lot is the cause of the natural events that resulted in the landslide on said lot, since from the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) carried out it was only possible to observe that there was a landslide; however, this collegiate body cannot determine that such an event was caused by the lack of maintenance. On the contrary, from the topography of the place, the almost twenty-meter slope on which the lot is located, and the clayey soil type, it can be estimated with a high degree of certainty that it is an unstable terrain, in which the occurrence of landslides is a highly probable phenomenon given the characteristics of the lot noted above. Regarding the demonstration of this causal link, it is a burden of proof that corresponds to the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of Article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure (applicable in a supplementary manner, in accordance with the provisions of Article 220 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure). Consequently, the party who must ensure the provision to the judge of the instruments that provide certainty of the existence of the fact claimed as generating administrative liability is the plaintiff; however, in the case file, such burden of proof was devoid of elements that provide certainty of the existence of a causal link, which is required between the omission charged in this case and the damage. In this sense, it must be taken into account that it is not sufficient to allege or make arguments; both the omission and the existence of the damage must be proven. In the specific case, the omission indicated is the lack of maintenance on the Municipality's lot; however, it must first be noted that the landslide was on the Municipality's lot, which, according to the plaintiff's statement, occurred in 2011. This Court cannot derive an omission on the part of the Municipality, because it has not been proven that this landslide occurred as a consequence of the lack of maintenance, nor that it caused any type of damage to the plaintiff's property or assets. Furthermore, it was neither accredited nor was any element provided that would allow the conclusion that the cracks in the street and near the plaintiff's dwelling house (which he himself repaired) were caused by the lack of maintenance of the municipal lot. Given the impossibility of determining real, effective, and individualizable damage, as required by numeral 196 of the General Law of Public Administration, the attribution of liability for that cause is also impossible. In view of the situation, given the lack of proof of the foregoing, it cannot be taken as true that the plaintiff suffered damages to his assets or person as a consequence of the Municipality of Aserrí not maintaining the donated lot. Thus, the necessary causal link to attribute liability to the aforementioned municipal corporation is not established; no damage can be determined, as it is not possible to determine the cause-and-effect relationship without proof of the cause.
IX -. REGARDING THE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES): The defenses of lack of cause and lack of right raised must be accepted, by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff did not prove that a cause or reason existed to come to this venue. Likewise, he did not prove the right that assists him to request what is sought in this process.
X.- REGARDING COSTS (COSTAS): Regarding this item, under the protection of numeral 193 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, there is, in this Court's opinion, no reason whatsoever to proceed with the exemption from costs, so the amount thereof must be imposed at the plaintiff's expense.
XI.- On the other hand, this Court considers it necessary to draw attention regarding what it perceived as inappropriate behavior on the part of the lawyer who represented the interests of the Municipality of Aserrí, regarding the manner in which he exercised the technical defense of his client. Firstly, he did not participate in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial), despite it being evidence offered by his client, without the reasons for his absence being justified in a real manner before this Court. Furthermore, as this collegiate body could verify in the development of the oral trial hearing (see digital recording), the representative of the Municipality did not show adequate interest or knowledge in handling the hearing or in the basis of his theory of the case, which denoted a lack of preparation of the defense of the process under his charge, which affected, in this Court's opinion, the lack of a correct material defense of his client. The foregoing causes concern for the Court, fundamentally regarding the right to defense, as part of due process, as it concerns the Municipality of Aserrí. Therefore, it deems it appropriate to send this matter to the knowledge and evaluation of the Attorney General's Office of the Bar Association (Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados), so that an investigation may be conducted and a determination made as to whether the aforementioned legal professional may have incurred a breach of his duties, for which purpose a copy of the digital recording containing the trial hearing will be sent to them.
POR TANTO
The defenses of lack of cause and lack of right are granted. The lawsuit filed by Nombre115504 against the Municipality of Aserrí is declared without merit in all its aspects. Costs (costas) are at the plaintiff's expense. A copy of the digital recording of the trial hearing shall be sent to the Attorney General's Office of the Bar Association (Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados), so that it may determine the possible existence of a breach of duties on the part of Licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, in accordance with what is indicated in the last Considering (Considerando) of this judgment.
Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Sergio Mena García Juan Luis Giusti Soto </p><p style="margin:5.05pt 22.7pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">A public road is any land in the public domain and for common use, which by provision of the administrative authority is destined for free transit in accordance with planning laws and regulations and which is in fact already destined for that public use.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> According to its class, public roads shall also be destined to ensure conditions of aeration and illumination for the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to adjoining properties; and for the installation of any pipeline, device, apparatus, or accessory belonging to a public work or destined for a public service.</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 22.7pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 7.- </span><span style="font-style:italic">Property. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Any land that appears as a public road in the existing plans of the Municipality, or in the Archive of the Dirección General de Obras Públicas, or that of the Dirección General de Caminos, or in the Catastro, or in any other public archive, museum, or library, shall be presumed to have that status, except upon full proof to the contrary, which must be provided by whoever affirms that the land in question is private property or claims to have any exclusive right to its use</span><span style="font-style:italic">. As long as no final judgment so declares, no one may impede or hinder the public use of the land in question."</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 22.7pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 8.-</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) or Land Developments (Loteos). </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Once a plan for subdivisions (fraccionamientos) or land developments (loteos) is approved, </span><span style="font-style:italic">in accordance with the Regulations on subdivision (fraccionamiento), </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the lands that appear in said plans as destined for public roads, by that sole fact, shall leave the ownership of the subdivider (fraccionador) and pass into the public domain</span><span style="font-style:italic">. The approval of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) shall be granted by public deed, which must be registered in the Property Registry for the purposes of canceling private property regarding the lands destined for public roads." </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>In accordance with the cited rules, any area described as a public street in cadastral plans is presumed to have that status and, therefore, also to be incorporated into the public domain, except upon proof to the contrary that must be provided by the party opposing said presumption. In this sense, it is important to note that there is no doubt regarding the ownership of the property, since the Municipality of Aserrí itself has accepted that it is a public road; therefore, its administration corresponds to said municipal corporation. In addition to the fact that the Urban Planning Law reaffirms the character of full proof constituted by official maps, plans, and the cadastre, regarding the affectation to the public domain of lands or spaces delivered for public use, as derived from numerals 43 and 44 of the referenced legislation, which expressly state:</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 22.7pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre </span><span style="font-style:italic">that complement it, shall constitute a special authoritative registry on </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">property and affectation to public domain of the lands or spaces already delivered to public uses."</span></p><p style="margin:5.05pt 22.7pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">"Article 44.- Municipal ownership over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks, or other open spaces for general public use is constituted by that very use and their registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with, if they are recorded on the Official Map</span><span style="font-style:italic">. The cited Registry shall place a final entry on those properties, remnants, or lots that the owner, in the capacity of subdivider (fraccionador), cedes to the municipality by mandate of this law, if the registrable document records the public purpose given to the property and the Notary attests to the municipal agreement approving the cession and ordering the delivery of said property to that same purpose."</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>In the specific case, as already indicated, the road is the product of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) carried out by Mr. Nombre115504, so it is an area destined for a public road, which is not in dispute. However, this Chamber must indicate that, in accordance with numeral 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), the minimum width for a vecinal road (camino vecinal) is fourteen meters. </span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 4:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The width of highways (carreteras) and vecinal roads (caminos vecinales) shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes,</span><span style="font-style:italic"> which may not be less than twenty meters for the former and </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">fourteen meters for the latter"</span><span>. A measure that the public road in question does not reach, which, although indicated in the cadastral plan on folio 2 of the judicial file with a measurement of six meters, the truth is that upon taking that measurement in different sections on the day the judicial inspection was conducted, it has an average width of four meters thirty centimeters, a measure that does not meet the minimum of fourteen meters to be considered a vecinal road (camino vecinal); it could only be held as an Unclassified Road (Camino No Clasificado), according to Article 1 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), Cantonal Road Network (Red Vial Cantonal) subsection c), which states:</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 1. ...CANTONAL ROAD NETWORK (RED VIAL CANTONAL): Its administration corresponds to the municipalities. </span><span style="font-style:italic">It shall be constituted by the following public roads, not included by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes within the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional):</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> a) Vecinal roads (caminos vecinales): Public roads that provide direct access to farms and other rural economic activities; they connect hamlets and towns with the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional) and are characterized by having low traffic volumes and high proportions of short-distance local trips.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">b) Local streets (calles locales): public roads included within the quadrant of the urban area,</span><span style="font-style:italic"> not classified as urban crossings of the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">c) Unclassified Roads (Caminos No clasificados): Public roads not classified within the categories described above, such as bridle paths, footpaths, trails that provide access to very few users, who shall bear the costs of maintenance and improvement."</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span>Thus, the public road resulting from the subdivision (fraccionamiento) carried out by the plaintiff cannot be considered a local street (calle local) as it does not form part of the quadrant of the urban area of the canton; nor can it be considered a vecinal road (camino vecinal) as it does not meet the minimum width of fourteen meters established by numeral 4 of the aforementioned General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos). It can only be regarded as an Unclassified Road (Camino no clasificado), which, although a public road whose administration corresponds to the Municipality of Aserrí, the cost of maintenance and improvements introduced to it must be borne by the users to whom it provides access. However, the Municipality, as administrator, may collaborate with said maintenance.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> VI.- ON STRICT LIABILITY (RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">.</span><span style="color:#ffffff"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#ffffff">.:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-2.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span> </span><span>In accordance with Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), the Administration is liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal operation, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. This is coupled with what our jurisprudence has stated, which further recognizes in the institution of liability one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic Rule of Law, as a derivation from the constitutional requirements of liability of public powers and effective judicial protection, provided for and guaranteed in the Fundamental Charter in its numerals 9 and 41; particularly the latter insofar as it states that: </span><span style="font-style:italic">"By recourse to the laws, everyone must find reparation for injuries or damages received in their person, property, or moral interests. Justice must be administered promptly, completely, without denial, and in strict conformity with the laws"</span><span>. Now, for the duty to indemnify to arise, three elements must be present, namely, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">a)</span><span> the existence of a damage or injury that there is no legal duty to bear, and which must be certain, real, and effective –not merely eventual or hypothetical– and assessable in money, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">b)</span><span> an action or omission by a public authority, and </span><span style="font-weight:bold">c)</span><span> a causal link (nexo causal) between both, such that the harm caused is attributable to the State or its institutions. In the present case, the plaintiff claims from the Municipality of Aserrí liability for the omission in the maintenance it should have given to the lot of his property and to the street, which he says has caused him damages and losses, and that this lack of attention by the Municipality to the lot donated for community facilities is what has provoked natural events such as landslides, which in turn have caused cracking in the public street and near his dwelling house. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">VII.-</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> ON MATERIAL OMISSION OR INACTIVITY </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17pt; line-height:135%; font-size:14pt"><span>The abnormal functioning of the Administration can manifest in deficient, tardy administrative action, or in an omission in the required conduct; thus, omission can be seen as a criterion of abnormality: "</span><span style="font-style:italic">VII.- Omission as a criterion of abnormality and unlawfulness. The obligatory indemnity for damages and losses caused by inaction. (…) Currently, it is peacefully accepted that administrative conduct encompasses not only the active behavior of the Administration (and within it, the administrative act) but also omissive conduct, that "non-doing" that has been called inactivity of the Administration, both in its formal aspect (insofar as it results in a presumed act by administrative silence) and material (referring basically to the prestational sphere of the administrative organization). In this way, material administrative inactivity must be understood as that derived from the omission in the fulfillment of a pre-established legal obligation, which occurs when, outside of an administrative procedure, the Administration breaches, by omission, an obligation imposed by the Legal System or by any other self-binding mechanism, as is the case of an own act or consensual instruments, resulting in direct injury to a legitimate interest or a subjective right, whether or not it alters a pre-existing legal-administrative relationship. More simply, there is inactivity of this type when, there being for the public entity or body an obligation to give or do imposed by the legal system or by its own prior decision, outside or within an administrative procedure, the due factual or legal activity that brings the conferred function to a successful conclusion is not deployed, to the detriment of the rights or interests of one or several passive subjects, whether private or public, individual or collective. This concerns that "culpa in ommittendo" where the functional duty to act is breached by inaction. It goes without saying that administrative indolence can produce (and in fact produces) more serious injuries than the limiting action of the public body or entity itself. Hence, it must be stated forcefully (on the basis and in accordance with what has been said in preceding recitals) that the Public Administration is also liable for the damages and losses caused by its administrative inactivity. That passivity in the face of compliance with pre-existing obligations is framed, for the purposes of extracontractual civil liability, as abnormal functioning of the Administration (insofar as it corresponds to a due material activity) and as an illegitimate conduct, which in this case may be concurrent, to the extent that the breach of what is due not only violates the rules of good administration but infringes legality insofar as it breaches the functional administrative powers emanating from the Legal System itself…"</span><span>.(Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. No. 584-F-2005, at 10:40 hours on August 11, 2005).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span> </span><span>In the present case, the plaintiff claims what he calls an omissive conduct on the part of the Municipality of Aserrí for what he deems as a lack of attention and maintenance to the lot donated for community facilities. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">VIII.- ON THE CAUSAL LINK (NEXO DE CAUSALIDAD) AND THE DAMAGES AND LOSSES. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span>For this liability to arise, the criterion of Imputation must be demonstrated by the party claiming the damage. The imputation of liability to the Municipality of Aserrí would be possible insofar as the damage was a consequence of its abnormal functioning, such that a cause-effect relationship can emerge, that is, that the injury is the result of that omissive conduct. The existence of the causal link (nexo causal) is a prerequisite for the arising of liability, as already mentioned. </span><span style="font-style:italic">"In this regard, it is worth remembering that in the production of damage, multiple factors frequently concur, among which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the efficient and adequate cause of the harm caused (on proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, see the judgment already cited of the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia No. 252-F-01, at 16 hours 15 minutes on March 28, 2001). In that confluence of factual or legal elements that surround the harmful situation, it will be necessary to establish the apt action or omission that provoked the consequence, displacing those that have had no influence on the result (extraneous causes) from those that, had they not occurred, would have avoided the harm. This is a kind of objective analysis, through which one can affirm that with such action or omission it is logical or probable that the specific damage would occur"</span><span> (No. 584-F-2005. Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, at 10:40 hours on August 11, 2005). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the damage to prove the existence of an administrative conduct or omission to which the harmful result can be attributed; that is, they must prove the existence of the causal link (nexo causal) between that functioning and the injury they seek to have repaired. In the specific case, that causal link stems from the demonstration of the omissive conduct alleged, namely, the lack of maintenance of the donated lot and the damage claimed. Said aspect was not proven in the record, and it was so recorded in this resolution, within the Recital of Unproven Facts (Considerando de Hechos No Probados), given that no probative element was provided to support it. This Chamber lacks any probative element that can prove that the lack of maintenance of the lot is the cause for which the natural events occurred that resulted in the landslide on said lot, since from the judicial inspection conducted, it could only be observed that there was a landslide; however, this collegial body cannot determine that such an event was produced by the lack of maintenance. On the contrary, from the topography of the place, the nearly twenty-meter slope on which the lot is located, and the clayey soil type, it can be estimated with a high degree of certainty that it is unstable terrain, in which the occurrence of landslides is a very probable phenomenon given the lot characteristics noted earlier. Regarding the demonstration of this causal link (nexo de causalidad), it is an evidentiary burden that corresponds to the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (of supplementary application, in accordance with the provisions of Article 220 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code). Consequently, the party who must ensure the provision to the judge of the instruments that give certainty of the existence of the fact claimed as generating administrative liability is the plaintiff. However, in the record, such evidentiary burden was devoid of elements that provide certainty of the existence of a causal link (nexo de causalidad), which is required between the omissive conduct alleged in this case and the damage. In this sense, it must be borne in mind that it is not sufficient to allege or make arguments; both the omissive conduct and the existence of the damage must be demonstrated. In this case, the omissive conduct indicated is the lack of maintenance on the Municipality's lot; however, it must first be noted that the landslide was on the Municipality's lot, which, according to the plaintiff's statement, occurred in 2011. This Tribunal cannot derive an omissive conduct from the Municipality, because it is not proven that this landslide occurred as a consequence of the lack of maintenance, nor that it caused any type of damage to the plaintiff's property or assets. On the other hand, it was also not proven, nor was any element provided that allows concluding that the cracks in the street and near the plaintiff's dwelling house (which he himself repaired) were caused by the lack of maintenance to the municipal lot. Faced with the impossibility of determining a real, effective, and individualizable damage, as required by numeral 196 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de Administración Pública), the attribution of liability for that cause is also impossible. Thus, given the lack of demonstration of the foregoing, it cannot be taken as true that the plaintiff suffered damages to his assets or person as a consequence of the Municipality of Aserrí not maintaining the donated lot. Therefore, the causal link (nexo de causalidad) necessary to attribute liability to the mentioned municipal corporation is not established; no damage can be determined, as it is impossible to determine the cause-effect relationship without the demonstration of the cause.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">IX</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:13.5pt"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold">-. ON THE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES): </span><span>The defenses of lack of cause (falta de causa), and lack of right (falta de derecho) raised must be granted, by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that a cause or reason existed to come to this venue. Likewise, he did not prove the right that assists him to request what he sought in this process. </span><span> </span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> X.- ON COSTS (COSTAS): </span><span>Regarding this matter, under the protection of numeral 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, in the opinion of this Tribunal, there is no reason whatsoever to proceed with the exemption of costs (costas), so the amount thereof must be imposed at the expense of the plaintiff. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">XI.- </span><span>On the other hand, this Tribunal considers it necessary to call attention to what it perceived as inappropriate behavior on the part of the lawyer who represented the interests of the Municipality of Aserrí, regarding the manner in which he exercised the technical defense of his client. In the first instance, he did not participate in the judicial inspection, despite being evidence offered by his client, without the reasons for his absence being justified in a real manner before this Tribunal. Furthermore, as this collegial body was able to ascertain during the development of the oral trial hearing (see digital recording), the representative of the Municipality did not show the adequate interest or knowledge in handling the hearing or in the foundation of his theory of the case, which denoted a lack of preparation of the defense of the process under his charge that, in the opinion of this Tribunal, hindered a correct material defense of his client. The foregoing causes concern to the Tribunal, fundamentally regarding the right of defense, as part of due process, as far as the Municipality of Aserrí is concerned, and therefore deems it appropriate to forward this matter to the knowledge and assessment of the Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados, so that it may be investigated and determined if the cited legal professional may have incurred in any breach of his duties, for which purpose a copy of the digital recording containing the trial hearing will be sent to it. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold"> POR TANTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt"><span>The defenses of lack of cause (falta de causa) and lack of right (falta de derecho) are granted. The lawsuit filed by Nombre115504 against the Municipality of Aserrí is declared without merit in all its aspects. Costs (costas) are to be borne by the plaintiff.</span></p> Send a copy of the digital record of the trial hearing to the Fiscalía of the Colegio de Abogados, so that it may determine the possible existence of a breach of duties on the part of Licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, in accordance with what is indicated in the last Considerando of this judgment.
Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Sergio Mena García Juan Luis Giusti Soto **IV.- REGARDING COMMUNAL ASSETS OR FACILITIES.-** Green zones or communal facility areas are defined as those areas resulting from urban development projects, which originate from the obligation imposed on the developer (urbanizador) under Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), to cede "free of charge" (gratuitamente) to municipal entities a portion of land—between five and twenty percent of the land designated for the project—for use as public roads, parks, and communal facilities, the cost of which is transferred to the value of the resulting parcels or lots.
Thus, they "nominally" belong to the municipalities (as they hold the bare ownership of the property), but in a strict sense they are classified as communal property, as they are intended for neighborhood use. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has made several clarifications:
"**XX.** The free transfer to municipalities of lands to be subdivided or urbanized is made to allocate certain services for the community on them, such as public roads and green zones, the latter—which are the ones of interest to us—will be used to build parks, gardens, educational centers, sports and recreational areas. The basis of this obligation must be situated in a kind of compensation owed by the developer for the increased value that the urbanization or subdivision process will give to the developed land; that is, it is ultimately a contribution in kind in urban law, as a mechanism to ensure that the surplus value acquired by the properties due to urbanization or subdivision reverts to the community. Before this regulation, a serious social situation existed, derived from the fact that landowners received the full prices obtained from their lands as net profit, while the new neighborhoods were left without service endowments, a deficiency for which the municipal Administration was sought to be held responsible, incapable of covering that deficit effectively. One of the principles of urban law consists precisely in that the considerable surplus values generated by the urban development process must be the primary sources to defray the costs in services that this same development causes to arise. The challenged obligation—to freely transfer a percentage of land to the municipality—aims precisely to make effective the principle of economic compensation and retribution in services for the community's needs that are created, as a corollary of the enrichment perceived from urban development.
**XXI.** In this manner, the content of property is configured, based on the criterion of its social function; it is a technical refinement of that function, which ceases to be a simple moral admonition to the consciences of the owners to become a system of legally enforceable positive duties. Thus, owners may exercise as their own all the faculties of urban utilization of the resulting plots, but simultaneously, they must also assume the positive duties with which the legal system attempts to compensate for the economic gain. The urbanization or subdivision plan must contemplate in advance all the provisions for communal services—roads, water and electric lighting connections, green zones, children's parks, etc.—before beginning the construction and individual utilization of the lots; execution that falls on the owner. ..., and it will be the new owners who will ultimately benefit from the green areas and installations referred to in Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law." (Judgment number 4205-96, of fourteen hours thirty-three minutes of August twentieth, nineteen ninety-six.).
In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that as a result of the subdivision carried out by Mr. Fernández Duque on his property, located in Salitrillos de Aserrí, he was required to donate an area destined for communal facilities, which is constituted by a lot of approximately two thousand eight hundred square meters, which was transferred to the municipal entity. Regarding this lot, the Court was able to verify in the judicial inspection carried out, that it has an irregular shape, and its topography is undulating and broken, with a slope of approximately twenty meters, which ends at the western boundary with the Cañas River, making it impossible to traverse; only part of its eastern boundary, which borders a public street, could be traversed. It was possible to observe that the land has a clayey type of soil, reddish in color, and is covered with tall grass and some trees. Then, with this Court located opposite the western boundary of the lot, on the other side of the Cañas River, the lot is observed and on the slope it possesses, a landslide could be seen, without this collegiate body being able to specify the causes or the moment in which it occurred.
**V.- ON THE PUBLIC NATURE OF THE ROAD. NOT CLASSIFIED. MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF USERS.** Regarding the determination of the public nature of a road, Articles 4, 7, and 8 of the Construction Law provide in their order as follows:
"**Article 4.-** Definition. **A public road is any land of public domain and common use that, by provision of the administrative authority, is destined for free transit in accordance with planning laws and regulations and that is in fact already destined for that public use.** According to its class, public roads shall also be destined to ensure the conditions of aeration and illumination of the buildings that border them; to facilitate access to the adjoining properties; for the installation of any pipeline, artifact, apparatus, or accessory belonging to a public work or destined for a public service." "**Article 7.-** Property. **Any land that in the existing plans of the Municipality, or in the Archive of the General Directorate of Public Works, or that of the General Directorate of Roads, or in the Cadastre, or in any other archive, museum, or public library, appears as a public road shall be presumed to have that quality, except for full proof to the contrary, which must be provided by anyone who affirms that the land in question is private property or claims to have any exclusive right to its use.** As long as an executory judgment has not been handed down so declaring, no one may impede or obstruct the public use of the land in question." "**Article 8.-** Subdivisions or Plotting. **Once a plan for subdivisions or plotting is approved,** in accordance with the Regulations on subdivision, **the lands that in said plans appear as destined for public roads, by that sole fact shall leave the developer's domain and pass into the public domain.** The approval of the subdivision shall be granted by public deed, which must be registered in the Property Registry for the purposes of canceling private property with respect to the lands destined for public road." According to the cited norms, any area that appears described as a public street in cadastral plans is presumed to have that quality and, therefore, also to be incorporated into the public domain, except for proof to the contrary that must be accredited by the party opposing said presumption. In this sense, it is important to note that there is no doubt about the ownership of the property, since the Municipality of Aserrí itself has accepted that it is a public road; therefore, its administration corresponds to said municipal corporation. Besides the fact that the Urban Planning Law reaffirms the character of full proof constituted by official maps, plans, and the cadastre, regarding the affectation to the public domain of lands or spaces delivered for public use, as deduced from numerals 43 and 44 of the referred legislation, which expressly state:
"**Article 43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre** that complement it, shall constitute a special reliable registry on **property and affectation to the public domain of lands or spaces already delivered for public uses.**" "**Article 44.- Municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks, or other open spaces for general public use, is constituted by that very use and its registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with, if it appears on the Official Map.** The cited Registry shall place the final entry on those estates, remnants, or lots that the owner, in the capacity of developer, transfers to the municipality by mandate of this law, if the inscribable document states the public purpose given to the property and the Notary attests to the municipal agreement approving the transfer and ordering said property be delivered for that same purpose." In the specific case, as already indicated, the road is the product of the subdivision carried out by Mr. Fernández Duque, so it is an area destined for a public road, about which there is no controversy; however, this Chamber must indicate that in accordance with numeral 4 of the General Law of Public Roads, the minimum width for a neighborhood road is fourteen meters.
"**Article 4:** **The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport,** which may not be less than twenty meters for the former and **fourteen meters for the latter.**" A measurement that the public road in question does not reach, which, although indicated in the cadastral plan on folio 2 of the judicial dossier with a measurement of six meters, the truth is that when this measurement was taken in different stretches on the day the judicial inspection was carried out, it has an average width of four meters thirty centimeters, a measurement that does not reach the minimum of fourteen meters to be considered a neighborhood road; it could only be considered an Unclassified Road, according to Article 1 of the General Law of Public Roads, Cantonal Road Network subsection c), which provides:
"**Article 1. ... CANTONAL ROAD NETWORK: Its administration corresponds to the municipalities.** It shall be constituted by the following public roads, not included by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport within the National Road Network: **a) Neighborhood roads: Public roads that provide direct access to farms and other rural economic activities; they connect hamlets and settlements with the National Road Network and are characterized by having low traffic volumes and high proportions of short-distance local trips.** **b) Local streets: public roads included within the quadrant of the urban area,** not classified as urban crossings of the National Road Network.
**c) Unclassified Roads: Public roads not classified within the categories described above, such as bridle paths, footpaths, trails that provide access to very few users, who will defray the costs of maintenance and improvement.**" Consequently, the public road resulting from the subdivision carried out by the plaintiff cannot be considered a local street, as it does not form part of the quadrant of the urban area of the canton; nor can it be considered a neighborhood road, as it does not meet the minimum width of fourteen meters established by numeral 4 of the aforementioned General Law of Public Roads. It can only be regarded as an Unclassified Road, which, although a public road whose administration corresponds to the Municipality of Aserrí, the cost of maintenance and improvements introduced to it must be defrayed by the users to whom it provides access. Nevertheless, the Municipality as administrator may collaborate with said maintenance.
**VI.- ON OBJECTIVE LIABILITY .** In accordance with Article 190 of the General Law of the Public Administration, the Administration is liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal functioning, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. The foregoing is coupled with what our jurisprudence has stated, which also recognizes in the institute of liability one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic Rule of Law State, as a derivation of the constitutional requirements of public authorities' liability and effective judicial protection, provided for and guaranteed in the Fundamental Charter in its numerals 9 and 41; particularly the latter insofar as it provides that: "Occurring to the laws, everyone must find reparation for the injuries or damages they have received in their person, property, or moral interests. They must be done prompt, complete justice, without denial, and in strict conformity with the laws." Now, for the duty to indemnify to arise, three elements must be present, namely: **a)** the existence of a damage or injury that one has no legal duty to bear, and which must be certain, real, and effective—not merely eventual or hypothetical—and assessable in money; **b)** an act or omission by a public authority; and **c)** a causal link between both things, so that the harm caused is imputable to the State or its institutions. In the present case, the plaintiff claims from the Municipality of Aserrí liability for the omission in the maintenance it should have given to the lot of his property and to the street, which he says has caused him damages and losses, and that this lack of attention by the Municipality to the lot donated for communal facilities is what has provoked natural events such as landslides, which in turn have caused cracking in the public street and near his dwelling house.
**VII.- ON THE MATERIAL OMISSION OR INACTIVITY** The abnormal functioning of the Administration can manifest itself in deficient, tardy administrative action, or in an omission in the due conduct. Thus, omission can be seen as a criterion of abnormality: "**VII.- Omission as a criterion of abnormality and unlawfulness. The indemnifying obligatoriness in the face of damages and losses caused by inaction. (…) At present, it is peacefully accepted that administrative conduct encompasses not only the active behavior of the Administration (and within it, the administrative act) but also omissive conduct, that "not doing" that has come to be called inactivity of the Administration, both in its formal aspect (insofar as it reverts to a presumed act by administrative silence) and material aspect (basically referring to the service-providing scope of the administrative organization). In this way, material administrative inactivity must be understood as that derived from the omission in fulfilling a pre-established legal obligation, which occurs when, outside an administrative procedure, the Administration breaches, by omission, an obligation imposed by the Legal System or by any other self-binding mechanism, such as the case of an act of its own or consensual instruments, with direct injury to a legitimate interest or a subjective right, whether or not it alters a pre-existing legal-administrative relationship. More simply, there is inactivity of this type when, for the public entity or body, an existing obligation to give or do, imposed by the legal system or by a prior decision of its own, outside or within an administrative procedure, the due factual or legal activity is not deployed that would bring the granted function to a successful conclusion, to the detriment of the rights or interests of one or several passive subjects, whether private or public, individual or collective. It is that “culpa in ommittendo” in which the functional duty to act is breached through inaction. It goes without saying that administrative indolence can produce (and in fact produces) more serious injuries than the restrictive action of the public body or entity itself. Hence, it must be categorically affirmed (on the basis of and in accordance with what has been stated in preceding recitals) that the Public Administration is also liable for the damages and losses caused by its administrative inactivity. That passivity in the face of fulfilling pre-existing obligations is framed, for the purposes of non-contractual civil liability, as abnormal functioning of the Administration (insofar as it corresponds to a due material activity) and as an illegitimate conduct, which in this case may be concurrent, to the extent that the failure to do what is due not only violates the rules of good administration, but also infringes upon legality insofar as it breaches the functional administrative powers emanating from the Legal System itself…" (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. No. 584-F-2005, of 10:40 hours on August 11, 2005).
In the present case, the plaintiff claims what he calls omissive conduct on the part of the Municipality of Aserrí, which he deems as a lack of attention and maintenance to the lot donated for communal facilities. **VIII.- ON THE NEXUS OF CAUSALITY AND THE DAMAGES AND LOSSES.** For this liability to arise, the criterion of Imputation must be demonstrated by the party claiming the damage. The imputation of liability to the Municipality of Aserrí would be possible insofar as the damage was a consequence of its abnormal functioning, so that a cause-effect relationship can arise, i.e., the injury is the result of that omissive conduct. A prerequisite for the emergence of liability, as previously mentioned, is the existence of the causal link. "In this regard, it must be remembered that in the production of damage, multiple factors frequently concur, within which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the efficient and adequate cause of the harm caused (on the proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, the aforementioned judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 252-F-01, of 16 hours 15 minutes on March 28, 2001, may be consulted). In that confluence of factual or legal elements surrounding the harmful situation, there will be a need to establish the apt action or omission that provoked the consequence. Displacing those that have had no influence on the result (extraneous causes), from those which, had they not taken place, would have avoided the harm. It is a kind of objective analysis, through which it can be affirmed that with such action or omission it is logical or probable that the specific damage will occur." (No. 584-F-2005. First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of 10:40 hours on August 11, 2005). Thus, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the damage to prove the existence of an administrative conduct or omission to which the harmful result can be attributed, that is, they must prove the existence of the causal link between that functioning and the injury they request be repaired. In the specific case, that causal link stems from the demonstration of the omissive conduct accused, namely the lack of maintenance of the donated lot, and the damage alleged. Said aspect was not proven in the court records, and it was so recorded in this resolution, within the Recital of Unproven Facts, given that no evidentiary element supporting it was provided. This Chamber lacks any evidentiary element that can prove that the lack of maintenance of the lot is the cause for which the natural events occurred that resulted in the landslide on said lot, since from the judicial inspection carried out, it was only possible to observe that there was a landslide; however, this collegiate body cannot determine that such an event was produced by the lack of maintenance. On the contrary, from the topography of the place, the nearly twenty-meter slope on which the lot is found, and the clayey soil type, it can be estimated with a high degree of certainty that it is unstable land, in which the occurrence of landslides is a quite probable phenomenon given the characteristics of the lot noted previously.
Regarding the demonstration of this causal link, it is a burden of proof that corresponds to the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (applicable supplementarily, in accordance with what is established in article 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). Consequently, the party who must ensure the submission to the judge of the instruments that provide certainty of the existence of the fact claimed as the generator of administrative liability is the plaintiff; however, in the case file, such burden of proof was devoid of elements that provide certainty of the existence of a causal link, which is required between the omissive conduct alleged in this case and the damage. In this sense, it must be taken into account that it is not sufficient to allege or make arguments; both the omissive conduct and the existence of the damage must be demonstrated. In the instant case, the omissive conduct indicated is the lack of maintenance on the Municipality's lot; however, it must be pointed out firstly that the landslide was on the Municipality's lot, which, according to the plaintiff, occurred in the year 2011. This Court cannot derive omissive conduct on the part of the Municipality, because it has not been demonstrated that this landslide occurred as a consequence of the lack of maintenance, nor that it caused any type of damage to the assets or property of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was also not accredited nor was any element provided that would allow concluding that the cracks in the street and near the plaintiff's dwelling house (which he himself repaired) were caused by the lack of maintenance on the municipal lot. Given the impossibility of determining real, effective, and individualizable damage, as required by Article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration, it is also impossible to attribute liability for that cause. Thus, given the lack of demonstration of the foregoing, it cannot be held as certain that the plaintiff suffered damages to his property or person as a consequence of the Municipality of Aserrí not maintaining the donated lot. Therefore, the necessary causal link to be able to attribute liability to the aforementioned municipal corporation is not constituted; it being impossible to determine any damage, as it is not possible to determine the cause-and-effect relationship without the demonstration of the cause."</span><span\r\nstyle='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>\r\n\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n</body>\r\n\r\n</html>\r\n" The approval of the subdivision shall be granted by public deed, which must be registered in the Property Registry for the purposes of canceling private ownership with respect to the lands destined for public roads.
In accordance with the cited rules, any area that appears described as a public street on cadastral maps (planos catastrados) is presumed to have that status and, therefore, also to be incorporated into the public domain, unless there is proof to the contrary that must be provided by the party opposing said presumption. In this regard, it is important to note that there is no doubt about the ownership of the property, as the Municipality of Aserrí itself has accepted that it is a public road; therefore, its administration corresponds to said municipal corporation. Besides, the Urban Planning Law reaffirms the nature of full evidence that official maps, plans, and the cadastre constitute regarding the encumbrance (afectación a dominio público) of lands or spaces given over to public use, as is clear from Articles 43 and 44 of the aforementioned legislation, which expressly provide:
"Article 43.- The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complement it, shall constitute a special, reliable registry regarding ownership and encumbrance to public domain of lands or spaces already given over to public uses." "Article 44.- Municipal ownership over areas of streets, plazas, gardens, parks, or other open spaces for general public use is constituted by that very use and its registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with if it is recorded on the Official Map. The cited Registry shall make the final entry for those properties, remnants, or lots that the owner, in the capacity of subdivider, cedes to the municipality by mandate of this law, if the registrable document states the public purpose given to the property and the Notary attests to the municipal agreement approving the cession and ordering the delivery of said property to that same purpose." In the specific case, as already indicated, the road is the product of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) carried out by Mr. Nombre115504, so it is an area destined for a public road, about which there is no controversy. However, this Chamber must indicate that, in accordance with Article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads, the minimum width for a neighborhood road (camino vecinal) is fourteen meters.
"Article 4: The width of highways and neighborhood roads shall be that indicated by the Technical Departments of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), without being able to be less than twenty meters for the former and fourteen meters for the latter." This width is not met by the public road in question, which, although indicated on the cadastral map on folio 2 of the judicial file as measuring six meters, the truth is that when measured in different sections on the day the judicial inspection was conducted, it has an average width of four meters thirty centimeters. This measurement does not reach the minimum of fourteen meters to be considered a neighborhood road; it could only be regarded as an Unclassified Road (Camino No Clasificado), according to Article 1, subsection c) of the General Law of Public Roads, Red Vial Cantonal, which provides:
"Article 1. ...CANTONAL ROAD NETWORK (RED VIAL CANTONAL): Its administration corresponds to the municipalities. It shall be constituted by the following public roads, not included by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) within the National Road Network: a) Neighborhood roads (Caminos vecinales): Public roads that provide direct access to farms and other rural economic activities; they connect hamlets and towns with the National Road Network and are characterized by low traffic volumes and high proportions of short-distance local trips. b) Local streets (Calles locales): public roads included within the quadrant of the urban area, not classified as urban crossings of the National Road Network.
VI.- ON STRICT LIABILITY (RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA). .:
In accordance with Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, the Administration is liable for all damages caused by its legitimate or illegitimate, normal or abnormal operation, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. The foregoing is coupled with what our jurisprudence has stated, which also recognizes in the institution of liability one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic Rule of Law, as a derivation of the constitutional requirements of accountability of public powers and effective judicial protection, provided for and guaranteed in the Constitution in Articles 9 and 41; particularly the latter insofar as it provides: "By resorting to the laws, all must find reparation for injuries or damages received in their person, property, or moral interests. They must be given prompt, complete justice, without denial and in strict conformity with the laws." Now, for the duty to compensate to arise, three elements must be present, namely, a) the existence of a damage or injury that there is no legal duty to bear, which must be certain, real, and effective – not merely eventual or hypothetical – and evaluable in money, b) an action or omission by a public authority, and c) a causal link between both things, such that the impairment caused is attributable to the State or its institutions. In the present case, the plaintiff claims liability against the Municipality of Aserrí for the omission in the maintenance it should have provided to the lot of his property and to the street, which he says has caused him damages and that this lack of attention by the Municipality to the lot donated for community facilities is what has caused natural events such as landslides, which in turn have caused cracking in the public street and near his dwelling house.
VII.- ON THE OMISSION OR MATERIAL INACTIVITY The abnormal functioning of the Administration can manifest as deficient, tardy administrative action, or as an omission in due conduct. Thus, omission can be seen as a criterion of abnormality: "VII.- Omission as a criterion of abnormality and unlawfulness. The obligation to indemnify for damages caused by inaction. (...) Currently, it is peacefully accepted that administrative conduct encompasses not only the active behavior of the Administration (and within it, the administrative act) but also omissive conduct, that 'not doing' which has come to be called inactivity of the Administration, both in its formal aspect (insofar as it results in a presumed act by administrative silence) and its material aspect (referring basically to the service-providing sphere of the administrative organization). Thus, material administrative inactivity must be understood as that derived from the omission in the fulfillment of a pre-established legal obligation, which occurs when, outside of an administrative procedure, the Administration breaches, by omission, an obligation imposed by the Legal System or by any other self-binding mechanism, as in the case of its own act or consensual instruments, with direct injury to a legitimate interest or a subjective right, whether or not it alters a pre-existing legal-administrative relationship. More simply, there is inactivity of this type when, for the entity or public body, there exists an obligation to give or do imposed by the legal system or by a previous decision of its own, outside or within an administrative procedure, the due factual or legal activity that brings the granted function to fruition is not deployed, to the detriment of the rights or interests of one or several passive subjects, whether private or public, individual or collective. This is that 'culpa in ommittendo' where the functional duty to act is breached by inaction. It goes without saying that administrative indolence can produce (and indeed produces) more serious injuries than the limiting action of the public body or entity itself. Hence, it must be stated forcefully (based on and in accordance with what was said in previous recitals) that the Public Administration is also liable for the damages caused by its administrative inactivity. That passivity in the face of fulfilling pre-existing obligations is framed, for purposes of tort liability, as abnormal functioning of the Administration (insofar as it corresponds to a due material activity) and as an illegitimate conduct, which in this case may be concurrent, insofar as the breach of what is due not only violates the rules of good administration but also infringes legality by breaching the functional administrative powers emanating from the Legal System itself..." (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Nº584-F-2005, of 10:40 a.m. on August 11, 2005).
In the present case, the plaintiff claims what he calls an omissive conduct on the part of the Municipality of Aserrí, which he considers a lack of attention and maintenance to the lot donated for community facilities. VIII.- ON THE CAUSAL LINK AND DAMAGES.
For this liability to arise, the criterion of Attribution must be demonstrated by the party claiming the damage. The attribution of liability to the Municipality of Aserrí would be possible insofar as the damage was a consequence of its abnormal functioning, such that a cause-and-effect relationship can arise, that is, that the injury is the result of that omissive conduct. As already mentioned, a prerequisite for liability to arise is the existence of the causal link. "In this regard, it should be remembered that in the production of damage, multiple factors often concur, among which it is necessary to determine those that directly or indirectly are the efficient and adequate cause of the harm caused (on the proximate, adequate, and efficient cause, see the already cited judgment of the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia Nº252-F-01, of 4:15 p.m. on March 28, 2001). In that confluence of factual or legal elements surrounding the harmful situation, it will be necessary to establish the apt action or omission that caused the consequence, displacing those that had no influence on the result (external causes) from those that, had they not taken place, would have avoided the impairment. It is a kind of objective analysis, through which it can be affirmed that with such action or omission, it is logical or probable that the specific damage will occur" (Nº584-F-2005. Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, of 10:40 a.m. on August 11, 2005). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the party claiming the damage to prove the existence of an administrative conduct or omission to which the harmful result can be attributed, that is, they must prove the existence of the causal link between that functioning and the injury they seek to have repaired. In the specific case, that causal link starts from the demonstration of the alleged omissive conduct, namely the lack of maintenance of the donated lot, and the damage alleged. This aspect was not proven in the case file, and was so recorded in this resolution, within the Recital of Unproven Facts, given that no evidentiary element was provided to support it. This Chamber lacks any evidentiary element that can prove that the lack of maintenance of the lot is the cause for which the natural events occurred that resulted in the landslide on said lot, since from the judicial inspection carried out, it could only be observed that there was a landslide; however, this collegiate body cannot determine that such event was caused by the lack of maintenance. To the contrary, from the topography of the place, the nearly twenty-meter slope on which the lot is located, and the clayey soil type, it can be estimated with a high degree of certainty that it is an unstable terrain, where the occurrence of landslides is a quite probable phenomenon given the characteristics of the lot noted above. Regarding the demonstration of this causal link, it is an evidentiary burden that corresponds to the plaintiff, in accordance with the provisions of Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code (of supplementary application, in accordance with the provisions of Article 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). Consequently, it is the plaintiff who must ensure the provision to the judge of the instruments that give certainty of the existence of the fact claimed as generating administrative liability. However, in the case file, such evidentiary burden was devoid of elements that give certainty of the existence of a causal link, which is required between the omissive conduct alleged in this case and the damage. In this sense, it must be borne in mind that it is not sufficient to allege or make arguments; both the omissive conduct and the existence of the damage must be demonstrated. In this case, the omissive conduct pointed out is the lack of maintenance on the Municipality's lot; however, it must first be noted that the landslide was on the Municipality's lot, which, as stated by the plaintiff, occurred in 2011. This Court cannot derive an omissive conduct on the part of the Municipality, because it is not proven that this landslide was caused by the lack of maintenance, nor that it caused any type of damage to the plaintiff's assets or property. Furthermore, it was also not proven, nor was any element provided, that would allow concluding that the cracks in the street and near the plaintiff's dwelling house (which he repaired himself) were caused by the lack of maintenance of the municipal lot. Given the impossibility of determining a real, effective, and individualizable damage, as required by Article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration, the attribution of liability for that cause is also impossible. Thus, given the lack of proof of the foregoing, it cannot be held as true that the plaintiff suffered damages to his property or person as a consequence of the Municipality of Aserrí not maintaining the donated lot. Therefore, the necessary causal link to be able to attribute liability to the aforementioned municipal corporation is not constituted; it being impossible to determine any damage, as it is not possible to determine the cause-and-effect relationship without the demonstration of the cause.
IX -. ON THE DEFENSES: The defenses of lack of cause and lack of right raised must be accepted, by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that there was a cause or reason to come to this venue. Likewise, he did not prove the right that assists him to request what is sought in this process.
X.- ON COSTS: Regarding this item, under the protection of Article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, in this Court's opinion, there is no reason to proceed with an exoneration from costs, so the amount thereof must be imposed on the plaintiff.
XI.- Furthermore, this Court considers it necessary to call attention to what it perceived as inappropriate behavior on the part of the lawyer who represented the interests of the Municipality of Aserrí, regarding the way in which he exercised the technical defense of his client. Firstly, he did not participate in the judicial inspection, despite it being evidence offered by his client, and the reasons for his absence were not genuinely justified before this Court. Additionally, as this collegiate body was able to verify during the oral trial hearing (see digital record), the Municipality's representative did not show adequate interest or knowledge in managing the hearing or in the foundation of his theory of the case, which denoted a lack of preparation in the defense of the process under his charge. This, in this Court's opinion, affected the lack of a proper material defense for his client. The foregoing causes the Court concern, fundamentally regarding the right of defense, as part of due process, insofar as the Municipality of Aserrí is concerned. Therefore, it deems it appropriate to send this matter for the knowledge and assessment of the Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados, so that an investigation may be conducted and it may be determined if the cited legal professional may have incurred in any breach of his duties, for which purpose a copy of the digital record containing the trial hearing will be sent to them.
POR TANTO
The defenses of lack of cause and lack of right are granted. The lawsuit filed by Nombre115504 against the Municipality of Aserrí is declared denied in all its aspects. Costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. Send a copy of the digital record of the trial hearing to the Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados, so that it may determine the possible existence of a breach of duties on the part of Licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, in accordance with what is indicated in the last Recital of this judgment.
Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Sergio Mena García Juan Luis Giusti Soto
PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: Nombre115504 DEMANDADO: Municipalidad de Aserrí N° 79-2013-V SECCIÓN QUINTA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. ANEXO A. II Circuito Judicial de San José, a las nueve horas del seis de agosto del dos mil trece.- Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por Nombre115504 , mayor, casado una vez, pasaporte estadounidense numero 46113979, vecino de Salitrillos de Aserrí, contra la Municipalidad de Aserrí, representada por su Alcalde, Víctor Morales Mora, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Aserrí, cédula de identidad número CED91289. Interviene como apoderado especial judicial del actor, el licenciado Luis Gerardo Ballestero Mora, mayor, casado una vez, abogado, vecino de San José, cédula de identidad número CED13694 y como apoderado especial judicial de la Municipalidad, el licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, mayor, soltero, abogado, vecino de Aserrí, cédula de identidad número CED91290.
RESULTANDO
1.- Según los hechos que expone y el derecho en el que se fundamenta, este proceso es interpuesto por el actor para que en sentencia: " 1.- Se ordene a la Municipalidad efectuar los estudios y acciones técnicas necesarias para evitar la continuación del daño, tanto en el bien municipal en el que se genera el problema como en la calle pública afectada. 2. Se condene al pago de las costas y a los daños y perjuicios que son de cuantía inestimable, a fijar pericialmente." 2.- - El representante de la Municipalidad de Aserrí, contestó en forma negativa y opuso las defensas previas de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa y defectos no subsanados que impiden verter pronunciamiento en cuanto al fondo, las cuales fueron resueltas en la audiencia preliminar (folio 55) y las defensas de fondo de falta de derecho y falta de causa además, solicita se declare sin lugar la demanda (folios 25 a 31 del expediente judicial).
3.- El día veintidós de abril de dos mil trece se efectúo la audiencia preliminar ( ver minuta a folios 54 a 56 del expediente judicial).
4.- E l día once de julio de dos mil trece por la mañana se realizó reconocimiento judicial en el lote en cuestión, sito en Salitrillos de Aserrí y, posteriormente, en esa misma fecha se realizó el juicio oral y público de este proceso (ver grabación del reconocimiento en soporte digital al igual que la audiencia de juicio grabada en formato digital).
5.- La licenciada Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas, quien figura como ponente en este asunto, disfrutó de vacaciones los días 23, 24 y 26 del mes de julio. Lo anterior para entender que se tiene por prorrogado en forma automática el plazo para el dictado de la sentencia.
6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley, no existen defectos capaces de producir nulidad y se dicta esta resolución dentro del término establecido en el artículo 111.1 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, para los asuntos complejos, previa deliberación y por unanimidad.
Redacta la Jueza Vargas Vargas.
CONSIDERANDO
I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: 1.- Que el señor Nombre115504 fraccionó una finca de su propiedad, inscrita en el Partido de San José, número 1-00037114-000, denominado Proyecto de Lotificación Colinas de Aserrí, dando origen a las siguientes fincas: a) Placa21691, b) Placa21692; c) 00548022-000; d) Placa21693; Placa21694; f) Placa21695; g) 00548027-000; h) 00548028-000; i) 00548029-000; j) Placa21696; k) 00548032-000; l) 00548033-000; m) 00548034-000; n) 00548035-000; o) 00548036-000 (hecho primero de la demanda no controvertido, copia certificada del Acuerdo Nº24-47, artículo cuarto, emitido por el Concejo Municipal de Aserrí en sesión ordinaria Nº47 de 26 de marzo de 2006, a folio 33 del expediente judicial, testimonio de Nombre113794 ); 2.- Que como consecuencia de ese fraccionamiento, el señor Nombre115504 debió entregar un diez por ciento de área pública a la Municipalidad de Aserrí, para facilidades comunales,cediéndole el lote número Placa21697 tercero de la contestación de la demanda, copia certificada del acuerdo Nº24-47 de 26 de marzo de 2007 a folio 33 del expediente judicial, copia de informe registral a folio 42 del expediente judicial, declaración de Nombre113794 ); 3.- Que el referido lote es de forma irregular, con un frente a calle de 69.36 metros. La topografía que presenta es ondulada-quebrada, con pendiente pronunciada de más de veinte metros que finaliza en la colindancia con el río Cañas. (copia de plano catastrado a folio 2, informe del ingeniero Didi Valverde Montoya a folios 35 a 42 del expediente judicial, declaración del ingeniero Didi Valverde Montoya y del ingeniero Sergio Sáenz Aguilar, reconocimiento judicial en soporte digital); 4.- Que en la zona donde se ubica el lote donado a la Municipalidad han ocurrido varios deslizamientos y está catalogada como zona de riesgo (ver reconocimiento judicial en soporte digital, copia de certificado de uso de suelo a folio 18 del expediente judicial, avalúo 024-2012 realizado por el ingeniero Didi Valverde a folios 35 a 43 del expediente judicial); 5.- Que la calle de acceso al referido lote no mide catorce metros (ver copia de plano catastrado a folios 2 y 43 del expediente judicial, reconocimiento judicial en soporte digital); 6.- Que la casa del actor se ubica al noreste del lote donado a la Municipalidad, cruzando la calle (ver copias de fotografías a folio 5 vto, y reconocimiento judicial en soporte de CD).
II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 1.- Que la falta de mantenimiento al lote donado a la Municipalidad sea el causante de los deslizamientos, de las grietas en la calle, y en la cercanías a la casa del actor (no fue demostrado este hecho, testimonio de Sergio Sáenz Aguilar ); 2.- Que los daños y perjuicios que reclama el actor se deriven de la falta de acción de la Municipalidad de Aserrí en el lote donado (no se aportó ningún elemento probatorio que lo acreditara).
III.- ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES:
Tesis del actor: El apoderado del actor manifiesta que la falta de acción de la Municipalidad pone en peligro a las personas y también las propiedades establecidas sobre la vía pública, la que, afirma, siempre existió, porque había paso hacia las fincas, lo que se hizo después según señala fue adecuarlo. Sostiene que su representado hizo un fraccionamiento y que le donó a la Municipalidad un terreno de aproximadamente dos mil ochocientos metros (2.800 metros). Manifiesta que la Municipalidad debió tomar las medidas necesarias para evitar las consecuencias nocivas de un evento natural. Señala que la actitud generalizada de la municipalidad de no atender esa demanda originó la presentación de este proceso, el que además se presentó en la búsqueda de una satisfacción extraprocesal. Afirma que a folio 47 del expediente judicial consta una gestión amistosa, sin embargo, posteriormente en oficio de folio 52 del expediente consta gestiones para que el proceso continúe, pues después de que se reunieron las partes no volvieron a saber nada del proceso. Señala que a folio 50 hay oficio en donde se indica que que la Municipalidad únicamente dilató los procedimientos. Afirma que el terreno donado excede la zona de protección del río, afectándose no sólo esa zona sino que se descompresiona el resto y es más proclive el daño a las personas, por la desatención de la Municipalidad de Aserrí, ya que no tiene Plan Regulador. Dice que las acciones no constan en documentos y que no hay estudios. Además que por momentos se han hecho por parte del actor algunas obras de mitigación para eliminar los agrietamientos, pero que la solución no se ha dado en forma completa y que no se ha hecho nada. Aduce que no hay acción de parte de la municipalidad y que forma parte del deber de planificación del Estado. Por ello solicita que se ordene a la Municipalidad obligar a que se realicen obras de mitigación y que se reviertan las consecuencias nocivas producidas por la falta de acción positiva de la municipalidad en el lote de su propiedad, en las áreas de protección del río y en la calle pública.
Tesis de la Municipalidad de Aserrí: Afirma el representante de la Municipalidad que este proceso obedece a un proyecto de fraccionamiento que el actor llevó a cabo y por disposición legal tenía que ceder un diez por ciento del área lotificada. Agrega que el área que cedió fue la parte más riesgosa y sabía que esa área no la podía vender. Estima el personero municipal que existe un abuso del derecho al querer sacar provecho de su propio dolo. Sostiene que si bien se trata de un camino público, es de los denominados no clasificados, según el artículo 1 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, cuyo mantenimiento corresponde a los propietarios. En cuanto a los aspectos de fondo, señala que en todo caso se estaría ante un fenómeno de la naturaleza, por lo que se estaría ante un caso fortuito y que la Municipalidad no tendría responsabilidad allí. Señala que si bien hubo reuniones previas en las que él participó, lo cierto es que el documento final no fue autenticado por él. Agrega que no existe una actuación de la Municipalidad ni una omisión de un deber formal, por lo que no se le puede endilgar responsabilidad y solicita se declare sin lugar la demanda.
IV.- SOBRE BIENES O FACILIDADES COMUNALES.- Se les denomina zonas verdes o de facilidades comunales, a aquellas áreas resultantes de proyectos urbanísticos, que tiene su origen en la carga que se impone al urbanizador (o desarrollador) según el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, de ceder "gratuitamente" a los entes municipales una porción de terreno -entre el cinco y el veinte por ciento del terreno que se dispone al proyecto-, para uso de las vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales, cuyo costo se traslada al valor de las parcelas o lotes resultantes. Es así como "nominalmente" pertenecen a las municipalidades (en tanto ostentan la nuda propiedad del bien), pero que en sentido estricto se califican como bienes comunales, en tanto están destinadas al aprovechamiento vecinal. Al respecto la Sala Constitucional ha efectuado varias precisiones:
"XX. La cesión gratuita a las municipalidades de terrenos a fraccionar o urbanizar, se hace para destinar en ellos ciertos servicios para la comunidad, como lo son las vías públicas y las zonas verdes, éstas últimas -que son las que nos interesan- se utilizarán para construir parques, jardines, centros educativos, zonas deportivas y de recreo. El fundamento de esta obligación debe situarse en una especie de contrapartida debida por el urbanizador por el mayor valor que el proceso de urbanización o parcelamiento dará al suelo urbanizado, es decir, se trata en definitiva de una contribución en especie en el derecho urbanístico, como mecanismo para hacer que la plusvalía que adquieran los inmuebles con motivo de la urbanización o fraccionamiento revierta a la comunidad. Antes de esta regulación se presentaba una grave situación social, derivada del hecho de que los propietarios de suelo percibían como beneficio neto los precios íntegros obtenidos de sus terrenos, mientras que los nuevos barrios quedaban sin dotaciones de servicios, carencia que se intentaba hacer responsable a la Administración municipal, incapaz de cubrir ese déficit en forma eficaz. Uno de los principios del derecho urbanístico consiste precisamente en que las considerables plusvalías generadas por el proceso del desarrollo urbano deben ser las primeras fuentes para sufragar los costos en servicios que ese mismo desarrollo hace surgir. La obligación impugnada -de ceder gratuitamente un porcentaje de terreno a la municipalidad-, pretende justamente hacer efectivo el principio de compensación económica y retribución en servicio de las necesidades de la comunidad que se crea, como correlato del enriquecimiento que del desarrollo urbanístico se percibe.
XXI.De esta manera se configura el contenido de la propiedad, desde el criterio de su función social; se trata de una tecnificación de esa función que deja de ser una simple admonición moral a las conciencias de los propietarios para convertirse en un sistema de deberes positivos jurídicamente exigibles. Así, los propietarios podrán ejercitar como propias todas las facultades de utilización urbana de los fundos que resulten, sólo que simultáneamente, deben asumir también los deberes positivos con que el ordenamiento intenta compensar la ganancia económica. El plan urbanizador o fraccionador deberá contemplar previamente todas las previsiones de los servicios comunales -vías, conexiones de agua y alumbrado eléctrico, zonas verdes, parques infantiles, etc.- antes de iniciar la construcción y aprovechamiento individual de los lotes; ejecución que recae en el propietario. ... , y serán los nuevos propietarios los que en definitiva se verán beneficiados por las áreas verdes e instalaciones a que se refiere el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana." (Sentencia número 4205-96, de las catorce horas treinta y tres minutos del veinte de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y seis.).
En el presente caso, es un hecho no controvertido que como resultado del fraccionamiento efectuado por el señor Nombre115504 en el inmueble de su propiedad, sito en Salitrillos de Aserrí, debió donar un área destinada a facilidades comunales, la cual está constituida por un lote de aproximadamente dos mil ochocientos metros cuadrados, el cual fue cedido al ente municipal. Con respecto a este lote, pudo comprobar el Tribunal en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado, que tiene forma irregular, y su topografía es ondulada y quebrada, con una pendiente de aproximadamente veinte metros, la cual finaliza en la colindancia oeste con el río Cañas, lo que imposibilita recorrerlo, únicamente se pudo recorrer parte de su lindero este, que es el que colinda con calle pública. Se pudo observar que el terreno posee un suelo de tipo arcilloso, de color rojizo, está cubierto de pasto alto y algunos árboles. Luego, ubicado este Tribunal frente al lindero oeste del lote, al otro lado del río Cañas, se observa el lote y en la pendiente que posee, se pudo ver un desprendimiento de tierra, sin que pueda precisar este órgano colegiado las causas ni el momento en que ocurrió el mismo.
V.- SOBRE LA NATURALEZA PÚBLICA DEL CAMINO. NO CLASIFICADO. MANTENIMIENTO Y MEJORAS A CARGO DE USUARIOS.
En lo que corresponde a la determinación de la naturaleza pública de una vía, los artículos 4, 7 y 8 de la Ley de Construcciones disponen por su orden lo siguiente:
"Artículo 4º.- Definición. Vía pública es todo terreno de dominio público y de uso común, que por disposición de la autoridad administrativa se destinare al libre tránsito de conformidad con las leyes y Reglamentos de planificación y que de hecho esté destinado ya, a ese uso público. Según su clase, las vías públicas se destinarán, además, a asegurar las condiciones de aereación e iluminación de los edificios que las limitan; a facilitar el acceso a los predios colindantes; a la instalación de cualquier canalización, artefacto, aparato o accesorio perteneciente a una obra pública o destinados a un servicio público.
"Artículo 7º.- Propiedad. Todo terreno que en los planos existentes de la Municipalidad, o en el Archivo de la Dirección General de Obras Públicas, o el de la Dirección General de Caminos, o en el Catastro, o en cualquier otro archivo, museo o biblioteca pública, aparezca como vía pública se presumirá que tiene la calidad de tal, salvo prueba plena en contrario, que deberá rendir aquél que afirme que el terreno en cuestión es de propiedad particular o pretenda tener algún derecho exclusivo a su uso. Mientras no se pronuncie sentencia ejecutoria que así lo declare, nadie podrá impedir o estorbar el uso público del terreno de que se trate." "Artículo 8º.- Fraccionamientos o Loteos. Aprobado un plano, de fraccionamientos o loteos, de acuerdo con los Reglamentos sobre fraccionamiento, los terrenos que en dichos planos aparezcan como destinados a vías públicas, por ese solo hecho saldrán del dominio del fraccionador y pasarán al dominio público. La aprobación del fraccionamiento se otorgará por escritura pública, que deberá inscribirse en el Registro de la Propiedad para los efectos de cancelación de propiedad particular en lo que se refiere a los terrenos destinados a vía pública." De acuerdo con las normas citadas, toda área que aparezca descrita como calle pública en planos catastrados, se presume que tiene la calidad de tal y, por ende, también como incorporada al demanio público, salvo prueba en contrario que deberá acreditar la parte que se oponga a dicha presunción. En este sentido es importante advertir que no existe duda sobre la titularidad del bien, pues la misma Municipalidad de Aserrí ha aceptado que se trata de una vía pública, por lo tanto, la administración corresponde a dicha corporación municipal. Amén de que la Ley de Planificación Urbana reafirma el carácter de plena prueba que constituyen los mapas oficiales, los planos y el catastro, de la afectación a dominio público de los terrenos o espacios entregados al uso público, según se desprende de los numerales 43 y 44 de la referida legislación, que a texto expreso disponen:
"Artículo 43.- El Mapa Oficial, junto con los planos o el catastro que lo complemente, constituirá registro especial fehaciente sobre propiedad y afectación a dominio público de los terrenos o espacios ya entregados a usos públicos." "Artículo 44.- El dominio municipal sobre las áreas de calles, plazas, jardines, parques u otros espacios abiertos de uso público general, se constituye por ese mismo uso y puede prescindirse de su inscripción en el Registro de la Propiedad, si consta en el Mapa Oficial. El Registro citado pondrá último asiento a aquellas fincas, restos o lotes que el propietario, en concepto de fraccionador, ceda al municipio por mandato de esta ley, si en el documento inscribible consta el destino público que se le da al inmueble y el Notario da fe del acuerdo municipal en que aprueba la cesión y se dispone entregar dicho bien a ese mismo destino." En el caso concreto, como ya se indicó el camino es el producto del fraccionamiento efectuado por el señor Nombre115504 , de manera que es área destinada a vía pública, sobre lo cual no hay controversia, sin embargo, si ha de indicar esta Cámara que de conformidad con el numeral 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos el ancho mínimo para un camino vecinal es de catorce metros.
"Artículo 4: El ancho de las carreteras y de los caminos vecinales será el que indique los Departamentos Técnicos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, sin que pueda ser menor de veinte metros para las primeras y de catorce metros para los segundos". Medida que no alcanza el camino público en cuestión el cual, aunque se indica en el plano catastrado de folio 2 del expediente judicial con una medida de seis metros, lo cierto es que efectuada esa medida en diferentes tramos el día en que se practicó el reconocimiento judicial, el mismo tiene un ancho promedio de cuatro metros treinta centìmetros, medida que no alcanza el mínimo de catorce metros para ser considerado un camino vecinal, únicamente podría ser tenido como un Camino No Clasificado, según el artículo 1 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, Red Vial Cantonal inciso c) , que dispone:
"Artículo 1. ...RED VIAL CANTONAL: Corresponde su administración a las municipalidades. Estará constituida por los siguientes caminos públicos, no incluídos por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes dentro de la Red Vial Nacional: a) Caminos vecinales: Caminos públicos que suministren acceso directo a fincas y a otras actividades económicas rurales; unen caseríos y poblados con la Red Vial Nacional y se caracteriza por tener bajos volúmenes de tránsito y altas proporciones de viajes locales de corta distancia. b) Calles locales: vías públicas incluidas dentro del cuadrante del área urbana, no clasificados como travesías urbanas de la Red Vial Nacional.
VI.- SOBRE LA RESPONSABILIDAD OBJETIVA . .:
De conformidad con el artículo 190 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la Administración responde por todos los daños que cause su funcionamiento legítimo o ilegítimo, normal o anormal, salvo fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de un tercero. Lo anterior aunado a lo que ha dicho nuestra jurisprudencia, la que además reconoce en el instituto de la responsabilidad, uno de los pilares fundamentales de nuestro Estado democrático de Derecho, como derivación de las exigencias constitucionales de responsabilidad de los poderes públicos y de tutela judicial efectiva, previstas y garantizadas en la Carta Fundamental en sus numerales 9 y 41; particularmente este último en cuanto dispone que: "Ocurriendo a las leyes, todos han de encontrar reparación para las injurias o daños que hayan recibido en su persona, propiedad o intereses morales. Debe hacérseles justicia pronta, cumplida, sin denegación y en estricta conformidad con las leyes". Ahora bien, para que surja el deber de indemnizar deben darse tres elementos, a saber, a) la existencia de un daño o lesión que no se tiene el deber jurídico de soportar, y que debe ser cierto, real y efectivo –no meramente eventual o hipotético- y evaluable en dinero, b) una actuación u omisión de una autoridad pública, y c) un nexo causal entre ambas cosas, de forma que el menoscabo causado le sea imputable al Estado o a sus instituciones. En el presente caso, el demandante reclama a la Municipalidad de Aserrí la responsabilidad por la omisión en el mantenimiento que debía darle al lote de su propiedad y a la calle, lo que dice le ha ocasionado daños y perjuicios y que esta falta de atención de la Municipalidad en el lote donado para facilidades comunales es lo que ha provocado eventos naturales como deslizamientos, los que a su vez han causado agrietamientos en la calle pública y cerca de su casa de habitación.
VII.- SOBRE LA OMISIÓN O INACTIVIDAD MATERIAL El funcionamiento anormal de la Administración puede manifestarse en una actuación administrativa deficiente, tardía o en una omisión en la conducta debida, así la omisión puede ser vista como un criterio de anormalidad: "VII.- La omisión como criterio de anormalidad e ilicitud. La obligatoriedad indemnizatoria frente a los daños y perjuicios causados por inacción. (…) En la actualidad es pacíficamente aceptado que la conducta administrativa abarca no solo el comportamiento activo de la Administración (y dentro de él, el acto administrativo) sino además, la conducta omisiva, ese “ no hacer ” que se ha dado en llamar inactividad de la Administración, tanto en su vertiente formal (en la medida en que se revierte en un acto presunto por silencio administrativo) como material (referida básicamente al ámbito prestacional de la organización administrativa). De esta manera, ha de entenderse la inactividad material administrativa como aquella derivada de la omisión en el cumplimiento de una obligación jurídica preestablecida, que se produce cuando, fuera de un procedimiento administrativo, la Administración incumple, por omisión, una obligación impuesta por el Ordenamiento Jurídico o por cualquier otro mecanismo de autovinculación, como es el caso de un acto propio o de los instrumentos consensuales, con lesión directa de un interés legítimo o de un derecho subjetivo, ya sea que altere o no una relación jurídico-administrativa preexistente. Más simple, hay inactividad de este tipo cuando existiendo para el ente u órgano público una obligación de dar o hacer impuesta por el ordenamiento jurídico o por una previa decisión suya, fuera o dentro de un procedimiento administrativo, no se despliega la debida actividad fáctica o jurídica que lleve a buen término la función otorgada, con detrimento de los derechos o intereses de uno o varios sujetos pasivos, ya sean privados o públicos, individuales o colectivos. Se trata de esa “culpa in ommittendo” en la que se incumple por inacción el deber funcional de actuar. De más está decir, que la indolencia administrativa puede producir (y de hecho produce) más graves lesiones que la propia actuación limitativa del órgano o ente público. De ahí que, ha de afirmarse de manera contundente (con fundamento y de acuerdo con lo dicho en considerandos anteriores) que la Administración Pública también es responsable por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados con su inactividad administrativa. Esa pasividad frente al cumplimiento de obligaciones preexistentes se enmarca, para efectos de la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, como funcionamiento anormal de la Administración (en tanto se corresponda con una actividad material debida) y con una conducta ilegítima , que para este caso puede ser concurrente, en la medida en que el incumplimiento de lo debido no sólo atenta contra las reglas de buena administración, sino que infringe la juricidad en tanto incumple las potestades administrativas funcionales que dimanan del propio Ordenamiento Jurídico…".(Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Nº584-F-2005, de las 10:40 horas del 11 de agosto de 2005).
En el presente caso, el demandante reclama lo que denomina una conducta omisiva de parte de la Municipalidad de Aserrí por lo que estima como una falta de atención y mantenimiento al lote donado para facilidades comunales. VIII.- SOBRE EL NEXO DE CAUSALIDAD Y LOS DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS.
Para el surgimiento de esta responsabilidad debe demostrarse el criterio de Imputación por parte de quién reclama el daño. La imputación de responsabilidad a la Municipalidad de Aserrí sería posible en el tanto el daño haya sido consecuencia de su funcionamiento anormal, de manera que pueda surgir una relación causa-efecto, sea, que la lesión sea el resultado de aquella conducta omisiva. Es presupuesto para el surgimiento de la responsabilidad como ya se mencionó la existencia del nexo causal. "Al respecto, cabe recordar, que en la producción del daño, suelen concurrir con frecuencia múltiples factores, dentro de los cuales, es preciso determinar aquellos que directa o indirectmente son causa eficiente y adecuada del mal causado (sobre la causa próxima, adecuada y eficiente, puede consultarse la sentencia ya citada de la Sala primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia Nº252-F-01, de las 16 horas 15 minutos del 28 de marzo de 2001). En esa confluencia de elementos fácticos o jurídicos que rodean la situación dañosa, habrá necesidad de establecer la acción u omisión apta que provocó la consecuencia. Desplazando aquéllas que no han tenido ninguna influencia en el resultado (causas extrañas), de las que, de no haber tenido lugar, hubiesen evitado el menoscabo. Se trata de una especie de análisis objetivo, a través de la cual se pueda afirmar que con tal acción u omisión es lógico o probable que se produzca el daño específico" (Nº584-F-2005. Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, de las 10:40 horas del 11 de agosto de 2005). De manera que es resorte de quien reclama el daño, acreditar la existencia de una conducta u omisión administrativa a la cual, pueda atribuirse el resultado lesivo, es decir, debe acreditar la existencia del nexo causal entre ese funcionamiento y la lesión que solicita se repare. En el caso concreto, ese nexo causal parte de la demostración de la conducta omisiva que se acusa, sea la falta de mantenimiento del lote donado y el daño que se alega. Dicho aspecto no se acreditó en autos, y así fue consignado en la presente resolución, dentro del Considerando de Hechos No Probados, dado que no se aportó ningún elemento probatorio que lo fundamentara. Carece esta Cámara de algún elemento probatorio que pueda acreditar que la falta de mantenimiento al lote sea la causa por la que se produjeron los eventos naturales que tuvieron como consecuencia el deslizamiento de tierra en dicho lote, ya que del reconocimiento judicial realizado sólo se pudo observar que hubo un deslizamiento, sin embargo, no puede determinar este órgano colegiado que tal evento se produjo por la falta de mantenimiento, por el contrario, de la topografía del lugar, la pendiente de casi veinte metros en la que se encuentra el lote y el tipo de suelo arcilloso, se puede estimar con un alto grado de certeza que se trata de un terreno inestable, en el que la ocurrencia de deslizamientos es un fenómeno bastante probable dadas las características del lote apuntadas anteriormente. En cuanto a la demostración de este nexo de causalidad, es una carga probatoria que corresponde al actor, de conformidad con lo que dispone el artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil ( de aplicación supletoria, de conformidad con lo que establece el artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). En consecuencia, quien debe velar por el aporte al juzgador de los instrumentos que le den certeza de la existencia del hecho que se reclama como generador de la responsabilidad administrativa es la parte actora, sin embargo en autos, tal carga probatoria se vio ayuna de elementos que den certeza de la existencia de un nexo de causalidad, el que es requerido entre la conducta omisiva que se acusa en este caso y el daño. En este sentido, debe tenerse en cuenta que no es suficiente con alegar o hacer argumentaciones, debe demostrarse tanto la conducta omisiva así como la existencia del daño. En la especie, la conducta omisiva que se señala es la falta de mantenimiento en el lote de la Municipalidad, sin embargo, debe señalarse en primer término que el deslizamiento fue en el lote de la Municipalidad, el que, según manifiesta el actor, ocurrió en el año 2011 no puede este Tribunal derivar una conducta omisiva de parte de la Municipalidad, pues no está demostrado que ese deslizamiento se produjo como consecuencia de la falta de mantenimiento, ni que el mismo hubiere causado algún tipo de daño en bienes o patrimonio del actor. Por otra parte, tampoco fue acreditado ni se aportó elemento alguno que permita concluir que las grietas en la calle y cerca de la casa de habitación del actor ( las que él mismo reparó), hayan sido causadas por la falta de mantenimiento al lote municipal. Ante la imposibilidad de determinar un daño real efectivo e individualizable, tal cual lo exige el numeral 196 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, resulta también imposible la atribución de responsabilidad por esa causa. Así las cosas, ante la falta de demostración de lo antes señalado, no puede tenerse por cierto que el accionante recibiera en su patrimonio o en su persona daños como consecuencia de que la Municipalidad de Aserrí no diera mantenimiento al lote donado. De manera que no se constituye el nexo de causalidad necesario para poder atribuir responsabilidad a la mencionada corporación municipal; no pudiéndose determinar daño alguno, pues no es posible determinar la relación causa efecto, sin la demostración de la causa.
IX -. SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES: Las defensas de falta de causa, y falta de derecho opuestas deben ser acogidas, en virtud de que no demostró el actor que existiera una causa o motivo para acudir a esta sede. Asimismo no acreditó el derecho que le asiste para solicitar lo pretendido en este proceso.
X.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS: En cuanto a este rubro, al amparo del numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, no existe en criterio de este Tribunal motivo alguno para proceder a la exoneración en costas, por lo que debe imponerse el importe de las mismas a cargo del actor.
XI.- Por otra parte, considera este Tribunal necesario llamar la atención respecto a lo que percibió como un comportamiento inadecuado de parte del abogado que representó los intereses de la Municipalidad de Aserrí, en cuanto a la forma en que ejerció la defensa técnica de su representada. En primer término no participó en el reconocimiento judicial, a pesar de tratarse de una prueba ofrecida por su representada, sin que se justificara de una forma real ante este Tribunal los motivos de su ausencia. Además según pudo constatar este órgano colegiado en el desarrollo de la audiencia oral de juicio (ver soporte digital), el representante de la Municipalidad no mostró el interés ni conocimiento adecuado en el manejo de la audiencia ni en el fundamento de su teoría del caso, lo que denotó una falta de preparación de la defensa del proceso a su cargo que incidió en criterio de este Tribunal en la falta de una correcta defensa material de su representada. Lo anterior causa preocupación al Tribunal, fundamentalmente en lo que se refiere al derecho de defensa, como parte del debido proceso, en lo que a la Municipalidad de Aserrí se refiere, por lo que estima conveniente enviar este asunto a conocimiento y valoración de la Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados, a fin de que se investigue y se determine si el citado profesional en Derecho pudiere haber incurrido en alguna falta a sus deberes, a cuyo efecto se le estará enviando copia del soporte digital que contiene la audiencia de juicio.
POR TANTO
Con lugar las defensas de falta de causa y falta de derecho. Se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta por Nombre115504 contra la Municipalidad de Aserrí. Son las costas a cargo del demandante. Enviése copia del soporte digital de la audiencia de juicio a la Fiscalía del Colegio de Abogados, a fin de que determine la posible existencia de un incumplimiento de deberes de parte del Licenciado Leonidas Alberto Gutiérrez Víquez, de conformidad con lo indicado en el último Considerando de esta sentencia.
Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Sergio Mena García Juan Luis Giusti Soto
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.