Municipality of Liberia liable for illegal dumping on private landCondena a la Municipalidad de Liberia por depósito ilegal de basura en terrenos privados

PROCEEDING OF COGNIZANCE PROCEEDING OF COGNIZANCE CASE FILE No. 09-002671-1027-CA PLAINTIFF: COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS S.A.

DEFENDANT: MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA JUDGMENT No. 006-2014-V CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. FIFTH SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANNEX A.- At eight hours and thirty minutes on the twenty-seventh of January of the year two thousand fourteen.- Proceeding of cognizance initiated by the company Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., represented by its attorneys-in-fact Mr. Federico Torrealba Navas, divorced, attorney, resident of San José, bearer of identification card CED16431 (f. 23) and Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, married, attorney, resident of San José, identification card CED91266 (f. 25), Ms. Adelita Olivares Ferreto, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of San José, identification card CED91267 (f.497), against the Municipality of Liberia, represented by its Mayor, Mr. Luis Gerardo Castañeda Díaz, of legal age, married once, retired teacher, identification card CED91268 (f.198), who granted special power of attorney to licensed attorney Cristina Gutiérrez Chaves, of legal age, married, attorney, identification card CED91269 (f. 729).

WHEREAS

1.- Based on the facts set forth and legal citations adduced, in this matter, on October 23, 2009, the company Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., stated that it formulated the following claim, which is transcribed literally: "CLAIMS: Based on the foregoing, we sue the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA. We request that the judgment declare: 1. That the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must, within three days following the finality of this judgment, adopt the measures conducive to causing the total and definitive cessation of the following administrative conducts declared illegal: a) The deposit of garbage on the farms owned by the plaintiff, registered in the Party of Guanacaste, real folio system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675. b) the incursion onto said real estate. 2. That the non-compliance with what was ordered in the preceding point by officials of the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA with decision-making power, could constitute the crime of disobedience to Authority. 3. That for the purposes of the effective execution of what is ordered herein, the Judicial Authority in charge of the execution of judgment may issue the direct order or orders to the competent municipal officials or bodies, under warning that disobedience to what is decreed therein could originate the respective certified copy of documents and the initiation of criminal proceedings for disobedience to Authority or, as applicable, for the corresponding crime. 4. That, for the purposes of repairing the damages caused to the farms, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must bear all costs of labor and materials necessary for the execution of all works necessary for the mitigation and repair of the environmental damage caused. 5. That, for the purposes of repairing the damages caused to the farms, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff, in full, the costs of the repair plan to be described. 6. That the following repair plan and its budget be approved: a) The estimated labor for restoration is 14,950 hours (5,000 man-hours for the first year, 5,000 for the second year, and 4,950 hours for the remaining 8 years). The cost of unskilled labor is estimated at one dollar. b) It is deemed advisable to plant 5,000 trees in the recovery zone and some other areas surrounding the project. c) During the first year, the quantity of materials will be the highest within the proposed timeline, since 5,000 trees must be planted, shovels, fertilizers, and any inputs (unforeseen) necessary to guarantee their adequate development must be purchased. d) For the first three years, an additional labor item must be charged, which will include the payment for professional services of a plant technician (fitotecnista) or forestry engineer to evaluate the degree of recovery of the zone (calculating quarterly visits). e) In the case of the 365,190.98 m3 of volume that must be improved, a single cost per cubic meter will be estimated that includes the extraction of the garbage, its disposal, and the restoration of the land to its original condition. 7. That in the judgment enforcement phase, at the request of the plaintiff and with the assistance of expert(s), said repair plan and budget may be adjusted, in accordance with the conditions existing on the date of execution of said plan. 8. That furthermore, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff an additional supplement of consequential damages (daño emergente) consisting of the loss of market value of the farms registered in the Party of Guanacaste, real folio system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, as a result of the damaging acts. 9. That the liquidation of said consequential damages for the decrease in the market value of the farms shall be carried out, in the judgment enforcement phase and with the assistance of expert(s), according to the following bases: a) The market or sale value that, on the date closest to the payment of compensation, the farms would have had if the damaging act had not occurred shall be calculated; b) The market or sale value of the farms before the damaging act occurred shall be calculated; c) The market or sale value that, on the date closest to the payment of compensation, the farms have as a result of the damaging act shall be calculated. The consequential damages shall be the amount resulting from the difference between what the farm should have been worth in the absence of the damaging act and what it is currently worth. 10. That furthermore, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff an additional supplement of consequential damages consisting of the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in the Party of Guanacaste, real folio system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, consisting of the impossibility of exercising acts of possession over them, as a result of the illegal invasion of the real estate by the defendant. 11. That the liquidation of said consequential damages shall be carried out, in the judgment enforcement phase and with the assistance of expert(s), according to the following bases: a) The rental or lease value of land identical to the plaintiff's farms, to be used as a garbage dump, shall be calculated; b) The amount of expenditures the defendant would have incurred if it had leased land identical to the plaintiff's farms, to be used as a garbage dump, from the date on which the execution of the damaging act began, until the effective possession of the plaintiff, shall be calculated. The consequential damages shall be the amount of the unjustified savings the defendant obtained by saving the rents it should have paid for land identical to the plaintiff's properties during the period already indicated." (f. 14 of the judicial file).

2.- On January 21, 2010, the Municipality of Liberia answered the complaint negatively, and interposed the defenses of litis pendencia, lack of active and passive standing (legitimación), and lack of right (f. 171 of the judicial file).

3.- On April 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a request for prima facie precautionary measures, so that the defendant territorial entity be ordered to refrain from depositing solid waste on its farms (folio 239 of the judicial file).

4.- That on June 1, 2010, the hearing for the precautionary measure was held (folio 320 of the judicial file).

5.- That on June 3, 2010, the Processing Judge Elías Baltodano Gómez, through judgment 2126-2010, granted the precautionary measures requested by the plaintiff (folio 322 of the judicial file).

6 .- On July 29, 2010, the Court of Appeals confirmed judgment No. 2126-2010 regarding the precautionary measure (f. 473 of the judicial file).

7 .- That on June 7, 2012, Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto, held the preliminary hearing. In said hearing, he rejected, through judgment No. 1009-2012, the preliminary defense of litis pendencia. At the same time, he requested the plaintiff to clarify the facts of its complaint. For that reason, he suspended the hearing so that the defendant entity could answer the remaining facts (folio 676 of the judicial file).

8.- On July 23, 2012, Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto, through an order, warned the defendant entity to answer the facts, with the express indication to admit and deny the facts (f. 679 of the judicial file).

9 .- That on August 29, 2012, Judge Edgar Leal Gómez, held the preliminary hearing. In said hearing, no adjustments to the claims were made (folio 714 of the judicial file).

10 .- That on October 3, 2012, the Processing Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto, at the request of the defendant, ordered the requested expert evidence declared unavoidable, as the corresponding fees had not been deposited (folio 762 of the judicial file).

11.- That on January 18, 2013, the defendant filed defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad), considering that according to Article 39 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the time limit to file a complaint is 1 year; despite the aforementioned, according to its statement, the facts date back to the year 2007. This document was brought to the attention of the plaintiff on the day of the trial (folio 768 of the judicial file, digital media, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013).

12.- That on January 22 and 23, 2013, the oral and public trial began. The Tribunal brought to the attention of the plaintiff a brief filed by the defendant Municipality, on the preceding January 18, in which it alleged the defenses of statute of limitations and lapse (digital media of the trial, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Furthermore, it admitted as evidence for better resolution the survey (levantamiento), visible on folio 770 of the judicial file. Based on said survey and the explanation given by the witness Nombre23565, of an official letter signed by the geographer Marco Garro Chaves, found on folios 329 to 331, also in the judicial file, related to a boundary restaking (replanteamiento de los linderos), which affected the magnitude of the damage alleged by the plaintiff. All of which generated doubts in the Tribunal regarding the extent of the affectation and its true dimensions. For that reason, with the aim of finding the material truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal imperative of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the Tribunal suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert appraisal as evidence for better resolution. To this effect, the appointment of a Topographical Engineer was ordered, to determine the real measurement in the materiality of the land of the farms owned by the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this real measurement was established, they had to determine the possible area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, establishing, regarding this area, its measurement and value. Said oral ruling was reiterated on the same day of the trial, in writing, through a resolution (audiovisual media of the trial and resolution of 17:00, visible on folio 793 of the judicial file).

13.- That on January 25, 2013, the plaintiff deposited the corresponding fees, so that a topographical engineer could be appointed (folio 799 of the judicial file).

14.- That on February 4, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert appraisal (folio 800 of the judicial file).

15.- That on February 12, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared before the Court to assume the appointment (folio 801 of the judicial file).

16.- That on March 11, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented his report (folio 803 of the judicial file).

17.- That on March 15, 2013, the Tribunal brought the document presented by Mr. Nombre12891 to the attention of the parties (folio 820 of the judicial file).

18.- That on March 21, 2013, the parties made their observations regarding the document presented by Mr. Nombre12891 (folios 821-827 of the judicial file).

19.- That on April 9, 2013, the Tribunal requested Mr. Nombre12891 to clarify and expand upon the report (folio 832 of the judicial file).

20.- That on April 22, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document (folio 838 of the judicial file).

21.- That on May 7, 2013, the Tribunal brought Mr. Nombre12891's document to the attention of the parties (folio 839 of the judicial file).

22.- On June 19, 2013, the Tribunal warned Mr. Nombre12891 to comply with the requirements of the expert appraisal (folio 842 of the judicial file).

23.- On June 24, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document, complying with the warning from the Judicial Body (folio 843 of the judicial file).

24- That on July 1, 2013, the document provided by Mr. Nombre12891 was brought to the attention of the parties (folio 846 of the judicial file).

25.- On July 9, 2013, the parties presented their observations regarding Mr. Nombre12891's response (folios 854-858 of the judicial file).

26.- On July 29, 2013, for failing to comply with the Tribunal's requirements regarding the evidence for better resolution, the appointment of Mr. Nombre12891 was ordered revoked (folio 859 of the judicial file).

27.- That on August 19, 2013, the Tribunal ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judicial Branch to investigate what happened with the professional, by virtue of the manner in which he handled the matter, as well as his statements set down in writing when responding to the Tribunal (folio 870 of the judicial file).

28.- On August 20, 2013, a motion to set aside (recurso de revocatoria), filed by the defendant against the resolution that ordered the revocation of the expert's appointment, was ruled upon.

29.- On August 25, 2013, the Tribunal requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch to carry out the expert appraisal requested as evidence for better resolution (folio 871 of the judicial file).

30.- On September 19, 2013, September 25, 2013, was set to carry out the expert appraisal (folio 875 of the judicial file).

31.- On October 29, 2013, the setting for the continuation of the oral and public trial was scheduled for October 21 of the current year (folio 876 of the judicial file).

32.- On November 18, 2013, the aforementioned setting was revoked, and the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013, due to the expert report not having arrived at the Court (folio 884 of the judicial file).

33.- On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued the report. That same day, the mentioned report was brought to the attention of the parties (folios 896 and 901 of the judicial file).

34.- On November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the request of the plaintiff (folios 907 and 908 of the judicial file).

35.- On November 27 and 28, 2013, the parties made their observations on the report (folios 917-920 of the judicial file).

36.- On January 7, 2014, the continuation of the oral and public trial took place (digital media of the trial).

37.- In the proceedings, the terms and prescriptions of law have been observed, and no defects or omissions susceptible of producing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued unanimously, within the period indicated in section 111, subsection 1, of the CPCA, following deliberation.- Drafted by the Presiding Judge Mena García, with the affirmative vote of Judges Vargas Vargas and Sánchez Navarro and;

WHEREAS:

I.- REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LAPSE. Four days before the oral and public trial, the defendant sent a fax to the Tribunal, through which it interposed the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad), considering that according to Article 39 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the time limit to file a complaint is one year; despite the aforementioned, according to its statement, the facts date back to the year 2007. This document was brought to the attention of the plaintiff on the day of the trial, and it was granted a hearing at that moment. In this regard, it stated that the present proceeding was not aimed at determining nullities, but rather it involves a civil treasury or administrative civil liability proceeding. In that sense, the negative statute of limitations period is 4 years. It affirms that the affectation began in the year 2007, and the complaint was filed in the year 2009; therefore, said fatal period has not elapsed. It adds that the damage has continued over time, so it has a continuous effect. On the day of the trial, the Tribunal reserved the ruling on these defenses for the issuance of the final judgment (folio 768 of the judicial file, digital media, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). On the point under discussion, the plaintiff is correct in affirming that the applicable statute of limitations period for civil treasury matters is 4 years. It must be kept in mind that the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code contains a special rule that regulates the lapse of the action in this type of proceeding. Thus, in pertinent part, Article 41 of Law No. 8508 provides: "The maximum time limit to initiate the proceeding shall be the same as that provided by the legal system as the statute of limitations period for the respective substantive right under discussion in the following cases: 1) In civil treasury matters..." The statute of limitations period for the substantive right, referred to by the cited canon, is that provided by Article 198 of the General Public Administration Law, Law No. 6227, which is 4 years. According to the foregoing, the defendant is incorrect in indicating that the applicable statute of limitations rule for the case is that of Article 39 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, since, as was stated, a special rule exists. Furthermore, if the events date from the year 2007, as recognized by the defendant itself in the oral trial, from that date to the moment when the complaint was filed, said fatal period had not elapsed. For that reason, in accordance with the foregoing, the defenses of statute of limitations and lapse interposed by the defendant Municipality must be rejected.

II.- PROVEN FACTS: The following, of importance for the resolution of this matter, are considered of this nature: 1) That the plaintiff is the owner of two farms located in the Province of Guanacaste, Dirección14305, under the real folio system 30878-000 and 34528-000. Registrally, farm No. 30878-000 appears with map (plano) G-0003427-1972. For its part, farm No. 34528-000 appears with map (plano) G-0003432-1972. (folios 31, 39, of the judicial file) 2) That the defendant is the owner of a farm in the Party of Guanacaste, located in Dirección14305, under real folio number 56577-000. Registrally, map (plano) Placa21676 is associated with said farm. (folio 45 of the judicial file). 3) That the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-0003427-72, from the year 1972, registrally associated with the farm under real folio number 30878-000, records an area of 171 hectares 9072.43 square meters. Said document does not contain the segregation (segregación) that was carried out of the defendant's land, under real folio No. 56577-000 (folio 33 and 45 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 4) That map (plano) G-1266873-2008, of farm registration number Placa21674, not registrally associated, modified map (plano) G-3427-1972 and G-1198403-2008, records an area of 1,537,085.53 square meters. Said map contains the segregation (segregación) of the lot owned by the defendant, under real folio No. 56577-000 (folio 53 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 5) That the defendant's farm, under real folio No. 56577-000, adjoins on its east, west, and north boundaries (linderos) the real estate owned by the plaintiff, under real folio No. 30878-000 (folios 53 and 900 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 6) That between the farms under real folio No. 30878-000 and No. 56577-000, owned by the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, there is no overlap (traslape) understood as usurpation, but rather it is the product of the segregation (segregación). The foregoing by virtue of the fact that, as of today, the farm under number 30878-000 is registrally associated with map (plano) G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation (segregación) of the lot belonging to the Municipality No. 56577-000. Said overlap that appears at the map level has no incidence on the magnitude of the damage to the affected areas, determined on the property of the plaintiff (folios 33, 45, 53 and 900 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 7) That approximately in the year 2007, the Municipality of Liberia invaded the plaintiff's farms and began depositing solid waste (statements of Mr. Nombre115461, audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 8) That on February 27, 2007, the Governing Health Area of Liberia, Chorotega Region, based on technical report RCH-ARSL-108-2007, through sanitary order 15-2007, ordered the defendant to suspend the deposit of solid waste on the farm or property where it was being carried out (folio 109 of the judicial file). 9) That at the beginning of the year 2008, the legal representative of the plaintiff, Mr. Nombre115461, accompanied by his attorney, licensed attorney Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express his concern about the large quantity of garbage deposited on their properties. On that occasion, he told them he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property (statements of Nombre115461, audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013, and Alexander Araya Zúñiga, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 10) That on May 21, 2008, licensed attorney Alexander Araya, in his capacity as attorney for the plaintiff, addressed a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia. Said note contains the following, which is transcribed literally: "The undersigned, Alexander Araya, in his capacity as attorney for COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification card number CED91270, (hereinafter the 'Company') as owner of the farms in the Party of Guanacaste, with real folio registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21677, (hereinafter the 'Properties'), brings to the attention of the Municipality of Liberia the following: i) We are aware of the activities of the Municipality of Liberia on the Properties and that a clandestine garbage dump (botadero de basura) has been operating on them. ii) That there is no authorization whatsoever from the Company for the use or exploitation of the Properties. Much less their use as a garbage dump. iii) That as a direct consequence of this activity, the Properties have suffered a very serious deterioration (menoscabo) and environmental damage. iv) That a company has been contracted to evaluate the damage caused to the properties. v) That the Company is conducting a legal analysis of the consequences of these damages and the possible administrative and judicial proceedings to be initiated against those responsible. Awaiting your comments on these points..." (folio 58 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Alexander Araya, audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 11) That on May 22, 2008, through official letter UGAML-64-05-2008, Engineer Augusto Otárola Guerrero, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia, addressed Engineer Renán Zamora Álvarez as follows: "Regarding the note sent by Lic. Alexander Araya, attorney for the Company Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., it is forwarded for your response, as in my capacity as Municipal Environmental Manager, neither the final disposal of solid waste nor its collection is my responsibility. I am currently collaborating on the rehabilitation project for the Liberia landfill (relleno sanitario) as manager of the permits." (folio 39 of the judicial file). 12) That on October 17, 2008, the Regulation Office, of the Governing Health Area of Liberia, of the Ministry of Health, through sanitary order No. 257-2008, indicates the following based on an inspection carried out in September of that same year: "it was found that on the public road and part of the property of the garbage dump (basurero) and private properties, recycling activity is carried out, where a large quantity of sacks and plastic bottles are stored, iron and scrap metal are stored, and there is also a trailer loaded with scrap metal. This activity is carried out by some fifty people, including adults and minors, who endanger their health due to the conditions under which they carry out said activity, without personal protection and without structures for their cleanliness and hygiene." (folio 112 of the judicial file). 13) That as a result of the invasion, deposit of solid waste, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) on the properties of the plaintiff, a severe alteration to the local geomorphology and the landscape was produced (folios 87 to 107 of the judicial file and statement of Ms. Nombre115462, audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 14:08:46, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 14) That the area affected by solid waste on the plaintiff's real estate, under real folio Placa21674, is 25,518 square meters. The area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's property, registration number Placa21675, is 43,651 square meters, which is grouped into three sectors: the first of 38,123 square meters, the second of 672 square meters, and the third of 4,856 square meters (folios 896-900 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Sancho Arias, in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 15) That on November 15, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch issued report 1304-ING-2013, which reaches the following conclusions: "1. The farm with real folio Placa21678 is geometrically and geographically described by the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3427-1972. 2. The farm with real folio Placa21678 does not have its boundaries (límites) materialized in the field in its northern sector and in its southwestern sector, specifically between vertices 0-26 and 21-22-23 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the quebradas Arena and Zopilota and the public road. 3. The farm with real folio 5034528-000 is geometrically and geographically described by the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3432-1972. 4. The farm with real folio 5034528-000 does not have its boundaries (límites) materialized in the field in its northern and southern sectors, specifically between vertices 4-5 and 14-0 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the quebradas Arena, Honda, and Danta and the public road. 5. Within what is expressed by the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3432-1972, there is a total area affected by the deposit of solid waste of 43,651 m2. 6. Within what is expressed by the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3427-1972, there is a total area affected by the deposit of solid waste of 25,518 m2. 7. The cadastral maps (planos catastrados) G-1198403-2008 and G-1266873-2008 have as their geometric and geographic base the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3427-1972; however, they have not been the fundamental object to create or rectify farms. 8. The cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-1266872-2008 has as its geometric and geographic base the cadastral map (plano catastrado) G-3432-1972; however, it has not been the fundamental object to create or rectify farms." (folios 896-900 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual media of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014).

III.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 1) That groundwater exists on the properties of the plaintiff and that it suffered any damage (no evidence has been provided in the case file). 2) That a forest (bosque) existed on the properties of the plaintiff (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate this). 3) That authorization or permission from the plaintiff existed for the defendant entity to deposit garbage on its properties (no evidence whatsoever was provided to prove this).

• 4)That the defendant caused a hill located on the plaintiff's properties to disappear (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate this). 5) That the Municipality of Liberia deposited solid waste on the plaintiff's properties in compliance with the technical regulations for a sanitary landfill (there is no evidence in the case file).

IV.- CLAIM FILED BY TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: In essence, the plaintiff seeks to hold the Municipality of Liberia liable for the damages caused by relocating the activities of a sanitary landfill to two properties belonging to it. They claim that said activity has caused ecological damage and consequential damage (daño emergente).

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY: In essence, it considers that due to the urgent need, after the sanitary landfill was closed by the competent authorities, it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump (vertedero controlado) on the plaintiff's property. It affirms that it used only one hectare. It alleges a supposed tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, allowing it to carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton, until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. It also rejects the existence of forest (bosque), under the terms of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), on the lands owned by the plaintiff, for which reason it considers that the alleged environmental damage has not occurred.

VI.- SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. The case sub lite concerns a proceeding in which a request is made to declare an obligation to act against the Municipality of Liberia, consisting of ceasing the deposit of garbage on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the trespass onto said properties. It also seeks the remediation of the environmental damage caused on the lands owned by the plaintiff, as well as the consequential damage (daño emergente), due to the decrease in the market value (valor venal) of the properties and the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in its name.

VII.- REGARDING THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE: As noted in the resultandos of this judgment, in the oral and public trial that began in January of last year, the representative of the Municipality of Liberia, in support of her theory of the case, provided a topographic survey (levantamiento topográfico), visible on folio 770 of the judicial file, through which, based on the cadastral plans of 1972, 1986, and 2008, of the properties involved in the instant litigation, she referred to a re-establishment of boundaries of the involved properties, which impacted the extent of the alleged damage being discussed in this venue, evidence that contradicted the expert opinion presented by the plaintiff. For this reason, in order to find the real truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal mandate of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), the Court suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert appraisal as evidence for a better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver). To this end, the appointment of a Topographic Engineer was ordered to determine the actual measurement on the ground of the farms owned by the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this actual measurement was established, they were to determine the possible area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, establishing its measurement and value with respect to it. Said oral resolution was reiterated on the same day of the trial, in writing, by resolution at 5:00 p.m., visible on folio 793 of the judicial file. On January 25, 2013, the plaintiff deposited the corresponding fees for the appointment of a topographic engineer; this is found on folio 799 of the same aforementioned file. Subsequently, on February 4, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert examination. For this reason, on February 12, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared at the Office to assume the role, which can be corroborated on folio 801 of the judicial file. Later, on March 11, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented his expert report, on folio 803 of the judicial file. On March 15, 2013, the expert appraisal was made known to the parties, which can be verified on folio 820 of the judicial file. On March 21, 2013, the parties made their observations concerning the expert document (folios 821-827 of the judicial file). Next, on April 9, 2013, the Court requested Mr. Nombre12891 to specify and clarify the report (folio 832). On April 22, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document (folio 838). On May 7, 2013, the Court made Mr. Nombre12891's document known to the parties (folio 839). On June 19, 2013, the Court ordered Mr. Nombre12891 to comply with the Court's requirements in the expert examination, which can be verified on folio 842 of the judicial file. On June 24, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document complying with the Judicial Body's order, folio 843 of the judicial file. Said document was again made known to the parties on July 1, 2013. Then, on July 9, 2013, the parties presented their observations regarding Mr. Nombre12891's response. On July 29, 2013, for failing to comply with the Court's requirements in the evidence for a better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver), the revocation of the appointment of Expert Nombre12891 was ordered, which can be corroborated on folio 859 of the judicial file. Indeed, the Court ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary (Dirección Ejecutiva del Poder Judicial) to investigate what had occurred with the professional, given the manner in which he handled the matter, as well as his statements set forth in writing when responding to the Court (folio 870 of the judicial file). Next, on August 20, 2013, a revocation appeal filed by the defendant against the resolution ordering the revocation of the expert's appointment was addressed. Then, on August 25, 2013, the Court requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judiciary (Oficina de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial) to carry out the expert appraisal, which can be corroborated on folio 871 of the judicial file. On September 19, 2013, a date was set for September 25, 2013, to carry out the expert examination, visible on folio 875 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on October 29, 2013, a date was set for November 21, 2013, to continue the oral and public trial, which can be corroborated on folio 876 of the judicial file. Next, on November 18, 2013, the aforementioned hearing date was revoked because the expert opinion had not been received; the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013. On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued its opinion, which can be seen on folio 896 of the judicial file. That same day, the mentioned opinion was made known to the parties, which can be verified on folio 901 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the request of the plaintiff (folios 907 and 908). On November 27 and 28, the parties made their observations on the opinion (folios 917-920). On December 2, 2013, it was ordered that at the oral and public trial, the questioning of the parties and the expert regarding his opinion would be conducted orally. With the purpose of purging this proceeding and avoiding nullities from the actions indicated previously, although the continuation of the trial has been prolonged over time and almost a year has passed since the moment the evidence for a better resolution was ordered, the truth is that this situation is not attributable to either the Court or the parties. It was due, in the first instance, to the process undertaken by the first expert appraisal of Mr. Nombre12891, given that after several orders were issued for him to comply with what the Court required, his appointment had to be revoked and the collaboration of the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judiciary had to be requested to carry out the expert examination. This Court has been diligent, which is confirmed in the various procedural actions and has given timely impetus to the processing of the expert evidence for a better resolution. It must be kept in mind that carrying out evidence for a better resolution cannot be subject to a deadline, as it will depend on the time required to complete its evacuation. The basis for requiring evidence of this nature was due to the argument made by the Municipality of Liberia in its theory of the case, regarding a re-establishment of boundaries that affected the extent of the damage, the essential object of this case, which generated reasonable doubt by contradicting the expert opinions provided by the plaintiff. In the present case, the elapsed time is due to the vicissitudes that arose with the carrying out of the evidence, which is beyond the Court's control. For this reason, despite the time that has passed, based on the constitutional principles of effective judicial protection and swift and complete justice, all procedural acts of the 2013 trial, as well as those of its continuation, are upheld. It must be taken into account that there are unique and unrepeatable acts, such as the expert and testimonial evidence evacuated in January 2013, which would lose their spontaneity and credibility if their evacuation were ordered again; in any case, said evidentiary acts are recorded in the digital support of the trial, to which the parties and the Court have access. Based on the foregoing, in order to comply with the aforementioned principles, as well as the preservation of these acts and to avoid the issuance of nullities for the sake of nullity, it was decided to continue with the oral and public trial once the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judiciary issued its opinion. Once this evidence was evacuated in the continuation of the trial, the floor was given to the parties to present their conclusions. The debate was closed, and the judgment was handed down within the period established by the CPCA. Finally, it is of interest to make another observation, in the sense that from the moment the Court ordered the revocation of Mr. Nombre12891's appointment, the documents he provided, which are in the case file, have no validity within the proceeding for the purpose of resolving the present case and issuing the final decision. For this reason, it is ordered that the sum of ¢500,000 (five hundred thousand colones), corresponding to the deposit of fees for the expert appraisal, which is recorded on folio 799 of the judicial file, be returned to the plaintiff, as indicated in the resolution issued at eleven o'clock on August twenty-eighth, two thousand thirteen, visible on folio 871.

VIII.- REGARDING THE COMPLAINT OF TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: The plaintiff comes to this venue to seek the integral remediation (reparación integral) of the damages caused by the Municipality of Liberia, including within its claim the environmental damage, as well as the consequential damage (daño emergente). In that sense, it indicates that it is the owner of two estates that border a municipal land used as a place to deposit waste. It alleges that in 2007, the defendant Municipality invaded its properties and installed the garbage dump there. It adds that, according to a topographic expert appraisal and a technical report, the affected zone is five hectares, two thousand one hundred seventy square meters, and fourteen decimeters. It also describes as empirical the manner in which the territorial entity proceeded to dump the solid waste, as it did not establish a sanitary landfill nor take the corresponding measures. It explains that it razed the existing flora and fauna, leaving only a mountain of garbage. It adds that the recovery horizon for the lands is 10 years. In its defense, the defendant territorial entity argues the supposed tolerance of the Ministry of Health and the involved institutions, due to the urgent need that the canton faced, upon the closure of the municipal sanitary landfill by the Environmental Court (Tribunal Ambiental), it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump (vertedero controlado) on the plaintiff's property. According to its claim, what the Municipality used of the plaintiff's land is approximately one hectare. It also mentions that upon obtaining the permits from Nombre3456 and the Ministry of Health, the landfill will be functioning again and it will proceed to remove the solid waste from the small portion of land indicated. To support the urgency measures, it bases itself on the principle of continuity of public service, which it is obligated to fulfill. It also considers that, given the urgency, the principles of continuity of public service, the right to health, and the right to a healthy environment cause the property right to be relativized and must yield to the others mentioned. At the same time, it indicates that there was tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, as in meetings in the responsible Departments, there was permission from the plaintiff to carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton, until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. Furthermore, it states that there is a recovery action (proceso reivindicatorio) by Mr. Nombre115463, who claims possession and ownership of farms 34528-000 and 30878-000. According to its theory of the case, the alleged tolerance constitutes the cause for exemption from liability under the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), called victim's fault (culpa de la víctima). It also alleges that there is no adjacency whatsoever with the plaintiff's farm, in accordance with cadastral plan G-623106-86. It also rejects the existence of forest (bosque), under the terms of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), on the lands owned by the plaintiff. To proceed with the recognition of any compensation under the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) scheme for the Public Administration, contained in our General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), hereinafter LGAP, it is necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of each of its components or elements to verify whether or not there is strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Public Administration. In this manner, one must identify the existence of damage (196 LGAP), which must be effective, assessable, and individualizable (196 LGAP); in turn, the causal relationship between said damage and the public entity or official; whether there are exempting causes of liability that break the causal link (nexo de causalidad) (190 LGAP); in addition to specifying the existence of imputation criteria, that is to say, whether the harmful conduct occurred lawfully or unlawfully, normally or abnormally. Regarding liability for lawful and normal conduct, due to the special nature of the damage (especialidad del daño), it requires the existence of a small proportion of affected parties and that the intensity of said injury be exceptional. Under this scheme, the compensation covers the value of the damage, but not the lost profits (perjuicios). These concepts that make up the "special damage" (daño especial) are what are known in law as indeterminate legal concepts, and it will be the Judges in each case who must give them content and determine if the subjective right was denatured. On the other hand, to address the analysis of the existence of liability for unlawful and abnormal conduct, which is what the plaintiff alleges, it is essential to determine the existence of an action by the Administration contrary to the legal system or to the unequivocal rules of science or technique, respectively. Under this cause of imputation, the recognition of damages is full, as, unlike the previous one, lost profits (perjuicios) are recognized. When addressing the analysis of the present case, given the manner in which the claims of the complaint are framed, it is fundamental to have the cause of the damage accredited, that is, the invasion of the plaintiff's lands by the defendant territorial entity, as well as the deposit of garbage on them. To support its theory of the case, the plaintiff corporation offered the expert witness Olman Alberto Barrantes Molina to testify regarding the damages caused and their appraisal. Said professional holds a degree in environmental economics, with an emphasis on agro-environmental issues. He stated that he proceeded to assess two reports, one hydrogeological and another topographic survey (levantamiento topográfico) of the affected area. He explained that due to his profession, he cannot determine the damage, so based on the hydrogeology studies of Ms. Nombre115462 and the topographic expert appraisal of Mr. Nombre115464, he carried out his valuation. In that way, based on his conclusions, he established the way to change the situation of the land and quantify the damage. He also affirmed, in relation to the state of the lands, that human intervention had already occurred there, such as timber and material extraction. However, subsequently, a process of natural reforestation of the affected area took place. For this reason, he considered that, on a scale of zero to one hundred, the conservation level was 80%; however, with the deposit of the waste, the conservation level reached 10%. The foregoing because a geomorphological change occurred, a hill was removed, and the garbage level was raised. He said there were some irreversible damages, like those of the hill, and others that were reparable, based on engineering techniques. He explained that the methodology for calculating the valuation of the environmental damage took into account 4 components, which are the recovery cost and at the same time the establishment of a buffer zone between the affected area and the rest of the property, which accounts for 2% of the total valuation. The other component is based on the recommendation of the geological study, which suggests as a remediation measure to carry out cleaning in the area and perform the necessary civil and engineering works to provide stability to the soil and give an alternative use to this section of the land, which cannot be different from what it currently has. In this way, extract the waste materials, treat them, and replace the soil and provide adequate stability to avoid other effects. This component represents 90% of the environmental damage value that he is recognizing in his valuation. He affirmed that if the waste had been treated in accordance with the regulations, this component would have been lower. He added that the other component of the methodology is a social cost, and for the non-enjoyment of the affected areas. He added that his valuation corresponds to a solution presented by a professional. Thus, there may be other solutions, cheaper or more expensive. He stated that his study does not propose a remediation plan, but rather the cost of returning the environment to the condition it was in, as close as possible. The economic damage caused by the disposal of the garbage is $1,779,433.82. He emphasized that this amount corresponds to the day of the visit; as of today, it should be assessed whether the Municipality implemented any mechanism or improvement that changes the situation. He explained that the zone is not diverse from an ecological point of view, nor of great agricultural potential. He also explained to the Court that he did not have knowledge of when the property was acquired by the plaintiff. Nor did he determine the state the property was in at the time of determining the damage. To make his valuation, he interpreted aerial photographs from the years 1950 and 2000, as well as some from NASA. He also mentioned that he took into account the state of the other surrounding areas that were not affected (audiovisual support of the trial, disc 1, starting at 11:29:27, January 22, 2013, folios 70 to 79 of the judicial file). Likewise, the plaintiff corporation offered Ms. Nombre115462, a geologist with a specialty in hydrogeology, who works as a private consultant, and who carried out an environmental diagnosis on the farms owned by the plaintiff. The foregoing consists of an assessment of the environmental conditions she was able to observe. She explained that she assessed the geomorphological, geological, and surface and groundwater aspects that are most visible in the environment. She set a date to visit the farms to conduct the study. By observing the land, as well as aerial photographs, she could determine that there were changes in the geomorphology of the farm. She mentioned that she was able to verify that a hill was not complete. She set the date, stating that this geomorphological impact corresponds to damage if done without a permit. Said changes affect the landscape and are irreversible. She added that she found slope instability on the land, cracks, and ditches typical of unstable ground. This situation, she mentioned, can bring risks of landslides. She said she found impact to the rocky layer of the affected sector. Thus, the environmental impact occurs by virtue of the removal of subsoil material; for this reason, it is no longer possible to return to the original conditions in which the land was. The effect produced on the groundwater is that by removing part of the subsoil, there is less distance between the crust and the groundwater; thus, bacteria would reach the water table (nivel freático) faster, which depends on the thickness of the material that has been removed. She was clear in indicating that no analyses were carried out to determine if the groundwater was affected, nor the existence of wells or springs (manantiales), neither on the farm nor in the vicinity. She mentioned, in relation to surface water, that on her visit she observed a small stream, called Quebrada Arenas, in which she found garbage in the streambed, which is a natural drainage. She explained that the water quality was probably affected, but it was not analyzed. She indicated that she did not know where the surface water went. When surface water becomes contaminated, it in turn contaminates the rivers it reaches, which also affect other rivers where said waters arrive. She mentioned that she made a remediation and recovery plan for the zone. The first step, according to her statement, is to remove the garbage from the site, stabilize slopes with gabions or suitable vegetation. She also recommended carrying out biannual sampling to see the evolution in water quality, due to the effect of leachate (lixiviados), which is highly contaminating. She considers that the initial state of the waters could be recovered. She also mentioned that the topic of water quality is outside her knowledge. She set the date, stating that she could not determine the volume of garbage on the farms. She added that although she observed the affected area, she did not quantify it. She stated that although it is a small area relative to the farm, the impact as such exists. She explained that a diagnosis involves a field visit to observe and analyze. The terrain's composition consists of rocks called Liberia Formation tuffs (tobas de la formación de Liberia); the type of rock produces very abundant soil. The soil is the disintegration of the rock, making it dusty and whitish. She mentioned that with the aerial photograph she could determine that since 2005 there had been waste disposal in the zone, according to the photograph on folio 96, by the color that is distinguished. She also stated that she did not determine the existence of aquifers (mantos acuíferos). She explained that the damage to the geology occurs due to the use of materials illegally, by extracting them without permission and the use thereof, as it was removed to try to hide the garbage. She stated that she did not quantify the damage to the surface waters; her observations are based on the visit she conducted (audiovisual support of the trial, starting at 14:08:46, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Furthermore, the plaintiff offered the testimony of Mr. Nombre115464, who told the Court that he measured the cadastral plans of the plaintiff's properties, as well as the area invaded by garbage and, two years later, a boundary marker placed by the Municipality in 2010. He specified that the first measurement was made during Holy Week of 2008; he defined the boundaries of the farm because there was an invasion of the plaintiff's properties by some people who had created a plan for possessory information that overlapped the existing plans. He explained that he measured the entirety of the farms with the registered plans. The boundaries coincided at the back and in the shape of the road. He mentioned that he was able to determine that the Municipality had entered the plaintiff's property. In his work, he could perceive the existence of solid waste on the plaintiff's property. He also added that on the plaintiff corporation's farm, there were workers and buzos, as well as trucks. Regarding the trucks, he saw them in mid-2010, on his third visit. On his second visit, he focused on measuring the invaded area. He could observe in the invaded area that earth had been moved to cover the garbage. He indicated that he generated a plan showing 52170.14 m2 as the invasion of the plaintiff's lands. He corroborated that he prepared the plan visible on folio 56 of the judicial file (audiovisual support of the trial, starting at 15:56:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Finally, the plaintiff offered as a witness Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, who has served as legal advisor to the plaintiff. He affirmed that he was present at a meeting with the Municipality of Liberia, approximately 5 years ago, which arose from the knowledge they had of the invasion and deposit of garbage on the plaintiff corporation's properties. Present at the meeting, besides him, were Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager, David Walker, and the representative of the corporation that owns the properties, Mr. Nombre115461. As he explained, at the meeting they expressed their concern about the large amount of garbage deposited on their properties. In that sense, the Municipality indicated that it carried out the deposit as a matter of urgency. He adds that he was able to corroborate the existence of garbage on the plaintiff's properties through the visits he made to the site. On another visit he made to the site, he could even observe tractors inside the plaintiff's property. He mentioned that he sent a letter to Mr. Augusto of the Municipality asking them to stop dumping garbage. In another letter, signed by Mr. Nombre115461, the Municipality was asked to stop dumping garbage. He added that at the meeting he was present at, at no time was there consent from Mr. Nombre115461 for them to dump garbage on his property. The witness recognized, on folio 58 of the judicial file, the letter he sent to the Municipality, in which they set forth the situation of the garbage deposit and invasion of the property. Regarding this letter, he said he did not remember having received a formal response from the Municipality. He recalls having appeared on two occasions and having met with the legal advisor to indicate, informally, that the activity continued on the plaintiff company's lands (digital support, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). The defendant, to support its theory of the case, requested the statement of Mr. Nombre115461, who appeared as a witness and explained that when they learned of the situation on his represented party's properties, the person who carried out the study indicated to them that garbage had been deposited 5 years earlier. He explained that at the beginning of 2008, he learned of the situation and for that reason appeared with his lawyer, Licentiate Alex Araya, at the Municipality of Liberia. They spoke with an official named Nombre20997 and with the Mayor. He remembers having appeared at the Municipality about three times, and his lawyer also appeared at the Municipality on other occasions to get them to stop the matter. He explained that his lawyer verbally and in writing submitted requests for them to stop the activity of dumping garbage on his represented party's properties. He explained that when he appeared at the Municipality, his intention was to stop what the Municipality was doing. In this regard, he mentioned that he was clear in stating that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property (audiovisual support of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Mr. Renán Alonso Zamora Álvarez also appeared, offered by the defendant, who is an official of the Municipality of Liberia. He set the date, stating that when he joined the territorial entity, it was depositing solid waste on a neighboring property due to an order from the Environmental Court (Tribunal Ambiental), so it began dumping waste in a place different from the one that had been closed. This occurred, according to his statement, at the beginning of 2008. He indicated that he heard other people mention that they had met with Nombre115461. He set the date, stating that he had knowledge of Mr. Nombre115461's refusal to have solid waste deposited only when the complaint was filed. He set the date, stating that after the complaint, the plaintiff hired guards. He referred to the fact that the boundaries between the properties were not clear. He mentioned that the owner prior to the plaintiff corporation had the intention of donating a part of the land, but this was never finalized. For this reason, it was believed that where they were dumping the waste was Municipality property. He also mentioned that the plaintiff had a conflict with another person over the property. For this reason, in his opinion, it was not clear to the Municipality which was its property.

The witness was shown folio 59 of the judicial file, which is official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008; in that regard, he mentioned that he probably was aware of that document. At the same time, he stated that he did not recall having responded to the document. He also did not recall having forwarded the document to another official to respond to it. He mentioned not remembering having seen the sanitary order visible at folio 109 of the judicial file (digital recording of the trial, starting at 8:47:12, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Mr. Nombre23565 also appeared; he is the municipal geographer and told the Court that, according to a communication from geographer Marco Garro, who works at the Municipality, he determined an affected area of approximately 2.5 hectares on the plaintiff's property using a GPS. Said report is visible at folios 329 to 331 of the judicial file. Likewise, he explained that there is a survey at folio 770, which is related to the aforementioned communication. He mentioned that it has been very complicated to demarcate the property boundaries; for that reason, a re-establishment of the limits was carried out, and the survey at folio 770 delimits the affected area (audiovisual recording, starting at 10:04:41, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, the municipal entity offered the testimony of Mr. Augusto Otárola Guerrero, who acknowledged the document visible from folio 261 to 262 of the judicial file, official communication UGAML-003-01-2010, through which he issued his opinion regarding the economic valuation by engineer Olman Barrantes Molina. In relation to the expert report by Mr. Barrantes Molina, he criticized the fact that he indicated that there is forest cover (bosque) in the area, since what exists in the zone is ignimbrite. According to his considerations, these are marginal lands, not even suitable for cattle. He explained that trees do not grow in the area because the land is arid. He also questioned the methodology for making the economic valuation of the environmental damage; in that regard, he considered that the methodology used by Mr. Barrantes is not official. In his opinion, there is an overvaluation of the environmental damage. He also mentioned that the Municipality, through the projects it has developed, has allowed the properties in the area to have some value. According to him, the soils are not permeable, so it is difficult for the subsoil to be contaminated. He further questions that no drilling was carried out to determine that contamination. He stated that the existence of aquifers in the area is uncertain and requires more tests to determine. He mentioned that the municipal sanitary landfill receives hospital waste, which is sterilized in autoclaves. Regarding other types, such as fetuses or organs, they are deposited in pits in Liberia. He mentioned that the Municipality of Liberia used the properties of the plaintiff because they were believed to be its property, related to a donation and a land dispute between the plaintiff and another gentleman with the last name Nombre115463. Added to this is the emergency situation and the lack of demarcation of the boundaries. For that reason, they deposited waste on the plaintiff's properties. He affirmed that at a meeting he attended with Mr. Nombre115461, his lawyer, and Mayor Carlos Marín, they discussed the possibility of taking advantage of the situation. He indicated that Mr. Nombre115461 granted them a period of time to continue depositing the garbage. He mentioned that he had armed guards and that they consented to the garbage entering; however, after the lawsuit, they no longer allowed it. On the other hand, he questioned the report by Ms. Nombre115462 for not making concrete measurements or measuring the alleged impacts (audiovisual recording, starting at 12:01:09, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, engineer Moisés Arias Sancho, from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judiciary, who was requested by the Court as a measure for better resolution, appeared and explained that the methodology used was satellite measurements using the GPS constellation, a high-accuracy topographical process, similar to that of conventional equipment; this methodology was used because the properties are quite extensive, with points of interest indicated by both parties. He stated that the properties are adjacent; there was no division of the plaintiff's property towards its northern neighbor, while towards its southern neighbor, a division did exist, due to a confluence of streams: Zopilota and another whose name he does not recall. Points of interest were taken, mainly from those streams, since there was no delimitation of live fences; the only conclusive delimitation on site are the streams and the main road. Everything related to the plaintiff was taken in the first instance, and then to the Municipality. The territorial entity has a re-establishment (replanteo), which is not complete, established only with concrete posts. He added that with the field information, he processed the data in his office using specialized software for data measurement, and verification was made with the cadastral maps of the properties. The foregoing, he explained, led him to conclude that the properties are delimited registry-wise, but in the field, they are found adjacent to one another. The property located to the north does not present a physical delimitation; there were no points of interest in that part. However, there were important points of interest, such as the streams, since, due to the large extensions, the streams limit the properties quite well. Another conclusion he reached is that although these properties are delimited by recently dated cadastral maps, the previous maps from 1972 still apply; however, the 2008 maps represent very well what the 1972 map indicates, with the exception of the map that was segregated (segregado) from the Municipality of Liberia to build the landfill. The other part of his conclusions refers to the affected area of the plaintiff. In that regard, he explained that on the plaintiff's properties, they made excavations of about 50 centimeters to observe the solid waste. Regarding his survey, visible at folio 900 of the judicial file, he mentioned that what is seen in green and red are the boundaries of the 1972 maps, corresponding to the plaintiff's properties. The figure with blue outlines is the map of the Municipality of Liberia. The areas with purple hatching correspond to the zones affected by solid waste; these zones are affected by earthworks (movimiento de tierra). To determine the affected zones, the contour was sought, and excavations of 50 or 40 centimeters were made to see the deposit of materials, as well as earthworks (movimientos de tierra) carried out for that purpose. He mentioned that the sum of the affected areas is approximately 6 hectares and added that his report indicates the total affected area and by property. He explained that technically all the maps contain legal and truthful information and are reflected on the properties; however, he stated that the 1972 map shows the property that was given to the Municipality of Liberia was segregated from it; that is indeed represented in the 2008 maps. The 1972 and 2008 maps present the same areas, the same neighbors; there is no significant difference, except for the area segregated (segregada) to the Municipality. He stated that the alleged overlap (traslape) is logical, by virtue of the segregation (segregación) from the 1972 map, since it comes from the plaintiff's property. He mentioned that the issue of the location of the properties, affecting the magnitude of the damage, is a matter arising from the re-establishment (replanteo) carried out by the Municipality of Liberia, which is drawn with circles and indicated on his survey. He mentioned that when he went to the field, only that sector was re-established (replanteado), the rest was eliminated because it is a conflictive zone. The re-established (replanteada) line, he indicated, is the one that has a difference with the cadastral map representing that property. The situation of the overlap (traslape) may come from the physical aspect, but not from the cadastral maps. He added that the re-establishment (replanteo) is not consistent with the cadastral maps. The line of posts does not resemble the cadastral map. Although there are no boundaries, the southwest limit coincides with the cadastral map; what is out of line is the re-established (replanteada) line. He also explained that it is technically impossible to take the re-establishment (replanteo) into account to locate the Municipality's map, as it does not coincide with the elements of the delimiting lines. He further explained that overlap (traslape) is the superposition of one property over another; in this specific case, there is an overlap (traslape) of the property map from 1986 with the one from 1972. He emphasized that this overlap (traslape) should not be misinterpreted as a usurpation, because it is due to the segregation (segregación) of the property at that time. The overlap (traslape) has no effect because it comes from the segregation (segregación) of the land that was later given to the Municipality; it has no effect today. He stated that at the moment when the property is segregated (segrega) and the maps are drawn up, the overlap (traslape) ceases to exist. In relation to the maps, he explained that although the 2008 map contains the changes resulting from the segregation (segregación), it does not appear associated with the real folio number, as the one linked is from 1972. By subtracting what was segregated (segregado) to the Municipality, what appears on the 1972 map coincides with what the 2008 map indicates. Regarding the other property, it remains intact because the segregation (segregación) did not come from it. He also explained that a re-establishment (replanteo) involves taking office data and reflecting it in the field; in this particular case, the Municipality had a map for which there was no delimitation in the field, so what it did was place them in the field. He affirmed that from a technical point of view, he did not agree with the re-establishment (replanteo) made by the Municipality of Liberia, because it took other global elements of the property, such as the road and the southern boundary of the Municipality's property. He indicated that the re-establishment (replanteo) did not generate any type of registration in the cadastre or the Public Registry. In a re-establishment (replanteo), the process works in reverse, as the field is seen first and then the cadastre. He explained that the 1986 and 2008 maps are in force. He stated that in the end, the overlap (traslape) turns out to be a segregation (segregación) and not a usurpation. He explained that the affected zone is the one that suffered earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and deposit of solid waste (digital recording, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). In accordance with the facts that have been proven in this case, the Court has no doubt that in the instant case, the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Administration, regulated by the General Law of Public Administration starting at Article 190, has been established. Each and every one of the elements that make up this scheme have been added to the record through the evidence that has been produced. First, it has been proven that the Municipality of Liberia caused damage to the properties corresponding to real folio numbers of the Partido de Guanacaste 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff. The conduct that produced the impairment was precisely the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, without permission, authorization, or consent from her. Said damage affected 25,518 square meters of the first and 43,651 square meters of the second. Our legal system, at its apex in Article 45, provides for the inviolability of private property. In this way, the conduct aimed at dumping garbage on the properties adjacent to the municipal dump constitutes an infringement of a fundamental right, guaranteed, as stated above, by the Political Constitution. On the other hand, the Political Charter, in its Articles 21 and 50, protects the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The act of depositing garbage on private property implies an infringement of these rights of constitutional rank, sufficient to establish the unlawful and abnormal conduct that the General Law of Public Administration provides as a criterion for imputation of liability. To the above, it must be added that the deposit of waste materials was carried out without any treatment, which aggravates the unlawfulness and abnormality of this case, due to the impact this generates on the environment. Furthermore, there is a causal link between this unlawful and abnormal conduct and the damage, which has also been proven in the case. This is because the Municipality, in its theory of the case presented throughout the process, has never denied this fact of having deposited garbage on the properties adjacent to its property, used as the municipal solid waste dump. Its discussion focuses, as will be seen below, on the magnitude of the damage. In this way, once the damage, the conduct that produced it, the criterion for imputation of liability, and the causal link have been determined, the obligation to repair, as grounds for the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) under Articles 190 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, is imminent. Thus, the Municipality of Liberia is obliged to repair the damage caused, along with the damages (perjuicios). This is by virtue of the fact that no person is obliged to bear legal injuries to their patrimonial or extra-patrimonial sphere, as happened in the case of the plaintiff. The defendant territorial entity has come to allege several circumstances as grounds for exemption from liability, which are unacceptable to this Chamber, in accordance with the provisions of the General Law of Public Administration. First, it alleges a situation of urgency, a topic it has raised since the response to the complaint and reiterated by its witnesses. First, by virtue of Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, this is not a cause that allows for breaking the causal link of liability. On the other hand, it is also not an excuse to justify the conduct displayed by the Municipality of Liberia. It is reprehensible, from the point of view of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva), that the defendant Municipality uses the principles of Nombre40855, known as those of public service, to justify the continuity of its conduct of depositing garbage on another's property. This argument is clearly contrary to the scheme of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) and to the very principles of public service, since conduct of such magnitude that affects fundamental rights protected at the constitutional level, such as private property, a healthy environment, and public health, cannot be legitimized. On the contrary, the conduct displayed by the Municipality not only generates patrimonial liability, as its officials would not be exempt from criminal, patrimonial, and administrative liability. On the other hand, the defendant has come to present, as a ground for exemption, what it has classified as contributory negligence (culpa de la víctima), a supposed acceptance by the plaintiff for them to deposit solid waste on her property. In this regard, it must be kept in mind that the Municipality of Liberia has at no time denied having deposited waste outside the limits of the sanitary landfill, given that it has excused itself based on the urgent need in which it found itself. Thus, from the beginning, there was a unilateral decision on its part. Despite this, in its theory of the case and through its witnesses, it has tried to give that initial unilateral decision an appearance of consensus, which the Court does not find and considers incongruent, according to the evidence produced in this venue. First, it has been proven that once the representative of the plaintiff became aware of the situation in early 2008, Mr. Nombre115461, accompanied by his lawyer, licensed Attorney Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express his concern about the large amount of garbage deposited on his properties. On that occasion, he told them that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property. Subsequently, on May 21, 2008, licensed Attorney Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for the plaintiff, sent a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia, from which the disagreement with the conduct of the territorial entity is clearly understood. The Municipality has attempted to demonstrate, through its witnesses Renán Zamora Álvarez and Augusto Otárola Guerrero, the existence of a supposed meeting in which the plaintiff's representative consented to the deposit of solid waste. Neither of these witnesses is credible to the Court, by virtue of the fact that both are officials directly involved in the case, who could face some type of liability. For that reason, their statements could be aimed at protecting a personal interest. At the same time, during the direct examination conducted by the representative of the Municipality, Mr. Zamora Álvarez initially indicated, regarding the alleged consent of the plaintiff's representative, that he heard other people mention that they had met with him and that he had given permission. He also stated that he became aware of Mr. Nombre115461's refusal to allow solid waste to be deposited only when he filed the lawsuit. Despite this, during cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer showed Mr. Zamora the document visible at folio 59 of the judicial file, in which the Environmental Manager forwarded to him, through official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008, the handling of the communication from Attorney Alexander Araya, lawyer for the plaintiff at that time, regarding the solid waste. The foregoing reveals a significant contradiction in his testimony, as it is not true that he became aware of the refusal only when the lawsuit was filed, since, according to the communication he received, he was made aware of the situation being raised by Mr. Nombre115461 in the administrative venue. Based on the foregoing, the alleged exemption from liability is not acceptable. Furthermore, another axis of the defendant's theory of the case has focused on aspects related to the topography and location of the properties. In the response to the complaint, the Municipality affirmed that it was not true that the plaintiff's properties bordered the municipal land. In that sense, its witnesses stated that garbage had been dumped on an adjacent property; however, they never expressly stated that said adjacent property was that of the plaintiff. From the evidence that has been produced and proven in the evidentiary body, specifically, the report from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judiciary by judicial expert Moisés Sancho Arias, this doubt has been completely dispelled; not only with the explanations he provided as a result of his site visit, but with the survey he performed and the analysis of the different maps that have been under discussion, it has been possible to prove that the Municipality's land borders the property with registration number Placa21674 belonging to the plaintiff. On the other hand, according to a document visible from folio 329 to 331 of the judicial file by geographer Marco Garro, the survey at folio 770, and the testimony of Mr. Nombre23565, the Municipality acknowledged the existence of only one hectare as an invaded area, based on a re-establishment (replanteamiento) of the boundaries of its land, which directly affected the placement of the maps and consequently the magnitude of the damage. This evidence contradicted that provided by the plaintiff regarding the extent of the alleged damage. For that reason, evidence was requested as a measure for better resolution, given the doubt that arose regarding the maps registered from 1972 and those referenced by both parties from 1986 and 2008, as well as the difference in areas between them. According to the evidence produced, the Court was able to verify that between the properties under real folio no. Placa21674 and no. Placa21679, owned by the plaintiff and defendant respectively, there is no overlap (traslape) understood as usurpation, but rather it is a product of the segregation (segregación) that occurred of the Municipality's land. This is by virtue of the fact that as of today, the property under number 30878-000 is registry-wise associated with map G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation (segregación) of the lot owned by the Municipality under number 56577-000. Said overlap (traslape) that appears at the map level has no impact on the magnitude of the damage to the affected areas on the plaintiff's property, which has been determined. Based on the foregoing, the arguments presented by the defendant entity are not acceptable in this venue to exempt it from liability. Having established the obligation to repair and having analyzed the arguments of the defendant as its theory of the case to refute the complaint, which are not acceptable as explained above, the proper course is to analyze the claims of the plaintiff regarding the repair of the damage. With respect to the repair of the environmental damage, a claim the plaintiff bases on the report of Mr. Barrantes Molina, who carried out that valuation, upon applying the rules of sound judgment (sana crítica racional), the Court has some doubts (audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 12:17:16 of the first disc). First, as noted above, Mr. Barrantes was clear in indicating that given his profession, he did not determine the damage; he only made his valuation based on the reports of Ms. Nombre115462 and Nombre115464. On the other hand, he mentioned that he visited the site once, when the damages had already occurred, which is why he could not determine the prior condition of the affected area, nor the condition at the time the plaintiff acquired the properties. To calculate the damage, he relied on aerial photographs from 1950, 2000, and NASA from 2005, as well as his interpretation. He also considered the condition of the other areas of the property. Contrasting these explanations from Mr. Barrantes with the requirements for the buffer zone, visible at folio 75 of the judicial file, 5,000 trees are accounted for there, along with planting supplies and labor. Despite this, there is no evidence in the record that this number of trees existed at the time the plaintiff acquired the lands subject to litigation. Moreover, Mr. Barrantes stated that he used as a parameter the condition of the adjacent, unaffected areas; however, the number of trees per square meter found on the surface of these areas used as a parameter has not been demonstrated in this case. Nor is the species of tree that supposedly grew during the indicated regeneration process specified. While Mr. Barrantes explained that the forest cover (bosque) regenerating in that zone cannot be compared to that of Monteverde, for example, he was not precise in indicating the type of forest cover (bosque) and ecosystem that develops there, in order to determine the type of tree and plant species that must be planted and their specific cost, to be able to restore the site. Thus, for the Court, the valuation of the environmental damage is confusing and incongruent. Second, Mr. Barrantes mentioned that another component of the methodology, to which he assigned a value, is the social aspect; however, this category is not clear, as it concerns a private property that has not been shown to fulfill any social function directly affecting a specific social conglomerate, for which an amount to be compensated would be established. Third, Mr. Barrantes was emphatic in indicating that his valuation corresponds to the day of the visit, so it may change over time. Thus, if the plan is approved at this moment, as the plaintiff requests, another situation could arise when it is executed. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to approve the valuation as the plaintiff requests, considering, even, according to the expertise rendered by the expert from the Forensic Engineering Section, that the affected area is larger. In accordance with the foregoing, it is impossible for this Chamber to grant claim number six of the complaint, which consists of approving the repair plan based on Mr. Barrantes' report, as well as the amount determined therein. On the other hand, it is important to consider the report of Ms. Nombre115462, which attempts to demonstrate the impact on the land's geomorphology, comprising the alleged disappearance of a hill, as well as the impact on surface and groundwater. Although Ms. Nombre115462 stated in the oral and public trial that she carried out a diagnosis of the damage caused by the solid waste deposit, for the Court it is not precise regarding the topic of the geomorphological impact, the disappearance of the hill, and the impact on surface and groundwater. On these points, although she mentions them, her report is incomplete, as she did not carry out other tests or studies to determine with certainty the existence of this type of water. She also did not locate the hill, its extension, and impact with the required precision. Her statements in the oral and public trial in this regard were based on mere suppositions, as she expressly indicated not having carried out specific tests. With respect to surface waters, it is notable that she only referred to the Quebrada Arena stream; however, she did not indicate if there were others that were affected, since Engineer Moisés Arias mentioned the existence of another stream, Zopilota. Ms. Nombre115462 also did not determine the condition of these waters before the damaging event occurred. Regarding the supposed hill, although she stated that it had disappeared, she could not specify its dimensions and location. The foregoing does not imply that the Court disregards the possible existence of these consequences as a result of the solid waste deposit, and that they would constitute the effects and magnitude of the damage caused by the Municipality on the plaintiff's properties. Nor does the Collegiate Body disregard that they must be repaired, as it is the unavoidable consequence of a determination of liability. The substantive issue in this regard is the manner or how its repair should be carried out, given that, as explained above, the consequences of this damage and its method of repair are not duly proven. For that reason, the Court does not currently find the means to determine these scopes and how they must be repaired. The deposit of garbage on the plaintiff's properties generates additional damage, evidenced by the expert report of Engineer Moisés Arias, the extent and location of which was even determined. Despite this, the impact on the environment and its magnitude are not duly proven. For that reason, in accordance with Article 122, subsection m) iii) of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, the determination of the consequences generated by the solid waste deposit on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the manner in which their repair should be carried out, are left for the sentence execution phase, all subject to the evidence that demonstrates it in that venue. On the other hand, regarding the plaintiff's claim relating to the cessation of the municipal conduct of depositing garbage and entering her properties, it must be kept in mind, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 126, 158, and 159 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, that due to the abnormal and unlawful nature of this conduct, as has been stated, the territorial entity must immediately and definitively end such behavior. In this regard, it should be noted that within this case, the plaintiff filed a request for a prima facie preliminary injunction (medida cautelar) to order the defendant territorial entity to refrain from depositing solid waste on her properties. For that reason, on June 3, 2010, the Judge of the processing stage, through judgment 2126-2010, granted the preliminary injunction (medida cautelar) requested by the plaintiff; said judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 29, 2010. For that reason, the cessation of the conduct was ordered through the precautionary channel from that date. However, for the purposes of issuing the final judgment that definitively resolves the proceeding, the Municipality of Liberia must refrain from carrying out any conduct aimed at dumping garbage on the plaintiff's properties, as well as from entering them. Should this order not be obeyed, it will result in criminal, disciplinary, and civil liability for any municipal official and the Mayor.

Furthermore, the plaintiff requests recognition of the market value (valor venal) of the property as consequential damages (daño emergente); however, given the manner in which the claims have been addressed in this judgment, by recognizing the full reparation of the damage caused to the properties due to the deposit of solid waste, it is incompatible to recognize payment of the market value (valor venal) of the property, as there is a ruling for the full reparation of the damage caused. Thus, the appropriate course is to recognize the loss of value of the plaintiff's properties for the affected areas and not for the market value (valor venal), as requested by the plaintiff, since the latter is mutually exclusive with the full reparation of the damage. Finally, regarding the claim for consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the plaintiff's farms, the Court considers it to be appropriate, given that this damage is a consequence of the deposit of solid waste on her land; for this reason, it must be recognized in the judgment enforcement phase, with the aid of any expert evidence necessary for that purpose.

IX.- ON THE DEFENSES. This Court considers that the defense of statute of limitations and expiration (prescripción y caducidad) must be rejected, in accordance with Considerando I of this resolution. Likewise, the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho), filed by the Municipality of Liberia, must be rejected, in accordance with what is set forth in Considerando VIII of this resolution; as a consequence of the foregoing, the lawsuit against the Municipality of Liberia filed by Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. is partially granted. Regarding the defense of lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), filed by the defendant, given that standing (legitimación) is the capacity to be a party in a specific administrative contentious proceeding, which is obtained only when one is in a determined relationship with the object of the proceeding. The CPCA in Article 10 establishes who may be plaintiffs in this venue, and similarly Article 12 in its eight subsections provides a wide range of situations in which a person will be considered a defendant in a proceeding. In the instant case, the plaintiff directs its claims against the Municipality of Liberia, attributing liability to it for depositing solid waste on its property. The foregoing is sufficient to consider the Municipality as the passive party of this proceeding and the corporation, with the necessary standing (legitimación), to be the active party in the procedural legal relationship.

X.- ON COSTS. As none of the grounds that could exempt the Municipality of Liberia from the payment of costs, as established in Article 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, are present, it is ordered to pay both costs in favor of the plaintiff.

THEREFORE

The defenses of statute of limitations and expiration (prescripción, caducidad), lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), and lack of right (falta de derecho) are rejected; consequently, the lawsuit filed by Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. against the Municipality of Liberia is partially granted. Anything not expressly indicated shall be understood as rejected. 1) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to completely, definitively, and immediately cease any conduct aimed at depositing garbage on the farms of the Partido de Guanacaste, owned by the plaintiff, real folio registrations Placa21674 and Placa21675. Likewise, it must refrain from entering said properties. Disregard of this order shall result in criminal, administrative, or civil liability for the municipal official who disobeys or for its Mayor. 2) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to carry out extensive cleaning work at the sites affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, corresponding to farm numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, both of the Partido de Guanacaste, comprising areas of 25,518 square meters and 43,651 square meters respectively. This work entails removing the waste from the site and its adequate treatment, in accordance with the technical and legal rules that eliminate or mitigate the damage caused. 3) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to repair the environmental damage caused, the magnitude and impact of which shall be determined in the judgment enforcement phase. 4) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay the plaintiff the loss of value for the affected areas, of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, real folio 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the judgment enforcement phase, with the aid of an expert. 5) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, real folio 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the judgment enforcement phase, with the aid of an expert. 6) It is ordered that the sum of ¢500,000 five hundred thousand colones, corresponding to the deposit made for the expert's fees, be returned to the plaintiff. 7) The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay both costs in favor of the plaintiff. LET IT BE NOTIFIED.- Sergio Mena García Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Ileana Sánchez Navarro 3 </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; line-height:150%; font-size:15pt"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">12.-</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt"> That on </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold">January 22 and 23</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold">2013</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:12pt">, the oral and public trial commenced. The Tribunal informed the plaintiff of a brief filed by the defendant Municipality on the preceding January 18, in which it raised the defenses of prescription (prescripción) and expiration (caducidad) (digital recording of the trial, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Furthermore, it admitted as evidence for better resolution the survey (levantamiento), appearing at folio 770 of the judicial file. Based on said survey and the explanation given by the witness Nombre23565, of an official communication signed by the geographer Marco Garro Chaves, appearing at folios 329 to 331, also of the judicial file, related to a re-staking of the boundaries that affected the extent of the damage alleged by the plaintiff. All of which raised doubts in the Tribunal regarding the extent of the impact and its true dimensions. For that reason, with the aim of finding the real truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal mandate of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), the Tribunal suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert opinion (peritaje) as evidence for better resolution. To this end, the appointment of a Topographic Engineer was ordered, to determine the real measurement on the ground, of the properties owned by the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this real measurement was established, it was to determine the possible area affected by the solid waste deposit, on the properties of the plaintiff, establishing, with respect to it, its measurement and value. Said oral decision was reiterated on the same day of the trial, in writing, by means of a resolution (audiovisual recording of the trial and resolution of 17:00, appearing at folio 793 of the judicial file).</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Tahoma; font-size:10pt; vertical-align:sub"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">13.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">January 25</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, the plaintiff made the deposit of the corresponding fees, so that a topographic engineer could be appointed (folio 799 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">14.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">February 4, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert opinion (pericia) (folio 800 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">15.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">February 12, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared before the Court to assume the role (folio 801 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">16.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">March 11, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, Mr. Nombre12891 presented his report (folio 803 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">17.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">March 15, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, the Tribunal informed the parties of the document presented by Mr. Nombre12891 (folio 820 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">18.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">March 21, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, the parties made their observations regarding the document presented by Mr. Nombre12891 (folios 821-827 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">19.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">April 9, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, the Tribunal requested Mr. Nombre12891 to clarify and supplement the report (folio 832 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">20.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">April 22, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document (folio 838 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">21.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">May 7, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, the Tribunal informed the parties of the document from Mr. Nombre12891 (folio 839 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">22.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">On </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">June 19, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, the Tribunal warned Mr. Nombre12891 to comply with the requirements of the expert opinion (pericia) (folio 842 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">23.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">On </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">June 24, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document, complying with the warning from the Judicial Body (folio 843 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">24-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">July 1, 2013,</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> the document provided by Mr. Nombre12891 was made known to the parties (folio 846 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">25.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> On </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">July 9, 2013,</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> the parties presented their observations regarding the response of Mr. Nombre12891 (folios 854-858 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">26.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">On </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">July 29, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, for failing to comply with the Tribunal's requirements in the evidence for better resolution, it was ordered to revoke the appointment of Mr. Nombre12891 (folio 859 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">27.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">That on </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">August 19, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, the Tribunal ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judicial Branch (Dirección Ejecutiva del Poder Judicial) to investigate what had occurred with the professional, given the manner in which he handled the matter, as well as the statements he set forth in writing when responding to the Tribunal (folio 870 of the judicial file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.95pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">28.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">On </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">August 20, 2013</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; color:#010101">, a revocation appeal (recurso de revocatoria) filed by the defendant against the resolution ordering the revocation of the expert's appointment was addressed.</span></p> 29.- On August 25, 2013, the Court requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch to carry out the expert examination requested as evidence for a better resolution (folio 871 of the judicial file).

30.- On September 19, 2013, September 25, 2013 was scheduled for carrying out the expert examination (folio 875 of the judicial file).

31.- On October 29, 2013, the scheduling was carried out to continue the oral and public trial for October 21 of the current year (folio 876 of the judicial file).

32.- On November 18, 2013, the aforementioned scheduling was revoked and the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013, because the expert report had not arrived at the Office (folio 884 of the judicial file).

33.- On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued the expert opinion. That same day, the mentioned opinion was made known to the parties (folios 896 and 901 of the judicial file).

34.- On November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the request of the plaintiff (folios 907 and 908 of the judicial file).

35.- On November 27 and 28, 2013, the parties carried out their observations on the expert opinion (folios 917-920 of the judicial file).

36.- On January 7, 2014, the continuation of the oral and public trial was carried out (digital recording of the trial).

37.- In the proceedings, the legal terms and prescriptions have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity or defenselessness for the parties are noted. This judgment is issued unanimously, within the period indicated in numeral 111, subsection 1, of the CPCA, after prior deliberation.- Drafted by Judge Rapporteur Mena García, with the affirmative vote of Judges Vargas Vargas and Sánchez Navarro and;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION (prescripción) AND LAPSE (caducidad). Four days before the oral and public trial, the defendant sent a fax to the Court, by which it filed the exceptions of prescription (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad), considering that in accordance with Article 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the period to file a lawsuit is one year; despite the above, according to its statement, the facts date back to 2007. This document was made known to the plaintiff on the day of the trial and a hearing was granted at that time. In this regard, it indicated that the case at hand was not aimed at determining nullities, but rather is a civil treasury proceeding or one of administrative civil liability. In this sense, the negative prescription (prescripción) period is 4 years. It states that the affectation began in 2007 and the lawsuit was filed in 2009, so that fatal period has not elapsed. It adds that the damage has continued over time, so it has a continuous effect. On the day of the trial, the Court reserved the resolution of the exceptions for the issuance of the final judgment (folio 768 of the judicial file, digital recording, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Regarding the point under discussion, the plaintiff is correct in stating that the applicable prescription (prescripción) period for civil treasury matters is 4 years. It must be borne in mind that the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo contains a special rule that regulates the lapse (caducidad) of the action in this type of proceeding. Thus, with regard to this matter, Article 41 of Law No. 8508 provides: "The maximum period to initiate the proceeding shall be the same as that provided by the legal system as the prescription period for the respective substantive right being discussed in the following cases: 1) In civil treasury matters..." The prescription (prescripción) period for the substantive right, referred to in the cited canon, is that provided by Article 198 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, Law No. 6227, which is 4 years. In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant is not correct in indicating that the applicable prescription (prescripción) rule for the case is that of Article 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since, as was stated, there is a special rule. On the other hand, if the facts are from 2007, as recognized by the same defendant in the oral trial, from that date, to the moment in which the lawsuit was filed, that fatal period had not elapsed. For this reason, in accordance with the foregoing, the exceptions of prescription (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad) filed by the defendant Municipality must be rejected.

II.- PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are deemed as such: 1) That the plaintiff is the owner of two properties located in the Province of Guanacaste, Dirección14305, under the recorded property system numbers 30878-000 and 34528-000. Registrally, property No. 30878-000 appears with plan G-0003427-1972. For its part, property No. 34528-000 appears with plan G-0003432-1972 (folios 31, 39, of the judicial file). 2) That the defendant is the owner of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, located in the Dirección14305, under recorded property number 56577-000. Registrally, plan Placa21676 appears associated with said property (folio 45 of the judicial file). 3) That cadastral plan G-0003427-72, from 1972, registrally associated with the property under recorded property number 30878-000, records an area of 171 hectares 9072.43 square meters. Said document does not contain the segregation that was carried out of the defendant's land, under recorded property No. 56577-000 (folios 33 and 45 of the judicial file and testimony of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, on the audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 4) That plan G-1266873-2008, of property registration number Placa21674, not registrally associated, modified plan G-3427-1972 and G-1198403-2008 records an area of 1,537,085.53 square meters. Said plan contains the segregation of the lot owned by the defendant, under recorded property No. 56577-000 (folio 53 of the judicial file, testimony of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, on the audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 5) That the defendant's property, under recorded property No. 56577-000, borders on its east, west, and north boundaries with the property owned by the plaintiff, under recorded property No. 30878-000 (folios 53 and 900 of the judicial file, testimony of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, on the audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 6) That between the properties under recorded property No. 30878-000 and No. 56577-000, owned by the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, there is no overlap understood as usurpation, but rather it is a product of the segregation. The foregoing by virtue of the fact that today the property under number 30878-000 is registrally associated with plan G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation of the lot owned by the Municipality No. 56577-000. Said overlap occurring at the plan level has no incidence whatsoever on the magnitude of the damage to the affected areas, determined on the plaintiff's property (folios 33, 45, 53 and 900 of the judicial file and testimony of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho on the audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 7) That in the year 2007, approximately, the Municipality of Liberia invaded the plaintiff's properties and began to deposit solid waste (testimonies of Mr. Nombre115461, audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 8) That on February 27, 2007, the Área Rectora de Salud de Liberia, Región Chorotega, based on technical report RCH-ARSL-108-2007, by means of sanitary order 15-2007, ordered the defendant to suspend the deposit of solid waste on the property where it was doing so (folio 109 of the judicial file). 9) That at the beginning of 2008, the legal representative of the plaintiff, Mr. Nombre115461, accompanied by his lawyer, Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express his concern about the large quantity of garbage deposited on his properties. On that occasion, he told them that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property (testimonies of Nombre115461, audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013 and Alexander Araya Zúñiga, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 10) That on May 21, 2008, Mr. Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for the plaintiff, sent a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Gestor Ambiental of the Municipality of Liberia. Said note contains the following, transcribed literally: "The undersigned, Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED91270, (hereinafter the 'Company') as owner of the properties of the Partido de Guanacaste, with recorded property registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21677, (hereinafter the 'Properties'), makes the following known to the Municipality of Liberia: i) Knowledge is held of the activities of the Municipality of Liberia on the Properties and that a clandestine garbage dump has been operating on them. ii) That there is no authorization whatsoever from the Company for the use or exploitation of the Properties. Much less their use as a garbage dump. iii) That as a direct consequence of this activity, the Properties have suffered a very serious environmental impairment and damage. iv) That a company has been hired to evaluate the damage caused to the properties. v) That the Company is carrying out a legal analysis of the consequences of these damages and the possible administrative and judicial proceedings that will be initiated against those responsible. Awaiting your comments on these points..." (folio 58 of the judicial file, testimony of Mr. Alexander Araya, audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 11) That on May 22, 2008, by official letter UGAML-64-05-2008, Engineer Augusto Otárola Guerrero, Gestor Ambiental of the Municipality of Liberia, sent to Engineer Renán Zamora Álvarez the following: "In relation to the note sent by Lic. Alexander Araya, lawyer of the Company Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., it is forwarded for your response, since in my capacity as Municipal Gestor Ambiental, the final disposal of solid waste nor the collection thereof is my responsibility. I currently collaborate on the rehabilitation project of the Liberia sanitary landfill as manager of the permits." (folio 39 of the judicial file). 12) That on October 17, 2008, the Oficina de Regulación, of the Área Rectora de Salud de Liberia, of the Ministry of Health, by means of sanitary order No. 257-2008, indicates the following based on an inspection carried out in September of that same year: "it was found that on the public road and part of the property of the dump and private properties, the recycling activity takes place, where large quantities of bags and plastic bottles are stored, storage of iron and scrap metal, there is also a trailer loaded with scrap metal. This activity is carried out by about fifty people, including adults and minors, who put their health at risk due to the conditions under which they carry out said activity, without personal protection and without structures for their cleanliness and hygiene" (folio 112 of the judicial file). 13) That as a result of the invasion, deposit of solid waste, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) on the plaintiff's properties, a severe alteration to the local geomorphology and the landscape occurred (folios 87 to 107 of the judicial file and testimony of Mrs. Nombre115462, audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 14:08:46, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 14) That the area affected by solid waste on the plaintiff's property, under recorded property Placa21674, is 25,518 square meters. The area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's property, registration number Placa21675, is 43,651 square meters, which is grouped into three sectors, the first of 38,123 square meters, the second of 672 square meters, and the third of 4,856 square meters (folios 896-900 of the judicial file, testimony of Mr. Moisés Sancho Arias, on the audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 15) That on November 15, 2013, the Sección de Ingeniería Forense of the Judicial Branch issued report 1304-ING-2013, which reaches the following conclusions: "1.

The property with real estate folio number Placa21678 is described geometrically and geographically by cadastral plan G-3427-1972. 2. The property with real estate folio number Placa21678 does not have its boundaries materialized in the field in its northern sector and in its southwestern sector, specifically between vertices 0-26 and 21-22-23 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the Arena and Zopilota streams and the public road. 3. The property with real estate folio number 5034528-000 is described geometrically and geographically by cadastral plan G-3432-1972. 4. The property with real estate folio number 5034528-000 does not have its boundaries materialized in the field in its northern and southern sectors, specifically between vertices 4-5 and 14-0 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the Arena, Honda, and Danta streams and the public road. 5. Within what is expressed by cadastral plan G-3432-1972, there is a total area affected by the solid waste deposit of 43651 m2. 6. Within what is expressed by cadastral plan G-3427-1972, there is a total area affected by the solid waste deposit of 25518 m2. 7. Cadastral plans G-1198403-2008 and G-1266873-2008 have cadastral plan G-3427-1972 as their geometric and geographical basis; however, they have not been the fundamental object for generating or rectifying properties. 8. Cadastral plan G-1266872-2008 has cadastral plan G-3432-1972 as its geometric and geographical basis; however, it has not been the fundamental object for generating or rectifying properties." (folios 896-900 of the judicial file and testimony of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in the audiovisual record of the trial, from 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014).

**III.- FACTS NOT PROVEN:** **1)** That there are underground waters in the properties of the plaintiff and that they suffered any damage (no evidence has been provided to the case file). **2)** That there was forest on the properties of the plaintiff (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate it). **3)** That there was authorization or permission from the plaintiff for the defendant entity to deposit trash on its properties (no evidence whatsoever was provided to prove it). **4)** That the defendant caused a hill that was located on the plaintiff's properties to disappear (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate it). **5)** That the Municipality of Liberia deposited the solid waste on the plaintiff's properties respecting the technical regulations of a sanitary landfill (there is no evidence in the case file).

**IV.- CLAIM FORMULATED BY TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA:** Fundamentally, the plaintiff requests the liability of the Municipality of Liberia for the damages caused, by transferring the activities of a sanitary landfill to two properties belonging to it. It affirms that said activity has caused environmental damage (daño ecológico) and consequential damage (daño emergente).

**V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY:** In essence, it considers that due to the urgent need, given that the sanitary landfill had been closed by the competent authorities, it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump on the plaintiff's property. It affirms that it used only one hectare. It alleges a supposed tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, so that it could carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton, until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. It also rejects the existence of forest, under the terms of the Ley Forestal, on the lands owned by the plaintiff, for which reason it considers that the alleged environmental damage has not occurred.

**VI.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING.** The *sub lite* deals with a proceeding in which it is requested to declare an obligation to act against the Municipality of Liberia, consisting of ceasing the deposit of trash on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the incursion onto said properties. Furthermore, the repair of the environmental damage caused to the lands owned by the plaintiff is sought, as well as consequential damage (daño emergente) for the decrease in the market value of the properties and the temporary loss of possession of the properties registered in its name.

**VII.- REGARDING THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE:** As detailed in the operative recitals (resultandos) of this judgment, in the oral and public trial that began in January of last year, the representative of the Municipality of Liberia, in support of its theory of the case, provided a topographical survey, visible on folio 770 of the judicial file, by which, based on the cadastral plans from 1972, 1986, and 2008, of the properties involved in the instant litigation, referred to a redefinition (replanteamiento) of the boundaries of the involved properties, which influenced the magnitude of the alleged damage being discussed in this venue, evidence that contradicted the expert report presented by the plaintiff. For this reason, with the aim of finding the material truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal mandate of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the Court suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert report as evidence for better judgment. To this effect, the appointment of a Topographical Engineer was ordered to determine the *real measurement in the materiality of the land* of the properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this *real measurement* was established, they had to determine *the possible area affected by the solid waste deposit* on the plaintiff's properties, establishing its measurement and value. Said oral resolution was reiterated on the same day of the trial, in writing, by resolution at 17:00, visible on folio 793 of the judicial file. On January 25, 2013, the plaintiff made the deposit of the corresponding fees for the appointment of a topographical engineer; this is found on folio 799 of the same mentioned file. Subsequently, on February 4, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert examination. For this reason, on February 12, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared at the Court to assume the position, which can be corroborated on folio 801 of the judicial file. Later, on March 11, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted his expert report, on folio 803 of the judicial file. On March 15, 2013, the expert report was made known to the parties, which can be verified on folio 820 of the judicial file. On March 21, 2013, the parties made their observations regarding the expert document (folios 821-827 of the judicial file). Following this, on April 9, 2013, the Court requested Mr. Nombre12891 to clarify and elaborate on the report (folio 832). On April 22, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted a document (folio 838). On May 7, 2013, the Court notified the parties of Mr. Nombre12891's document (folio 839). On June 19, 2013, the Court instructed Mr. Nombre12891 to address the Court's requirements in the expert report, which can be verified on folio 842 of the judicial file. On June 24, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted a document, addressing the Judicial Body's order, folio 843 of the judicial file. Said document was again made known to the parties on July 1, 2013. Then, on July 9, 2013, the parties presented their observations regarding Mr. Nombre12891's response. On July 29, 2013, for failing to comply with the Court's requirements in the evidence for better judgment, it was ordered that the appointment of Expert Nombre12891 be revoked, which can be corroborated on folio 859 of the judicial file. Furthermore, the Court ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judicial Branch to investigate what had happened with the professional, by virtue of the way in which he handled the matter, as well as the statements he made in writing when responding to the Court (folio 870 of the judicial file). Next, on August 20, 2013, a motion to set aside, filed by the defendant against the resolution ordering the revocation of the expert's appointment, was addressed. Then, on August 25, 2013, the Court requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch to carry out the expert report, which can be corroborated on folio 871 of the judicial file. On September 19, 2013, a hearing was scheduled for September 25, 2013, to conduct the expert examination, visible on folio 875 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on October 29, 2013, a hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2013, to continue the oral and public trial, which can be corroborated on folio 876 of the judicial file. Following this, on November 18, 2013, the previously set date was revoked, by virtue of the fact that the expert opinion had not been received; the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013. On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued the opinion, which can be seen on folio 896 of the judicial file. On that same day, the mentioned opinion was made known to the parties, which can be verified on folio 901 of the judicial file. Next, on November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the plaintiff's request (folios 907 and 908). On November 27 and 28, the parties made their observations on the opinion (folios 917-920). On December 2, 2013, it was ordered that in the oral and public trial, the oral cross-examination of the expert regarding their opinion would be conducted. For the purpose of cleansing the present proceeding and avoiding nullities, regarding the actions indicated above, although the continuation of the trial has been prolonged in time and nearly a year has passed since the evidence for better judgment was ordered, the truth is that this situation *is not attributable to either the Court or the parties*. It was due, in the first place, to the process carried out in the first expert report by Mr. Nombre12891, given that after several orders were issued for him to comply with what was required by the Court, his appointment had to be revoked and the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch was asked to collaborate in carrying out the expert examination. This Court has been diligent, which is verified in the various procedural actions taken, and has given timely impetus to the processing of the expert evidence for better judgment. It must be kept in mind that the production of evidence for better judgment cannot be subject to a deadline, as it will depend on the time required to carry out its examination. The basis for requiring evidence of this nature was due to the argument made by the Municipality of Liberia in its theory of the case, regarding a redefinition (replanteamiento) that influenced the magnitude of the damage, the essential object of this case, which generated a reasonable doubt by contradicting the expert reports provided by the plaintiff. In the present case, the elapsed time is due to the difficulties that arose with the production of the evidence, which is beyond the control of the Court. For this reason, despite the time that has passed, based on the constitutional principles of effective judicial protection and prompt and complete justice, all the procedural acts of the 2013 trial, as well as those of its continuation, are maintained. It must be considered that there are unique and irreproducible actions, such as the expert and testimonial evidence examined in January 2013, which would lose their spontaneity and credibility if their examination were ordered again; in any case, said evidentiary acts are recorded in the digital record of the trial, to which the parties and the Court have access. Based on the foregoing, with the aim of complying with the aforementioned principles, as well as the conservation of these acts and avoiding the issuance of nullities for the sake of nullity itself, it was decided to continue with the oral and public trial once the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch issued its opinion. Once this evidence was examined in the continuation of the trial, the floor was given to the parties to present their conclusions. The debate was closed, and judgment was issued within the period established by the CPCA. Finally, it is of interest to make another observation, in the sense that from the moment the Court ordered the revocation of Mr. Nombre12891's appointment, the documents he provided that are in the case file *have no validity within the proceeding* for the purpose of resolving the present case and issuing a ruling on the merits. For this reason, it is ordered that the sum of ¢500,000 (five hundred thousand colones), corresponding to the fee deposit for the expert report, which appears on folio 799 of the judicial file, be returned to the plaintiff, as indicated in the resolution at eleven o'clock on August twenty-eighth, 2013, visible on folio 871.

**VIII.-** **REGARDING THE LAWSUIT OF TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA:** The plaintiff comes to this venue to seek full reparation for the damages caused by the Municipality of Liberia, including environmental damage (daño ambiental) and consequential damage (daño emergente) in its claim. In that regard, it indicates that it is the owner of two estates that border a municipal land used as a place to deposit waste. It alleges that in 2007, the defendant Municipality invaded its properties and installed a garbage dump there. It adds that according to a topographical expert report and a technical report, the affected area is five hectares, two thousand one hundred seventy square meters, and fourteen square decimeters. It also describes the manner in which the territorial entity proceeded to dispose of the solid waste as empirical, as it did not establish a sanitary landfill, nor did it take the corresponding measures. It explains that the existing flora and fauna were devastated, leaving a mountain of garbage. It adds that the recovery horizon for the lands is 10 years. In its defense, the defendant territorial entity argues the supposed tolerance of the Ministry of Health and the involved institutions, and that due to the urgent need the canton was facing, having had the municipal sanitary landfill closed by the Environmental Court, it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump on the plaintiff's property. As it affirms, what the Municipality used of the plaintiff's land is approximately one hectare. It also mentions that, as it has the permits from Nombre3456 and the Ministry of Health, the landfill will be operating again and it will proceed to remove the solid waste from the small portion of land indicated. To support the emergency measures, it bases itself on the principle of continuity of public service, which it is obligated to fulfill. It also considers that, given the urgency, the principles of continuity of public service, the right to health, and the right to a healthy environment, the right to property is relativized and must yield to the other principles mentioned. At the same time, it indicates that there was tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, since in meetings in the responsible Departments, the plaintiff's permission existed to carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. Furthermore, it states that there is a replevin action by Mr. Nombre115463, who claims possession and ownership of properties 34528-000 and 30878-000. According to its theory of the case, the alleged tolerance constitutes a cause for exoneration of liability under the General Public Administration Law, termed fault of the victim. It also alleges that there is no adjacency whatsoever with the plaintiff's property, in accordance with cadastral plan G-623106-86. It further rejects the existence of forest, under the terms of the Ley Forestal, on the lands owned by the plaintiff. To grant any compensation under the system of strict liability of the Public Administration contained in our General Public Administration Law, hereinafter LGAP, it is necessary to carry out a meticulous analysis of each of its components or elements to verify whether or not strict liability of the Public Administration exists. In this way, the existence of the damage (196 LGAP) must be identified, which must be effective, assessable, and individualizable (196 LGAP), as well as the causal link between said damage and the public entity or official, whether there are exonerating causes of liability that break the causal link (190 LGAP), and also to specify the existence of imputation criteria, that is, whether the harmful conduct occurred lawfully or unlawfully, normally or abnormally. Regarding liability for lawful and normal conduct, due to the special nature of the damage, it requires the existence of a small proportion of affected parties and that the intensity of said injury is exceptional. Under this scheme, the compensation covers the value of the damage, but not the consequential losses (perjuicios). These concepts that make up the "special damage" (daño especial) are what are known in law as indeterminate legal concepts, and it will be the Judges in each case who must give them content and determine if the subjective right was denatured. On the other hand, to address the analysis of the existence of liability for unlawful and abnormal conduct, which is what the plaintiff alleges, it is fundamental to determine the existence of an action by the Administration contrary to the legal system or to the unequivocal rules of science or technique, respectively. Under this cause of imputation, the recognition of damages is full, since, unlike the previous one, consequential losses (perjuicios) are recognized. When approaching the analysis of the present case, given the way the claims in the lawsuit are formulated, it is fundamental to have the cause of the damage proven, that is, the invasion of the plaintiff's lands by the defendant territorial entity, as well as the deposit of trash on them. To support its theory of the case, the plaintiff company offered the expert witness **Olman Alberto Barrantes Molina** to refer to the damages caused and their appraisal. Said professional holds a Licentiate degree in environmental economics, with an emphasis on agro-environmental matters. He stated that he proceeded to evaluate two reports, one hydrogeological and another a topographical survey of the affected area. He explained that due to his profession he cannot determine the damage; for this reason, based on the hydrogeological studies by Ms. Nombre115462 and the topographical expert report by Mr. Nombre115464, he carried out his valuation. In this way, based on their conclusions, he established how to change the situation of the land and quantify the damage. He also affirmed, regarding the state of the lands, that human intervention had already occurred on them, such as timber extraction and material extraction. However, subsequently, a process of natural reforestation of the affected area occurred. For this reason, he considered that on a scale of zero to one hundred, the conservation level was 80%; however, with the deposit of waste, it reached a conservation level of 10%. This was because a geomorphological change occurred, a hill was removed, and the level of the garbage was raised. He said that there were some irreversible damages, such as those to the hill, and others that were repairable, based on engineering techniques. He explained that the methodology for calculating the valuation of the environmental damage (daño ambiental) took into account 4 components, which are the recovery cost and, at the same time, the establishment of a buffer zone between the affected area and the rest of the property, which accounts for 2% of the total valuation. The other component is due to the recommendation given by the geological study, which suggests as a repair measure to carry out cleaning in the area and the necessary civil and engineering works to provide stability to the soil and give an alternative use to this section of the land, which cannot be other than the one it has at the moment. In this way, extract the waste materials, treat them, and replace the soil, giving it adequate stability to avoid other effects. This component represents 90% of the value of the environmental damage (daño ambiental) that he is recognizing in his valuation. He affirmed that if the waste had been treated in accordance with the regulations, this component would have been lower. He added that the other component of the methodology is a social cost, and for the non-enjoyment of the affected areas. He added that his valuation corresponds to a solution presented by a professional. In this way, other solutions may exist, cheaper or more expensive. He stated that his study does not propose a remedial plan, but rather the cost of returning the environment to the condition it was in, as closely as possible. The economic damage caused by the waste disposal is $1,779,433.82. He emphasized that this amount corresponds to the day of the visit; as of today, it should be assessed whether the Municipality implemented any mechanism or improvement that changes the situation. He explained that the zone is not diverse from an ecological point of view, nor does it have great agricultural potential. He also explained to the Court that he did not know when the property was acquired by the plaintiff. Nor did he determine the state the property was in at the time of determining the damage. To make his valuation, he interpreted aerial photographs from the years 1950 and 2000, as well as some from NASA. He also mentioned that he took into account the state of the other surrounding areas that were not affected (audiovisual record of the trial, disc 1, from 11:29:27, January 22, 2013, folios 70 to 79 of the judicial file). Likewise, the plaintiff company offered Ms. **Nombre115462**, a geologist, with a specialty in hydrogeology, who works as a private consultant, who carried out an environmental diagnosis on the properties belonging to the plaintiff. The foregoing consists of an assessment of the environmental conditions she could observe. She explained that she assessed the geomorphological, geological, and surface and groundwater aspects that are the most visible in the environment. She scheduled to visit the properties to conduct the study. Upon observing the land, as well as aerial photographs, she could determine that there were changes in the geomorphology of the property. She mentioned that she could verify that a hill was not complete. She scheduled that this geomorphological impact constitutes damage if done without permission. Such changes affect the landscape and are irreversible. She added that she found slope instability on the land, cracks, and gullies typical of unstable terrain. This situation, she mentioned, can bring risks of landslides. She said she found impact to the bedrock of the affected sector.

Thus, the impact on the environment arises from the removal of subsoil material, and for that reason, it is no longer possible to return to the original conditions in which the land was found. The effect produced on groundwater is that, by removing part of the subsoil, there is less distance between the surface and the groundwater, so bacteria would reach the water table (nivel freático) more quickly, which depends on the thickness of material that has been removed. She was clear in indicating that no analyses were carried out to determine whether the groundwater was affected, nor was the existence of wells or springs (manantiales) identified, either on the property or in the vicinity. She mentioned, regarding surface waters, that during her visit she observed a small creek, called Quebrada Arenas, in which she found garbage in the creek bed, which is a natural drainage. She explained that the water quality was probably affected, but it was not analyzed. She indicated that she did not know where the surface waters flowed. When surface waters become contaminated, they in turn contaminate the rivers they reach, which also affect other rivers those waters reach. She mentioned that she made a repair and recovery plan for the area. The first step, according to her statement, is to remove the garbage from the site and stabilize slopes with gabions or suitable vegetation. She also recommended carrying out sampling semi-annually to monitor the evolution of water quality, due to the effect of leachates (lixiviados), which are highly polluting. She believes that the initial state of the waters could be recovered. She also mentioned that the subject of water quality is beyond her area of expertise. She stated that she could not determine the volume of garbage on the properties. She added that although she observed the affected area, she did not quantify it. She stated that even though it is a small area relative to the property, the impact as such exists. She explained that a diagnosis involves a field visit to observe and analyze. The composition of the terrain consists of rocks called tuffs of the Liberia Formation; this type of rock produces an abundant soil. The soil is the disgregation of the rock, which is why it is powdery and whitish. She mentioned that with the aerial photograph she was able to determine that since 2005 there had been waste disposal (disposición de desechos) in the area, according to the photograph on file at folio 96, based on the color that is distinguishable. She also stated that she did not determine the existence of aquifers (mantos acuíferos). She explained that the geological damage arises from the illegal use of materials, by extracting them without permission and their use, since material was removed to try to hide the garbage. She stated that she did not quantify the damage to surface waters; her assessments are based on the visit she conducted (audiovisual record of the trial, from 14:08:46, disc 1, January 22, 2013). In turn, the plaintiff offered the testimony of Mr. Name115464, who told the Court that he measured the cadastral plans (planos catastrados) of the plaintiff's properties, as well as the area invaded by garbage, and two years later a boundary marker placed by the Municipality in 2010. He specified that he made the first measurement during Holy Week of 2008 and defined the boundaries of the property because there was an encroachment on the plaintiff's properties by some individuals who had created a plan for possessory information that overlapped the existing plans. He explained that he measured the entirety of the properties using the registered plans. The boundaries coincided at the rear and in the shape of the road. He mentioned that he was able to determine that the Municipality had entered the plaintiff's property. During his work, he was able to perceive the existence of solid waste on the plaintiff's property. He also added that on the plaintiff company's property there were workers, waste-pickers (buzos), and trucks. As for the trucks, he saw them in mid-2010, during his third visit. On his second visit, he focused on measuring the invaded area. He was able to observe in the invaded area that earth had been moved to cover the garbage. He indicated that he generated a plan showing the encroachment on the plaintiff's land as 52,170.14 m². He corroborated that he prepared the plan visible at folio 56 of the judicial file (audiovisual record of the trial, from 15:56:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Finally, the plaintiff offered as a witness Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, who has served as legal advisor to the plaintiff. He affirmed that he was present at a meeting with the Municipality of Liberia approximately 5 years ago, which arose out of their knowledge of the encroachment and dumping of garbage on the plaintiff company's properties. At the meeting, in addition to him, were Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager, David Walker, and the representative of the company that owns the properties, Mr. Name115461. According to his explanation, at the meeting they expressed their concern about the large amount of garbage deposited on their properties. In that regard, the Municipality indicated that it had carried out the dumping due to a matter of urgency. He adds that, through the visits he made to the site, he was able to corroborate the existence of garbage on the plaintiff's properties. During another visit he made to the site, he was even able to observe tractors inside the plaintiff's property. He mentioned that he sent a letter to Mr. Augusto of the Municipality asking them to stop dumping garbage. In another letter, signed by Mr. Name115461, he asked the Municipality to stop dumping garbage. He added that at the meeting he attended, there was at no time consent from Mr. Name115461 for them to dump garbage on his property. The witness recognized at folio 58 of the judicial file the letter he sent to the Municipality, in which they set forth the situation of garbage dumping and encroachment on the property. Regarding this letter, he said he did not recall having received a formal response from the Municipality. He remembers having appeared on two occasions and having met with the legal advisor to indicate, informally, that the activity continued on the plaintiff company's land (digital record, from 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). The defendant, to support its theory of the case, requested the statement of Mr. Name115461, who appeared as a witness and explained that when they learned of the situation on his represented party's properties, the person who conducted the study indicated that garbage had been deposited there 5 years earlier. He explained that in early 2008, he learned of the situation and for that reason appeared with his lawyer, Mr. Alex Araya, at the Municipality of Liberia. They spoke with an official named [Name20997] and with the Mayor. He remembers having appeared at the Municipality about three times; in addition, his lawyer appeared at the Municipality on other occasions to get them to stop the matter. He explained that his lawyer verbally and in writing submitted requests for them to stop the activity of dumping garbage on his represented party's properties. He explained that when he appeared at the Municipality, his intention was to stop what the Municipality was doing. In this regard, he mentioned that he was clear in stating that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property (audiovisual record of the trial, from 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Mr. Renán Alonso Zamora Álvarez also appeared, offered by the defendant, who is an official of the Municipality of Liberia. He stated that when the territorial entity entered, it was depositing solid waste on an adjacent property, due to an order from the Environmental Court (Tribunal Ambiental), so it began to dump the waste in a place different from the one that had been closed. This occurred, according to his statement, in early 2008. He indicated that he heard other people mention that they had met with Name115461. He stated that he became aware of Mr. Name115461's refusal to allow solid waste to be deposited only until the lawsuit was filed. He stated that after the complaint, the plaintiff hired guards. He referred to the fact that the boundaries between the properties were not clear. He mentioned that the owner prior to the plaintiff company had the intention of donating a part of the land, but this never materialized. For that reason, it was believed that the area where they were dumping waste was the Municipality's property. He also mentioned that the plaintiff had a conflict with another person over the property. For that reason, in his opinion, it was not clear to the Municipality which part was its property. The witness was shown folio 59 of the judicial file, which is official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008. Regarding this, he mentioned that he probably knew of that document. At the same time, he stated that he did not remember having responded to the document. Nor did he remember having forwarded the document to another official for a response. He mentioned not remembering having seen the sanitary order visible at folio 109 of the judicial file (digital record of the trial, from 8:47:12, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Mr. [Name23565] also appeared, who is a municipal geographer. He indicated to the Court that, according to a communication from geographer Marco Garro, who works at the Municipality, he determined with a GPS an affected area of approximately 2.5 hectares on the plaintiff's property. That report is visible at folios 329 to 331 of the judicial file. Likewise, he explained that there is a survey at folio 770, which relates to the aforementioned communication. He mentioned that delimiting the boundaries of the property has been very complicated, and for that reason the boundaries were resurveyed (replanteamiento), and the survey at folio 770 delimits the affected area (audiovisual record, from 10:04:41, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, the municipal entity offered the statement of Mr. Augusto Otárola Guerrero, who recognized the document visible at folios 261 to 262 of the judicial file, official communication UGAML-003-01-2010, through which he issued his opinion regarding the economic assessment by engineer Olman Barrantes Molina. Regarding Mr. Barrantes Molina's expert report, he criticized the fact that it indicated that there is forest (bosque) in the location, because what exists in the area is ignimbrite. According to his considerations, they are marginal lands that are not even suitable for cattle. He explained that trees do not grow in the location because the land is arid. He also questioned the methodology used for the economic valuation of the environmental damage (daño ambiental); in that regard, he considered that the methodology Mr. Barrantes used is not official. In his opinion, the environmental damage is overvalued. He also mentioned that the Municipality, through the projects it has developed, has allowed the properties in the area to have some value. According to his statement, the soils are not permeable, so it is difficult for the subsoil to become contaminated. He also questions that no drilling was conducted to determine that contamination. He stated that the existence of aquifers in the area is uncertain; to determine this, more tests are required. He mentioned that the municipal landfill (relleno sanitario) receives hospital waste, which is sterilized in autoclaves. Regarding other types, such as fetuses or organs, they are deposited in pits in Liberia. He mentioned that the Municipality of Liberia used the plaintiff's properties because it was believed they belonged to it, related to a donation and a land dispute between the plaintiff and another man surnamed [Name115463]. Added to this was the emergency situation and the lack of boundary demarcation. For that reason, they deposited waste on the plaintiff's properties. He affirmed that at a meeting he attended with Mr. Name115461, his lawyer, and Mayor Carlos Marín, they discussed the possibility of taking advantage of the situation. According to his statement, Mr. Name115461 granted them time to continue depositing garbage. He mentioned that he had armed guards and they consented to the garbage entering; however, after the lawsuit, they no longer allowed it. On the other hand, he questioned the report by Ms. [Name115462] for not making specific measurements or taking samples of the alleged impacts (audiovisual record, from 12:01:09, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, engineer Moisés Arias Sancho, from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch, requested by the Court for a better resolution, explained that the methodology used involved satellite measurements from the GPS constellation, a highly accurate topographic process, similar to that of conventional equipment. This methodology was used because the lands are quite extensive, with points of interest indicated by both parties. He stated that the properties are adjacent. There was no division between the plaintiff's property and its northern neighbor; towards its southern neighbor, there was a division, due to the confluence of creeks, Quebrada Zopilota and another whose name he does not recall. Points of interest were taken, mainly from those creeks, as there was no delimitation of living fences. The only definitive delimitation on the site are the creeks and the main road. Everything related to the plaintiff was taken first, and then with the Municipality. The territorial entity has a resurvey, which is not complete, established only with concrete posts. He added that with the field information, he processed the data in his office with specialized software for data measurement, and verification was made with the cadastral plans of the properties. The foregoing, according to his explanation, led him to conclude that the properties are registrally delimited, but in the field they are located next to one another. The property located to the north does not present a physical delimitation; in that part, there were no points of interest. However, there were important points of interest, such as the creeks, since, given the large extensions, the creeks delimit the properties quite well. Another conclusion he reached is that although these properties are delimited by recently created cadastral plans, the previous plans from 1972 still apply; however, those from 2008 very accurately represent what the 1972 plan indicates, with the exception of the plan that was segregated to the Municipality of Liberia for the purpose of constructing the landfill. The other part of his conclusions refers to the affected area of the plaintiff. In this regard, he explained that on the plaintiff's properties, they made excavations of about 50 centimeters to be able to observe the solid waste. In relation to his survey, visible at folio 900 of the judicial file, he mentioned that what is seen in green and red are the boundaries of the 1972 plans corresponding to the plaintiff's properties. The figure with blue outlines is the plan of the Municipality of Liberia. The areas with purple hatching correspond to the zones affected by solid waste; the zones are affected by earthworks (movimientos de tierra). To determine the affected zones, the contour was sought and excavations of 50 or 40 centimeters were made to see the deposit of materials, as well as earthworks carried out for that purpose. He mentioned that the sum of the affected areas is approximately 6 hectares; he added that his report indicates the total affected area and the area per property. He explained that technically all plans contain legal and true information and are reflected in the properties; however, he stated that the 1972 plan was the one from which the property given to the Municipality of Liberia was segregated, and this is represented in the 2008 plans. The 1972 and 2008 plans present the same areas, the same neighbors; there is no significant difference, except for the area segregated to the Municipality. He stated that the alleged overlap (traslape) is logical, by virtue of the segregation from the 1972 plan, since it comes from the plaintiff's property. He mentioned that the issue of the location of the properties, with incidence on the magnitude of the damage, is a matter that corresponds to the resurvey carried out by the Municipality of Liberia, which is drawn with circles and indicated in his survey. He mentioned that when he went into the field, only that sector was resurveyed; the rest was eliminated because it is a conflictive zone. The resurveyed line, according to his statement, is the one that differs from the cadastral plan representing that property. The overlap situation may stem from the physical aspect, but not from the cadastral plans. He added that the resurvey is not concordant with the cadastral plans. The line of posts does not resemble the cadastral plan. Although there are no boundaries, the southwestern limit is coincident with the cadastral plan; what falls outside the scheme is the resurveyed line. He also explained that technically it is impossible to take the resurvey into account to locate the Municipality's plan, as it is not coincident with the elements of the delimiting lines. He also explained that overlap is the super-positioning of one property with another. In this specific case, there is an overlap of the property plan from 1986 with that from 1972. He emphasized that this overlap should not be misinterpreted as a usurpation, because it is due to the segregation of the property at that time. The overlap has no effect because it stems from the segregation of the land that was later given to the Municipality; it has no effect today. He stated that at the moment the property is segregated and the plans are drawn up, the overlap ceases to exist. In relation to the plans, he explained that although the 2008 plan contains the changes resulting from the segregation, it does not appear associated with the real folio (folio real), as the one linked is the 1972 plan. When subtracting what was segregated to the Municipality from what appears in the 1972 plan, it is coincident with what the 2008 plan indicates. As for the other property, it remains intact because the segregation did not come from it. He also explained that a resurvey involves taking office data and translating it to the field; in this particular case, the Municipality had a plan for which no delimitation existed in the field, so it proceeded to place them in the field. He affirmed that from a technical point of view he did not agree with the resurvey conducted by the Municipality of Liberia because it took other elements at a global level of the property, such as the road and the southern limit of the Municipality's property. According to his statement, the resurvey did not generate any type of registration in the cadastre or in the Public Registry (Registro Público). In a resurvey, the work is done in reverse: first the field is examined, and then the cadastre. He explained that the 1986 and 2008 plans are valid. He stated that in the end, the overlap turns out to be a segregation and not a usurpation. He explained that the affected zone is the one that suffered earthworks and deposit of solid waste (digital record, from 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). In accordance with the facts that have been accredited in this case, the Court has no doubt whatsoever that in the instant case the objective liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Administration, regulated by the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública) starting from Article 190, has been established. Each and every one of the elements that make up this scheme have been added to the record through the evidence that has been produced. In the first place, it has been proven that the Municipality of Liberia caused damage (daño) to the properties corresponding to real folio numbers of the Guanacaste District 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff. The conduct that produced the harm was precisely the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, without permission, authorization, or consent from its part. Said damage affected 25,518 square meters of the first and 43,651 square meters of the second. Our legal system, at its apex, in Article 45, provides for the inviolability of private property. Thus, the conduct aimed at dumping garbage on the properties adjacent to the municipal dump constitutes an impact on a fundamental right, guaranteed, as set forth above, by the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Furthermore, the Political Charter, in its Articles 21 and 50, protects the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The act of depositing garbage on private property implies an impact on these constitutionally enshrined rights, sufficient to establish the unlawful and abnormal (ilícita y anormal) conduct that the General Public Administration Act sets forth as a criterion of imputation (criterio de imputación). To the above, it must be added that the deposit of waste materials was carried out without any treatment, which aggravates the unlawfulness and abnormality of this case due to the impact this generates on the environment. On the other hand, there is a causal link (nexo causal) between this unlawful and abnormal conduct and the damage, which has also been accredited in this case. This is because the Municipality, in its theory of the case, which it has set forth throughout the process, has never denied this fact of having deposited garbage on the properties adjacent to its property, used as a municipal solid waste dump. Its argument focuses, as will be seen further on, on the magnitude of the damage. Thus, once the damage, the conduct that produced it, the criterion of imputation, and the causal link have been determined, the obligation to repair, as a matter of the objective liability set forth in Articles 190 and following of the General Public Administration Act, is imminent. As matters stand, the Municipality of Liberia is under the obligation to repair the damage caused, along with the losses (perjuicios). This is by virtue of the fact that no person is obligated to bear legal injuries in their patrimonial or extra-patrimonial sphere, as happened in the case of the plaintiff. The defendant territorial entity has come forward to allege, as a cause for exemption from liability, several scenarios that are unacceptable to this Chamber, in accordance with the provisions of the General Public Administration Act. In the first place, it alleges a situation of urgency, a theme that it has set forth since its answer to the complaint (escrito de contestación de demanda) and that was likewise a theme reiterated by its witnesses. In the first place, by virtue of Article 190 of the General Public Administration Act, this is not a cause that allows breaking the causal link of liability. On the other hand, it is also not an excuse to justify the conduct that the Municipality of Liberia has deployed. It is reprehensible, from the standpoint of objective liability, for the defendant Municipality to use the principles of [Name40855], known as those of the public service, to justify, by way of continuity, its conduct of depositing garbage on another's property. This argument is clearly contrary to the objective liability scheme and to the very principles of the public service, since conduct of such a magnitude that affects fundamental rights protected at the constitutional level, such as private property, a healthy environment, and public health, cannot be legitimized. On the contrary, the conduct deployed by the Municipality not only generates patrimonial liability, as its officials would not be exempt from criminal, patrimonial, and administrative liability. On the other hand, the defendant has come to set forth, as an exempting cause, what it has described as fault of the victim, a supposed acceptance by the plaintiff for them to deposit solid waste on its property. On this particular point, it must be kept in mind that the Municipality of Liberia has at no time denied that it deposited waste outside the limits of the landfill, given that it has excused itself based on the urgent need in which it found itself. Thus, from the outset, there existed a unilateral decision on its part. Despite the above, in its theory of the case and through its witnesses, it has tried to give that initial unilateral decision a nuance of consensus, which the Court does not find, and which seems incongruent to it according to the evidence that has been produced in this venue. In the first place, it has been accredited that once the representative of the plaintiff learned of the situation in early 2008, Mr. Name115461, accompanied by his lawyer, Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express his concern about the large amount of garbage deposited on his properties. On that occasion, he indicated to them that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property. Subsequently, on May 21, 2008, Mr. Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for the plaintiff, sent a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia, from which the disagreement with the conduct of the territorial entity is clearly evident. The Municipality has attempted to demonstrate through its witnesses Renán Zamora Álvarez and Augusto Otárola Guerrero the existence of a supposed meeting in which the plaintiff's representative consented to the deposit of solid waste. Neither of these witnesses is credible to the Court, by virtue of the fact that both are officials directly involved in the case, which could generate some type of liability for them. For that reason, their statements could be aimed at protecting a personal interest. Moreover, during the questioning conducted by the Municipality's representative, in a first line, Mr. Zamora Álvarez indicated, regarding the supposed consent of the plaintiff's representative, that he heard other people mention that they had met with him and that he had given permission.

Nombre635 also, that he learned of Mr. Nombre115461's refusal that solid waste not be deposited until the lawsuit was filed. Despite the foregoing, during cross-examination, the attorney for the plaintiff showed Mr. Zamora the document visible at folio 59 of the judicial file, in which the environmental manager (Gestor ambiental) forwarded to him, via official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008, the response to the communication from Attorney Alexander Araya, then counsel for the plaintiff, regarding the solid waste. The foregoing reveals a major contradiction in his testimony, since it is not true that he learned of the refusal only when the lawsuit was filed, given that, according to the official communication he received, he was made aware of the situation being raised by Mr. Nombre115461 at the administrative level. For the reasons stated, the alleged exemption from liability claimed is not admissible.

Furthermore, another axis of the defendant's theory of the case has focused on aspects related to the topography and location of the properties. In its answer to the complaint, the Municipality stated that it was not true that the plaintiff's properties bordered the municipal land. In that regard, its witnesses stated that trash had been dumped on an adjacent property; however, they never expressly stated that this adjacent property was that of the plaintiff. From the evidence that has been presented, which has been admitted in the evidentiary record, specifically the report from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch, by judicial expert Moisés Sancho Arias, this doubt has been completely dispelled. Not only through the explanations he provided as a result of his site visit, but also through the survey he conducted, as well as the analysis of the various maps under discussion, it has been shown that the Municipality's land borders the plaintiff's farm registered under folio real number Placa21674.

On the other hand, according to a document visible at folios 329 through 331 of the judicial file, from geographer Marco Garro, the survey found at folio 770, as well as the statement of Mr. Nombre23565, the Municipality recognized the existence of only one hectare as an invaded area, pursuant to a re-establishment of the boundaries of its land, which directly impacted the layout of the maps and consequently the magnitude of the damage. This evidence contradicted the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the extent of the damage alleged. For this reason, evidence was requested for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver), given the doubt that arose regarding the maps that appeared registered in the registry from 1972 and those referenced by both parties, from 1986 and 2008, as well as the difference in areas that existed between them.

According to the evidence presented, the Court was able to verify that between the farms under folio real numbers Placa21674 and Placa21679, owned by the plaintiff and defendant respectively, there is no overlap understood as usurpation; rather, it is a product of the segregation that occurred from the Municipality's land. This is because today, the farm under number 30878-000 is registered as associated with map G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation of the lot owned by the Municipality, number 56577-000. This overlap that appears at the map level has no bearing whatsoever on the magnitude of the damage to the affected areas on the plaintiff's property, which has been determined. For the reasons stated, the arguments presented by the defendant entity seeking to exempt it from liability are not admissible in this venue.

Having established the obligation to repair and analyzed the defendant's arguments as a theory of the case to refute the lawsuit, which are not admissible as explained above, the appropriate course is to analyze the claims of the plaintiff related to the reparation of the damage. Regarding the reparation of the environmental damage, a claim supported by the plaintiff in the report of Mr. Barrantes Molina, who carried out this assessment, upon applying the rules of sound rational criticism, certain doubts arise for the Court (audiovisual record of the trial, starting at 12:17:16 on the first disc). First, as noted supra, Mr. Barrantes was clear in stating that due to his profession, he did not determine the damage; he only made his assessment based on the reports of Ms. Nombre115462 and Ms. Nombre115464.

Furthermore, he mentioned that he visited the site once, after the damage had occurred, which is why he could not determine the condition of the affected area prior to the damage, nor at the time the plaintiff acquired the properties. To calculate the damage, he relied on aerial photographs from 1950, 2000, and from NASA from 2005, as well as his interpretation of them. He also took into account the condition of other areas of the property. When contrasting these explanations by Mr. Barrantes with the requirements for the buffer zone, visible at folio 75 of the judicial file, 5,000 trees are counted there, along with inputs for their planting and labor. Despite this, there is no evidence in the record that this number of trees existed at the time the plaintiff acquired the lands subject to this litigation.

On the other hand, Mr. Barrantes Nombre635 used the condition of the adjacent, unaffected areas as a parameter; however, the number of trees per square meter that were present on the surface of these areas used as a parameter has not been demonstrated in this case. Nor was the species of tree that supposedly grew during the indicated regeneration process specified. While Mr. Barrantes explained that the forest regenerating in that area cannot be compared to Monteverde, for example, he was not precise in indicating the type of forest and ecosystem that develops there, in order to determine the type of tree and plant species that should be planted and their specific cost to restore the site. Thus, the assessment of environmental damage is confusing and incongruent for the Court.

Second, Mr. Barrantes mentioned that another component of the methodology, to which he assigned a value, is the social aspect; however, this item is not clear, as it concerns a private property, which has not been shown to fulfill any social function that directly affects a specific social group, warranting an amount to be compensated.

Third, Mr. Barrantes was emphatic in stating that his assessment corresponds to the day of the visit and therefore may change over time. As matters stand, if the plan is approved at this moment, as the plaintiff requests, a different situation might arise at the time of its execution. For that reason, it would not be appropriate to approve the assessment as the plaintiff requests, especially considering, even according to the expert report rendered by the expert from the Forensic Engineering Section, that the affected area is larger.

In accordance with the foregoing, this Chamber finds it impossible to grant claim number six of the complaint, which consists of approving the remediation plan supported by Mr. Barrantes' report and the sum determined therein.

On the other hand, it is important to make a consideration regarding the report of Ms. Nombre115462, which attempts to demonstrate the impact on the land's geomorphology, including the alleged disappearance of a hillock (loma), as well as the impact on surface and groundwater. Although Ms. Nombre115462 stated in the oral and public trial that she conducted a diagnosis of the damage caused by the deposit of solid waste, for the Court, it is not precise regarding the issue of the geomorphological impact, the disappearance of the hillock, and the impact on surface and groundwater. In these aspects, although she mentions them, her report is incomplete, as she did not conduct other tests or studies to determine with certainty the existence of these types of water. Nor did she locate the hillock (loma), its extension, and the impact with the required precision. Her statements in the oral and public trial in this regard were based on mere assumptions, as she expressly indicated that she did not conduct specific tests.

Regarding surface water, it is notable that she only referred to the Arena stream, yet she did not indicate if there were others that were affected, since Engineer Moisés Arias mentioned the existence of another stream, the Zopilota. Nor did Ms. Nombre115462 determine the condition of these waters before the damaging event occurred. Regarding the alleged hillock, although Nombre635 stated that it had disappeared, she could not specify its dimensions and location. The foregoing does not imply that the Court disregards the possible existence of these consequences as a result of the deposit of solid waste, which would constitute the effects and magnitude of the damage caused by the Municipality to the plaintiff's properties. Nor does this Collegiate Body disregard that it must be repaired, as it is the inescapable consequence of a finding of liability. The substantive issue in this regard is the manner or how its repair should be carried out, given that, as explained supra, the consequences of this damage and the method of its remediation are not duly accredited.

For that reason, the Court does not currently find a way to determine those scopes and how it should be repaired. The deposit of trash on the plaintiff's properties generates additional damage, evidenced by the expert report of Engineer Moisés Arias, whose extent and location were even determined. Despite the foregoing, the impact on the environment and its magnitude are not duly accredited. For this reason, in accordance with Article 122, subsection m) iii) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, the determination of the consequences generated by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the manner in which its repair must be carried out, is left to the sentence execution phase, all subject to the evidence that demonstrates it in that venue.

On the other hand, regarding the plaintiff's claim relating to the cessation of the municipal conduct of depositing trash and encroaching upon its properties, it must be borne in mind, pursuant to Articles 126, 158, and 159 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, that due to the abnormal and unlawful nature of this conduct, as has been stated, the territorial entity must immediately and definitively cease this behavior. In this regard, it should be noted that within this case, the plaintiff filed a request for a prima facie precautionary measure, seeking an order for the defendant territorial entity to refrain from depositing solid waste on the farms it owns.

For that reason, on June 3, 2010, the Judge in the proceeding stage, through Judgment 2126-2010, granted the precautionary measure requested by the plaintiff. Said judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 29, 2010. For this reason, since that date, the cessation of the conduct was ordered through precautionary means. However, for the purposes of issuing the final judgment on the merits, which definitively resolves the proceeding, the Municipality of Liberia must refrain from engaging in any conduct aimed at dumping waste on the plaintiff's properties, as well as encroaching upon its properties. Should this order not be obeyed, it shall give rise to criminal, disciplinary, and civil liability for any municipal official and the Mayor.

Furthermore, the plaintiff requests recognition of the fair market value (valor venal) of the property as consequential damages (daño emergente). However, due to the manner in which the claims have been addressed in this judgment, by recognizing the integral reparation of the damage caused to the properties as a result of the deposit of solid waste, it is incompatible to recognize payment of the fair market value (valor venal) of the property, as there is a ruling to repair the damage caused integrally. Thus, the appropriate course is to recognize the loss of value of the plaintiff's properties for the affected areas, and not the fair market value (valor venal) as the plaintiff requested, since the latter excludes the integral reparation of the damage.

Finally, regarding the claim for consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the plaintiff's farms, the Court considers it appropriate, given that this damage is a consequence of the deposit of solid waste on its land. For this reason, it must be recognized in the sentence execution phase, with the aid of the expert evidence necessary for that purpose.

**IX.- ON THE DEFENSES.** This Court considers that the defense of **prescription and expiration** must be rejected, in accordance with Considerando I of this resolution. Likewise, the defense of **lack of legal standing (falta de derecho)**, filed by the **Municipality of Liberia**, must be rejected, in accordance with the statements in Considerando VIII of this resolution. As a consequence of the foregoing, the lawsuit against the **Municipality of Liberia** filed by **Los Tres Inversionistas S.A.** is declared **partially with merit.** Regarding the defense of **lack of active and passive standing**, filed by the defendant, given that standing is the aptitude to be a party within a specific contentious-administrative proceeding, which is obtained only when one is in a specific relationship with the object of the proceeding. The CPCA in Article 10 establishes who may be plaintiffs in this venue; similarly, Article 12 in its eight subsections provides a wide range of situations in which a person will be considered a defendant within a proceeding. In the instant case, the plaintiff directs its claims against the Municipality of Liberia, attributing liability to it for depositing solid waste on its property. The foregoing is sufficient to consider the Municipality as the passive party in this proceeding and the corporation, with the necessary standing to be the active party in the procedural legal relationship.

**X.- ON COSTS.** As none of the grounds that could exempt the Municipality of Liberia from the payment of costs, as established in Article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, are present, it is ordered to pay both costs in favor of the plaintiff.

**THEREFORE** The defenses of **prescription**, **expiration**, **lack of active and passive standing**, and **lack of legal standing (falta de derecho)** are rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit filed by **Los Tres Inversionistas S.A.** against the **Municipality of Liberia** is declared **partially with merit.** Anything not expressly indicated herein shall be understood as rejected.

**1)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to totally, definitively, and immediately cease any conduct aimed at depositing trash on the farms in the Partido de Guanacaste, owned by the plaintiff, folio real registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675. Likewise, it must refrain from encroaching upon said properties. Disregard of this order shall cause the disobedient municipal official or its Mayor to incur criminal, administrative, or civil liability.

**2)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to carry out an extensive cleanup of the places affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, corresponding to farm numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, both in the Partido de Guanacaste, comprising areas of 25,518 square meters and 43,651 square meters, respectively. This work involves removing the waste from the site and treating it appropriately, in accordance with technical and legal rules that eliminate or mitigate the damage caused.

**3)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to repair the environmental damage caused, the magnitude and impact of which shall be determined in the sentence execution phase.

**4)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay the plaintiff the loss of value for the affected areas of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, folio real numbers 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the sentence execution phase, with the aid of an expert.

**5)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, folio real numbers 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the sentence execution phase, with the aid of an expert.

**6)** The sum of ¢500,000 five hundred thousand colones is ordered returned to the plaintiff, corresponding to the deposit it made for the expert's fees.

**7)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay both costs in favor of the plaintiff.

**NOTIFÍQUESE.-** **Sergio Mena García** **Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas** **Ileana Sánchez Navarro** 3

WHEREAS

1.- Based on the facts set forth and the legal citations adduced, in this matter, on October 23, 2009, the company Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. stated that it formulated the following claim, which is transcribed literally: "CLAIMS: Based on the foregoing, we sue the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA. We request that the judgment declare: 1. That the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must, within three days following the finality of this judgment, adopt the measures conducive to causing the total and definitive cessation of the following administrative conducts which are declared illegal: a) The deposit of garbage on the farms owned by the plaintiff, registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, folio real system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675. b) the incursion onto said properties. 2. That the non-compliance with what is ordered in the previous point by the officials of the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA with decision-making power, could constitute the crime of disobedience to Authority. 3. That for the purposes of the effective execution of what is ordered herein, the Judicial Authority in charge of the execution of judgment may issue the direct order or orders to the competent municipal officials or bodies, under warning that disobedience to what is decreed therein could give rise to the respective certified copy of documents and the initiation of criminal proceedings for disobedience to Authority or, as the case may be, for the corresponding crime. 4. That, for the purposes of repairing the damages caused to the farms, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must bear all the costs of labor and materials necessary for the execution of all the works necessary for the mitigation and repair of the environmental damage caused. 5. That, for the purposes of repairing the damages caused to the farms, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff, in full, the costs of the repair plan to be stated. 6. That the following repair plan and its budget be approved: a) The estimated labor for restoration is 14,950 hours (5,000 man-hours for the first year, 5,000 for the second year, and 4,950 hours for the remaining 8 years). The cost of unskilled labor is estimated at one dollar. b) It is considered advisable to plant 5,000 trees in the recovery zone and some other areas surrounding the project. c) During the first year, the quantity of materials will be the highest within the proposed horizon, since 5,000 trees must be planted, shovels, fertilizers, and any inputs (contingencies) necessary to guarantee their adequate development must be purchased. d) For the first three years, an additional labor item must be charged, which will include the payment for professional services of a phytotechnician or forest engineer to evaluate the degree of recovery of the zone (calculating quarterly visits). e) In the case of the 365,190.98 m3 of volume that must be improved, a single cost per cubic meter will be estimated that includes the extraction of the garbage, its disposal, and the restoration of the land to its original condition. 7. That in the judgment execution phase, at the request of the plaintiff and with the assistance of expert(s), said repair plan and budget may be adjusted, in accordance with the conditions existing on the date of execution of said plan. 8. That in addition, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff an additional supplementary compensation for actual damages (daño emergente) consisting of the loss of market value of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, folio real system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, as a result of the harmful events. 9. That the liquidation of said actual damages (daño emergente) from the decrease in the market value of the farms shall be made, in the judgment execution phase and with the assistance of expert(s), according to the following bases: a) The market value that, on the date closest to the payment of the compensation, the farms would have had if the harmful event had not occurred shall be calculated; b) The market value of the farms before the harmful event occurred shall be calculated; c) The market value that, on the date closest to the payment of the compensation, the farms have as a result of the harmful event shall be calculated. The actual damages (daño emergente) shall be the amount resulting from the difference between what the farm should have been worth in the absence of the harmful event and what it is currently worth. 10. That in addition, the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA must pay the plaintiff an additional supplementary compensation for actual damages (daño emergente) consisting of the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, folio real system, registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, consisting of the impossibility of exercising acts of possession on them, as a result of the illegal invasion of the properties by the defendant. 11. That the liquidation of said actual damages (daño emergente) shall be made, in the judgment execution phase and with the assistance of expert(s), according to the following bases: a) The rental or lease value of land identical to the plaintiff's farms, for use as a garbage dump, shall be calculated; b) The amount of expenditures the defendant would have incurred if it had leased land identical to the plaintiff's farms, for use as a garbage dump, from the date the execution of the harmful event began, until the effective possession by the plaintiff, shall be calculated. The actual damages (daño emergente) shall be the amount of the unjustified savings the defendant had by saving the rents it should have paid for land identical to the plaintiff's properties during the period already indicated." (f. 14 of the judicial file).

2.- On January 21, 2010, the Municipality of Liberia answered the lawsuit negatively and filed the defenses of litis pendencia, lack of standing to sue and be sued (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva), and lack of right (falta de derecho) (f. 171 of the judicial file).

3.- On April 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a request for prima facie provisional remedies (medidas cautelares), so that the defendant territorial entity be ordered to refrain from depositing solid waste on its farms (folio 239 of the judicial file).

4.- That on June 1, 2010, the hearing for the provisional remedy (medida cautelar) was held (folio 320 of the judicial file).

5.- That on June 3, 2010, the Trial Judge Elías Baltodano Gómez, through judgment 2126-2010, granted the provisional remedies (medidas cautelares) requested by the plaintiff (folio 322 of the judicial file).

6.- On July 29, 2010, the Court of Appeals confirmed judgment No. 2126-2010 on the provisional remedy (medida cautelar) (f. 473 of the judicial file).

7.- That on June 7, 2012, Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto held the preliminary hearing. In said hearing, he rejected, through judgment No. 1009-2012, the preliminary defense of litis pendencia. At the same time, he requested the plaintiff to clarify the facts of its lawsuit. For that reason, he suspended the hearing so that the defendant entity could answer the missing facts (folio 676 of the judicial file).

8.- On July 23, 2012, Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto, by means of a resolution, directed the defendant entity to answer the facts, with the express indication to admit and reject the facts (f. 679 of the judicial file).

9.- That on August 29, 2012, Judge Edgar Leal Gómez held the preliminary hearing. In said hearing, no adjustments to the claims were made (folio 714 of the judicial file).

10.- That on October 3, 2012, Trial Judge Paulo André Alonso Soto, at the request of the defendant, ordered the requested expert evidence to be declared unproducible, as the corresponding fees had not been deposited (folio 762 of the judicial file).

11.- That on January 18, 2013, the defendant filed defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and expiry (caducidad), considering that, in accordance with Article 39 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the period to file a lawsuit is 1 year; despite the foregoing, according to their statement, the events date back to the year 2007. This document was made known to the plaintiff on the day of the trial (folio 768 of the judicial file, digital recording, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013).

12.- That on January 22 and 23, 2013, the public oral trial began. The Court made known to the plaintiff a document filed by the defendant Municipality on January 18, in which it alleged the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and expiry (caducidad) (digital recording of the trial, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). In addition, it admitted as evidence to better provide (prueba para mejor resolver) the survey (levantamiento), visible at folio 770 of the judicial file. Based on said survey and the explanation given by the witness Nombre23565, of an official letter signed by the geographer Marco Garro Chaves, appearing from folio 329 to 331, also of the judicial file, related to a boundary re-staking (replanteamiento de los linderos), which affected the magnitude of the damage alleged by the plaintiff. All of which raised doubts for the Court regarding the extent of the affectation and its true dimensions. For that reason, with the purpose of finding the real truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal imperative of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the Court suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert appraisal (peritaje) as evidence to better provide (prueba para mejor resolver). To that effect, the appointment of a Surveying Engineer was ordered, so that they could determine the real measure on the ground of the farms owned by the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this real measure was established, they had to determine the possible area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's properties, establishing, regarding it, its measure and value.

That oral decision was reiterated in writing on the same day as the trial, by way of a decision (audiovisual record of the trial and decision at 17:00, visible at folio 793 of the judicial file).

13.- That on January 25, 2013, the plaintiff deposited the corresponding fees so that a surveyor engineer could be appointed (folio 799 of the judicial file).

14.- That on February 4, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert survey (folio 800 of the judicial file).

15.- That on February 12, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared before the Court to assume the appointment (folio 801 of the judicial file).

16.- That on March 11, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted his report (folio 803 of the judicial file).

17.- That on March 15, 2013, the Court notified the parties of the document submitted by Mr. Nombre12891 (folio 820 of the judicial file).

18.- That on March 21, 2013, the parties made their observations regarding the document submitted by Mr. Nombre12891 (folios 821-827 of the judicial file).

19.- That on April 9, 2013, the Court requested that Mr. Nombre12891 clarify and specify the report (folio 832 of the judicial file).

20.- That on April 22, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted a document (folio 838 of the judicial file).

21.- That on May 7, 2013, the Court notified the parties of the document from Mr. Nombre12891 (folio 839 of the judicial file).

22.- On June 19, 2013, the Court ordered Mr. Nombre12891 to comply with the requirements of the expert survey (folio 842 of the judicial file).

23.- On June 24, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 submitted a document, complying with the order of the Judicial Body (folio 843 of the judicial file).

24- That on July 1, 2013, the document provided by Mr. Nombre12891 was notified to the parties (folio 846 of the judicial file).

25.- On July 9, 2013, the parties submitted their observations regarding the response of Mr. Nombre12891 (folios 854-858 of the judicial file).

26.- On July 29, 2013, for failing to comply with the Court's requirements in the evidence for better adjudication (prueba para mejor resolver), it was ordered that the appointment of Mr. Nombre12891 be revoked (folio 859 of the judicial file).

27.- That on August 19, 2013, the Court ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judicial Branch to investigate what had occurred with the professional, given the manner in which he handled the matter, as well as the statements he set forth in writing when responding to the Court (folio 870 of the judicial file).

28.- On August 20, 2013, a motion for revocation filed by the defendant against the decision ordering the revocation of the expert's appointment was heard.

29.- On August 25, 2013, the Court requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch to carry out the expert examination, requested as evidence for better adjudication (prueba para mejor resolver) (folio 871 of the judicial file).

30.- On September 19, 2013, September 25, 2013, was scheduled for carrying out the expert survey (folio 875 of the judicial file).

31.- On October 29, 2013, the scheduling was carried out to continue the oral and public trial for October 21 of the current year (folio 876 of the judicial file).

32.- On November 18, 2013, the aforementioned scheduling was revoked, and the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013, because the expert report had not yet arrived at the Court (folio 884 of the judicial file).

33.- On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued the expert opinion. That same day, the mentioned expert opinion was made known to the parties (folios 896 and 901 of the judicial file).

34.- On November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the request of the plaintiff (folios 907 and 908 of the judicial file).

35.- On November 27 and 28, 2013, the parties carried out their observations regarding the expert opinion (folios 917-920 of the judicial file).

36.- On January 7, 2014, the continuation of the oral and public trial took place (digital recording of the trial).

37.- In the proceedings, the terms and prescriptions of law have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. This judgment is issued unanimously, within the period indicated in numeral 111, subsection 1, of the CPCA, after prior deliberation.- Drafted by Presiding Judge Mena García, with the affirmative vote of Judges Vargas Vargas and Sánchez Navarro and;

CONSIDERING:

I.- REGARDING THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION AND LAPSE. Four days before the oral and public trial, the defendant sent a fax to the Court, through which it filed the exceptions of prescription (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad), considering that in accordance with article 39 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the period to file a lawsuit is one year, yet despite the foregoing, according to its statement, the facts date back to 2007. This document was made known to the plaintiff on the day of the trial and a hearing was granted at that moment. In this regard, it indicated that the process in question was not aimed at determining nullities, but rather it is a civil treasury process or administrative civil liability. In this sense, the negative prescription period is 4 years. It asserts that the affectation began in 2007 and the lawsuit was filed in 2009, so said fatal period has not elapsed. It adds that the damage has been prolonged over time, therefore it has a continuous effect. On the day of the trial, the Court reserved the resolution of the exceptions for the issuance of the final judgment (folio 768 of the judicial file, digital recording, starting at 10:49:33, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Regarding the point under discussion, the plaintiff is correct in asserting that the applicable prescription period for civil treasury matters is 4 years. It must be borne in mind that the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code contains a special rule that regulates the lapse of the action in this type of process. Thus, as relevant, article 41 of Law No. 8508 provides: "The maximum period to file the process shall be the same as the legal system provides as the prescription period for the respective substantive right being discussed in the following cases: 1) In civil treasury matters..." The prescription period for the substantive right, to which the cited canon refers, is that provided by article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration, Law No. 6227, which is 4 years. In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant is not correct in indicating that the applicable prescription rule in this case is that of article 39 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, since, as was stated, a special rule exists. Furthermore, if the facts are from 2007, as acknowledged by the defendant itself in the oral trial, from that date, to the moment when the lawsuit was filed, said fatal period had not elapsed. For this reason, according to the foregoing, the exceptions of prescription and lapse filed by the defendant Municipality must be rejected.

II.- PROVEN FACTS: The following are considered of this nature for importance in resolving this matter: 1) That the plaintiff is the owner of two properties located in the Province of Guanacaste, Dirección14305 , under the real folio system 30878-000 and 34528-000. Registrally, property No. 30878-000 appears with plan G-0003427-1972. For its part, property No. 34528-000 appears with plan G-0003432-1972 (folios 31, 39, of the judicial file). 2) That the defendant is the owner of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, located in the Dirección14305 , under real folio number 56577-000. Registrally, plan Placa21676 appears associated with said property (folio 45 of the judicial file). 3) That cadastral plan G-0003427-72, from the year 1972, registrally associated with the property under real folio number 30878-000, records an area of 171 hectares 9072.43 square meters. Said document does not contain the segregation that was carried out of the defendant's land, under real folio No. 56577-000 (folio 33 and 45 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 4) That plan G-1266873-2008, of the property registration Placa21674, not registrally associated, modified plan G-3427-1972 and G-1198403-2008, records an area of 1,537,085.53 square meters. Said plan contains the segregation of the lot owned by the defendant, under real folio No. 56577-000 (folio 53 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 5) That the defendant's property, under real folio No. 56577-000, borders on its east, west, and north boundaries with the property owned by the petitioner, under real folio No. 30878-000 (folio 53 and 900 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 6) That between the properties under real folio No. 30878-000 and No. 56577-000, owned by the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, there is no overlap understood as usurpation, but rather it is a product of the segregation. The foregoing by virtue of the fact that today, the property under number 30878-000 is registrally associated with plan G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation of the lot owned by the Municipality No. 56577-000. Said overlap that occurs at the plan level has no incidence whatsoever on the magnitude of the damage of the affected areas, determined on the plaintiff's property (folios 33, 45, 53 and 900 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 7) That in the year 2007, approximately, the Municipality of Liberia invaded the plaintiff's properties and began to deposit solid waste (statements of Mr. Nombre115461 , audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 8) That on February 27, 2007, the Governing Health Area of Liberia, Chorotega Region, based on technical report RCH-ARSL-108-2007, through sanitary order 15-2007, ordered the defendant to suspend the deposit of solid waste on the property or land where it was being carried out (folio 109 of the judicial file). 9) That at the beginning of the year 2008, the legal representative of the plaintiff, Mr. Nombre115461 , accompanied by his lawyer, Mr. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express his concern about the large amount of garbage deposited on his properties. On that occasion, he indicated to them that he did not want them to deposit garbage on his property (statements of Nombre115461 , audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013 and Alexander Araya Zúñiga, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 10) That on May 21, 2008, Mr. Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for the plaintiff, sent a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia. Said note contains the following, transcribed literally: "The undersigned, Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal entity identification number CED91270, (hereinafter the \"Company\") as owner of the properties of the Partido de Guanacaste, with real folio registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21677, (hereinafter the \"Properties\"), makes known to the Municipality of Liberia the following: i) There is knowledge of the activities of the Municipality of Liberia on the Properties and that a clandestine garbage dump has been operating on them. ii) There is no authorization whatsoever from the Company for the use or exploitation of the Properties. Much less their use as a garbage dump. iii) As a direct consequence of this activity, the Properties have suffered impairment and extremely serious environmental damage. iv) A company has been hired to evaluate the damage caused to the properties v) The Company is conducting a legal analysis of the consequences of these damages and the possible administrative and judicial processes that will be initiated against those responsible. Awaiting your comments on these points..." (folio 58 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Alexander Araya, audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 11) That on May 22, 2008, through official letter UGAML-64-05-2008, Engineer Augusto Otárola Guerrero, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia, sent the following to Engineer Renán Zamora Álvarez: "Regarding the note sent by Lic. Alexander Araya, lawyer for Compañía Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., it is forwarded for your response, since in my capacity as Municipal Environmental Manager, the final disposal of solid waste and its collection are not my responsibility. Currently, I collaborate on the rehabilitation project of the Liberia sanitary landfill as manager of the permits." (folio 39 of the judicial file). 12) That on October 17, 2008, the Regulation Office, of the Governing Health Area of Liberia, of the Ministry of Health, through sanitary order No. 257-2008, indicates the following based on an inspection carried out in September of that same year: "it was found that on the public road and part of the dump property and private properties, the recycling activity is taking place, where large quantities of bags and plastic bottles are stored, storage of iron and scrap metal, there is also a trailer loaded with scrap metal. This activity is carried out by some fifty people including adults and minors, who risk their health due to the conditions under which they carry out said activity, without personal protection and without structures for their cleaning and hygiene" (folio 112 of the judicial file). 13) That as a result of the invasion, deposit of solid waste, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) on the plaintiff's properties, a severe alteration was produced to the local geomorphology and the landscape (folios 87 to 107 of the judicial file and statement of Mrs. Nombre115462 , audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 14:08:46, disc 1, January 22, 2013). 14) That the area affected by solid waste on the plaintiff's property, under real folio Placa21674, is 25,518 square meters. The area affected by the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff's property, registration Placa21675, is 43,651 square meters, which is grouped into three sectors, the first of 38,123 square meters, the second of 672 square meters, and the third of 4,856 square meters (folios 896-900 of the judicial file, statement of Mr. Moisés Sancho Arias, in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). 15) That on November 15, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch issued report 1304-ING-2013, which reaches the following conclusions: "1. The property with real folio Placa21678 is described geometrically and geographically by cadastral plan G-3427-1972. 2. The property with real folio Placa21678 does not have materialization of its limits in the field in its northern sector and in its southwestern sector, specifically between vertices 0-26 and 21-22-23 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the Arena and Zopilota streams and the public road. 3. The property with real folio 5034528-000 is described geometrically and geographically by cadastral plan G-3432-1972. 4. The property with real folio 5034528-000 does not have materialization of its limits in the field in its northern and southern sector, specifically between vertices 4-5 and 14-0 respectively. The only materialization corresponds to the Arena, Honda and Danta streams and the public road. 5. Within what is expressed by cadastral plan G-3432-1972, there is a total area affected by the deposit of solid waste of 43,651 m2. 6. Within what is expressed by cadastral plan G-3427-1972, there is a total area affected by the deposit of solid waste of 25,518 m2. 7. Cadastral plans G-1198403-2008 and G-1266873-2008 have as their geometric and geographical basis cadastral plan G-3427-1972, however they have not been the fundamental object to generate or rectify properties. 8. Cadastral plan G-1266872-2008 has as its geometric and geographical basis cadastral plan G-3432-1972, however it has not been the fundamental object to generate or rectify properties." (folios 896-900 of the judicial file and statement of Mr. Moisés Arias Sancho, in audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014).

III.- FACTS NOT PROVEN: 1) That there are underground waters on the plaintiff's properties and that they suffered any damage (no evidence has been provided to the case file). 2) That there was forest on the plaintiff's properties (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate it). 3) That there was authorization or permission from the plaintiff for the defendant entity to deposit garbage on its properties (no evidence whatsoever was provided to prove it). 4) That the defendant made a hill that was located on the plaintiff's properties disappear (no suitable evidence was provided to demonstrate it). 5) That the Municipality of Liberia deposited solid waste on the plaintiff's properties respecting the technical regulations for a sanitary landfill (there is no evidence in the case file).

IV.- CLAIM FORMULATED BY LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: Fundamentally, the petitioner seeks the liability of the Municipality of Liberia for the damages caused, by transferring the activities of a sanitary landfill to two properties that belong to it. They assert that said activity has caused ecological damage and consequential damage (daño emergente).

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY: In essence, it considers that due to the urgent need, the sanitary landfill having been closed by the competent authorities, it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump on the plaintiff's property. It asserts that it used only one hectare. It alleges a supposed tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, for it to carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton, until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. It also rejects the existence of forest, in the terms of the Ley Forestal, on the lands owned by the plaintiff, for which reason it considers that the alleged environmental damage has not occurred.

VI.- OBJECT OF THE PROCESS.

The *sub lite* case concerns a proceeding in which it is requested to declare an obligation to act against the Municipality of Liberia, consisting of ceasing the deposit of garbage on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the incursion onto those properties. It is also requested to repair the environmental damage caused to the lands owned by the plaintiff, as well as the consequential damages (daño emergente), for the decrease in the market value of the properties and the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in her name.

**VII.- ON THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE:** As was outlined in the resultandos of this judgment, in the oral and public trial that began in January of last year, the representative of the Municipality of Liberia, as support for her theory of the case, provided a topographic survey (levantamiento topográfico), visible at folio 770 of the judicial file, through which, based on the cadastral plans from 1972, 1986, and 2008, of the properties involved in the present litigation, she referred to a redefinition of the boundaries of the involved properties, which affected the magnitude of the alleged damage being discussed in this venue, evidence that contradicted the expert report presented by the plaintiff. For that reason, with the purpose of finding the real truth, the guiding principle in this jurisdiction, by legal mandate of the Contencioso Administrativo Procedure Code, the Court suspended the continuation of the trial and ordered an expert opinion as evidence for better adjudication. For this purpose, the appointment of a Topographer Engineer was ordered to determine the **real measure in the physical reality of the land** of the farms owned by the plaintiff and the defendant. Once this **real measure** was established, he had to determine **the possible area affected by the deposit of solid waste** on the plaintiff's properties, establishing its measure and value. Said oral resolution was reiterated on the same day of the trial, in writing, by resolution at 17:00, visible at folio 793 of the judicial file. On January 25, 2013, the plaintiff deposited the corresponding fees for the appointment of a topographer engineer; this is found at folio 799 of the same mentioned file. Subsequently, on February 4, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 was appointed to carry out the expert examination. For this reason, on February 12, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 appeared at the Office to assume the role, which can be corroborated at folio 801 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on March 11, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented his expert report, at folio 803 of the judicial file. On March 15, 2013, the expert report was brought to the attention of the parties, which can be verified at folio 820 of the judicial file. On March 21, 2013, the parties made their observations regarding the expert document (folios 821-827 of the judicial file). Next, on April 9, 2013, the Court requested Mr. Nombre12891 to specify and clarify the report (folio 832). On April 22, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document (folio 838). On May 7, 2013, the Court brought Mr. Nombre12891's document to the attention of the parties (folio 839). On June 19, 2013, the Court warned Mr. Nombre12891 to address the Court's requirements in the expert examination, which can be verified at folio 842 of the judicial file. On June 24, 2013, Mr. Nombre12891 presented a document addressing the warning from the Judicial Body, folio 843 of the judicial file. Said document was again brought to the attention of the parties on July 1, 2013. Then, on July 9, 2013, the parties presented their observations regarding Mr. Nombre12891's response. On July 29, 2013, having failed to comply with the Court's requirements in the evidence for better adjudication, the revocation of the appointment of Expert Nombre12891 was ordered, which can be corroborated at folio 859 of the judicial file. Indeed, the Court ordered the Executive Directorate of the Judicial Branch to investigate what occurred with the professional, by virtue of the manner in which he handled the matter, as well as his statements that he put in writing when responding to the Court (folio 870 of the judicial file). Next, on August 20, 2013, a motion to revoke, filed by the defendant, against the resolution ordering the revocation of the expert's appointment, was addressed. Then, on August 25, 2013, the Court requested the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch to carry out the expert examination, which can be corroborated at folio 871 of the judicial file. On September 19, 2013, a date was set for September 25, 2013, to carry out the expert examination, visible at folio 875 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on October 29, 2013, a date was set for November 21, 2013, to continue the oral and public trial, which can be corroborated at folio 876 of the judicial file. Next, on November 18, 2013, the aforementioned scheduling was revoked by virtue of the fact that the expert opinion had not been received; the continuation of the trial was scheduled for December 2, 2013. On November 21, 2013, the Forensic Engineering Section issued the opinion, which can be seen at folio 896 of the judicial file. That same day, the mentioned opinion was brought to the attention of the parties, which can be verified at folio 901 of the judicial file. Subsequently, on November 26, 2013, the continuation of the trial was rescheduled for January 7, 2014, at the request of the plaintiff (folios 907 and 908). On November 27 and 28, the parties made their observations on the opinion (folios 917-920). On December 2, 2013, it was ordered that the questioning of the parties to the expert regarding his opinion would be carried out orally in the oral and public trial. With the purpose of purging the present proceeding and avoiding nullities, regarding the actions indicated above, although the continuation of the trial has been prolonged in time and almost a year has passed since the moment the evidence for better adjudication was ordered, the truth is that this situation **is not attributable to either the Court or the parties**. It was due, in the first instance, to the processing of the first expert examination by Mr. Nombre12891, given that after several warnings were made for him to comply with what was required by the Court, his appointment had to be revoked and the collaboration of the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch had to be requested to carry out the expert examination. This Court has been diligent, which is verified in the various procedural actions, and has given timely impetus to the processing of the expert evidence for better adjudication. It must be kept in mind that the performance of evidence for better adjudication cannot be subject to a deadline, as it will depend on the time its evacuation requires. The basis for requiring evidence of this nature was due to the argument made by the Municipality of Liberia in its theory of the case, regarding a redefinition that affected the magnitude of the damage, the essential object of this case, which generated reasonable doubt by contradicting the expert reports provided by the plaintiff. In the present case, the time elapsed is due to the vicissitudes that arose with the performance of the evidence, which is beyond the Court's control. For this reason, despite the time that has elapsed, based on the constitutional principles of effective judicial protection and prompt and complete justice, all procedural acts of the 2013 trial are maintained, as well as those of its continuation. It must be taken into account that there are unique and irreproducible actions, such as the expert and testimonial evidence evacuated in January 2013, which would lose their spontaneity and credibility if their evacuation were ordered again; in any case, said evidentiary acts are recorded in the digital support of the trial, to which the parties and the Court have access. Based on the foregoing, with the purpose of complying with the aforementioned principles, as well as the preservation of these acts and avoiding the issuance of nullities for nullity's sake, it was decided to continue with the oral and public trial once the Forensic Engineering Office of the Judicial Branch issued its opinion. Once this evidence was evacuated in the continuation of the trial, the floor was given to the parties to present their conclusions. The debate was closed and the issuance of the judgment proceeded, within the deadline provided by the CPCA. Finally, it is of interest to make another observation, in the sense that from the moment the Court ordered the revocation of Mr. Nombre12891's appointment, the documents he provided and are in the record **have no validity within the proceeding** for the purposes of resolving this case and issuing the final resolution. For this reason, it is ordered that the sum of ₡500,000 (five hundred thousand colones) be returned to the plaintiff, as indicated in the resolution at eleven o'clock on August twenty-eighth, 2013, visible at folio 871, which corresponds to the deposit of fees for the expert examination, recorded at folio 799 of the judicial file.

**VIII.- ON THE CLAIM OF TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA:** The plaintiff comes to this venue to request comprehensive reparation for the damages caused by the Municipality of Liberia, including within its claim environmental damage, as well as consequential damages (daño emergente). In this sense, it indicates that it is the owner of two estates that border a municipal land used as a place to deposit waste. It alleges that in 2007, the defendant Municipality invaded its properties and installed the garbage dump there. It adds that, according to a topographic survey and a technical report, the affected area is five hectares, two thousand one hundred seventy square meters, and fourteen decimeters. It also describes the manner in which the territorial entity proceeded to dump the solid waste as empirical, as it did not establish a sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario), nor did it take the corresponding measures. It explains that it razed the existing flora and fauna; what remained was a mountain of garbage. It adds that the recovery horizon for the lands is 10 years. In its defense, the defendant territorial entity argues the alleged tolerance of the Ministry of Health and the involved institutions; due to the urgent necessity facing the canton, as the municipal sanitary landfill had been closed by the Environmental Tribunal, it was forced, as an urgent measure, to deposit solid waste in a controlled dump on the plaintiff's property. According to its assertion, what the Municipality used of the plaintiff's land is approximately one hectare. It also mentions that, upon obtaining the permits from Nombre3456 and the Ministry of Health, the landfill will be functioning again and it will proceed to remove the solid waste from the indicated small portion of land. To support the urgency measures, it bases itself on the principle of continuity of public service, which it is obliged to fulfill. It also considers that, given the urgency, the principles of continuity of public service, the right to health, and a healthy environment, the property right is relativized and must yield to the others mentioned. At the same time, it indicates that there was tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, as in meetings in the responsible Departments, there was permission from the plaintiff to carry out the deposit and treatment of solid waste from the canton, until the construction of the sanitary landfill began. Furthermore, it states that there is a replevin action by Mr. Nombre115463, who claims possession and ownership of farms 34528-000 and 30878-000. According to its theory of the case, the alleged tolerance constitutes the cause for exoneration from liability in the General Law of Public Administration, called victim's fault. It also alleges that there is no adjacency whatsoever with the plaintiff's farm, in accordance with cadastral plan G-623106-86. It also rejects the existence of forest, in the terms of the Forestry Law, on the lands owned by the plaintiff. To carry out the recognition of any compensation under the strict liability scheme of the Public Administration contained in our General Law of Public Administration, hereinafter LGAP, it is necessary to conduct a meticulous analysis of each of its components or elements to verify whether or not strict liability of the Public Administration exists. In this way, the existence of damage must be identified (196 LGAP), which must be effective, evaluable, and individualizable (196 LGAP); in turn, the causal relationship between said damage and the public entity or official, whether there are exempting causes of liability that break the causal link (190 LGAP); in addition to specifying the existence of criteria for imputation, meaning that the harmful conduct was produced lawfully or unlawfully, normally or abnormally. Regarding liability for lawful and normal conduct, due to the special nature of the damage, it requires the existence of a small proportion of affected parties and that the intensity of said injury is exceptional. Under this scheme, the compensation covers the value of the damage, but not the lost profits (perjuicios). These concepts that make up the "special damage" are what are known in law as indeterminate legal concepts, and it will be the Judges in each case who must give them content and determine if the subjective right was denatured. On the other hand, to address the analysis of the existence of liability for unlawful and abnormal conduct, which is what the plaintiff alleges, it is essential to determine the existence of an action by the Administration contrary to the legal system or to the unequivocal rules of science or technology, respectively. Under this cause of imputation, the recognition of damages is full, since, unlike the previous one, lost profits (perjuicios) are recognized. When undertaking the analysis of the present case, given the manner in which the claims of the lawsuit are presented, it is fundamental to have the cause of the damage accredited, that is, the invasion of the plaintiff's lands by the defendant territorial entity, as well as the deposit of garbage on them. To support its theory of the case, the plaintiff company offered the expert witness **Olman Alberto Barrantes Molina** to refer to the damages caused and their appraisal; said professional holds a licentiate degree in environmental economics, with emphasis on agro-environmental. He stated that he proceeded to evaluate two reports, one hydrogeological and another topographic survey of the affected area. He explained that due to his profession he cannot determine the damage; for that reason, based on the hydrogeology studies by Ms. Nombre115462 and the topographic survey by Mr. Nombre115464, he carried out his valuation. In this way, based on their conclusions, he established the way to change the situation of the land and quantify the damage. He also affirmed, regarding the state of the lands, that human intervention had already occurred on them, such as timber and material extraction. However, subsequently, a process of natural reforestation of the affected area occurred. For this reason, he considered that from zero to one hundred, the level of conservation was 80%; however, with the deposit of the waste, it reached a conservation level of 10%. The foregoing because a geomorphological change occurred, a hillock was removed, and additionally, the level of the garbage rose. He said that there were some irreversible damages, such as those to the hillock, and others repairable, based on engineering techniques. He explained that the methodology for calculating the valuation of the environmental damage took into account 4 components, which are the cost of recovery and, at the same time, the establishment of a buffer zone between the affected area and the rest of the property, which corresponds to 2% of the total valuation. The other component is due to the recommendation given by the geological study, which suggests as a reparation measure to carry out cleaning in the area and the necessary civil and engineering works to give stability to the soil and provide an alternative use for this section of the land, which cannot be other than the one it currently has. In this way, extracting the waste materials, treating them, and replacing the soil and giving it adequate stability to avoid other effects. This component represents 90% of the value of the environmental damage he is recognizing in his valuation. He affirmed that if the waste had been treated in accordance with regulations, this component would have been lower. He added that the other component of the methodology is a social cost, and for the non-enjoyment of the affected areas. He added that his valuation corresponds to a solution presented by a professional. In this way, other solutions, cheaper or more expensive, may exist. He stated that his study does not propose a reparatory plan, but rather the cost of returning the environment to the closest possible condition to which it was. The economic damage caused by the disposal of the garbage is $1,779,433.82. He emphasized that this amount corresponds to the day of the visit; as of today, it should be assessed whether the Municipality implemented any mechanism or improvement that changes the situation. He explained that the area is not diverse from an ecological point of view, nor does it have great agricultural potential. He also explained to the Court that he did not have knowledge of when the property was acquired by the plaintiff. Nor did he determine the state the property was in at the time of determining the damage. To make his valuation, he carried out an interpretation of aerial photographs from the years 1950 and 2000, as well as some from NASA. He also mentioned that he took into account the state in which the other surrounding areas that were not affected were found (audiovisual support of the trial, disk 1, starting at 11:29:27, January 22, 2013, folios 70 to 79 of the judicial file). Similarly, the plaintiff company offered Ms. **Nombre115462**, a geologist with a specialty in hydrogeology who works as a private consultant, who carried out an environmental assessment in the farms owned by the plaintiff. The foregoing consists of a valuation of the environmental conditions she could observe. She explained that she assessed the geomorphological, geological, and surface and groundwater aspects, which are the most visible in the environment. She stated that to carry out the study, she visited the farms. By observing the land, as well as aerial photographs, she could determine that there were changes in the geomorphology of the farm. She mentioned that she could verify that a hillock was not complete. She stated that this geomorphological affectation constitutes damage if done without permission. Such changes affect the landscape and are irreversible. She added that she found slope instability on the land, cracks, and gullies typical of unstable land. This situation, she mentioned, may bring risks of landslides. She said she found affectation to the rocky layer of the affected sector. In this way, the affectation to the environment occurs by virtue of the removal of subsoil material; for that reason, it is no longer possible to return to the original conditions in which the land was found. The effect produced on groundwater is that, by removing part of the subsoil, there is less distance between the crust and the groundwater; in this way, bacteria would reach the water table (nivel freático) more quickly, which depends on the thickness of material that has been removed. She was clear in indicating that no analyses were carried out to determine if the groundwater was affected, nor the existence of wells or springs, nor on the farm, nor in the vicinity. She mentioned, regarding surface water, that on her visit she observed a small stream, called Quebrada Arenas, where she found garbage in the stream bed, which is a natural drainage. She explained that the water quality was probably affected, but it was not analyzed. She indicated that she did not know where the surface water went. When surface water is contaminated, it in turn contaminates the rivers it reaches, which also affect other rivers where those waters flow. She mentioned that she made a repair and recovery plan for the area. The first thing, according to her statement, is to remove the garbage from the site, stabilize slopes with gabions or adequate vegetation. She also recommended carrying out semi-annual samplings to see the evolution in water quality, due to the effect of leachates, which are highly contaminating. She considers that the initial state of the waters could be recovered. She also mentioned that the issue of water quality is beyond her knowledge. She stated that she could not determine the volume of garbage from the farms. She added that although she observed the affected area, she did not quantify it. She stated that although it is a small area relative to the farm, the affectation as such exists. She explained that an assessment involves a field visit to observe and analyze. The composition of the land is of rocks called tuffs of the Liberia formation; the type of rock produces a very abundant soil. The soil is the disintegration of the rock, so it is powdery and whitish. She mentioned that with the aerial photograph she could determine that since 2005 there had been waste disposal in the area, according to the photograph at folio 96, due to the color that is distinguished. She also stated that she did not determine the existence of aquifers. She explained that the geological damage occurs due to the use of materials illegally, by extracting them without permission and the use thereof, as it was removed to try to hide the garbage. She stated that she did not quantify the damage to surface water; her assessments are based on the visit she carried out (audiovisual support of the trial, starting at 14:08:46, disk 1, January 22, 2013). In turn, the plaintiff offered the testimony of Mr. **Nombre115464**, who told the Court that he measured the cadastral plans of the plaintiff's properties, as well as the area invaded by the garbage, and two years later, a boundary marker placed by the Municipality in 2010. He specified that he made the first measurement during Holy Week in 2008, defining the boundaries of the farm because there was an invasion of the plaintiff's properties by some people who had created a plan for possessory information that overlapped the existing plans. He explained that he measured the entirety of the farms with the registered plans. The boundaries coincided at the rear and in the shape of the road. He mentioned that he was able to determine that the Municipality had entered the plaintiff's property. In his work, he was able to perceive the existence of solid waste on the plaintiff's property. He also added that on the plaintiff company's farm, there were workers and waste-pickers (buzos), as well as trucks. Regarding the trucks, he saw them in mid-2010, on his third visit. On his second visit, he dedicated himself to measuring the invaded area. He could observe in the invaded area that they had moved earth to cover the garbage. He indicated that he generated a plan that gave 52170.14 m2 for the invasion of the plaintiff's lands. He corroborated that he prepared the plan visible at folio 56 of the judicial file (audiovisual support of the trial, starting at 15:56:52, disk 1, January 22, 2013).

Finally, the plaintiff offered as a witness Mr. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Alexander Araya Zúñiga</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, who has served as legal advisor to the plaintiff, and stated that he was present at a meeting with the Municipality of Liberia approximately 5 years ago, which arose from the knowledge they had of the invasion and deposit of waste on the properties of the plaintiff company. Present at the meeting, besides him, were Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager, David Walker, and the representative of the company that owns the properties, Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">. According to his explanation, at the meeting they expressed their concern about the large amount of waste deposited on their properties. In that regard, the Municipality indicated that it was due to an emergency that it carried out the deposit. He adds that he was able to corroborate, through the visits he made to the site, the existence of the waste on the plaintiff’s properties. On another visit he made to the site, he was even able to observe tractors inside the plaintiff’s property. He mentioned that he sent a letter to Mr. Augusto of the Municipality asking them to stop dumping waste. In another letter, signed by Mr. Nombre115461, he asked the Municipality to stop dumping waste. He added that at the meeting he attended, there was at no time any consent from Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">for them to dump waste on his property. The witness identified, at folio 58 of the judicial file, the letter he sent to the Municipality, in which they set forth the situation of the waste deposit and invasion of the property. Regarding this letter, he said he did not remember having received a formal response from the Municipality. He remembers having appeared on two occasions and having met with the legal advisor, to indicate, informally, that the activity continued on the lands of the plaintiff company (digital recording, starting at 16:30:50, disc 1, January 22, 2013). The defendant, to support its theory of the case, offered the testimony of Mr. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, who appeared as a witness and explained that when they learned of the situation on the properties of his represented party, the person who carried out the study told them that they had been depositing waste 5 years earlier. He explained that at the beginning of 2008, he learned of the situation and for that reason appeared with his lawyer, Lic. Alex Araya, at the Municipality of Liberia. They spoke with an official named Nombre20997 and with the Mayor.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> He remembers having appeared at the Municipality about three times; in addition, his lawyer appeared at the Municipality on other occasions, to get them to stop the matter. He explained that his lawyer verbally and in writing submitted requests for them to stop the activity of dumping waste on the properties of his represented party. He explained that when he appeared at the Municipality, his intention was to stop what the Municipality was doing. In this regard, he mentioned that he was clear in stating that he did not want them to deposit waste on his property (audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 16:54:52, disc 1, January 22, 2013). Also appearing was Mr. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Renán Alonso Zamora Álvarez</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, offered by the defendant, who is an official of the Municipality of Liberia. He stated (Nombre635) that when he joined the territorial entity, it was depositing solid waste on an adjacent property, due to an order from the Environmental Tribunal, so it began to dump the waste in a place different from the one that had been closed. This occurred, according to his statement, at the beginning of 2008. He indicated that he heard other people</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> mention that they had met with Nombre115461. He stated (Nombre635) that he became aware of Mr. Nombre115461's refusal to allow solid waste deposition only when the lawsuit was filed. He stated (Nombre635) that after the complaint, the plaintiff hired guards.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> He referred to the fact that the boundaries between the properties were not clear. He mentioned that the owner prior to the plaintiff company had the intention of donating a part of the land, but this was never finalized. For that reason, it was believed that where they were dumping the waste was Municipality property. He also mentioned that the plaintiff had a conflict with another person over the property. For that reason, in his opinion, it was not clear to the Municipality which property was theirs. The witness was shown folio 59 of the judicial file, which is official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008; in this regard, he mentioned that he probably had seen that document. At the same time, he stated (Nombre635) that he did not remember having responded to the document. Nor did he remember having forwarded the document to another official for a response. He mentioned not remembering having seen the sanitary order visible at folio 109 of the judicial file (digital recording of the trial, starting at 8:47:12, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Also appearing was Mr. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Nombre23565</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, who is a municipal geographer. He told the Tribunal that according to a communication from geographer Marco Garro, who works at the Municipality, he determined with a GPS an affected area of approximately 2.5 hectares, on the plaintiff’s property. Said report is visible at folios 329 to 331 of the judicial file. Likewise, he explained that there is a survey at folio 770, which is related to the aforementioned communication. He mentioned that it has been very complicated to delimit the property boundaries; for that reason, the boundary redefinition (replanteo) and the survey at folio 770 were carried out, delimiting the affected area (audiovisual recording, starting at 10:04:41, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, the municipal entity offered the testimony of Mr. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Augusto Otárola Guerrero</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, who identified the document visible at folios 261 to 262 of the judicial file, official communication UGAML-003-01-2010, through which he issued his opinion regarding the economic assessment (evaluación económica) by engineer Olman Barrantes Molina. Regarding the expert report of Mr. Barrantes Molina, he criticized the fact that he indicated that there is forest (bosque) in the place, since what exists in the area is ignimbrite. According to his considerations, these are marginal lands, not even suitable for cattle. He explained that trees do not grow there because the land is arid. He also questioned the methodology for carrying out the economic valuation of the environmental damage; in this regard, he considered that the methodology used by Mr. Barrantes is not official. In his opinion, there is an overvaluation of the environmental damage. He also mentioned that the Municipality, through the projects it has developed, has allowed the properties in the area to have some value. According to his statement, the soils are not permeable, so it is difficult for the subsoil to be contaminated. He also questions that no drilling was carried out to determine that contamination. He stated (Nombre635) that the existence of aquifers (mantos acuíferos) in the area is uncertain; to determine it, more tests are required. He mentioned that the municipal landfill (relleno sanitario) receives hospital waste, which is sterilized in autoclaves. Regarding other types, such as fetuses or organs, they are deposited in pits in Liberia. He mentioned that the Municipality of Liberia used the plaintiff's properties because it was believed they were their property, related to a donation and a land dispute between the plaintiff and another gentleman with the last name Nombre115463. To this is added the emergency situation and the lack of boundary demarcation. For that reason, they deposited waste on the plaintiff's properties. He affirmed that at a meeting he attended, with Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, his lawyer, and Mayor Carlos Marín, they discussed the possibility of taking advantage of the situation. According to his statement, Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">granted them a period of time to continue depositing the waste. He mentioned that he had armed guards and they consented to the waste entering; however, after the lawsuit, they no longer allowed it. On the other hand, he questioned the report of Ms. Nombre115462, for not making concrete measurements or taking measures of the alleged impacts (audiovisual recording, starting at 12:01:09, disc 1, January 23, 2013). Finally, engineer </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Moisés Arias Sancho</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch, requested by the Tribunal to better resolve the case, appeared and explained that the methodology used consisted of satellite measurements to the GPS constellation, a highly accurate topographical process, similar to conventional equipment; this methodology was used because the terrains are quite extensive, with the points of interest indicated by both parties. He stated (Nombre635) that the properties are adjoining; there was no physical division of the plaintiff’s property towards its northern neighbor, but towards its southern neighbor, a division did exist, as there is a confluence of streams (quebradas), the Zopilota and another whose name he does not recall. Points of interest were taken, mainly from those streams, as there is no delimitation of living fences; the only conclusive delimitation on the site are the streams and the main road. Everything related to the plaintiff was taken first, and then regarding the Municipality. The territorial entity has a boundary redefinition (replanteo), which is not complete, established only with cement posts. He added that with the field information, in his office he processed the data with specialized software for data measurement, and verification was made with the cadastral plans of the properties. The foregoing, according to his explanation, led him to conclude that the properties are delimited in the registry, but in the field, they are found adjacent to one another. The property located to the north does not present physical delimitation; in that part there were no points of interest. However, there were important points of interest such as the streams (quebradas), since, due to the large extensions, the streams quite well define the</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> properties. Another conclusion he reached is that although these properties are delimited by recently dated cadastral plans, the previous plans from 1972 still apply; however, those from 2008 represent very well what the 1972 plan indicates, with the exception of the plan that was segregated to the Municipality of Liberia to carry out the landfill (relleno). The other part of his conclusions refers to the area of impact (área de afectación) on the plaintiff. In this regard, he explained that on the plaintiff’s properties, they made excavations of approximately 50 centimeters to be able to observe the solid waste. In relation to his survey, visible at folio 900 of the judicial file, he mentioned that what is seen in green and red are the boundaries of the 1972 plans, corresponding to the properties of the plaintiff. The figure with blue outlines is the plan of the Municipality of Liberia. The hatched areas in purple correspond to the zones affected by the solid waste; these zones are affected by earthworks (movimiento de tierra). To determine the affected zones, the outline was sought and excavations of 50 or 40 centimeters were carried out to see the deposit of materials, as well as the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) carried out for that purpose. He mentioned that the sum of the affected areas is approximately 6 hectares, adding that his report indicates the total affected area and the area per farm (finca). He explained that technically, all the plans contain legal and true information and are reflected on the properties; however, he stated (Nombre635) that in the 1972 plan, the property given to the Municipality of Liberia was segregated; that is indeed represented in the 2008 plans. The 1972 and 2008 plans present the same areas, the same adjoining properties (colindantes); there is no significant difference, except for the area segregated to the Municipality. He stated (Nombre635) that the alleged overlap (traslape) is logical, by virtue of the segregation from the 1972 plan, since it comes from the plaintiff’s farm (finca). He mentioned that the issue of the location of the properties, with an impact on the magnitude of the damage, is a matter that results from the boundary redefinition (replanteo) carried out by the Municipality of Liberia, which is drawn with circles and indicated in his survey. He mentioned that when he went to the field, only that sector had been redefined (replanteado); the rest had been eliminated, because it is a conflictive zone. The redefined line (línea replanteada), as indicated, is the one that has a difference with the cadastral plan representing that property. The situation of the overlap (traslape) may originate from the physical aspect, but not from the cadastral plans. He added that the boundary redefinition (replanteo) does not match the cadastral plans. The line of posts does not resemble the cadastral plan. Although there are no physical boundaries (linderos), the southwestern limit coincides with the cadastral plan; what deviates from the layout is the redefined line (línea replanteada). He also explained that technically, it is impossible to take the boundary redefinition (replanteo) into account to locate the Municipality’s plan, because it does not coincide with the elements of the delimiting lines. He also explained that an overlap (traslape) is the superimposition of one farm (finca) over another; in this specific case, there is an overlap (traslape) of the 1986 property plan with the 1972 one. He emphasized that this overlap (traslape) should not be misinterpreted as an usurpation, because it is due to the segregation of the farm (finca) at that time. The overlap (traslape) has no effect, because it originates from the segregation of the land that was later given to the Municipality; it has no effect today. He stated that when the property is segregated and the plans are drawn up, the overlap (traslape) ceases to exist. Regarding the plans, he explained that although the 2008 plan contains the changes resulting from the segregation, it does not appear associated with the real folio, since the plan that is linked is the 1972 one. Subtracting what was segregated to the Municipality from what appears in the 1972 plan results in a match with what the 2008 plan indicates. With respect to the other farm (finca), it remains intact, because the segregation did not originate from it. He also explained that a boundary redefinition (replanteo) involves taking data from the office and reflecting them in the field; in this particular case, the Municipality had a plan for which no delimitation existed in the field, and what it did was place them in the field. He affirmed that from a technical standpoint, he did not agree with the boundary redefinition (replanteo) carried out by the Municipality of Liberia, because it took other elements at the global level of the property, such as the road and the southern limit of the municipality's property. According to his statement, the boundary redefinition (replanteo) did not generate any type of registration in the cadastre or in the Public Registry. In a boundary redefinition (replanteo), one works in reverse, because first the field is examined and then the cadastre. He explained that the 1986 and 2008 plans are valid. He stated (Nombre635) that ultimately, the overlap (traslape) ends up being a segregation and not an usurpation. He explained that the affected zone is the one that suffered earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and the deposit of solid waste (digital recording, starting at 9:06:25, disc 2, January 7, 2014). In accordance with the facts that have been proven in this case, the Tribunal has no doubt whatsoever that in the case at hand, the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Administration, as regulated in Article 190 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), has been established. Each and every one of the elements that make up this framework have been brought to the case file through the evidence that has been produced. In the first place, it has been proven that the Municipality of Liberia caused damage (daño) to the properties corresponding to the real folio numbers of the Guanacaste Registry 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff. The conduct that produced the impairment was precisely the deposit of solid waste on the plaintiff’s farms (fincas), without permission, authorization, or consent on its part. Said damage (daño) affected 25,518 square meters of the first and 43,651 square meters of the second. Our legal system, at its apex, in Article 45, establishes the inviolability of private property. Thus, the conduct aimed at dumping waste on the farms (fincas) adjacent to the municipal dump constitutes an infringement of a fundamental right, guaranteed, as previously stated, by the Political Constitution. On the other hand, the Political Charter, in its Articles 21 and 50, protects the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The act of depositing waste on private property implies an infringement of these constitutionally protected rights, sufficient to constitute the illicit and abnormal conduct that the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes as a criterion of imputation. To the above, one must add the fact that the deposit of waste materials was carried out without any treatment, which aggravates the illegality and abnormality of the present case, due to the impact this generates on the environment. Furthermore, there exists a causal link between this illicit and abnormal conduct and the damage (daño), which has also been proven in the case. This is because the Municipality, in its theory of the case, which it has presented throughout the process, has never denied this fact of having deposited waste on the farms (fincas) adjacent to its property, used as a municipal solid waste disposal site. Its discussion is focused, as will be seen below, on the magnitude of the damage. Thus, once the damage (daño), the conduct that produced it, the criterion of imputation, and the causal link have been determined, the obligation to repair, as the basis of the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) under Articles 190 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), becomes imminent. Having stated matters thus, the Municipality of Liberia is under the obligation to repair the damage (daño) caused, together with the losses (perjuicios). This is because no person is obligated to endure legal injury to their patrimonial or extra-patrimonial sphere, as happened in the case of the plaintiff. The defendant territorial entity has come to allege several circumstances as grounds for exemption from liability, which are unacceptable to this Chamber, in accordance with the provisions of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). First, it alleges an emergency situation, a matter it has presented since its statement of defense (contestación de demanda), and which was also a topic reiterated by its witnesses. In the first place, by virtue of Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this is not a cause that allows the breaking of the causal link of liability. On the other hand, it is also not an excuse to justify the conduct that the Municipality of Liberia has engaged in. From the standpoint of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva), it is reprehensible that the defendant Municipality uses the principles of Nombre40855, known as those of public service, to justify, under the guise of continuity, its conduct of depositing waste on another's property. This argument is clearly contrary to the framework of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) and to the very principles of public service, since conduct of such magnitude that affects fundamental rights protected at the constitutional level, such as private property, a healthy environment, and public health, cannot be legitimized. On the contrary, the conduct deployed by the Municipality not only generates patrimonial liability, as its officials would not be exempt from criminal, patrimonial, or administrative liability. Additionally, the defendant has come to present, as a ground for exemption, what it has characterized as the victim's fault, a supposed acceptance by the plaintiff for them to deposit solid waste on its property. Regarding this point, it must be borne in mind that the Municipality of Liberia has never denied that it did deposit waste outside the limits of the landfill (relleno sanitario), since it has excused itself based on the urgent necessity it found itself in. Thus, from the outset, there existed a unilateral decision on its part. Despite the foregoing, in its theory of the case and through its witnesses, it has tried to give this initial unilateral decision a nuance of consensus, which the Tribunal does not find and considers incongruent, according to the evidence that has been produced in this venue. In the first place, it has been proven that once the plaintiff’s representative became aware of the situation at the beginning of 2008, Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, accompanied by his lawyer, Lic. Alexander Araya Zúñiga, met with representatives of the Municipality to express their concern about the large quantity of waste deposited on their properties. On that occasion, he indicated to them that he did not want them to deposit waste on his property. Subsequently, on May 21, 2008, Lic. Alexander Araya, in his capacity as lawyer for the plaintiff, sent a note to Mr. Augusto Otárola, Environmental Manager of the Municipality of Liberia, from which the disagreement with the conduct of the territorial entity is clearly inferred. The Municipality has attempted to demonstrate, through its witnesses Renán Zamora Álvarez and Augusto Otárola Guerrero, the existence of a supposed meeting in which the plaintiff’s representative consented to the deposition of solid waste. Neither of these witnesses is credible to the Tribunal, given that both are officials directly involved in the case, to whom it could potentially generate some type of liability. For that reason, their statements could be aimed at protecting a personal interest. At the same time, during the interrogation conducted by the Municipality’s representative, in a first line of questioning, Mr. Zamora Álvarez indicated, regarding the supposed consent of the plaintiff’s representative, that he heard other people</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> mention that they had met with him and that he had given permission. He also stated (Nombre635) that he became aware of the refusal by Mr. Nombre115461 to allow solid waste to be deposited only when the lawsuit was filed.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Despite the foregoing, during cross-examination, the plaintiff’s lawyer showed Mr. Zamora the document visible at folio 59 of the judicial file, in which the Environmental Manager forwarded to him, via official communication UGAML-64-05-2008, dated May 22, 2008, the handling of the communication from Lic. Alexander Araya, lawyer for the plaintiff at that time, regarding solid waste. This reveals a significant contradiction in his testimony, as it is not true that he became aware of the refusal until the lawsuit was filed, since, according to the communication he received, he was informed of the situation that Mr. Nombre115461</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">was raising at the administrative level. For the reasons stated, the alleged ground for exemption from liability is not accepted. Furthermore, another focus of the defendant's theory of the case has centered on aspects related to the topography and location of the properties. In the statement of defense (contestación de la demanda), the Municipality asserted that it was not true that the plaintiff's properties adjoined the municipal land. In that sense, its witnesses stated that waste had been dumped on an adjacent property; however, they never expressly stated that this adjacent property was that of the plaintiff. From the evidence that has been produced and proven in the body of evidence, specifically the report from the Forensic Engineering Section of the Judicial Branch, by judicial expert Moisés Sancho Arias, this doubt has been totally dispelled. Not only through his explanations resulting from his site visit, but also through the survey he conducted and the analysis of the different plans that have been under discussion, it has been possible to prove that the Municipality’s land borders the farm (finca) with registration number Placa21674 of the plaintiff. On the other hand, in accordance with a document visible at folios 329 to 331 of the judicial file, from geographer Marco Garro, the survey found at folio 770, as well as the testimony of Mr. Nombre23565</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, the Municipality recognized the existence of only one hectare as an invaded area, by virtue of a boundary redefinition (replanteo) of the boundaries of its land, which directly affected the placement of the plans and, consequently, the magnitude of the damage. This evidence contradicted that provided by the plaintiff regarding the extent of the alleged damage. For that reason, evidence was requested to better resolve the case, given the doubt that arose regarding the plans that appeared registered from 1972 and those referenced by both parties from 1986 and 2008, as well as the difference in areas that existed between some and others. According to the evidence produced, the Tribunal was able to verify that between the farms (fincas) under real folio numbers Placa21674 and Placa21679, owned by the plaintiff and defendant respectively, there is no overlap (traslape) understood as an usurpation; rather, it is the result of the segregation that occurred of the Municipality’s land. This is because, to this day, the farm (finca) under number 30878-000 is registrally associated with plan G-0003427-1972, which does not contain the segregation of the lot owned by the Municipality, number 56577-000. Said overlap (traslape) that appears at the plan level has no impact whatsoever on the magnitude of the damage to the affected areas on the plaintiff’s property, which has been determined. For the reasons stated, the arguments presented by the defendant entity are not accepted in this venue as grounds to exempt it from liability. Having established the obligation to repair and analyzed the defendant’s arguments as its theory of the case to refute the lawsuit, which are not accepted, as explained above, the appropriate course is to analyze the claims of the plaintiff, which refer to the repair of the damage. Regarding the repair of the environmental damage, a claim supported by the plaintiff based on the report of Mr.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Barrantes Molina, who carried out that assessment (valoración), upon applying the rules of sound critical reasoning (sana crítica racional),</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> certain doubts arise for the Tribunal (audiovisual recording of the trial, starting at 12:17:16 on the first disc). In the first place, as reviewed supra, Mr. Barrantes was clear in indicating that, due to his profession, he did not determine the damage; he only made his assessment (valoración), based on the reports of Ms. Nombre115462</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">and Nombre115464.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span> On the other hand, he mentioned that he visited the site once, when the damages had already occurred, which is why he could not determine the condition in which the affected area was previously, nor at the time the plaintiff acquired the properties. To calculate the damage, he relied on aerial photographs from the years 1950, 2000, and from NASA from the year 2005, as well as his interpretation. He also took into account the state of the other areas of the property. When contrasting these explanations from Mr. Barrantes with the requirements of the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento), visible on folio 75 of the judicial file, 5,000 trees are counted there, along with inputs for their planting and labor. Despite the foregoing, there is no evidence in the case file that this number of trees existed at the time the plaintiff acquired the lands subject to litigation. On the other hand, Mr. Barrantes Nombre635 used as a parameter the state in which the surrounding, unaffected areas were found; however, the number of trees per square meter that were on the surface of these areas used as a parameter has not been demonstrated in this case. Nor is the tree species that supposedly grew in the indicated regeneration process specified. Although Mr. Barrantes explained that the forest that regenerates in that area cannot be compared to that of Monteverde, for example, he was not precise in indicating the type of forest and ecosystem that develops there, in order to determine the type of species of trees and plants that should be planted and their specific cost, to be able to restore the site. Thus, for the Court, the valuation of the environmental damage is confusing and inconsistent. Secondly, Mr. Barrantes mentioned that another component of the methodology, to which he assigned a value, is the social aspect; however, this item is unclear, since it concerns a private property, which has not been proven to fulfill any social function that directly affects a specific social group, to establish an amount to be compensated.

Thirdly, Mr. Barrantes was emphatic in indicating that his valuation corresponds to the day of the visit, therefore it can change over time. With matters thus presented, if the plan is approved at this moment, as the plaintiff requests, at the time it is executed, another situation could arise. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to approve the valuation as the plaintiff requests, especially considering, according to the expert opinion rendered by the expert from the Forensic Engineering Section, that the affected area is larger. In accordance with the foregoing, it is impossible for this Chamber to grant claim number six of the complaint, which consists of approving the repair plan, which is based on Mr. Barrantes's report, as well as the sum determined therein.

On the other hand, it is important to make a consideration regarding the report of Mrs. Nombre115462, which attempts to demonstrate the effect on the land's geomorphology, comprising the alleged disappearance of a hillock (loma), as well as the impact on surface and groundwater. Although Mrs. Nombre115462 stated in the oral and public trial that she conducted a diagnosis of the damage caused by the solid waste deposit (depósito de desechos sólidos), for the Court it is not precise regarding the issue of the geomorphological impact, in the disappearance of the hillock and the impact on surface and groundwater. In these aspects, although she mentions them, her report is incomplete, as she did not carry out other tests or studies to determine with certainty the existence of this type of water. Nor did she locate the hillock, its extension, and impact with the required precision. Her statements in the oral and public trial in this regard were based on mere assumptions, as she expressly indicated she had not carried out specific tests. With respect to surface water, it is striking that she only referred to the Arenal stream (quebrada arena), but did not indicate if there were others that were affected, since Engineer Moisés Arias mentioned the existence of another stream, such as the Zopilota. Mrs. Nombre115462 also did not determine how these waters were before the damaging event occurred. Regarding the supposed hillock, although Nombre635 indicated it had disappeared, she could not specify its dimensions and location.

The foregoing does not imply that the Court denies the possible existence of these consequences as a result of the solid waste deposit, and that they would constitute the effects and magnitude of the damage caused by the Municipality on the plaintiff's properties. Nor does the Collegiate Body deny that it must be repaired, since it is the unavoidable consequence of a determination of liability. The substantive issue in this regard is the form or how its repair must be carried out, given that, as explained supra, the consequences of this damage and its form of repair are not duly accredited. For this reason, the Court does not currently find a way to determine these scopes and how it must be repaired.

The garbage deposit on the plaintiff's properties generates additional damage, evidenced by the expert report of Engineer Moisés Arias, which even determined its extension and location. Despite the foregoing, the impact on the environment and its magnitude are not duly accredited. For this reason, in accordance with Article 122, subsection m) iii) of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), the determination of the consequences generated by the solid waste deposit on the plaintiff's properties, as well as the form in which its repair must be carried out, is left for the execution of judgment phase, all subject to the evidence that demonstrates it at that venue.

On the other hand, in relation to the plaintiff's claim, regarding the cessation of the municipal conduct of depositing garbage and trespassing on their properties, it must be kept in mind, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 126, 158, and 159 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), that due to the abnormal and unlawful nature of this conduct, as has been stated, the territorial entity must immediately and definitively cease that behavior. In this regard, it must be remembered that within this case, the plaintiff filed a request for a provisional remedy (medida cautelar) prima facie, so that the defendant territorial entity be ordered to refrain from depositing solid waste on the farms of their property. For this reason, on June 3, 2010, the Judge of the processing stage, through judgment 2126-2010, granted the provisional remedy requested by the plaintiff; said judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeals, on July 29, 2010. For this reason, since that date, the cessation of the conduct was ordered by way of a provisional remedy. However, for the purposes of issuing the final judgment on the merits, which definitively resolves the process, the Municipality of Liberia must refrain from carrying out any conduct aimed at throwing waste on the plaintiff's properties, as well as trespassing on their properties. Should this order not be obeyed, it will give rise to criminal, disciplinary, and civil liability of any municipal official and the Mayor.

On the other hand, the plaintiff requests the recognition of the market value (valor venal) of the property as consequential damages (daño emergente); however, due to the manner in which the claims have been addressed in this judgment, by recognizing the integral repair of the damage caused to the properties due to the solid waste deposit, recognizing the payment of the market value of the property is incompatible, since there is a condemnation order for the integral repair of the caused damage. Thus, the appropriate course is to recognize the loss of value of the plaintiff's properties for the affected areas and not for the market value, as requested by the plaintiff, since the latter is exclusive of the integral repair of the damage.

Finally, with regard to the claim for consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the plaintiff's farms, the Court considers it appropriate, given that this damage is a consequence of the solid waste deposit on their land; for this reason, it must be recognized in the execution of judgment phase, with the aid of the expert evidence necessary for that purpose.

**IX.- ON THE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES).** This Court considers that the defense of **prescription (prescripción) and expiration (caducidad)** must be rejected, in accordance with Considerando I of this resolution. Likewise, the defense of **lack of standing (falta de derecho)**, filed by the **Municipality of Liberia**, must be rejected, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Considerando VIII of this resolution. As a consequence of the foregoing, the complaint against the **Municipality of Liberia** filed by **Los Tres Inversionistas S.A.** is declared **partially granted (parcialmente con lugar)**. Regarding the defense of **lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva)**, filed by the defendant, given that standing is the aptitude to be a party within a specific contentious-administrative process, which is obtained only when one finds themselves in a specific relationship with the object of the process. The CPCA (Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code) in Article 10 establishes who can be plaintiffs in this venue; in the same vein, Article 12 in its eight subsections provides a wide range of situations in which a person will be considered a defendant within a process. In the present case, the plaintiff directs their claims against the Municipality of Liberia, attributing liability to it for depositing solid waste on their property. The foregoing is sufficient to consider the Municipality as the passive party of this process and the corporation, with the necessary standing to be the active party of the procedural legal relationship.

**X.- ON COSTS (COSTAS).** As none of the grounds that could exempt the Municipality of Liberia from the payment of costs (costas), established by Article 193 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), are present, it is ordered to pay both costs to the plaintiff.

**THEREFORE (POR TANTO)** The defenses of **prescription (prescripción)**, **expiration (caducidad)**, **lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva)**, and **lack of standing (falta de derecho)** are rejected; consequently, the complaint filed by **Los Tres Inversionistas S.A.** against the **Municipality of Liberia** is declared **partially granted (parcialmente con lugar)**. Anything not expressly indicated, shall be understood as rejected. **1)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to completely, definitively, and immediately cease any conduct aimed at depositing garbage on the farms of the Partido de Guanacaste, owned by the plaintiff, real estate registration numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675. Likewise, it must refrain from trespassing on said properties. Non-compliance with this order will cause the disobeying municipal official or its Mayor to incur criminal, administrative, or civil liability. **2)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to carry out an extensive clean-up operation of the places affected by the solid waste deposit on the plaintiff's properties, corresponding to farm numbers Placa21674 and Placa21675, both of the Partido de Guanacaste, which comprise areas of 25,518 square meters and 43,651 square meters, respectively. This operation involves removing the waste from the place and its adequate treatment, in accordance with the technical and legal rules that eliminate or mitigate the damage caused. **3)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to repair the environmental damage caused, whose magnitude and impact must be determined in the execution of judgment. **4)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay the plaintiff the loss of value for the affected areas of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, real estate registration numbers 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the execution of judgment phase, with the aid of an expert. **5)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the consequential damages (daño emergente) for the temporary loss of possession of the farms registered in the Partido de Guanacaste, real estate registration numbers 30878-000 and 34528-000, owned by the plaintiff, which shall be done in the execution of judgment phase, with the aid of an expert. **6)** It is ordered to return to the plaintiff the sum of ¢500,000 five hundred thousand colones, corresponding to the deposit made for the expert's fees. **7)** The Municipality of Liberia is ordered to pay both costs (costas) to the plaintiff. **NOTIFY.-** **Sergio Mena García** **Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Ileana Sánchez Navarro** 3

PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS S.A.

DEMANDADO: MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA SENTENCIA No. 006-2014-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA. ANEXO A.- A las ocho horas treinta minutos del veintisiete de enero del año dos mil catorce.- Proceso de conocimiento incoado por la compañía los Tres Inversionistas S.A., representada por sus apoderados señores Federico Torrealba Navas, divorciado, abogado, vecino de San José, portador de la cédula CED16431 (f. 23) y Alexander Araya Zúñiga, casado, abogado, vecino de San José, cédula de identidad CED91266 (f. 25), Adelita Olivares Ferreto, mayor, soltera, abogada, vecina de San José, cédula de identidad CED91267 (f.497), en contra de la Municipalidad de Liberia, representada por su Alcalde, señor Luis Gerardo Castañeda Díaz, mayor, casado una vez, profesor pensionado, cédula CED91268 (f.198), quien otorgó poder especial a la licenciada Cristina Gutiérrez Chaves, mayor, casada, abogada, cédula de identidad CED91269 (f. 729).

RESULTANDO

1.- Sustentada en los hechos que expone y citas legales aducidas, en este asunto, el 23 de octubre del 2009, la empresa Los Tres Inversionistas S.A., indicó que formulaba la siguiente pretensión, que se transcribe de forma literal: "PRETENSIONES: Con base en lo expuesto, demandamos a la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA. Pedimos que en sentencia se declare: 1. Que la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA debe, dentro de los tres días siguientes a la firmeza de la presente sentencia, adoptar las medidas conducentes a hacer cesar en forma total y definitiva las siguientes conductas administrativas que se declaran ilegales a) El depósito de basura en las fincas propiedad de la actora, inscritas en el Partido de Guanacaste, sistema folio real, matrículas Placa21674 y Placa21675. b) la incursión en dichos inmuebles. 2. Que el no cumplimiento de lo ordenado en el punto anterior por parte de los funcionarios de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA con poder de decisión, podría ser constitutivo del delito de desobediencia a la Autoridad. 3. Que a los fines de la efectiva ejecución de lo aquí ordenado, la Autoridad Judicial a cargo de la ejecución de sentencia podrá expedir la o las órdenes directas a los funcionarios u órganos municipales competentes, bajo apercibimiento de que la desobediencia a lo allí decretado, podría originar el respectivo testimonio de piezas y el inicio de la causa penal por desobediencia a la Autoridad o bien, por el delito que correspondiere. 4. Que, a los fines de reparar los daños causados a las fincas, la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA debe correr con todos los costos de la mano de obra y de los materiales necesarios para la ejecución de todas las obras necesarias para la mitigación y reparación del daño ambiental causado. 5. Que, a los fines de reparar los daños causados a las fincas, la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA debe pagar a la actora, íntegramente los costos del plan d e reparación que se dirá. 6. Que se aprueba el siguiente plan de reparación y su presupuesto: a) La estimación de mano de obra para la restauración es de 14950 horas (5000 horas hombre para el primer año, 5000 para el segundo año y 4950 horas para los restantes 8 años). El costo de mano de obra no calificada se estima en un dólar. b) Se estima conveniente sembrar 5000 árboles en la zona de recuperación y algunas otras áreas circundantes al proyecto. c) Durante el primer año la cantidad de materiales será la más elevada dentro del horizonte planteado, ya que se deben sembrar 5000 árboles, se deben comprar palas, fertilizantes y cualquier insumo (imprevistos), necesario para garantizar el adecuado desarrollo de los mismos. d) Para los tres primeros años se deberá cargar un rubro de mano de obra adicional, que incluirá el pago por servicios profesionales de un fitotecnista o ingeniero forestal para evaluar el grado de recuperación de la zona (calculando realizar visitas trimestrales). e) En el caso de los 365 190.98 m3 de volumen que deben mejorarse se estimará un único costo por metro cúbico que incluya la extracción de la basura, disposición de la misma y la restauración del terreno a su condición original. 7. Que en fase de ejecución de sentencia, a solicitud de la parte actora y con auxilio de perito (s), se podrá ajustar dicho plan y presupuesto de reparación, de conformidad con las condiciones existentes a la fecha de ejecución de dicho plan. 8. Que además la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA debe pagar a la actora un complemento adicional de indemnización de daño emergente consistente en la pérdida de valor venal de las fincas inscritas en el Partido de Guanacaste, sistema de folio real, matrículas Placa21674 y Placa21675, a raíz de los hechos dañosos. 9. que la liquidación de dicho daño emergente de disminución del valor venal de las fincas se hará, en fase de ejecución de sentencia y con auxilio de perito (s) con arreglo a las siguientes bases: a) Se calculará el valor venal o de mercado que, a la fecha más próxima al pago de la indemnización, hubieran tenido las fincas de no haberse producido el hecho dañoso; b) Se calculará el valor venal o de mercado de las fincas antes de que acaeciera el hecho dañoso; c) Se calculará el valor venal o de mercado que, a la fecha más próxima al pago de la indemnización, tienen las fincas a raíz del hecho dañoso. El daño emergente será el monto que resulte de la diferencia entre lo que debió valer la finca en ausencia del hecho dañoso y lo que actualmente vale. 10. Que además la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA debe pagar a la actora un complemento adicional de indemnización de daño emergente consistente en la pérdida temporal de la posesión de las fincas inscritas en el Partido de Guanacaste, sistema folio real, matriculas Placa21674 y Placa21675, consistente en la imposibilidad de ejercer en ellas actos de posesión, a raíz de la invasión ilegal de la demandada de los inmuebles. 11. Que la liquidación de dicho daño emergente se hará, en fase de ejecución de sentencia y con auxilio de perito (s) con arreglo a las siguientes bases: a) Se calculará el valor del alquiler o arriendo de un terreno idéntico a las fincas de la actora, para ser utilizado como depósito de basura; b) Se calculará el monto de las erogaciones en las que hubiera incurrido la demandada si hubiera arrendado un terreno idéntico a las fincas de la actora, para ser utilizado como depósito de basura, desde la fecha en que se inició la ejecución del hecho dañoso, hasta la efectiva posesión de la actora. El daño emergente será el monto de la economía injustificada que tuvo la demandada al economizarse los alquileres que debió pagar por un terreno idéntico a las propiedades de la actora durante el período ya indicado". (f. 14 del expediente judicial).

2.- El 21 de enero del 2010, la Municipalidad de Liberia contestó en forma negativa la demanda, e interpuso las excepciones de litis pendencia, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho (f. 171 del expediente judicial).

3.- El 15 de abril del 2010, la parte actora presentó solicitud de medidas cautelares prima facie, para que se ordenara al ente territorial demandado abstenerse de depositar desechos sólidos en las fincas de su propiedad (folio 239 del expediente judicial).

4.- Que el 1 de junio del 2010, se llevó a cabo la audiencia de la medida cautelar (folio 320 del expediente judicial).

5.- Que el 3 de junio del 2010, el Juez Tramitador Elías Baltodano Gómez, mediante sentencia 2126-2010, declaró con lugar las medidas cautelares solicitadas por la parte actora (folio 322 del expediente judicial).

6 .- El 29 de julio de 2010, el Tribunal de apelaciones confirmó la sentencia n.º 2126-2010 de la medida cautelar (f. 473 del expediente judicial).

7 .- Que el 7 de junio del 2012, el Juez Paulo André Alonso Soto, llevó a cabo la audiencia preliminar. En dicha audiencia rechazó, mediante la sentencia n.° 1009-2012, la defensa previa de litis pendencia. A la vez, solicitó aclarar a la parte actora sobre los hechos de su demanda. Por ese motivo suspendió la audiencia para que la entidad demandada contestara los hechos que faltaban (folio 676 del expediente judicial).

8.- El 23 de julio del 2012, el Juez Paulo André Alonso Soto, mediante resolución previno a la entidad demandada para que contestara los hechos, con la indicación expresa de admitir y rechazar los hechos (f. 679 del expediente judicial).

9 .- Que el 29 de agosto del 2012, el Juez Edgar Leal Gómez, llevó a cabo la audiencia preliminar. En dicha audiencia no se llevaron a cabo ajustes de las pretensiones (folio 714 del expediente judicial).

10 .- Que el 3 de octubre del 2012, el Juez Tramitador Paulo André Alonso Soto, a solicitud de la parte demandada, ordenó declarar inevacuable la prueba pericial requerida, al no haber depositado los honorarios correspondientes (folio 762 del expediente judicial).

11.- Que el 18 de enero del 2013, la parte demandada presentó excepciones de prescripción y caducidad, al considerar que de conformidad con el artículo 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el plazo para incoar una demanda es de 1 año, pese a lo anterior, según su dicho, los hechos se remontan desde el año 2007. Este documento se puso en conocimiento de la parte actora el día del juicio (folio 768 del expediente judicial, soporte digital, a partir de las 10:49:33, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013).

12.- Que los días 22 y 23 de enero del 2013, se inició el juicio oral y público. El Tribunal puso en conocimiento de la parte actora un escrito presentado por la Municipalidad demandada, el día 18 de enero anterior, en el que alegaba las excepciones de prescripción y caducidad (soporte digital del juicio, a partir de las 10:49:33, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). Además, admitió como prueba para mejor resolver el levantamiento, visible a folio 770 del expediente judicial. Con base en dicho levantamiento y la explicación que dio el testigo Nombre23565 , de un oficio suscrito por el geógrafo Marco Garro Chaves, que consta de folio 329 a 331, también del expediente judicial, relacionados con un replanteamiento de los linderos, que incidía en la magnitud del daño, alegado por la parte actora. Todo lo cual generó dudas al Tribunal en relación con la extensión de la afectación y las verdaderas dimensiones de ésta. Por ese motivo, con la finalidad de encontrar la verdad real, norte a seguir en la presente jurisdicción, por imperativo legal del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el Tribunal, suspendió la continuación del juicio y ordenó como prueba para mejor resolver un peritaje. A ese efecto se ordenó el nombramiento de un Ingeniero Topógrafo, para que determinara la medida real en la materialidad del terreno, de las fincas propiedad de la actora y de la demandada. Una vez establecida esta medida real, debía determinar la posible área afectada por el depósito de desechos sólidos , en las propiedades de la actora, estableciendo, respecto de ésta su medida y valor. Dicha resolución oral fue reiterada el mismo día del juicio, por escrito, mediante resolución (soporte audiovisual del juicio y resolución de las 1 7:00, visible a folio 793 del expediente judicial).

13.- Que el 25 de enero del 2013 , la parte actora llevó a cabo el depósito de los honorarios correspondientes, para que nombrara un ingeniero topógrafo (folio 799 del expediente judicial).

14.- Que el 4 de febrero del 2013, se nombró al señor Nombre12891 , para que llevara a cabo la pericia (folio 800 del expediente judicial).

15.- Que el 12 de febrero del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 se apersonó al Despacho para asumir el cargo (folio 801 del expediente judicial).

16.- Que el 11 de marzo del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó su informe (folio 803 del expediente judicial).

17.- Que el 15 de marzo del 2013, el Tribunal puso en conocimiento de las partes el documento que presentó el señor Nombre12891 (folio 820 del expediente judicial) 18.- Que e l día 21 de marzo del 2013, las partes hicieron sus observaciones en relación con el documento que presentó el señor Nombre12891 (folios 821-827 del expediente judicial).

19.- Que el día 9 de abril del 2013, el Tribunal solicitó precisar y aclarar el informe al señor Nombre12891 (folio 832 del expediente judicial).

20.- Que el 22 de abril del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó documento (folio 838 del expediente judicial).

21.- Que el 7 de mayo del 2013 , el Tribunal puso en conocimiento de las partes el documento del señor Nombre12891 (folio 839 del expediente judicial).

22.- El 19 de junio del 2013, el Tribunal previno al señor Nombre12891 para que atendiera los requerimientos de la pericia (folio 842 del expediente judicial).

23.- El 24 de junio del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó documento, atendiendo la prevención del Órgano Judicial (folio 843 del expediente judicial).

24- Que el día 1 de julio del 2013, el documento que aportó el señor Nombre12891 , fue puesto en conocimiento de las partes (folio 846 del expediente judicial).

25.- El día 9 de julio del 2013, las partes presentaron sus observaciones, en relación con la contestación del señor Nombre12891 (folios 854-858 del expediente judicial).

26.- El 29 de julio del 2013, al no cumplir con los requerimientos del Tribunal, en la prueba para mejor resolver, se ordenó revocar el nombramiento del señor Nombre12891 (folio 859 del expediente judicial).

27.- Que el 19 de agosto del 2013, el Tribunal ordenó a la Dirección Ejecutiva del Poder Judicial, investigar lo acaecido con el profesional, en virtud de la forma en la que atendió el asunto, así como sus manifestaciones que plasmó por escrito al responder al Tribunal (folio 870 del expediente judicial).

28.- El día 20 de agosto del 2013, se atendió recurso de revocatoria, interpuesto por la parte demandada, en contra de la resolución que ordenaba la revocatoria del nombramiento del perito.

29.- El día 25 de agosto del 2013, el Tribunal solicitó a la Oficina de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial, para que llevara a cabo el peritaje, solicitado como prueba para mejor resolver (folio 871 del expediente judicial) 30.- El 19 de setiembre del 2013, se señaló, para llevar a cabo la pericia, el día 25 de setiembre del 2013, (folio 875 del expediente judicial).

31.- El día 29 de octubre del 2013, se llevó a cabo el señalamiento, para continuar el juicio oral y público, para el día 21 de octubre del año en curso (folio 876 del expediente judicial).

32.-El 18 de noviembre del 2013 , se revocó el señalamiento antes dicho y se programó la continuación del juicio para el día 2 de diciembre del 2013, en virtud de que el informe pericial no había llegado al Despacho (folio 884 del expediente judicial).

33.- El día 21 de noviembre del 2013, la Sección de Ingeniería Forense emitió el dictamen. Ese mismo día, se puso en conocimiento de las partes el dictamen mencionado (folios 896 y 901 del expediente judicial) 34.- El día 26 de noviembre del 2013, se reprogramó la continuación del juicio para el día 7 de enero del 2014, a solicitud de la parte actora (folios 907 y 908 del expediente judicial ).

35.- Los días 27 y 28 de noviembre del 2013, las partes llevaron a cabo sus observaciones sobre el dictamen (folios 917-920 del expediente judicial).

36.- El 7 de enero del 2014, se llevó a cabo la continuación del juicio oral y público (soporte digital del juicio) 37.- En los procedimientos se han observado los términos y prescripciones de ley, y no se notan vicios u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se emite este fallo por unanimidad, dentro del plazo indicado en el numeral 111, inciso 1, del CPCA, previa deliberación.- Redacta el Juez ponente Mena García, con el voto afirmativo de las Juezas Vargas Vargas y Sánchez Navarro y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.-SOBRE LA EXCEPCIÓN DE PRESCRIPCIÓN Y CADUCIDAD. Cuatro días antes del juicio oral y público, la parte demandada remitió un fax al Tribunal, mediante el cual interpuso las excepciones de prescripción y caducidad, al considerar que de conformidad con el artículo 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el plazo para incoar una demanda es de un año, pese a lo anterior, según su dicho, los hechos se remontan desde el año 2007. Este documento se puso en conocimiento de la parte actora el día del juicio y se le concedió audiencia en ese momento. Al respecto indicó que el proceso de marras, no estaba encaminado a determinar nulidades, sino que se trata de un proceso civil de hacienda o de responsabilidad civil administrativa. En tal sentido, el plazo de prescripción negativa es de 4 años. Afirma que la afectación inició en el año 2007 y la demanda se interpuso en el año 2009, por lo que no ha transcurrido dicho plazo fatal. Añade que el daño se ha prolongado en el tiempo, por lo que tiene un efecto continuo. El día del juicio, el Tribunal reservó para el dictado de la sentencia de fondo la resolución de las excepciones (folio 768 del expediente judicial, soporte digital, a partir de las 10:49:33, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). Sobre el punto en discusión, lleva razón la parte actora al afirmar que el plazo de prescripción aplicable a los asuntos civiles de hacienda es de 4 años. Se debe tener presente que el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, contiene una norma especial que regula la caducidad de la acción en este tipo de procesos. De esa forma, en lo que interesa, el artículo 41 de la Ley n.º 8508 dispone: "El plazo máximo para incoar el proceso será el mismo que disponga el ordenamiento jurídico como plazo de prescripción para el respectivo derecho de fondo que se discute en los siguientes supuestos: 1) En materia civil de hacienda..." El plazo de prescripción del derecho de fondo, al que hace referencia el canon citado, es el que dispone el artículo 198 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, Ley n.º 6227, que es de 4 años. De conformidad con lo expuesto, no lleva razón la parte demandada al indicar que la norma de prescripción aplicable al caso es la del artículo 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, pues como fue expuesto existe norma especial. Por otra parte, si los hechos son del año 2007, como lo reconoció la misma parte demandada en el juicio oral, desde esa fecha, al momento en el que la demanda fue interpuesta, dicho plazo fatal no había transcurrido. Por ese motivo, de acuerdo con lo expuesto es que deben ser rechazadas las excepciones de prescripción y caducidad interpuestas por la Municipalidad demandada.

II.-HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto se tienen como de esta naturaleza los siguientes: 1) Que la parte actora es propietaria de dos fincas ubicadas en la Provincia de Guanacaste, Dirección14305 , , bajo el sistema de folio real 30878-000 y 34528-000. Registralmente la finca n.º 30878-000 aparece con el plano G-0003427-1972. Por su parte la finca n.º 34528-000 aparece con el plano G-0003432-1972 (folios 31, 39, del expediente judicial) 2) Que la demandada es propietaria de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste, ubicada en el Dirección14305 , , bajo el número de folio real 56577-000. Registralmente aparece asociado a dicha finca, el plano Placa21676 (folio 45 del expediente judicial). 3) Que el plano catastrado G-0003427-72, del año 1972, registralmente asociado a la finca bajo el número de folio real 30878-000, consigna un área de 171 hectáreas 9072.43 metros cuadrados. Dicho documento no contiene la segregación que se llevó a cabo del terreno de la demandada, bajo el folio real n.º 56577-000 (folio 33 y 45 del expediente judicial y declaración del señor Moisés Arias Sancho, en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). 4) Que el plano G-1266873-2008, de la finca matrícula Placa21674, no asociado registralmente, modificó el plano G-3427-1972 y el G-1198403-2008, consigna un área de 1.537.085,53 metros cuadrados. Dicho plano contiene la segregación del lote propiedad de la demandada, bajo el folio real n.º 56577-000 (folio 53 del expediente judicial, declaración del señor Moisés Arias Sancho, en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). 5) Que la finca de la demandada, bajo el folio real n.º 56577-000, colinda en sus linderos este, oeste y norte con el inmueble propiedad de la accionante, bajo el folio real n.º 30878-000 (folio 53 y 900 del expediente judicial, declaración del señor Moisés Arias Sancho, en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). 6) Que entre las fincas bajo el folio real n.º 30878-000 y n.º 56577-000, propiedad de la actora y demandada, respectivamente, no existen un traslape entendido como usurpación, sino que es producto de la segregación. Lo anterior en virtud de que al día de hoy la finca bajo número 30878-000, se encuentra registralmente asociada al plano G-0003427-1972, que no contiene la segregación del lote propiedad de la Municipalidad n.º 56577-000. Dicho traslape que se presenta a nivel de planos no tiene incidencia alguna en la magnitud del daño de las áreas afectadas, determinado en la propiedad de la parte accionante (folios 33, 45, 53 y 900 del expediente judicial y declaración del señor Moisés Arias Sancho en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). 7) Que en el año 2007, aproximadamente, la Municipalidad de Liberia invadió las fincas de la parte actora y comenzó a depositar desechos sólidos (declaraciones del señor Nombre115461 , soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 16:54:52, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). 8) Que el 27 de febrero del 2007, el Área Rectora de Salud de Liberia, Región Chorotega con base en el informe técnico RCH-ARSL-108-2007, mediante la orden sanitaria 15-2007, ordenó a la demandada, suspender el depósito de desechos sólidos en la finca o propiedad donde lo estaba realizando (folio 109 del expediente judicial). 9) Que a principios del año 2008, el representante legal de la parte actora, señor Nombre115461 , en compañía de su abogado, el licenciado Alexander Araya Zúñiga, se reunió con representantes de la Municipalidad para manifestar su preocupación por la gran cantidad de basura depositada en sus propiedades. En esa ocasión les indicó que no quería que depositaran la basura en su propiedad (declaraciones de Nombre115461 , soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 16:54:52, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013 y Alexander Araya Zúñiga, a partir de las 16:30:50, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013, 22 de enero del 2013). 10) Que el 21 de mayo del 2008, el licenciado Alexander Araya, en su condición de abogado de la parte actora, dirigió nota al señor Augusto Otárola, Gestor Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Liberia. Dicha nota contiene lo siguiente, que se transcribe de forma literal: "El suscrito, Alexander Araya, en su condición de abogado de COMPAÑÍA LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula de persona jurídica número CED91270, (en adelante la "Compañía") como propietaria de las fincas del Partido de Guanacaste, con matrículas de folio real número Placa21674 y Placa21677, (en adelante las "Propiedades"), hace del conocimiento de la Municipalidad de Liberia lo siguiente: i) Se tiene conocimiento de las actividades de la Municipalidad de Liberia en las Propiedades y que en las mismas viene operando un botadero de basura clandestino. ii) Que no existe autorización alguna por la Compañía para el uso o explotación de las Propiedades. Mucho menos su utilización como un botadero de basura. iii) Que como consecuencia directa de esta actividad las Propiedades han sufrido un menoscabo y un daño ambiental gravísimo. iv) Que se ha contratado a una empresa para que evalúe el daño causado sobre las propiedades v) Que la Compañía se encuentra realizando un análisis legal sobre las consecuencias de estos daños los posibles procesos administrativos y judiciales que se iniciarán en contra de los responsables. Quedando a la espera de sus comentarios sobre estos puntos..." (folio 58 del expediente judicial, declaración del señor Alexander Araya, soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 16:30:50 , disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). 11) Que el 22 de mayo del 2008, mediante el oficio UGAML-64-05-2008, el ingeniero Augusto Otárola Guerrero, Gestor Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Liberia, dirigió al ingeniero Renán Zamora Álvarez lo siguiente: "Con relación a la nota enviada por el Lic. Alexander Araya, abogado de la Compañía Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. se d a traslado para su contestación, pues en mi calidad de Gestor Ambiental Municipal no es mi responsabilidad la disposición final de los desechos sólidos ni la recolección de los mismos. Actualmente colaboro en el proyecto de rehabilitación del relleno sanitario de Liberia como gestor de los permisos." (folio 39 del expediente judicial). 12) Que el 17 de octubre del 2008, la Oficina de Regulación, del Área Rectora de Salud de Liberia, del Ministerio de Salud, mediante la orden sanitaria n.º 257-2008, indica lo siguiente con base en inspección realizada en setiembre de ese mismo año: "se encontró que en la vía pública y parte de la propiedad del basurero y privadas se desarrolla la actividad de reciclaje, donde se almacenan gran cantidad de sacos y botellas plásticas, almacenamiento de hierro y chatarra, también existe una traileta cargada de chatarra. Esta actividad la desarrollan unas cincuenta personas entre adultos y menores de edad, los cuales ponen en riesgo su salud por las condiciones que desarrollan dicha actividad, sin protección personal y sin estructuras para su limpieza e higiene" (folio 112 del expediente judicial). 13) Que producto de la invasión, depósito de desechos sólidos y movimientos de tierra en las propiedades de la parte actora, se produjo una alteración severa a la geomorfología local y el paisaje (folios 87 al 107 del expediente judicial y declaración de la señora Nombre115462 , soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 14:08:46, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). 14) Que el área afectada por desechos sólidos en el inmueble de la actora, bajo folio real Placa21674, es de 25.518 metros cuadrados. El área afectada por depósito de desechos sólidos en la propiedad de la accionante, matrícula Placa21675 es de 43.651 metros cuadrados, que se agrupa en tres sectores, el primero de 38.123 metros cuadrados, el segundo de 672 metros cuadrados y el tercero de 4856 metros cuadrados (folios 896-900 del expediente judicial, declaración del señor Moisés Sancho Arias, en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). 15) Que el 15 de noviembre del 2013, la Sección de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial, emitió el informe 1304-ING-2013, que arriba a las siguientes conclusiones: "1. La finca con folio real Placa21678 se encuentra descrita de manera geométrica y geográfica por el plano catastrado G-3427-1972. 2. La finca con folio real Placa21678 no posee materialización de sus límites en el campo en su sector norte y en su sector suroeste, específicamente entre los vértices 0-26 y 21-22-23 respectivamente. La única materialización corresponde a las quebradas Arena y Zopilota y la calle pública. 3. La finca con folio real 5034528-000 se encuentra descrita de manera geométrica y geográfica por el plano catastrado G-3432-1972. 4. La finca con folio real 5034528-000 no posee materialización de sus límites en el campo en su sector norte y sur, específicamente entre los vértices 4-5 y 14-0 respectivamente. La única materialización corresponde a las quebradas Arena, Honda y Danta y la calle pública. 5. Dentro de lo expresado por el plano catastrado G-3432-1972, existe un área total afectada por el depósito de desechos sólidos de 43651 m2. 6. Dentro de lo expresado por el plano catastrado G-3427-1972, existe un área total afectada por el depósito de desechos sólidos de 25518 m2. 7. Los planos catastrados G-1198403-2008 y G-1266873-2008 tienen como base geométrica y geográfica el plano catastrado G-3427-1972, sin embargo no han sido objeto fundamental para generar o rectificar fincas. 8. El plano catastrado G-1266872-2008 tiene como base geométrica y geográfica el plano catastrado G-3432-1972, sin embargo no ha sido objeto fundamental para generar o rectificar fincas." (folio 896-900 del expediente judicial y declaración del señor Moisés Arias Sancho, en soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014).

III.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 1) Que existan aguas subterráneas en las propiedades de la parte accionante y que sufrieran algún daño (no se ha aportado prueba a los autos). 2) Que existiera bosque en las propiedades de la parte actora (no se aportó prueba idónea para demostrarlo). 3) Que existiera autorización o permiso de la parte actora para que la entidad demandada realizara el depósito de basura en sus propiedades (no se aportó prueba alguna que lo acreditara). 4) Que la parte demandada hiciera desaparecer una loma que se encontraba ubicada en las propiedades de la accionante (no se aportó prueba idónea para demostrarlo). 5) Que la Municipalidad de Liberia depositara los desechos sólidos en las propiedades de la accionante respetando normativa técnica de un relleno sanitario (no existe prueba en los autos).

IV.- RECLAMO FORMULADO POR LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: En lo fundamental, la accionante solicita la responsabilidad de la Municipalidad de Liberia por los daños ocasionados, al trasladar las actividades de un relleno sanitario a dos propiedades que le pertenecen. Afirman que dicha actividad, ha causado un daño ecológico y un daño emergente.

V.-ARGUMENTOS DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD: En lo esencial, considera que por la urgente necesidad, al haber sido cerrado el relleno sanitario, por las autoridades competentes, se vio obligada, como medida urgente, a depositar desechos sólidos en un vertedero controlado en la propiedad del actor. Afirma, que utilizó únicamente una hectárea. Acusa una supuesta tolerancia por parte de la demandada, para que realizara el depósito y tratamiento de desechos sólidos del cantón, hasta que iniciara la construcción del relleno sanitario. Rechaza además la existencia de bosque, en los términos de la Ley Forestal, en los terrenos propiedad de la actora, motivo por el cual, considera que no se ha producido el daño ambiental alegado.

VI.-OBJETO DEL PROCESO. El sub lite, trata de un proceso, en el que se solicita declarar a cargo de la Municipalidad de Liberia, una obligación de hacer, que consiste en cesar el depósito de basura en las propiedades de la actora, así como la incursión en dichos inmuebles. Se requiere además, la reparación del daño ambiental causado en los terrenos propiedad de la accionante, así como el daño emergente, por la disminución del valor venal de las propiedades y la pérdida temporal de la posesión de las fincas inscritas a su nombre.

VII.-SOBRE LOS ASPECTOS PROCESALES RELEVANTES DE ESTA CAUSA: Tal y como quedó reseñado en los resultandos de la presente sentencia, en el juicio oral y público que inició en enero del año pasado, la representante de la Municipalidad de Liberia, como sustento de su teoría del caso aportó un levantamiento topográfico, visible a folio 770 del expediente judicial, mediante el cual, con base en los planos catastrados de 1972, 1986 y 2008, de las propiedades involucradas en el litigio de marras, hizo referencia a un replanteamiento de los límites de las propiedades involucradas, que incidía en la magnitud del supuesto daño que se discute en esta sede, prueba que contradecía la experticia presentada por la parte actora. Por ese motivo, con la finalidad de encontrar la verdad real, norte a seguir en la presente jurisdicción, por imperativo legal del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el Tribunal suspendió la continuación del juicio y ordenó como prueba para mejor resolver un peritaje. A ese efecto se ordenó el nombramiento de un Ingeniero Topógrafo, para que determinara la medida real en la materialidad del terreno, de las fincas propiedad de la actora y de la demandada. Una vez establecida esta medida real, debía determinar la posible área afectada por el depósito de desechos sólidos, en las propiedades de la actora, estableciendo, respecto de ésta su medida y valor. Dicha resolución oral fue reiterada el mismo día del juicio, por escrito, mediante resolución de las 17:00, visible a folio 793 del expediente judicial. El día 25 de enero del 2013, la parte actora llevó a cabo el depósito de los honorarios correspondientes, para que nombrara un ingeniero topógrafo, esto se encuentra en el folio 799 del mismo expediente mencionado. Posteriormente, el día 4 de febrero del 2013, se nombró al señor Nombre12891 , para que llevara a cabo la pericia. Por ese motivo, el 12 de febrero del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 se apersonó al Despacho para asumir el cargo, lo cual se puede corroborar a folio 801 del expediente judicial. Con posterioridad, el 11 de marzo del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó su informe pericial, a folio 803 del expediente judicial. El día 15 de marzo del 2013, el peritaje fue puesto en conocimiento de las partes, lo cual se puede constatar a folio 820 del expediente judicial. El día 21 de marzo del 2013, las partes hicieron sus observaciones en relación con el documento pericial (folios 821-827 del expediente judicial). Seguidamente, el día 9 de abril del 2013, el Tribunal solicitó precisar y aclarar el informe al señor Nombre12891 (folio 832). El día 22 de abril del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó documento (folio 838). El 7 de mayo del 2013, el Tribunal puso en conocimiento de las partes el documento del señor Nombre12891 (folio 839). El 19 de junio del 2013, el Tribunal previno al señor Nombre12891 para que atendiera los requerimientos del Tribunal en la pericia, lo cual se puede verificar en el folio 842 del expediente judicial. El 24 de junio del 2013, el señor Nombre12891 presentó documento, atendiendo la prevención del Órgano Judicial, folio 843 del expediente judicial. Dicho documento fue puesto nuevamente en conocimiento de las partes el día 1 de julio del 2013. Luego, el día 9 de julio del 2013, las partes presentaron sus observaciones, en relación con la contestación del señor Nombre12891 . El 29 de julio del 2013, al no cumplir con los requerimientos del Tribunal, en la prueba para mejor resolver, se ordenó revocar el nombramiento del Perito Nombre12891 , lo que se puede corroborar en el folio 859 del expediente judicial. Incluso, el Tribunal ordenó a la Dirección Ejecutiva del Poder Judicial, investigar lo acaecido con el profesional, en virtud de la forma en la que atendió el asunto, así como sus manifestaciones que plasmó por escrito al responder al Tribunal (folio 870 del expediente judicial). Seguidamente, el día 20 de agosto del 2013, se atendió recurso de revocatoria, interpuesto por la parte demandada, en contra de la resolución que ordenaba la revocatoria del nombramiento del perito. Luego, el día 25 de agosto del 2013, el Tribunal solicitó a la Oficina de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial, para que llevara a cabo el peritaje, lo cual se puede corroborar a folio 871 del expediente judicial. El 19 de setiembre del 2013, se Nombre635 el día 25 de setiembre del 2013, para llevar a cabo la pericia, visible a folio 875 del expediente judicial. Posteriormente, el día 29 de octubre del 2013, se Nombre635 el día 21 de noviembre del 2013, para continuar el juicio oral y público, que se puede corroborar en el folio 876 del expediente judicial. Seguidamente, el 18 de noviembre del 2013, se revocó el señalamiento antes dicho, en virtud de que no se había recibido el dictamen pericial, se programó la continuación del juicio para el día 2 de diciembre del 2013. El día 21 de noviembre del 2013, la Sección de Ingeniería Forense emitió el dictamen, que se puede apreciar a folio 896 del expediente judicial. Ese mismo día, se puso en conocimiento de las partes el dictamen mencionado, lo cual se puede constatar a folio 901 del expediente judicial. De seguido, el día 26 de noviembre del 2013, se reprogramó la continuación del juicio para el día 7 de enero del 2014, a solicitud de la parte actora (folios 907 y 908). Los días 27 y 28 de noviembre las partes llevaron a cabo sus observaciones sobre el dictamen (folios 917-920). El 2 de diciembre del 2013, se dispuso que en el juicio oral y público se llevaría a cabo el interrogatorio de las partes de forma oral al perito, en relación con su dictamen. Con la finalidad de sanear el presente proceso y evitar nulidades, de las actuaciones que se han indicado con anterioridad, si bien se ha prolongado en el tiempo la continuación del juicio y ha transcurrido casi un año, desde el momento en el que se ordenó la prueba para mejor resolver, lo cierto es que esta situación no es imputable ni al Tribunal ni a las partes. Obedeció en primer término al trámite que llevó el primer peritaje del señor Nombre12891 , dado que después de varias prevenciones que se llevaron a cabo, para que cumpliera con lo requerido por el Tribunal, su nombramiento tuvo que ser revocado y solicitar a la Sección de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial la colaboración para llevar a cabo la pericia. Este Tribunal ha sido diligente, lo cual se constata en las distintas actuaciones procesales y ha dado un impulso oportuno al trámite de la prueba pericial para mejor resolver. Se debe tener presente, que la realización de una prueba para mejor resolver no puede estar sujeta a un plazo, ya que dependerá del tiempo que requiera llevar a cabo su evacuación. El sustento de requerir una prueba de esta naturaleza obedeció al alegato que llevó a cabo la Municipalidad de Liberia en su teoría del caso, en relación con un replanteamiento, que incidía en la magnitud del daño, objeto esencial de esta causa, lo cual generó una duda razonable, al contradecir las pericias aportadas por la parte actora. En el presente caso, el tiempo transcurrido obedece a las vicisitudes que se presentaron con la realización de la prueba, lo cual resulta ajeno al Tribunal. Por ese motivo, pese al tiempo que ha transcurrido, con fundamento en los principios de rango constitucional de tutela judicial efectiva y justicia pronta y cumplida, se mantienen todos los actos procesales del juicio del año 2013, así como los de su continuación. Se debe tener en cuenta que existen actuaciones únicas e irreproducibles, como lo son las pruebas periciales y testimoniales evacuadas en enero del año 2013, las cuales perderían su espontaneidad y credibilidad de ordenarse nuevamente su evacuación, en todo caso, dichos actos probatorios constan en el soporte digital del juicio, al que tienen acceso las partes y el Tribunal. Con fundamento en lo anterior, con la finalidad de cumplir con los principios antes mencionados, así como la conservación de estos actos y evitar el dictado de nulidades por la nulidad misma, se decidió continuar con el juicio oral y público, una vez que la Oficina de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial emitió su dictamen. Evacuada esta prueba en la continuación del juicio, se procedió dar la palabra a las partes para que emitieran sus conclusiones. El debate se cerró y se procedió al dictado de sentencia, dentro del plazo que dispone el CPCA. Finalmente, resulta de interés hacer otra acotación, en el sentido de que desde el momento en el que el Tribunal ordenó la revocatoria del nombramiento del señor Nombre12891 , los documentos que aportó y constan en autos, no tienen ninguna validez dentro del proceso, a efectos resolver la presente causa y emitir la resolución de fondo. Por este motivo, se ordena devolver a la parte actora, tal y como se indicó en la resolución de las once horas del veintiocho de agosto del 2013, visible a folio 871, la suma de ¢500.000 (quinientos mil colones), que corresponde al depósito de honorarios para el peritaje, que consta a folio 799 del expediente judicial.

VIII.- SOBRE LA DEMANDA DE LOS TRES INVERSIONISTAS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA: La parte actora acude a esta sede para solicitar la reparación integral de los daños causados por la Municipalidad de Liberia, incluye dentro de su pretensión el daño ambiental, así como el daño emergente. En ese sentido, indica que es propietaria de dos fundos que colindan con un terreno municipal que se utiliza como lugar para depositar desechos. Acusa que en el año 2007, la Municipalidad demandada invadió sus propiedades e instaló allí el botadero de basura. Agrega que de acuerdo con peritaje topográfico e informe técnico, la zona afectada es de cinco hectáreas dos mil ciento setenta metros cuadrados con catorce decímetros. Califica además de empírica la forma en la que la entidad territorial procedió a tirar los desechos sólidos, pues no estableció un relleno sanitario, ni tomó las medidas correspondientes. Explica que arrasó con la flora y fauna existente, lo que quedó fue una montaña de basura. Agrega que el horizonte de recuperación de los terrenos, es de 10 años. En su defensa, la entidad territorial demandada, argumenta la supuesta tolerancia del Ministerio de Salud y de las instituciones involucradas, por la urgente necesidad, que enfrentaba el cantón, al haber sido clausurado por el Tribunal Ambiental el relleno sanitario municipal, se vio obligada, como medida urgente, a depositar desechos sólidos en un vertedero controlado en la propiedad del actor. Según afirma, lo que utilizó la Municipalidad del terreno de la parte actora es una hectárea, aproximadamente. Menciona además, que al contar con los permisos de Nombre3456, y del Ministerio de Salud, el relleno estará funcionando nuevamente y se procederá a remover los desechos sólidos de la pequeña porción de terreno indicada. Para sustentar las medidas de urgencia, se fundamenta en el principio de continuidad del servicio público, que se encuentra obligada a cumplir. Considera además, que ante la urgencia, los principios de continuidad del servicio público, el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano, el derecho de propiedad se relativiza y debe ceder ante los otros mencionados. A la vez indica que existió tolerancia por parte de la demandada, pues en reuniones en los Departamentos encargados, existió permiso del demandante para realizar el depósito y tratamiento de desechos sólidos, del cantón, hasta que iniciara la construcción del relleno sanitario. Además, manifiesta que existe un proceso reivindicatorio del señor Nombre115463 , que alega la posesión y la titularidad de las fincas 34528-000 y 30878-000. Según su teoría del caso, la tolerancia alegada, se configura como la causa de exoneración de responsabilidad de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, denominada culpa de la víctima. Alega además que no existe colindancia alguna con la finca de la actora, de conformidad con el plano catastrado G-623106-86. Rechaza además la existencia de bosque, en los términos de la Ley Forestal, en los terrenos propiedad de la actora. Para llevar a cabo el reconocimiento de cualquier indemnización bajo el esquema de responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración Pública, que contiene nuestra Ley General de la Administración Pública, en adelante LGAP, se hace necesario hacer un minucioso análisis de cada uno de sus componentes o elementos para verificar si existe o no responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración Pública. De esta manera se debe identificar la existencia del daño (196 LGAP), que debe ser efectivo, evaluable e individualizable (196 LGAP), a su vez la relación de causalidad entre dicho daño y el ente público o funcionario, si existen causas eximentes de responsabilidad que rompan el nexo de causalidad (190 LGAP), además de concretar la existencia de criterios de imputación, esto quiere decir que la conducta dañosa se produjo de forma lícita o ilícita, normal o anormal. En lo que respecta a la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y normal, por la especialidad del daño, requiere la existencia de una pequeña proporción de afectados y que la intensidad de dicha lesión sea excepcional. Bajo este esquema, la indemnización cubre el valor del daño, más no los perjuicios. Estos conceptos que componen el "daño especial", son los que se conocen en derecho como los conceptos jurídicos indeterminados, y serán los Juzgadores en cada caso que deberá darles contenido y determinar si el derecho subjetivo se desnaturalizó. Por otro lado, para abordar el análisis de la existencia de responsabilidad por conducta ilícita y anormal, que es la que alega la parte accionante, resulta medular determinar la existencia de una actuación de la Administración contraria al ordenamiento jurídico o a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia o de la técnica, respectivamente. Bajo esta causa de imputación el reconocimiento de los daños es pleno, ya que a diferencia de la anterior se reconocen los perjuicios. Al abordar el análisis del presente caso, dada la forma en la que se encuentran planteadas las pretensiones de la demanda, resulta fundamental tener acreditada la causa del daño, esto es, la invasión a los terrenos de la parte actora, por parte del ente territorial demandado, así como el depósito de basura en éstos. Para sustentar su teoría del caso, la sociedad accionante, ofreció al testigo perito Olman Alberto Barrantes Molina, para que hiciera referencia a los daños causados y su justipreciación, dicho profesional, es licenciado en economía ambiental, con énfasis en agroambiental. Manifestó que procedió a hacer la valoración de dos informes, uno hidrogeológico y otro levantamiento topográfico del área afectada. Explicó que por su profesión no puede determinar el daño, por ese motivo, con base en los estudios de hidrogeología de la señora Nombre115462 y el peritaje topográfico del señor Nombre115464 , llevó a cabo su valoración. De esa forma, con base en sus conclusiones estableció la forma de cambiar la situación del terreno y cuantificar el daño. Afirmó además, en relación con el estado de los terrenos, que ya se había producido la intervención del ser humano en éstos, como la extracción maderera y de materiales. No obstante, con posterioridad, ocurrió un proceso de reforestación natural del área afectada. Por este motivo, consideró que de cero a cien, el nivel de conservación era de un 80%, no obstante, con el depósito de los desechos, se llegó a un nivel de conservación de un 10%. Lo anterior porque ocurrió un cambio geomorfológico, se removió una loma, además, se subió el nivel de la basura. Dijo que había unos daños irreversibles, como los de la loma y otros reparables, con base en técnicas de la ingeniería. Explicó que la metodología para hacer el cálculo de la valoración del daño ambiental, tuvo en cuenta 4 componentes, que son el costo de recuperación y a la vez el establecimiento de una zona de amortiguamiento, entre el área afectada y el resto de la propiedad, que responde a un 2% de la valoración total. El otro componente obedece a la recomendación que dio el estudio geológico, que sugiere como medida de reparación, de llevar a cabo limpieza en el área y obras civiles y de ingeniería necesaria, para darle estabilidad al suelo y darle un uso alternativo a esta sección del terreno, que no puede ser otra distinta a la que tiene en el momento. De esa forma extraer los materiales de desecho, tratarlos y volver a colocar el suelo y darle una estabilidad adecuada para evitar otros efectos. Este componente representa el 90% del valor del daño ambiental que está reconociendo en su valoración. Afirmó que si los desechos hubiesen sido tratados de acuerdo con la normativa, este componente hubiera sido menor. Agregó que el otro componente de la metodología es un costo social, y por el no disfrute de las áreas afectadas. Añadió que su valoración obedece a una solución que le presenta un profesional. De esa forma, pueden existir otras soluciones, más baratas o más caras. Manifestó que su estudio no propone un plan reparador, sino el costo de volver el ambiente a la condición en que se encontraba, más cercana posible. El daño económico causado por la disposición de la basura es de $1.779.433,82. Enfatizó que ese monto corresponde al día de la visita, al día de hoy se deber valorar si la Municipalidad implementó algún mecanismo o mejora que cambie la situación. Explicó que la zona no es diversa desde el punto de vista ecológico, tampoco de un gran potencial agrícola. Le explicó además al Tribunal que no tenía conocimiento cuando fue adquirida la propiedad por la actora. Tampoco determinó el estado en que se encontraba la propiedad al momento de determinar el daño. Para hacer su valoración llevó a cabo una interpretación de fotografías aéreas de los años 1950 y 2000, así como unas de la NASA. También mencionó que tuvo en cuenta el estado en que se encontraban las otras áreas aledañas que no fueron afectadas (soporte audiovisual del juicio, disco 1, a partir de las 11:29:27, 22 de enero del 2013, folios 70 a 79 del expediente judicial). De igual modo, la sociedad accionante, ofreció a la señora Nombre115462 , geóloga, con una especialidad en hidrogeología, que se dedica a ser consultora privada, quien llevó a cabo un diagnóstico ambiental en las fincas propiedad de la parte actora. Lo anterior consiste en una valoración de las condiciones del ambiente que pudo observar. Explicó que valoró la parte geomorfológica, geológica y de aguas superficiales y subterráneas que son las más visibles en el ambiente. Nombre635 que para hacer el estudio visitó las fincas. Al observar el terreno, así como fotografías aéreas, puedo determinar que hubo cambios en la geomorfología de la finca. Mencionó que pudo verificar que una loma no estaba completa. Nombre635 que esta afectación geomorfológica responde a un daño si se hace sin permiso. Dichos cambios afectan el paisaje y son irreversibles. Agregó que encontró inestabilidad de taludes en el terreno, grietas y zanjas propias de un terreno inestable. Esta situación, mencionó, puede traer riesgos de deslizamientos. Dijo haber encontrado afectación a la capa rocosa, del sector afectado. De ese modo, la afectación al medio ambiente se presenta en virtud de la remoción del material de subsuelo, por ese motivo, ya no es posible volver a las condiciones originales en las que se encontraba el terreno. El efecto que se produce sobre las aguas subterráneas es que al quitar parte del subsuelo, hay menos distancia entre la corteza y el agua subterránea, de ese modo las bacterias llegarían más rápido al nivel freático, lo que depende del espesor de material que se haya removido. Fue clara en indicar que no se llevaron a cabo análisis para determinar si las aguas subterráneas se encontraban afectadas, ni la existencia de pozos o manantiales, ni en la finca, ni en las cercanías. Mencionó, en relación con las aguas superficiales, que en su visita observó una pequeña quebrada, llamada quebrada arenas, en la que encontró basura en el cauce de la quebrada, que es un drenaje natural. Explicó que probablemente la calidad del agua se vio afectada, pero no fue analizada. Indicó que no sabía hacia donde iban las aguas superficiales. Al contaminarse las aguas superficiales, éstas a su vez contaminan los ríos donde llegan , los cuales también afectan otros ríos donde llegan dichas aguas. Mencionó que hizo un plan de reparación y recuperación de la zona. Lo primero según manifestó es retirar la basura del sitio, estabilizar taludes con gaviones o vegetación adecuada. Recomendó además llevar a cabo muestreos semestralmente, para ver la evolución en la calidad de las aguas, esto por el efecto de los lixiviados, que son altamente contaminantes. Considera que se podría recuperar el estado inicial de las aguas. Mencionó también, que el tema de calidad de aguas es ajeno a sus conocimientos. Nombre635 que no pudo determinar el volumen de basura de las fincas. Agregó que si bien observó el área afectada, no la cuantificó. Manifestó que si bien se trata de un área pequeña, en relación con la finca, la afectación como tal existe. Explicó que un diagnóstico implica una visita de campo para observar y analizar. La composición del terreno es de rocas denominadas tobas de la formación de Liberia, el tipo de roca produce un suelo muy abundante. El suelo es la disgregación de la roca, por lo que es polvoroso y blanquecino. Mencionó que con la fotografía aérea pudo determinar que desde el año 2005 había disposición de desechos en la zona, de conformidad con la fotografía que consta a folio 96, por el color que se distingue. Manifestó a la vez, que no determinó la existencia de mantos acuíferos. Explicó que el daño en la geología se da por el uso de materiales en forma ilegal, al extraerlos sin permiso y la utilización del mismo, pues se removió para tratar de esconder la basura. Manifestó que no cuantificó el daño en las aguas superficiales, sus apreciaciones se basan en la visita que llevó a cabo (soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 14:08:46, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). A su vez, la parte actora ofreció el testimonio del señor Nombre115464 , quien le manifestó al Tribunal que midió los planos catastrados de las propiedades de la parte actora, así como el área invadida por la basura y dos años más tarde un lindero que colocó la Municipalidad, en el año 2010. Precisó que la primera medición la hizo en semana Santa del año 2008, definió los linderos de la finca porque existía una invasión en las propiedades de la actora, de unas personas que habían creado un plano para información posesoria, que traslapaba los planos que ya existían. Explicó que midió la totalidad de las fincas con los planos inscritos. Los linderos coincidían en la parte trasera y en la forma de la calle. Mencionó que logró determinar que la Municipalidad había ingresado en la propiedad de la parte actora. En su labor, pudo percibir la existencia de desechos sólidos en la propiedad de la parte actora. Agregó también, que en la finca de la sociedad demandante había trabajadores y buzos, así como camiones. En lo que respecta a los camiones, los vio a mediados del año 2010, en su tercera visita. En su segunda visita, se dedicó a medir el área invadida. Pudo observar en el área invadida que habían movido tierra para tapar la basura. Indicó que generó un plano que le daba 52170.14 m2 la invasión en los terrenos de la actora. Corroboró que elaboró el plano visible a folio 56 del expediente judicial (soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 15:56:52, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). Finalmente, la parte actora ofreció como testigo al señor Alexander Araya Zúñiga, quien ha fungido como asesor legal de la parte actora, afirmó que estuvo presente en una reunión con la Municipalidad de Liberia, aproximadamente 5 años atrás, que se dio a raíz del conocimiento que tenían de la invasión y depósito de basura en las propiedades de la sociedad demandante. En la reunión se encontraban además de él, el señor Augusto Otárola, Gestor Ambiental, David Walker y el representante de la sociedad propietaria de los inmuebles señor Nombre115461 . Según explicó, en la reunión manifestaron la preocupación por la gran cantidad de basura depositada en sus propiedades. En ese sentido, la Municipalidad indicó que fue por un asunto de urgencia que llevó a cabo el depósito. Agrega que pudo corroborar por las visitas que realizó en el sitio la existencia de la basura en las propiedades de la parte actora. En otra visita que realizó al sitio, pudo observar incluso los tractores dentro de la propiedad de la actora. Mencionó que envió una carta al señor Augusto de la Municipalidad para que dejaran de tirar basura. En otra carta, firmada por el señor Nombre115461 , le solicitó a la Municipalidad que dejara de tirar basura. Agregó que en la reunión en la que estuvo presente en ningún momento hubo consentimiento del señor Nombre115461 para que tiraran basura en su propiedad. El testigo reconoció a folio 58 del expediente judicial, la carta que envió a la Municipalidad, en la que exponían la situación del depósito de basura e invasión de la propiedad. En relación con esta carta, dijo que no recordaba haber recibido una respuesta formal de la Municipalidad. Recuerda haberse presentado en dos ocasiones y haberse reunido con la asesora legal, para indicar, de manera informal, que la actividad continuaba en los terrenos de la empresa actora (soporte digital, a partir de las 16:30:50, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). La parte demandada, para sustentar su teoría del caso ofreció solicitó la declaración, del señor Nombre115461 , quien compareció como testigo y explicó que cuando conocieron de la situación en las propiedades de su representada, la persona que llevó a cabo el estudio, les indicó que 5 años atrás estaban depositando basura. Explicó que a principios del año 2008, se enteró de la situación y por ese motivo se presentó con su abogado, el licenciado Alex Araya en la Municipalidad de Liberia. Conversaron con un funcionario de nombre Nombre20997 y con el Alcalde. Recuerda haberse presentado en la Municipalidad unas tres veces, además su abogado se apersonó a la Municipalidad en otras ocasiones, para que detuvieran el asunto. Explicó que su abogado de forma verbal y escrita presentó solicitudes para que detuvieran la actividad de tirar basura en las propiedades de su representada. Explicó que cuando se presentó en la Municipalidad su intención era de detener lo que estaba haciendo la Municipalidad. Al respecto mencionó que fue claro en manifestar que no quería que depositaran la basura en su propiedad (soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 16:54:52, disco 1, 22 de enero del 2013). Compareció también el señor Renán Alonso Zamora Álvarez , ofrecido por la parte demandada, quien es funcionario de la Municipalidad de Liberia, Nombre635 que cuando ingresó la entidad territorial, ésta se encontraba depositando desechos sólidos en una propiedad aledaña, con motivo de una orden del Tribunal Ambiental, por lo que empezó a tirar los desechos en un lugar distinto al que había sido clausurado. Esto ocurrió, según indicó, a principios del año 2008. Indicó que escuchó a otras personas mencionar que se habían reunido con Nombre115461. Nombre635 que tuvo conocimiento de la negativa del señor Nombre115461 de que no se depositaran desechos sólidos hasta que presentó la demanda. Nombre635 que después de la denuncia, la parte actora contrató guardas. Hizo referencia a que los límites entre las propiedades no eran claros. Mencionó que el dueño anterior a la sociedad actora, tuvo la intención de donar una parte del terreno, pero esto nunca se llegó a concretar. Por ese motivo se creía que donde estaban tirando los desechos era propiedad de la Municipalidad. Mencionó además que la demandante tenía un conflicto con otra persona sobre la propiedad. Por ese motivo, según su criterio, no era claro para la Municipalidad cuál era su propiedad. Al testigo se le mostró el folio 59 del expediente judicial, que es el oficio UGAML-64-05-2008, del 22 de mayo del 2008, al respecto mencionó que probablemente conoció ese documento. A la vez Nombre635 que no recordaba haberle dado respuesta al documento. Tampoco recordaba haber trasladado a otro funcionario el documento para que lo contestara. Mencionó no recordar haber visto la orden sanitaria visible a folio 109 del expediente judicial (soporte digital del juicio, a partir de las 8:47:12 , disco 1, 23 de enero del 2013). Compareció también el señor Nombre23565 , quien es geógrafo municipal, le indicó al Tribunal que de acuerdo con un oficio del geógrafo Marco Garro, quien labora en la Municipalidad, determinó con un GPS un área de afectación de 2.5 hectáreas aproximadamente, en la propiedad de la parte actora. Dicho informe se encuentra visible a folios 329 a 331 del expediente judicial. De igual modo, explicó que existe un levantamiento a folio 770, que se relaciona con el oficio mencionado anteriormente. Mencionó que ha sido muy complicado delimitar los linderos de la propiedad, por ese motivo se hizo el replanteamiento de los límites y el levantamiento a folio 770 delimita el área afectada (soporte audiovisual, a partir de las 10:04:41, disco 1, 23 de enero del 2013). Finalmente, la entidad municipal ofreció la declaración del señor Augusto Otárola Guerrero, quien reconoció el documento visible de folio 261 a 262 del expediente judicial, oficio UGAML-003-01-2010, mediante el cual emitió su criterio en relación con la evaluación económica del ingeniero Olman Barrantes Molina. En relación con la pericia del señor Barrantes Molina, criticó el hecho de que indicara que en el lugar existe bosque, pues lo que en la zona existe es ignimbrita. Según sus consideraciones, se trata de terrenos marginales, que ni siquiera sirven para ganado. Explicó que en el lugar no crecen árboles, porque el terreno es árido. Cuestionó además la metodología para hacer la valoración económica del daño ambiental, al efecto consideró que la metodología que utilizó el señor Barrantes no es oficial. Según su criterio existe sobrevaloración del daño ambiental. Mencionó además, que la Municipalidad por los proyectos que ha desarrollado ha permitido que las propiedades de la zona tengan algún valor. Según manifestó, los suelos no son permeables, por lo que es difícil que se contamine el subsuelo. Cuestiona además que no se llevaron a cabo perforaciones para determinar esa contaminación. Nombre635 que es incierta la existencia de mantos acuíferos en la zona, para determinarlo, se requiere hacer más pruebas. Mencionó que el relleno sanitario municipal recibe desechos hospitalarios, que se esterilizan en autoclaves. En lo que respecta a otro tipo, como fetos u órganos, se depositan en fosas en Liberia. Mencionó que la Municipalidad de Liberia utilizó las propiedades del actor en virtud de que se creía que eran de su propiedad, relacionada con una donación y una disputa de tierras entre el actor y otro señor de apellido Nombre115463. A lo anterior le suma la situación de emergencia y la falta de demarcación de los linderos. Por ese motivo depositaron desechos en las propiedades del actor. Afirmó que en una reunión en la que estuvo presente, con el señor Nombre115461 , su abogado y el alcalde Carlos Marín, se discutió sobre la posibilidad de sacar provecho a la situación. Según indicó, el señor Nombre115461 les concedió un tiempo para seguir depositando la basura. Mencionó que tenía guardas armados y éstos consentían que ingresara la basura, sin embargo, después de la demanda, ya no permitían hacerlo más. Por otro lado, cuestionó el informe de la señora Nombre115462 , por no hacer mediciones concretas o tomar medidas de las supuestas afectaciones (soporte audiovisual, a partir de las 12:01:09, disco 1, 23 de enero del 2013). Finalmente, compareció el ingeniero Moisés Arias Sancho, de la Sección de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial, solicitado para mejor resolver por el Tribunal, explicó que la metodología utilizada fue de mediciones satelitales a la constelación GPS, proceso topográfico de alta exactitud, similares a la del equipo convencional, se utilizó esta metodología por tratarse de terrenos bastante amplios, con los puntos de interés señalados por ambas partes. Nombre635 que las propiedades son colindantes, no existía una división de la propiedad de la actora hacia su colindante norte, hacia su colindante sur, sí existía división, por encontrarse una confluencia de quebradas, la zopilota y otra que no recuerda el nombre. Se tomaron puntos de interés, principalmente de esas quebradas al no existir una delimitación de cercas vivas, la única delimitación contundente en el sitio, son las quebradas y la calle principal. Se tomó en primera instancia todo lo relacionado con la parte actora y luego con la Municipalidad. El ente territorial tiene un replanteo, que no está completo, que se establece con postes de cemento únicamente. Agregó que con la información de campo, en su oficina procesó los datos, con software especializado para la medición de datos y se hizo la constatación con los planos catastrados de las propiedades. Lo anterior, según explicó lo llevó a concluir que las propiedades registralmente están delimitadas, pero en el campo se encuentra pegadas una de la otra. La propiedad ubicada al norte no presenta delimitación física, en esa parte no existían puntos de interés. Sin embargo, había puntos de interés importantes como lo son las quebradas, ya que por tener grandes extensiones, las quebradas limitan bastante bien las propiedades. Otra conclusión a la que llegó, es que si bien estas propiedades están delimitadas por planos catastrados de reciente data, siguen aplicando los planos anteriores, de 1972, sin embargo, los del 2008 representan muy bien lo que el plano del año 1972 indica, con excepción del plano que se le segregó a la Municipalidad de Liberia para poder realizar el relleno. La otra parte de sus conclusiones se refiere al área de afectación de la parte actora. Al respecto explicó que en las propiedades de la accionante, hicieron excavaciones de unos 50 centímetros, para poder observar los desechos sólidos. En relación con su levantamiento, visible a folio 900 del expediente judicial, mencionó que lo que se ve en verde y rojo, son los límites de los planos de 1972, correspondientes a las propiedades de la parte actora. La figura con contornos azules es el plano de la Municipalidad de Liberia. Las áreas de achurado color morado, corresponden a las zonas afectadas por los desechos sólidos, las zonas se encuentran afectadas por el movimiento de tierra. Para determinar las zonas afectadas, se buscó el contorno y se realizaron excavaciones de 50 o 40 centímetros para ver el depósito de materiales, al igual que movimientos de tierra realizados para tal fin. Mencionó que la suma de las áreas afectadas es de 6 hectáreas aproximadamente, agregó además, que su informe indica el área afectada total y por finca. Explicó que técnicamente todos los planos contienen información jurídica y verídica y se plasma en las propiedades, no obstante, Nombre635 que el plano del año 1972, se segregó la propiedad que se le dio a la Municipalidad de Liberia, eso sí se ve representado en los planos del año 2008. Los planos de 1972 y 2008, presentan las mismas áreas, los mismos colindantes, no existe gran diferencia, salvo el área segregada a la Municipalidad. Nombre635 que el traslape alegado es lógico, en virtud de la segregación del plano del año 1972, pues proviene de la finca de la parte actora. Mencionó que el tema de la ubicación de las propiedades, con incidencia en la magnitud del daño, es un asunto que obedece al replanteo que llevó a cabo la Municipalidad de Liberia, que se encuentra dibujado con círculos y señalado su levantamiento. Mencionó que cuando fue al campo, solamente ese sector estaba replanteado, el resto estaba eliminado, porque se trata de una zona conflictiva. La línea replanteada, según indicó, es la que tiene una diferencia con el plano catastrado que representa esa propiedad. La situación del traslape puede provenir del aspecto físico, pero no de los planos catastrados. Agregó que el replanteo no es concordante con los planos catastrados. La línea de postes no se asemeja al plano catastrado. Si bien no existen linderos, el límite suroeste es coincidente con el plano catastrado, lo que se sale del esquema es la línea replanteada. Explicó además, que técnicamente resulta imposible tomar en cuenta el replanteo para ubicar el plano de la Municipalidad, pues no es coincidente con los elementos de las líneas que delimitan. Explicó además que traslape es la sobre posición de una finca con otra, en el caso concreto existe un traslape del plano de la propiedad de 1986 con el de 1972. Enfatizó que no se debe mal interpretar ese traslape como una usurpación, porque se debe a la segregación de la finca en ese momento. El traslape no tiene ningún efecto, porque proviene de la segregación del terreno que luego se le dio a la Municipalidad, no tiene efecto en la actualidad. Manifestó, que al momento en el que se segrega la propiedad y se levantan los planos el traslape deja de existir. En relación con los planos explicó que si bien el del año 2008 contiene los cambios operados con la segregación no aparece asociado al folio real, pues el que se encuentra relacionado es el del año 1972. Al restar lo que fue segregado a la Municipalidad lo que aparece en el plano del año 1972, es coincidente con lo que indica el plano del año 2008. En lo que respecta a la otra finca, se mantiene intacta, porque la segregación no salió de ella. Explicó además que un replanteo lo que implica es tener datos en oficina y plasmarlos en el campo, en ese caso en particular, la Municipalidad tenía un plano que no existía una delimitación en el campo, lo que hizo fue colocarlos en el campo. Afirmó que desde el punto de vista técnico no estaba de acuerdo con el replanteo que hizo la Municipalidad de Liberia, porque tomó otros elementos a nivel global de la propiedad, como la calle y el límite sur de la propiedad de la municipalidad. Según indicó, el replanteo no generó ningún tipo de inscripción en el catastro, ni en el Registro Público. En el replanteo se trabaja a la inversa, pues primero se ve el campo y luego el catastro. Explicó que los planos de 1986 y 2008 tienen vigencia. Nombre635 que al final, el traslape termina siendo una segregación y no una usurpación. Explicó que la zona afectada es la que sufrió movimientos de tierra y depósito de desechos sólidos (soporte digital, a partir de las 9:06:25, disco 2, 7 de enero del 2014). De conformidad con los hechos que se han tenido acreditados en esta causa, para el Tribunal no existe duda alguna, que en el caso de marras se ha configurado la responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración que regula la Ley General de la Administración Pública, a partir del artículo 190. Todos y cada uno de los elementos que componen este esquema se han allegado a los autos, por medio de la prueba que ha sido evacuada. En primer término, se ha probado que la Municipalidad de Liberia causó un daño, en las propiedades que responden a los números de folio real del Partido de Guanacaste 30878-000 y 34528-000, propiedad de la parte accionante. La conducta que produjo el menoscabo, fue precisamente el depósito de desechos sólidos en las fincas de la demandante, sin que existiera permiso, autorización o consentimiento de su parte. Dicho daño afectó 25.518 metros cuadrados de la primera y 43.651 metros cuadrados en la segunda. Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico en su cúspide, en el artículo 45, dispone la inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada. De esa forma, la conducta encaminada a tirar basura en las fincas aledañas al vertedero municipal, se configura en una afectación a un derecho fundamental, garantizado, como se expuso anteriormente, por la Constitución Política. Por otro lado, la Carta Política en sus artículos 21 y 50, protegen el derecho a la salud y a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El hecho, de depositar basura en una propiedad privada, implica afectación a éstos derechos de rango constitucional, suficiente para configurar la conducta ilícita y anormal que dispone la Ley General de la Administración Pública como criterio de imputación . A lo anterior, se debe agregar el hecho de que el depósito de los materiales de desecho se llevó a cabo sin tratamiento alguno, lo cual agrava la ilicitud y anormalidad de la presente causa, por el impacto que esto genera en el ambiente. Por otra parte, existe un nexo causal entre esta conducta ilícita y anormal y el daño, que también se han acreditado en la causa. Esto por cuanto la Municipalidad en su teoría del caso, que ha expuesto a través del proceso, nunca ha negado este hecho, de haber depositado la basura en las fincas aledañas a su propiedad, utilizada como depósito de desechos sólidos municipal. Su discusión, se centra, como se verá más adelante, en la magnitud del daño. De esa forma, una vez determinado el daño, la conducta que lo produjo, el criterio de imputación, así como el nexo causal, la obligación de reparar, como motivo de la responsabilidad objetiva de los artículos 190 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, resultan inminentes. Así planteadas las cosas, la Municipalidad de Liberia se encuentra en la obligación de reparar el daño causado, junto con los perjuicios. Lo anterior en virtud de que ninguna persona está obligada a soportar lesiones jurídicas en su esfera patrimonial o extra patrimonial, como sucedió en el caso de la parte demandante. La entidad territorial demandada, ha venido a alegar, como causa eximente de responsabilidad varios supuestos, que resultan inaceptables para ésta Cámara, de conformidad con lo que dispone la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En primer término alega una situación de urgencia, tema que desde el escrito de contestación de demanda ha expuesto, de igual modo fue un tema que reiteraron sus testigos. En primer término, por virtud del artículo 190 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública no es una causal que permita romper el nexo causal de responsabilidad. Por otro lado, tampoco es excusa para justificar la conducta que ha desplegado la Municipalidad de Liberia. Resulta reprochable, desde el punto de vista de la responsabilidad objetiva que la Municipalidad demandada utilice los principios de Nombre40855, conocidos como los del servicio público, para justificar, en la continuidad, su conducta de depositar basura en propiedad ajena. Este argumento resulta a todas luces contrario al esquema de responsabilidad objetiva y a los mismos principios del servicio público, ya que no se puede legitimar una conducta de tal magnitud que afecte derechos fundamentales, que se protegen a nivel constitucional como es la propiedad privada, el medio ambiente sano y la salud pública. Por el contrario, la conducta desplegada por la Municipalidad no sólo genera responsabilidad patrimonial, pues no estarían exentos sus funcionarios de la penal, patrimonial y administrativa. Por otro lado, la parte demandada ha venido a exponer, como causal eximente, la que ha calificado como culpa de la víctima, una supuesta aceptación de la parte actora para que depositaran en su propiedad desechos sólidos. Sobre el particular, se debe tener presente que la Municipalidad de Liberia no ha negado en ningún momento que no haya depositado los desechos fuera de los límites del relleno sanitario, dado que se ha excusado en la urgente necesidad en la que se encontró. De ese modo, existió desde el inicio, una decisión unilateral de su parte. Pese a lo anterior, en su teoría del caso y a través de sus testigos ha tratado de darle a esa decisión unilateral inicial un matiz de consenso, que el Tribunal no encuentra y le parece incongruente, de acuerdo con la prueba que ha sido evacuada en esta sede. En primer término, se tiene acreditado que una vez que el representante de la parte actora tuvo conocimiento de la situación a principios del año 2008, señor Nombre115461 , en compañía de su abogado, el licenciado Alexander Araya Zúñiga, se reunió con representantes de la Municipalidad para manifestar su preocupación por la gran cantidad de basura depositada en sus propiedades. En esa ocasión les indicó que no quería que depositaran la basura en su propiedad. Posteriormente, el 21 de mayo del 2008, el licenciado Alexander Araya, en su condición de abogado de la parte actora, dirigió nota al señor Augusto Otárola, Gestor Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Liberia, de la cual se desprende con claridad el desacuerdo con la conducta del ente territorial. La Municipalidad ha pretendido demostrar a través de sus testigos Renán Zamora Álvarez y Augusto Otárola Guerrero, la existencia de una supuesta reunión en la que el representante de la parte actora consintió el depósito de desechos sólidos. Ninguno de estos testigos le merecen credibilidad al Tribunal, en virtud de que ambos son funcionarios directamente involucrados en el caso, que les podría generar algún tipo de responsabilidad. Por ese motivo, sus manifestaciones podrían estar encaminadas a resguardar un interés personal. A la vez, en el interrogatorio que llevó a cabo la representante de la Municipalidad, en una primera línea el señor Zamora Álvarez indicó, en relación con el supuesto consentimiento del representante de la actora, que escuchó a otras personas mencionar que se habían reunido con él y que había dado permiso. Nombre635 además, que tuvo conocimiento de la negativa del señor Nombre115461 de que no se depositaran desechos sólidos hasta que presentó la demanda. Pese a lo anterior, en el contra interrogatorio, el abogado de la parte actora le mostró al señor Zamora, el documento visible a folio 59 del expediente judicial, en el que el Gestor ambiental le trasladaba, mediante oficio UGAML-64-05-2008, del 22 de mayo del año 2008, la atención del oficio del Licenciado Alexander Araya, abogado de la parte actora en ese momento, en relación con los desechos sólidos. Lo anterior evidencia una gran contradicción en su testimonio, pues no es cierto que tuvo conocimiento de la negativa hasta que fue presentada la demanda, ya que de acuerdo con el oficio que recibió, se le puso en conocimiento la situación que estaba planteando el señor Nombre115461 en sede administrativa. Por lo expuesto, no es de recibo la supuesta eximente de responsabilidad alegada. Por otro lado, otro de los ejes de la teoría del caso de la parte demandada se ha enfocado a aspectos relacionados con la topografía y ubicación de los inmuebles. En la contestación de la demanda, la Municipalidad afirmó que no era cierto que las propiedades de la actora colindaran con el terreno municipal. En ese sentido, sus testigos manifestaron que se había tirado basura en una propiedad aledaña, sin embargo, nunca manifestaron de forma expresa, que esa propiedad aledaña era la de la parte actora. De la prueba que ha sido evacuada, que se ha tenido acreditada en el elenco probatorio, concretamente, el informe de la Sección de Ingeniería Forense del Poder Judicial, del perito judicial Moisés Sancho Arias, esta duda ha sido despejada totalmente, no sólo con las explicaciones que llevó a cabo, producto de su visita al sitio, sino con el levantamiento que realizó, así como el análisis de los distintos planos que han estado en discusión, se ha logrado acreditar que el terreno de la Municipalidad limita con la finca matrícula Placa21674 de la parte actora. Por otro lado, de conformidad con un documento, visible a folio 329 al 331 del expediente judicial, del geógrafo Marco Garro, el levantamiento que se encuentra a folio 770, así como la declaración del señor Nombre23565 , la Municipalidad reconocía la existencia únicamente de una hectárea como área invadida, en virtud de un replanteamiento de los linderos de su terreno, que incidía directamente en la colocación de los planos y consecuentemente en la magnitud del daño. Esta prueba contradecía la que aportó la parte actora en relación con el aspecto de la extensión del daño alegado. Por ese motivo, se solicitó la prueba para mejor resolver, ante la duda que surgió en relación con los planos que aparecían inscritos registralmente del año 1972 y a los que hacían referencia ambas partes, de los años 1986 y 2008, así como por la diferencia de cabidas que existía entre unos y otros. De acuerdo con la prueba evacuada, el Tribunal pudo constatar, que entre las fincas bajo el folio real n.º Placa21674 y n.º Placa21679, propiedad de la actora y demandada, respectivamente, no existen un traslape entendido como usurpación, sino que es producto de la segregación que se produjo del terreno de la Municipalidad. Lo anterior en virtud de que al día de hoy la finca bajo número 30878-000, se encuentra registralmente asociada al plano G-0003427-1972, que no contiene la segregación del lote propiedad de la Municipalidad n.º 56577-000. Dicho traslape que se presenta a nivel de planos no tiene incidencia alguna en la magnitud del daño de las áreas afectadas en la propiedad de la parte accionante, que ha sido determinado. Por lo expuesto, los alegatos que ha presentado la entidad demandada no son de recibo en esta sede, que permitan eximirla de la responsabilidad. Establecida la obligación de reparar y analizados los argumentos de la parte demandada como teoría del caso, para refutar la demanda los cuales no son de recibo, como se explicó anteriormente, lo procedente es llevar a cabo el análisis de las pretensiones de la parte accionante, que se refieren a la reparación del daño. En lo que respecta a la reparación del daño ambiental, pretensión que sustenta la parte actora en el informe del señor Barrantes Molina, quien llevó a cabo esa valoración, al aplicar las reglas de la sana crítica racional, le surgen algunas dudas al Tribunal (soporte audiovisual del juicio, a partir de las 12:17:16 del primer disco). En primer término, tal y como se reseñó supra, el señor Barrantes fue claro en indicar que con motivo de su profesión, no determinó el daño, solamente hizo su valoración, con base en los informes de la señora Nombre115462 y Nombre115464 . Por otro lado, mencionó que se hizo presente al lugar una vez, cuando los daños se habían producido, motivo por el cual, no pudo determinar la condición en la que se encontraba con anterioridad el área afectada, ni al momento en el que la parte actora adquirió las propiedades. Para calcular el daño, se basó en fotografías aéreas del año 1950, 2000 y de la NASA del año 2005, así como su interpretación. Tuvo en cuenta además el estado de las otras áreas de la propiedad. Al contrastar estas explicaciones del señor Barrantes, con los requerimientos de la zona de amortiguamiento, visibles a folio 75 del expediente judicial, se contabilizan allí 5.000 árboles, así como insumos para su siembra y mano de obra. Pese a lo anterior, no existe prueba en los autos de que esta cantidad de árboles se encontraban al momento en el que la parte actora adquirió los terrenos objeto de litis. Por otra parte, el señor Barrantes Nombre635 que utilizó como parámetro el estado en el que se encontraban las áreas aledañas, no afectadas, no obstante, no se ha demostrado en esta causa la cantidad de árboles por metro cuadrado que se encontraban en la superficie de estas áreas utilizadas como parámetro. Tampoco se precisa la especie de árbol que supuestamente había crecido en el proceso de regeneración indicado. Si bien el señor Barrantes explicó que el bosque que regenera en esa zona no se puede comparar al de Monteverde, como ejemplo, no fue preciso en indicar el tipo de bosque y ecosistema que allí se desarrolla, para poder determinar el tipo de especies de árboles y plantas que se deben sembrar y su costo específico, para poder restaurar el sitio. De ese modo, la valoración del daño ambiental, para el Tribunal resulta confusa e incongruente. En segundo término, el señor Barrantes mencionó, que otro de los componentes de la metodología, al que le asignó un valor, es a lo social, no obstante, no es claro este rubro, pues se trata de una propiedad privada, que no se ha demostrado cumpla alguna función social, que afecte de manera directa a un conglomerado social específico, para que se establezca un monto a resarcir. En tercer lugar, el señor Barrantes fue enfático en indicar que su valoración corresponde al día de la visita, por lo que puede cambiar en el tiempo. Así planteadas las cosas, si el plan se aprueba en este momento, como lo solicita la parte actora, al momento en el que se ejecute, otra situación podría presentarse. Por ese motivo, no resultaría apropiado aprobar la valoración como lo solicita la parte actora, si se tiene en cuenta, incluso, de acuerdo con la pericia rendida por el perito de la Sección de Ingeniería Forense que el área afectada es mayor. De conformidad con lo expuesto, a esta Cámara le resulta imposible acceder a la pretensión número seis, de la demanda, que consiste en aprobar el plan de reparación, que se sustenta en el informe del señor Barrantes, así como la suma allí determinada. Por otra parte, resulta importante hacer una consideración en relación con el informe de la señora Nombre115462 , que intenta demostrar la afectación del terreno en su geomorfología, que comprende la supuesta desaparición de una loma, así como la afectación a las aguas superficiales y subterráneas. Si bien la señora Nombre115462 manifestó en el juicio oral y público, que realizó un diagnostico del daño causado por el depósito de desechos sólidos, para el Tribunal no es preciso en cuanto al tema de la afectación geomorfológica, en la desaparición de la loma y la afectación a las aguas superficiales y subterránteas. En estos aspectos, si bien los menciona, su informe resulta incompleto, pues no llevó a cabo otras pruebas o estudios para determinar con certeza la existencia de este tipo de aguas. Tampoco ubicó la loma su extensión y afectación con la precisión requerida. S us afirmaciones en el juicio oral y público, al respecto se basaron en meras suposiciones, pues expresamente indicó no haber llevado a cabo pruebas específicas. En lo que respecta a las aguas superficiales, llama la atención que únicamente hizo referencia a la quebrada arena, no obstante no indicó si existían otras que se encontraran afectadas, pues el Ingeniero Moisés Arias mencionó la existencia de otra quebrada, como la Zopilota.Tampoco determinó la señora Nombre115462, cómo se encontraban éstas aguas antes de que ocurriera el evento dañoso. En lo que respecta a la supuesta loma, si bien Nombre635 que había desaparecido, no pudo precisar sus dimensiones y ubicación. Lo anterior, no implica que el Tribunal desconozca la posible existencia de estas consecuencias como producto del depósito de desechos sólidos y que configurarían los efectos y magnitud del daño, por parte de la Municipalidad en las propiedades de la parte actora. Tampoco desconoce el Órgano Colegiado que deba ser reparado, ya que es la consecuencia ineludible de una determinación de responsabilidad. El tema de fondo al respecto, es la forma o cómo debe llevarse a cabo su reparación, dado que, como se explicó supra, las consecuencias de este daño y su forma de reparación no están debidamente acreditadas. Por ese motivo, el Tribunal no encuentra en este momento la manera de determinar esos alcances y cómo debe ser reparado. El depósito de basura en las propiedades de la parte actora, genera un daño adicional, evidenciado por el informe pericial del Ingeniero Moisés Arias, que incluso se determinó su extensión y ubicación. Pese a lo anterior, el impacto al medio ambiente y su magnitud no se encuentran debidamente acreditados. Por esa razón, de conformidad con el artículo 122 inciso m) iii) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se deja para la fase de ejecución de sentencia la determinación de las consecuencias que generó el depósito de desechos sólidos en las propiedades de la parte actora, así como la forma en la que se debe llevar a cabo su reparación, todo esto sujeto a la prueba que en esa sede lo demuestre. Por otra parte, en relación con la pretensión de la parte actora, relativa al cese de la conducta municipal, de depositar basura e incursionar en sus propiedades, se debe tener presente, de conformidad con lo que disponen los artículo 126, 158 y 159 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, que por lo anormal y antijurídico de esta conducta, tal y como ha sido expuesto, la entidad territorial debe acabar inmediata y definitivamente con ese proceder. Al respecto, se debe tener presente que dentro de esta causa, la parte actora presentó solicitud de medida cautelar prima facie, para que se ordenara al ente territorial demandado abstenerse de depositar desechos sólidos en las fincas de su propiedad. Por ese motivo, el día 3 de junio del 2010, el Juez de la etapa de trámite , mediante sentencia 2126-2010, declaró con lugar la medida cautelar solicitada por la parte actora, dicha sentencia fue confirmada por el Tribunal de Apelaciones, el día 29 de julio de 2010. Por ese motivo desde esa fecha se ordenó por la vía cautelar el cese de la conducta. No obstante, para efectos del dictado de la sentencia de fondo, que resuelve en definitiva el proceso, debe la Municipalidad de Liberia abstenerse de realizar cualquier conducta encaminada a tirar desechos en las propiedades de la accionante, así como incursionar en sus propiedades. En caso de que esta orden no sea acatada, producirá responsabilidad penal, disciplinaria y civil, de cualquier funcionario municipal y del Alcalde. Por otra parte, solicita la parte actora el reconocimiento del valor venal de la propiedad, como daño emergente, no obstante, por la forma en la que se han atendido las pretensiones en esta sentencia, al reconocerse la reparación integral del daño causado a las propiedades, con motivo del depósito de desechos sólidos, resulta incompatible reconocer el pago del valor venal de la propiedad, pues existe condenatoria para que se repare en forma integral el daño causado. De ese modo, lo procedente es reconocer la pérdida del valor de las propiedades de la accionante, por las áreas afectadas y no por el valor venal, como lo solicitó la parte accionante, pues ésta última resulta excluyente de la reparación integral del daño. Finalmente, en lo que respecta a la pretensión del daño emergente por la pérdida temporal de la posesión de las fincas de la actora, considera el Tribunal que es procedente, dado que este daño es consecuencia del depósito de desechos sólidos en su terreno, por ese motivo debe reconocerse en la fase de ejecución de sentencia, con el auxilio de la prueba pericial que resulte necesaria para tal efecto.

IX.-SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES. Este Tribunal considera que debe rechazarse la excepción de prescripción y caducidad, de conformidad con el considerando I de esta resolución. De igual modo debe rechazarse la excepción de falta de derecho, interpuesta por la Municipalidad de Liberia, de conformidad con lo expuesto en el considerando VIII de la presente resolución, como consecuencia de lo expuesto, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda en contra de la Municipalidad de Liberia interpuesta por Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. En lo que respecta a la excepción de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva, interpuesta por la demandada, en virtud de que la legitimación es la aptitud para ser parte dentro de un proceso contencioso administrativo concreto, que se obtiene únicamente cuando se encuentre en una relación determinada con el objeto del proceso. El CPCA en el artículo 10 establece quienes pueden ser accionantes en esta sede, en igual sentido en el artículo 12 en sus ocho incisos dispone una amplia gama de situaciones en las cuales se considerará como demandada a una persona dentro de un proceso. En la especie, la parte actora dirige sus pretensiones en contra de la Municipalidad de Liberia, al atribuirle una responsabilidad por depositar desechos sólidos en su propiedad. Lo anterior es suficiente para considerar a la Municipalidad como la parte pasiva de este proceso y a la sociedad anónima, con la necesaria legitimación para ser la parte activa de la relación jurídica procesal.

X.-SOBRE LAS COSTAS. Al no encontrarse ninguna de las causales que puedan eximir a la Municipalidad de Liberia del pago de las costas, que establece el artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se le condena el pago de ambas costas a favor de la parte actora.

POR TANTO

Se rechazan las excepciones de prescripción , caducidad, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho, en consecuencia se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda interpuesta por Los Tres Inversionistas S.A. en contra de la Municipalidad de Liberia. En lo no indicado expresamente, entiéndase rechazado. 1) Se ordena a la Municipalidad de Liberia cesar en forma total, definitiva e inmediata cualquier conducta encaminada a depositar basura en las fincas del Partido de Guanacaste, propiedad de la actora, matrículas de folio real Placa21674 y Placa21675. De igual modo, debe abstenerse de incursionar en dichos inmuebles. La desatención de esta orden hará incurrir en responsabilidad penal, administrativa o civil al funcionario municipal que desobedezca o a su Alcalde. 2) Se ordena a la Municipalidad de Liberia, desarrollar una amplia labor de limpieza de los lugares afectados por el depósito de desechos sólidos en las propiedades de la parte actora, que responden a los números de fina Placa21674 y Placa21675, ambas del Partido de Guanacaste, que comprenden las áreas de 25.518 metros cuadrados y 43.651 metros cuadrados respectivamente. Esta labor implica eliminar los desechos del lugar y su tratamiento adecuado, conforme las reglas técnicas y jurídicas que eliminen o mitiguen el daño causado. 3) Se ordena a la Municipalidad de Liberia reparar el daño ambiental causado, cuya magnitud e impacto deberá determinarse en ejecución de sentencia. 4) Se condena a la Municipalidad de Libera a pagar a la parte actora la pérdida del valor por las áreas afectadas, de las fincas inscritas en el Partido de Guanacaste, folio real 30878-000 y 34528-000, propiedad de la parte actora, lo cual se hará en la fase de ejecución de sentencia, con el auxilio de un perito. 5 ) Se condena a la Municipalidad de Liberia a indemnizar a la parte actora el daño emergente por la pérdida temporal de posesión de las fincas inscritas en el Partido de Guanacaste, folio real 30878-000 y 34528-000, propiedad de la parte actora, lo cual se hará en la fase de ejecución de sentencia, con el auxilio de un perito. 6 ) Se ordena devolver a la parte actora la suma de ¢500.000 quinientos mil colones, que responde al depósito que hiciera de los honorarios del perito. 7 ) Se condena a la Municipalidad de Liberia el pago de ambas costas a favor de la parte actora. NOTIFÍQUESE.- Sergio Mena García Ana Isabel Vargas Vargas Ileana Sánchez Navarro 3