Denial of municipal visado in Barba Volcano inalienable zoneRechazo de visado municipal en zona inalienable del Volcán Barba

Improper-hierarchy municipal appeal Nombre104433 Dirección3985/ N° 33-2015 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at eleven hours fifteen minutes on January thirtieth, two thousand fifteen.

This Tribunal hears, as improper hierarch, the appeal filed by Nombre104433 , who is of legal age, divorced, identity card CED80800, represented by her special judicial attorney, Licda. María del Carmen Calvo Monney, identity card CED80801, against the resolution of the Mayor of San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of 10:00 hours on October 17, 2013.

Judge Solano Ulloa authors the opinion, and:

CONSIDERING:

I.- Proven Facts. For a correct resolution of this matter, the following is deemed proven: 1) The property with registration number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18125, located in Los Angeles de San Rafael de Heredia, originated from the consolidation (reunión) of seventeen contiguous lots carried out on February 25, 1969, by its owner, Mr. Nombre104434 , identity card CED80802. The chain of title (antecedentes de dominio) for those seventeen lots indicates that they were private property since before 1888 (see copy of National Registry volumes at folios 46 and 47, certification by notary public María del Carmen Calvo Monney, visible at folios 73 to 77 of the challenge file); 2) The previous property was subject to a segregation into the owner's own name (segregación en cabeza propia), by Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., through a deed granted before Notary Anuncio Cerdas Fernández and submitted to the National Registry on August 9, 1976, giving rise to the property with registration number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18126, with an area of 5700m2, forest and pasture land, which was crossed by the Quebrada Monge. According to registry entry 1 of property No. 80616, recorded at folio 473 of volume 2415 of the Heredia Registry of the Real Property Registry, this subdivision (fraccionamiento) was authorized by agreement of the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, taken in article 2 of session No. 113 on November 10, 1975, as well as by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, on April 27 of that same year (folio 38 of the appeal file); 3) Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. initiated a subdivision (fraccionamiento) project for urban purposes, which it named "Residencial El Monte 'El Tirol'", whose plans were approved by the Urban Planning Directorate of the INVU on November 23, 1978. That project originally consisted of the segregation of 288 lots, with the exception of a part of the northern sector of the development, specifically where the Quebrada Monge crosses, which was reserved as an undivided green zone, corresponding to property 80616 (plan at folio 346 of the development file); 4) Property No. 80616 was segregated into the owner's own name (segregada en cabeza propia), by Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., giving rise to the real property with registered folio real number No. Placa18127 of the Heredia Registry, with an area of 1613.74 m2, lot 16-F, for which cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. H-0479163-1982 was drawn up, on which the existence of the Quebrada Monge is no longer graphically represented and which lacks the municipal approval (visado municipal). Said lot was registered on December 1, 1981, as "forest pasture land lot 16-F" (real property folio visible at folio 69 of the challenge file); 5) At the request of the Municipal Council, the company Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A. submitted a study dated November 24, 1993, according to which, after analyzing the existing INVU approvals, granted on April 27, 1976, and November 23, 1978, for the relevant purposes, it concluded the following: "In Block F there are 32 lots in the original plan and 45 lots in the relocation, with a difference of 13 lots, of which F14, F15, F16, F25, F26 and F26a are lots located within the reserved zone, subject to INVU approval once the course of the Quebrada Monge was corrected." (see folios 36 to 48 of the Residencial file); 6) The representative of Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., Mr. Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, during 2011 made representations before the local government so that the limitation contained in Decreto LXV of 1888 would not affect the seventeen properties that were registered before the declaration of inalienability (folio 382 of the development file); 7) Mrs. Nombre104433 is currently the owner of the property with registered folio real number Placa1768. Placa18127, whose acquisition was registered in the Public Registry on October 3, 2012, as "land for construction", with an area of 1613.64 m2 and coinciding with lot 16-F of the "El Tirol" development (literal certification at folio 44 of the appeal file); 8) Because cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. H-0479163-1982 did not have the respective municipal approval (visado municipal), Mrs. Nombre104433 submitted it to the Municipality of San Rafael on July 1, 2013, requesting said approval (visado) be granted (folio 1 of the administrative file); 9) In resolution No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of July 5, 2013, the Municipality's Office of Cadastre and Topography rejected the requested approval (visado), in application of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, Decreto 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE of 1982, Decreto No. LXV of July 30, 1888, the Municipal Council agreement taken in ordinary session No. 102-2007 of July 9, 2007, and the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) No. Placa18128, for being located in an inalienable zone (folios 2 and 3 of the administrative file); 10) Against that official communication, the lady filed respective ordinary remedies, with the revocation being rejected in resolution No. 123-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of August 5, 2013 (folios 6 to 14 of the administrative file); 11) The Mayor of San Rafael rejected the appeal filed, in resolution No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of 10:00 hours on October 17, 2013 (folios 23 to 27 of the administrative file); II.- Unproven Fact: There is no record within the file of any agreement by the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, through which the site design plan for the Residencial el Monte del Tirol was authorized, including the lot that was later segregated and became the property with registered folio real number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18127, lot F16, which gave rise to the property that is today owned by the appellant (the case record).

III.- Subject of the Appeal: Mrs. Nombre104433 challenged the Mayor's decision, through a brief filed directly before this Tribunal on October 24, 2013. In said brief, she considers that the Mayor did not analyze the grievances she had expressed against resolution No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013, in which she maintained that the approval (visado) had already been granted to her property and that her acquisition in good faith was disregarded, in light of the publicity of the registry. She considers that the property has been private property since long ago, as it originates from the consolidation (reunión) of 17 properties from before 1888, when the inalienability of the zone was declared, so that limitation no longer affects it. She adds that in session No. 113 of November 10, 1975, the Municipal Council had authorized the segregation of property No. 59935, from which the property with registered folio real number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18126, was born, from whose entry 1, she understands that both the authorization for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) and the lot approval (visado) were granted, thereby consolidating her right. She requests that, in application of Article 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, her right should not be denied now as this leaves her defenseless. She adds that Article 45 of the Constitution is now being violated, which breaches the principle of enforceability of administrative acts and results in the absolute nullity of what has been done, a situation that can only be modified through a lesividad proceeding. She deems the Mayor's reasoning to be omitted and biased, since there is a prior approval (visado) predating ruling No. 2008-12109 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional).

IV.- On the Merits. In official communication No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of July 5, 2013, the Office of Cadastre and Topography of the Municipality of San Rafael rejected the approval (visado) of cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. Placa18129, which corresponds to the property with registered folio real number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18127, whose current owner is Mrs. Nombre104433 . In the Mayor's resolution No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of October 17, 2013, this rejection was confirmed, an act that set forth a broad analysis of the regulations applied as well as of what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), which allowed the Mayor to conclude that the grievances were not sufficient to grant the plan approval (visado), without questioning the appellant's property right, yet indicating the impossibility of authorizing the approval (visado) under the protection of what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber in light of Decreto No. LXV of July 30, 1888, a rule that stipulated the following:

"Art. 1.- A zone of land two kilometers wide is declared inalienable, on one side and the other of the crest of the mountain known as Montaña del Volcán Barba, from the hill called El Zurquí to that known as Concordia, whether said zone is national or municipal property." (folio 17 of the file) The Mayor relied on Ruling No. 12109-08 of the Constitutional Chamber, which had expressly indicated that "said protection is total, so no type of permit or concession can be granted in that strip of land," therefore ordering several municipalities, including that of San Rafael, to "refrain from granting any type of permit (approval (visado) or construction) within the zone established by law number 65 of 1888, in what pertains to their jurisdictions." To this end, he also invoked the Municipal Council agreement, taken in ordinary session No. 103-2007 on Monday, July 9, 2007, which ordered not to grant permits for any type of urban development on the lands covered by the cited decree. First of all, it is clear that the agreement is nothing more than the application of the indicated rule and of what was decided by the Constitutional Tribunal, which constitutes a limitation on the property right, as regulated by Article 45 of our Fundamental Charter, which binds both the town council and individuals. From this it follows that this Chamber does not find the decision to be lacking in reasoning, in the terms accused by the appellant party. Therefore, it is appropriate to reject the grievance claiming this defect, in order to review, on the merits, the content of the resolution that is the subject of the appeal in light of the rest of the grievances stated by the appellant, as is done below.

V.- The appellant party maintains that the limitation indicated in the previous considering clause is not binding on her, since the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of her lot was authorized by the Municipal Council since 1975, considering that such a right can only be disregarded through a lesividad proceeding. This Tribunal has proceeded to carefully analyze the copies of the registered folio real of property No. Placa18127 as well as all its chain of title (antecedentes de dominio), which were provided by the appellant party. Likewise, a meticulous review of the administrative file of the Residencial El Monte "El Tirol" has been conducted, which has allowed reaching the conclusions set forth below, necessary and indispensable for the correct resolution of this conflict. The owner and developer of said development is Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., which initiated the subdivision (fraccionamiento) process of the parent property in the seventies and eighties. In 1975, by agreement of the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, taken in article 2 of session No. 113 on November 10, as well as by authorization of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, dated April 27 of that same year, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) into the owner's own name (en cabeza propia) of property 59835 was permitted, giving rise to the property with registration number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18126, with an area of 5700m2, through a deed granted before Notary Anuncio Cerdas Fernández and submitted to the National Registry on August 9, 1976 (folio 38 of the appeal file). The subdivision (fraccionamiento) process continued, and Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. carried out works to develop the urban complex it named "Residencial El Monte 'El Tirol'", whose general project plans were approved by the Urban Planning Directorate of the INVU on November 23, 1978. At that time, the INVU approved the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of 288 lots, where lot 16-F was not yet foreseen, as in its place, a protection zone for the Quebrada Monge was established there (plan at folio 346 of the development file). There does not exist among the evidence brought to the record, a single site design plan, approved by the INVU or by the Municipality, that accounts for the segregation of property 80616 to create lot F16 having been approved in 1975. The authorizations existing at that date were only for the creation of that property, whose area was over 5000m2. In other words, the thesis put forward by the appellant party, in the sense that the authorizations issued that year by the administrative authorities benefit her, is not receivable, as the lot of her property did not yet exist and was created quite a few years later, as explained below.

VI.- There is a site design plan, drawn up in 1980, where the Quebrada Monge disappears and in its place, three lots numbered F14 to F16 appear (folios 213 of the development file); however, upon its reading, the proper subdivision (fraccionamiento) approval by the local government is not observed. Despite this, on December 1, 1981, the segregation into the owner's own name (en cabeza propia) of property 80616 was registered in the Public Registry, giving rise to lot F16, with registered folio real number No. Placa18127 of the Heredia Registry, area of 1613.74 m2, as "forest pasture land lot 16-F", for which cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. H-0479163-1982 was drawn up (the property under discussion in this case). There is not a single document in the record proving that this subdivision (fraccionamiento) obtained municipal approval (visado). This Chamber understands that there are irregularities in that registry inscription of the lot, since pursuant to numeral 34 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, municipal approval (visado) is a formal administrative act that must have been issued as an indispensable requirement for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) and for the developer to legally obtain the registration of this property. Even though the reasons for this are unknown, the truth is that the grievance of the appellant party has been completely discredited, since the pieces of the file indicate that her lot has never been approved (visado) by the municipal corporation.

VII.- Another general plan of the development, drawn up in November 1993, is also observed (which states it was based on the 1980 general plan that was never approved, indicated in the previous Considering Clause), which was submitted to the INVU for approval solely for the purposes of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), but not for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes. Therefore, it cannot be understood that the lots contained in this subdivision (fraccionamiento) had the INVU's approval. This is reinforced by the evidence within the development file, consisting of a study requested by the Municipal Council from the company Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A., dated November 24, 1993, which after having analyzed the existing INVU approvals, granted on April 27, 1976, and November 23, 1978, for the relevant purposes, reached the following conclusions:

"In Block F there are 32 lots in the original plan and 45 lots in the relocation, with a difference of 13 lots, of which F14, F15, F16, F25, F26 and F26a are lots located within the reserved zone, subject to INVU approval once the course of the Quebrada Monge was corrected." (see folios 36 to 48 of the Residencial file) From the above, it is clearly concluded that lot No. F16 was not contemplated as part of the project originally approved by the INVU, and that, therefore, its segregation lacks the approval of the local corporation. This leads to the conclusion that the grievance claiming the existence of a prior approval (visado) has been discredited by the evidence brought to the record.

VIII.- Any thesis tending to argue, as the appellant does, that the municipality imposed illegitimate limitations on her property right is clearly incorrect, as the limitation clearly arises from the regulatory provision. The property with registered folio real number Placa18127 is affected by the inalienable zone limitation established in Decreto LXV, a situation that can perfectly coexist with the private property right of the properties registered in the development. This situation was known by the representative of Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., Mr. Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, as during 2011 he made representations before the local government so that this limitation would not affect seventeen properties that were registered before the declaration of inalienability (folio 382 of the development file). Even with this circumstance, Mrs. Nombre104433 acquired the cited property, a purchase registered in the Public Registry on October 3, 2012, with a new nature, now as "land for construction", with an area of 1613.64 m2, corresponding to lot 16-F of the "El Tirol" development. She certainly acquired it in light of the publicity of the registry; however, she could easily appreciate the absence of the plan approval (visado) for her lot at a glance. Even though the historical analysis of the chain of title (antecedentes de dominio) reflects that it was private property since before 1888, this did not prevent the legislator from affecting said lands for reasons of public interest. The binding nature of urban and environmental regulations and the subjection that individuals must have to the rules they impose, being of public order, integrate the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, by containing some of the limitations authorized by Article 45 of the Constitution, under the understanding that it does not produce a dispossession of private property nor the deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their use, such as those near airports, those destined for the protection of forest and historical-architectural heritage, deriving from Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the same Ley de Planificación Urbana. That is, even when there are duly subdivided (fraccionados) and registered lots, they are not necessarily available for the free use and disposal of their owners, since the public order regulations are what ultimately determine the use that can be definitively given to them, a regulation from which local authorities cannot deviate. In this sense, the correct exercise of the oversight and police powers of the Local Government are decisive, since the area where this lot is located is an aquifer recharge area and has high environmental value. The foregoing means that it is not possible to grant the requested approval (visado) to the appellant party, as this was expressly prohibited in Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) Ruling No. Placa18128 in application of the cited Decreto LXV, having to submit, by constitutional imperative, to the legitimate limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land. For this reason, the resolution of the Mayor of San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of 10:00 hours on October 17, 2013, which is the subject of this appeal, must be upheld, in accordance with the terms expressed herein. As there is no further recourse, the administrative channel (vía administrativa) shall be deemed exhausted.

THEREFORE:

The challenged resolution is upheld and the administrative channel (vía administrativa) is deemed exhausted.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal. Third Section.

Resolution No. 33-2105 of 11:15 hours on January 30, 2015.

2 of 11 That lot was registered on December 1, 1981, as "forest land pastures lot 16-F" (real folio of the property visible at folio 69 of the challenge file); 5) At the request of the Municipal Council, the company Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A. submitted a study dated November 24, 1993, according to which, after having analyzed the existing INVU approvals granted on April 27, 1976, and November 23, 1978, for the purposes of interest, it concluded the following: "In Block F there are 32 lots in the original plat and 45 lots in the relocation, with a difference of 13 lots, of which F14, F15, F16, F25, F26, and F26a are lots located within the reserved zone, subject to INVU approval once the course of the Quebrada Monge was corrected." (see folios 36 to 48 of the Residencial file); 6) The representative of Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., Mr. Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, during 2011 took steps before the local government so that the limitation contained in Decreto LXV of 1888 would not affect the seventeen properties that had been registered since before the declaration of inalienability (folio 382 of the residencial file); 7) Mrs. Nombre104433 is currently the owner of the property with real folio registration number Placa1768. Placa18127, whose acquisition was registered in the Public Registry on October 3, 2012, as "land for construction," with an area of 1,613.64 m², and coincides with lot 16-F of the "El Tirol" residential development (literal certification at folio 44 of the appeal file); 8) Because the cadastral plat No. H-0479163-1982 did not have the respective municipal approval (visado), Mrs. Nombre104433 submitted it to the Municipality of San Rafael on July 1, 2013, requesting that said approval be granted (folio 1 of the administrative file); 9) In resolution No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of July 5, 2013, the Municipal Office of Cadastre and Topography rejected the requested approval, in application of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, Decreto 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE of 1982, Decreto No. LXV of July 30, 1888, the agreement of the Municipal Council taken in ordinary session No. 102-2007 of July 9, 2007, and the vote of the Constitutional Chamber No. Placa18128, because it is located in an inalienable zone (folios 2 and 3 of the administrative file); 10) Against that official communication, the lady filed ordinary appeals, with the reconsideration being rejected in resolution No. 123-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of August 5, 2013 (folios 6 to 14 of the administrative file); 11) The Mayor of San Rafael rejected the appeal filed, in resolution No. 1342-2013-AMSRH at 10:00 a.m. on October 17, 2013 (folios 23 to 27 of the administrative file); **II.- Unproven fact:** The file does not contain any agreement of the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia by which the site design plat for the Residencial el Monte del Tirol was authorized, which would have included the lot that was subsequently severed (segregó) and became the property with real folio registration number of the Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18127, lot F16, which gave rise to the property that is now owned by the appellant (the case file).

**III.- Purpose of the appeal:** Mrs. Nombre104433 challenged the decision of the Mayor, through a written submission presented directly before this Tribunal on October 24, 2013. In said brief, she considers that the Mayor did not analyze the grievances she had expressed against resolution No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013, in which she maintained that the approval (visado) had already been granted to her property and that her good-faith acquisition was disregarded, in light of registry publicity. She considers that the property has been private property for a long time, since it originates from the consolidation of 17 properties from before 1888, when the inalienability of the zone was declared, so that limitation no longer affects her. She adds that in session No. 113 of November 10, 1975, the Municipal Council had authorized the severance (segregación) of property No. 59935, from which the property with real folio registration number of the Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18126 was born, from its entry 1, from which she understands that both the authorization for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) and the approval (visado) of the lot were granted, thereby consolidating her right. She requests that in application of Article 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, her right not be denied now, as this leaves her defenseless. She adds that Article 45 of the Constitution is now violated, which transgresses the principle of enforceability of administrative acts and results in the absolute nullity of what was done, and that such a situation can only be modified through the lesividad process. She considers the Mayor's reasoning to be incomplete and partial, since there is an approval (visado) prior to vote No. 2008-12109 of the Constitutional Chamber.

**IV.- On the merits.** In official communication No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 of July 5, 2013, the Municipal Office of Cadastre and Topography of the Municipality of San Rafael rejected the approval (visado) of cadastral plat No. Placa18129, which corresponds to the property with real folio registration number of the Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18127, whose current owner is Mrs. Nombre104433. In the Mayor's resolution No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of October 17, 2013, said rejection was confirmed, an act that set forth a broad analysis of the applied regulations as well as what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber, which allowed the Mayor to conclude that the grievances were not sufficient to grant the approval (visado) of the plat, without questioning the appellant's property right, but indicating the impossibility of authorizing the approval under the protection of what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber in light of Decreto No. LVX of July 30, 1888, a regulation that provided the following: "Art. 1.- A zone of land two kilometers wide is declared inalienable, on both sides of the summit of the mountain known by the name of Montaña del Volcán Barba, from the hill called El Zurquí to the one known by the name of Concordia, whether said zone is national or municipal property." (folio 17 of the file) The Mayor relied on Vote of the Constitutional Chamber No. 12109-08, which had expressly indicated that "said protection is total, so no type of permit or concession may be granted in said strip of land," ordering several municipalities, including that of San Rafael, to "refrain from granting any type of permit (approval (visado) or construction) within the zone established by Law No. 65 of 1888, with respect to their jurisdictions." For this, he also invoked the agreement of the Municipal Council, taken in ordinary session No. 103-2007 of Monday, July 9, 2007, which resolved not to grant permits for any type of urban development on the lands covered by the cited decree. First of all, it is clear that the agreement is merely the application of the indicated regulation and of what was resolved by the Constitutional Tribunal, which constitutes a limitation on the right of property, as regulated by Article 45 of our Fundamental Charter, which binds both the local government and private individuals. From this it follows that this Chamber does not find that the resolution lacks reasoning, in the terms alleged by the appellant. Therefore, the appropriate course is to reject the grievance claiming this defect, in order to review the content of the appealed resolution on its merits in light of the remaining grievances expressed by the appellant, as will be done hereinafter.

**V.-** The appellant maintains that the limitation indicated in the preceding recital (considerando) is not binding on her, since the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of her lot was authorized by the Municipal Council in 1975, and she considers that such a right can only be disregarded through the lesividad process. This Tribunal has proceeded to carefully analyze the copies of the real folio of property No. Placa18127 as well as all its chain of title (antecedentes de dominio), which were provided by the appellant. Likewise, a thorough review has been made of the administrative file of the Residencial El Monte "El Tirol," which has allowed us to reach the conclusions set forth below, which are necessary and indispensable for the correct resolution of this conflict. The owner and developer of said urbanization is Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., which began the subdivision (fraccionamiento) process of the parent property in the seventies and eighties. In 1975, in an agreement of the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, taken in Article 2 of session No. 113 of November 10, as well as in authorization from the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo of April 27 of that same year, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of property 59835 was permitted, which gave rise to the creation of the property with registration number of the Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18126, with an area of 5,700 m², by means of a deed granted before Notary Anuncio Cerdas Fernández and submitted to the National Registry on August 9, 1976 (folio 38 of the appeal file). The subdivision (fraccionamiento) process continued, and Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. executed works (obras) to develop the urban complex it called "Residencial El Monte "El Tirol"," whose general project plans were approved by the Dirección de Urbanismo of the INVU on November 23, 1978. At that time, the INVU approved the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of 288 lots, where lot 16-F was not yet contemplated, because in its place, a protection zone for the Quebrada Monge was established there (plat at folio 346 of the residencial file). There is not, among the evidence brought to the case file, a single site design plat approved by the INVU or by the Municipality that accounts for the approval, in 1975, of the severance (segregación) of property 80616 to create lot F16. The authorizations existing at that date were only for the creation of that property, whose area exceeded 5,000 m². In other words, the thesis set forth by the appellant, to the effect that the authorizations issued that year by the administrative authorities benefit her, is not acceptable (no es de recibo), because the lot she owns did not yet exist and came into being many years later, as explained hereinafter.

**VI.-** There is a site design plat drawn up in 1980, where the Quebrada Monge disappears and in its place three lots appear, numbered from F14 to F16 (folios 213 of the residencial file); however, from its reading, the due approval of the subdivision (fraccionamiento) by the local government is not apparent. Despite this, on December 1, 1981, the severance (segregación) of property 80616 was registered in the Public Registry, giving rise to lot F16, with real folio registration number No. Placa18127 of the Partido de Heredia, an area of 1,613.74 m², as "forest land pastures lot 16-F," for which the cadastral plat No. H-0479163-1982 was drawn up (the property under discussion in this case). There is not a single document in the case file proving that this subdivision (fraccionamiento) obtained municipal approval (visado). This Chamber understands that there are irregularities in that registry inscription of the lot, because according to section 34 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, the municipal approval (visado) is a formal administrative act that should have been issued as an indispensable requirement for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) and for the developer to legally obtain the registration of this property. Even though the reasons for this are unknown, the fact is that the appellant's grievance has been completely discredited, because the pieces in the file indicate that her lot has never been approved (visado) by the municipal corporation.

**VII.-** There is also another general plat of the residential development drawn up in November 1993 (which states it was based on the 1980 general plat that was never approved, as indicated in the preceding Recital), which was submitted for INVU approval solely for purposes of the Plan Regulador, but not for purposes of subdivision (fraccionamiento). Therefore, it cannot be understood that the lots contained in this subdivision (fraccionamiento) had the INVU's approval. This is reinforced by the evidence contained in the residencial file, consisting of a study that was requested by the Municipal Council from the company Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A., dated November 24, 1993, which, after having analyzed the existing INVU approvals granted on April 27, 1976, and November 23, 1978, for the purposes of interest, reached the following conclusions: "In Block F there are 32 lots in the original plat and 45 lots in the relocation, with a difference of 13 lots, of which F14, F15, F16, F25, F26, and F26a are lots located within the reserved zone, subject to INVU approval once the course of the Quebrada Monge was corrected." (see folios 36 to 48 of the Residencial file) From the foregoing, it is clearly concluded that lot No. F16 was not contemplated as part of the project originally approved by the INVU, and that, therefore, its severance (segregación) lacks the approval of the local corporation. This leads to the conclusion that the grievance maintaining the existence of a prior approval (visado) has been discredited by the evidence brought to the case file.

**VIII.-** Any thesis tending to maintain, as the appellant does, that the municipality imposed illegitimate limitations on her property right is clearly incorrect, because the limitation clearly arises from the regulatory provision. The property with real folio registration number Placa18127 is affected by the limitation of the inalienable zone established in Decreto LXV, a situation that can well coexist with the private property right of the properties that are registered in the residential development. This situation was known to the representative of Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., Mr. Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, since during 2011 he took steps before the local government so that this limitation would not affect seventeen properties that had been registered since before the declaration of inalienability (folio 382 of the residencial file). Even with this circumstance, Mrs. Nombre104433 acquired the cited property, a purchase that was registered in the Public Registry on October 3, 2012, with a new nature, now as "land for construction," with an area of 1,613.64 m², which corresponds to lot 16-F of the "El Tirol" residential development. She certainly acquired it in light of registry publicity; however, the absence of the approval (visado) of her lot's plat could well have been appreciated by her at a glance. Even though the historical analysis of the chain of title reflects that it was private property from before 1888, this did not prevent the legislator from affecting said lands for reasons of public interest. The binding nature of urban and environmental regulations and the submission that individuals must have to the rules they impose, as they are of public order, make up the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, containing some of the limitations authorized by Article 45 of the Constitution, under the understanding that a dispossession of private property or the deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership does not occur. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special encumbrance (afectación) by reason of their use, such as those near airports, those destined for the protection of forest, historical, and architectural heritage, which derive from Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the same Ley de Planificación Urbana. In other words, even though there are lots that are duly subdivided (fraccionados) and registered, they are not necessarily available for the free use and disposal of their owners, because the public order regulations are what determine, ultimately, the use that can definitively be given to them, a regulation from which local authorities cannot deviate. In this sense, the correct exercise of the oversight and policing powers of the Local Government is decisive, because the area in which this lot is located is an aquifer recharge area and has high value from the environmental point of view. The foregoing means that it is not possible to grant the appellant the required approval (visado), because this was strictly prohibited in the Vote of the Constitutional Chamber No. Placa18128 in application of the cited Decreto LXV, and she must submit, by constitutional imperative, to the legitimate limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land.

For this reason, the resolution of the Mayor of San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of 10:00 a.m. on October 17, 2013, brought on appeal, must be confirmed, in accordance with the terms expressed herein. There being no further recourse, the administrative channel should be deemed exhausted.

**POR TANTO:** The challenged resolution is confirmed and the administrative channel is deemed exhausted.

**Evelyn Solano Ulloa** **Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Francisco José Chaves Torres** *Contencioso Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal. Third Section.* *Resolution No. 33-2105 of 11:15 a.m. on January 30, 2015.* 2 of 11 Likewise, a meticulous review has been conducted of the administrative record (expediente administrativo) of Residencial El Monte "El Tirol," which has allowed us to reach the conclusions set forth below, necessary and indispensable for the correct resolution of this conflict. The owner and developer of said urbanization is Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., which began the subdivision (fraccionamiento) process of the parent property (finca madre) in the seventies and eighties. In 1975, by agreement of the Municipal Council of San Rafael de Heredia, taken in article 2 of session No. 113 of November 10, as well as by authorization of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, of April 27 of that same year, the subdivision in own right (fraccionamiento en cabeza propia) of property 59835 was permitted, which gave rise to the creation of the property with registration number of the Heredia Registry, No. Placa18126, with an area of 5700m2, by deed granted before Notary Anuncio Cerdas Fernández and filed with the National Registry on August 9, 1976 (folio 38 of the appeal file). The subdivision process continued, and Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. executed works to develop the urban complex it called "Residencial El Monte 'El Tirol'," whose general project plans were approved by the Urban Planning Directorate of the INVU on November 23, 1978. At that time, the INVU approved the subdivision of 288 lots, where lot 16-F was not yet contemplated, since instead, a protection zone for the Quebrada Monge was established there (plan at folio 346 of the residential development's record). Among the evidence brought to the case file, there is not a single site design plan, approved by the INVU or by the Municipality, that accounts for the segregation of property 80616 to create lot F16 having been approved in 1975. The authorizations existing on that date were only for the creation of that property, whose area was greater than 5000m2. That is, the thesis put forth by the appellant, in the sense that the authorizations issued that year by the administrative authorities benefit her, is not receivable, since the lot of her property did not yet exist and was created many years later, as explained below.

**VI.-** There exists a site design plan, drawn up in 1980, where the Quebrada Monge disappears and in its place, three lots appear, numbered F14 to **F16** (folios 213 of the residential development's record); however, from its reading, the proper subdivision approval by the local government is not apparent. Notwithstanding this, on December 1, 1981, the segregation in own right of property 80616 was registered in the Public Registry, giving rise to lot **F16**, with the registered folio number No. Placa18127 of the Heredia Registry, an area of 1613.74 m2, as "forest and pasture land **lot 16-F**" (terreno bosques potreros lote 16-F), for which cadastral plan No. H-0479163-1982 was drawn up (the property under discussion in this case). There is not a single document in the case file that proves that this subdivision obtained municipal approval (visado municipal). This Chamber understands that there are irregularities in that registry inscription of the lot, since according to numeral 34 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the municipal approval is a formal administrative act that must have been issued as an indispensable requirement for the subdivision and for the developer to legally obtain the inscription of this property. Even though the causes of this are unknown, the truth is that the grievance of the appellant has been completely discredited, since the pieces of the record indicate that her lot has never been approved by the municipal corporation.

**VII.-** Another general plan of the residential development, drawn up in November 1993 (which states it was based on the 1980 general plan that was never approved, as indicated in the preceding Considerando), is also observed. This plan was submitted for approval to the INVU solely for purposes of the Regulating Plan, but not for subdivision purposes. Therefore, it cannot be understood that the lots contained in this subdivision had the approval of the INVU. This is reinforced by the evidence contained within the residential development's record, consisting of a study requested by the Municipal Council from the company Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A., dated November 24, 1993, which, after having analyzed the existing INVU approvals, granted on April 27, 1976, and November 23, 1978, for the pertinent purposes, reached the following conclusions:

*"In Block F there are 32 lots in the original plan and 45 lots in the relocation, with a difference of 13 lots, of which F14, F15, F16, F25, F26, and F26a are lots located within the reserved zone, subject to INVU approval once the course of the Quebrada Monge was corrected."* (see folios 36 to 48 of the Residential Development's record) From the foregoing, it is clearly concluded that lot No. F16 was not contemplated as part of the project originally approved by the INVU, and that, therefore, its segregation lacks the approval of the local corporation. This leads to the conclusion that the grievance claiming the existence of a prior approval has been discredited by the evidence brought to the case file.

**VIII.**- Any thesis tending to maintain, as the appellant does, that the municipality imposed illegitimate limitations on her property right is clearly incorrect, since the limitation clearly arises from the normative provision. The property with registered folio number Placa18127 is affected by the limitation of the inalienable zone established in Decree LXV, a situation that may well coexist with the private property right of the properties that are registered in the residential development. This situation was known by the representative of Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., Mr. Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, since during 2011 he took steps before the local government so that this limitation would not affect seventeen properties that were registered prior to the declaration of inalienability (folio 382 of the residential development's record). Even with this circumstance, Mrs. Nombre104433 acquired the cited property, a purchase that was registered in the Public Registry on October 3, 2012, with a new nature, now as "land for construction" (terreno para construir), with an area of 1613.64 m2, which corresponds to lot **16-F** of the "El Tirol" residential development. Certainly, she acquired it in light of registry publicity; however, the absence of approval for her lot's plan could have been appreciated at a glance. Even though the historical analysis of the chain of title reflects that it was private property since before 1888, this did not prevent the legislator from affecting said lands for reasons of public interest. The binding nature of urban planning and environmental regulations, and the submission that the governed must have to the rules they impose, as they are of public order, make up the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, containing some of the limitations authorized by article 45 of the Constitution, under the understanding that there is no dispossession of private property nor deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their use, such as those near airports, those destined for the protection of forestry, historical, and architectural heritage, which derive from articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by article 25 of the same Urban Planning Law. That is, even when there are lots duly subdivided and registered, they are not necessarily available for the free use and disposal of their owners, since it is the public order regulations that ultimately determine the definitive use that can be given to them, a regulation from which the local authorities cannot depart. In this sense, the correct exercise of the oversight and police powers of the Local Government is decisive, **since the area where this lot is located is an aquifer recharge zone and has high value from an environmental standpoint.** The foregoing means that it is not possible to grant the required approval to the appellant, since this was strictly prohibited in the Ruling of the Constitutional Chamber No. Placa18128 in application of the cited Decree LXV, having to submit, by constitutional imperative, to the legitimate limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land. For this reason, the resolution **of the Mayor of San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH of 10:00 a.m. on October 17, 2013**, which was appealed, must be confirmed, in accordance with the terms expressed herein. There being no further appeal, the administrative route must be deemed exhausted.

**POR TANTO:** The challenged resolution is confirmed, and the administrative route is deemed exhausted.

**Evelyn Solano Ulloa** **Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Francisco José Chaves Torres** *Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Sección Tercera.* *Resolution No. 33-2105 of 11:15 a.m. on January 30, 2015.* 2 of 11

Apelación municipal en jerarquía impropia Nombre104433 Dirección3985/ N° 33-2015 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las once horas quince minutos del treinta de enero del dos mil quince.

Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio, del recurso de apelación interpuesto por Nombre104433 , quien es mayor de edad, divorciada, cédula CED80800, representada por su apoderada especial judicial, la Licda. María del Carmen Calvo Monney, cédula CED80801, contra la resolución del Alcalde de San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH de las 10:00 horas del 17 de octubre del 2013.

Redacta la Juez Solano Ulloa, y:

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- Hechos probados. Para una correcta resolución del presente asunto, se tiene por probado lo siguiente: 1) La finca con matrícula del Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18125, situada en los Angeles de San Rafael de Heredia, provino de la reunión de diecisiete lotes contiguos realizada el 25 de febrero de 1969, por su propietario, el señor Nombre104434 , cédula CED80802. Los antecedentes de dominio de esos diecisiete lotes, indican que eran propiedad privada desde antes de 1888 (ver copia de tomos del Registro Nacional a folios 46 y 47, certificación de la notaria pública María del Carmen Calvo Monney, visible a folios 73 a 77 del legajo de impugnación); 2) La finca anterior fue objeto de segregación en cabeza propia, por Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., mediante escritura otorgada ante el Notario Anuncio Cerdas Fernández y presentada al Registro Nacional el 9 de agosto de 1976, dando origen a la finca con matrícula del Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18126, con cabida de 5700m2, terreno de bosques y potrero, la cual era atravesada por la Quebrada Monge. Según indica el asiento registral 1, de la finca No. 80616, que consta a folio 473 del tomo 2415 del Partido de Heredia del Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, este fraccionamiento fue autorizado en acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de San Rafael de Heredia, tomado en el artículo 2 de la sesión No. 113 del 10 de noviembre de 1975, así como por el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, en fecha 27 de abril de ese mismo año (folio 38 del legajo de apelación); 3) Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. inició un proyecto de fraccionamiento con fines urbanísticos, el cual denominó "Residencial El Monte "El Tirol", cuyos planos fueron aprobados por la Dirección de Urbanismo del INVU el 23 de noviembre de 1978. Ese proyecto originalmente consistió en la segregación de 288 lotes, con excepción de una parte del sector norte de la urbanización, específicamente donde atraviesa la Quebrada Monge, la cual se reservaba como zona verde sin fraccionar, que correspondía a la finca 80616 (plano a folio 346 del expediente del residencial); 4) La finca No. 80616 fue segregada en cabeza propia, por Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., dando nacimiento al inmueble con matrícula de folio real No. Placa18127 del Partido de Heredia, con cabida de 1613,74 m2, lote 16-F, al que se le levantó el plano catastrado No. H-0479163-1982, en el cual ya no se representa gráficamente la existencia de la Quebrada Monge y está carente de visado municipal. Dicho lote se inscribió el 1 de diciembre de 1981, como "terreno bosques potreros lote 16-F" (folio real del inmueble visible a folio 69 del legajo de impugnación); 5) A requerimiento del Concejo Municipal, la empresa Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A., presentó un estudio de fecha 24 de noviembre de 1993, según el cual, luego de haber analizado las aprobaciones del INVU existentes, otorgadas el 27 de abril de 1976 y 23 de noviembre de 1978, para los efectos de interés, concluía lo siguiente: "En el Bloque F hay 32 lotes en el plano original y 45 lotes en la reubicación, con una diferencia de 13 lotes de los cuales el F14, F15, F16, F25, F26 y F26a son lotes ubicados dentro de la zona reservada, sometido a la aprobación del INVU una vez que se corrigiera el cauce de la Quebrada Monge." (ver folios 36 a 48 del expediente del Residencial); 6) El representante de Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., el señor Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, durante el año 2011 realizó gestiones ante el gobierno local para que la limitación contenida en el Decreto LXV de 1888 no afectara las diecisiete fincas que se encontraban inscritas desde antes de la declaratoria de inalienabilidad (folio 382 del expediente del residencial); 7) La señora Nombre104433 es actualmente la propietaria de la finca con matrícula de folio real Placa1768. Placa18127, cuya adquisición quedó inscrita en el Registro Público el 3 de octubre del 2012, como "terreno para construir", con una medida de 1613,64 m2 y coincide con el lote 16-F del residencial "El Tirol" (certificación literal a folio 44 del legajo de apelación); 8) Debido a que el plano catastrado No. H-0479163-1982, no tenía el visado municipal respectivo, la señora Nombre104433 lo presentó ante la Municipalidad de San Rafael, el día 1 de julio del 2013, solicitando se le otorgara dicho visado (folio 1 del expediente administrativo); 9) En resolución No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 del 5 de julio del 2013, la Oficina de Catastro y Topografía de la Municipalidad, rechazó el visado solicitado, en aplicación del Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, el Decreto 25902-MIVAH- MP-MINAE de 1982, el Decreto No. LXV del 30 de julio de 1888, el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal tomado en la sesión ordinaria No. 102-2007 del 9 de julio del 2007 y el voto de la Sala Constitucional No. Placa18128, por estar ubicado en zona inalienable (folios 2 y 3 del expediente administrativo); 10) Contra dicho oficio, la señora interpuso sendos recursos ordinarios, resultando rechazada la revocatoria en resolución No. 123-OFCT-MSRH- 2013 del 5 de agosto del 2013 (folios 6 a 14 del expediente administrativo); 11) El Alcalde de San Rafael rechazó la alzada interpuesta, en resolución No. 1342-2013-AMSRH de las 10:00 horas del 17 de octubre del 2013 (folios 23 a 27 del expediente administrativo); II.- Hecho no probado: No consta dentro del expediente, acuerdo alguno del Concejo Municipal de San Rafael de Heredia, mediante el cual se hubiere autorizado el plano de diseño de sitio del Residencial el Monte del Tirol,en donde se incluyera el lote que luego se segregó y se convirtió en la finca con matrícula de folio real del Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18127, lote F16, que diera origen a la finca que hoy día es propiedad de la apelante (los autos).

III.- Objeto del recurso: La señora Nombre104433 impugnó lo resuelto por el Alcalde, mediante libelo presentado directamente ante este Tribunal, el día 24 de octubre del 2013. En dicho memorial, estima que el Alcalde no analizó los agravios que había expresado en contra de la resolución No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 , en el que sostenía que el visado ya había sido concedido a su propiedad y que se desconocía de su adquisición de buena fe, a la luz de la publicidad registral. Estima que la finca es propiedad privada desde vieja data, pues proviene de la reunión de 17 fincas desde antes de 1888, en que se declarara la inalienabilidad de la zona, por lo que ya dicha limitación no le afecta. Agrega que en la sesión No.113 del 10 de noviembre de 1975, el Concejo Municipal había autorizado la segregación de la finca No. 59935, de la cual nació la finca con matrícula de folio real del partido de Heredia, No. Placa18126, de cuyo asiento 1, de donde entiende se otorgó tanto la autorización para el fraccionamiento como el visado del lote, con lo cual se consolida su derecho. Solicita que en aplicación del artículo 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, ahora no se le niegue su derecho pues ello le genera indefensión. Agrega que ahora se violenta el artículo 45 constitucional, lo cual transgrede el principio de ejecutoriedad de los actos administrativos y trae como consecuencia, la nulidad absoluta de lo actuado, pudiéndose modificar dicha situación únicamente mediante la vía del proceso de lesividad. Estima la fundamentación del Alcalde, omisa y parcial, pues existe un visado previo al voto No. 2008-12109 de la Sala Constitucional.

IV.- Sobre el fondo. En oficio No. 110-OFCT-MSRH-2013 del 5 de julio del 2013, la Oficina de Catastro y Topografía de la Municipalidad de San Rafael, rechazó el visado del plano catastrado No. Placa18129, que corresponde a la finca con matrícula de folio real del Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18127, cuyo propietario actual es la señora Nombre104433 . En la resolución del Alcalde No. 1342-2013-AMSRH del 17 de octubre del 2013, se confirmó dicho rechazo, acto que expuso un amplio análisis de la normativa aplicada así como de lo dispuesto por la Sala Constitucional, lo cual le permitió concluir al Alcalde, que los agravios no eran suficientes para otorgar el visado del plano, no poniendo en duda el derecho de propiedad de la apelante, empero, indicando la imposibilidad de autorizar el visado bajo el amparo de lo ordenado por la Sala Constitucional a la luz del Decreto No. LVX del 30 de julio de 1888, norma que dispuso lo siguiente:

"Art. 1.- Se declara inalienable una zona de terreno de dos kilómetros de ancho, a uno y otro lado de la cima de la montaña conocida con el nombre de Montaña del Volcán Barba, desde el cerro llamado el Zurquí hasta el que se conoce con el nombre de Concordia, ya sea dicha zona propiedad nacional o municipal." (folio 17 del expediente) Se sustentó el Alcalde en el Voto de la Sala Constitucional No. 12109-08 que expresamente había indicado que "dicha protección es total, por lo que no puede otorgarse ningún tipo de permiso o concesión en dicha franja de terreno", ordenando entonces a varias municipalidades, incluyendo la de San Rafael, que "se abstengan de otorgar cualquier tipo de permiso (visado o construcción) dentro de la zona establecida por la ley número 65 de 1888, en lo que respecta a sus jurisdicciones". Para ello, invocó también el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal, tomado en sesión ordinaria No. 103-2007 del lunes 9 de julio del 2007, que dispuso no dar permisos para ningún tipo de desarrollo urbanístico en los terrenos abarcados por el citado decreto. En primer lugar, es claro que el acuerdo no es más que aplicación de la norma indicada y de lo resuelto por el Tribunal Constitucional, la cual se constituye en una limitación al derecho de propiedad, conforme lo regula el artículo 45 de nuestra Carta Fundamental, lo que vincula tanto al ayuntamiento como a particulares. De allí deriva que no encuentre esta Cámara, que lo resuelto se encuentre ayuno de fundamentación, en los términos acusados por la parte apelante. Así las cosas, lo procedente es rechazar el agravio que reclama este vicio, para revisar, por el fondo, el contenido de la resolución venida en alzada a la luz del resto de agravios expuestos por la recurrente, tal y como de seguido se procede.

V.- Sostiene la parte apelante, que la limitación indicada en el considerando anterior, no le es vinculante, toda vez que el fraccionamiento de su lote fue autorizado por el Concejo Municipal, desde el año 1975, estimando que solamente por la vía de la lesividad se le puede desconocer tal derecho. Este Tribunal ha procedido a analizar detenidamente las copias del folio real de la finca No. Placa18127 así como todos sus antecedentes de dominio, mismos que fueron suministrados por la parte apelante. Asimismo, se ha hecho una revisión minuciosa del expediente administrativo del Residencial El Monte "El Tirol", lo cual ha permitido arribar a las conclusiones que de seguido se exponen, necesarias e indispensables para la correcta solución de este conflicto. El dueño y desarrollador de dicha urbanización es Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., la cual inició el proceso de fraccionamiento de la finca madre desde los años setenta y ochenta. En el año 1975, en acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de San Rafael de Heredia, tomado en el artículo 2 de la sesión No. 113 del 10 de noviembre, así como en autorización del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, del 27 de abril de ese mismo año, se permitió el fraccionamiento en cabeza propia de la finca 59835, lo que dio origen al nacimiento de la finca con matrícula del Partido de Heredia, No. Placa18126, con cabida de 5700m2, mediante escritura otorgada ante el Notario Anuncio Cerdas Fernández y presentada al Registro Nacional el 9 de agosto de 1976 (folio 38 del legajo de apelación). El proceso de fraccionamiento continuó, e Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A. ejecutó obras para desarrollar el complejo urbanístico que denominó "Residencial El Monte "El Tirol", cuyos planos generales del proyecto fueron aprobados por la Dirección de Urbanismo del INVU el 23 de noviembre de 1978. En ese momento, el INVU aprobó el fraccionamiento de 288 lotes, en donde aún no se preveía el lote 16-F, pues en su lugar, allí se dispuso una zona de protección de la Quebrada Monge (plano a folio 346 del expediente del residencial). No existe dentro de las pruebas allegadas a los autos, un solo plano de diseño de sitio, aprobado por el INVU ni por la Municipalidad, que de cuenta que en el año 1975, se hubiere aprobado la segregación de la finca 80616 para crear el lote F16. Las autorizaciones existentes a esa fecha, eran solo para el nacimiento de esa finca, cuya cabida fue superior a los 5000m2. O sea, la tesis expuesta por la parte apelante, en el sentido de que las autorizaciones expedidas ese año por las autoridades administrativas le benefician, no es de recibo, pues el lote de su propiedad aún no existía y nació bastantes años después tal y como de seguido se explica.

VI.- Existe un plano de diseño de sitio, levantado en el año 1980, en donde desaparece la quebrada Monge y en su lugar, aparecen tres lotes enumerados del F14 a F16 (folios 213 del expediente del residencial), sin embargo, de su lectura no se aprecia la debida aprobación de fraccionamiento por parte del gobierno local. No obstante ello, el 01de diciembre de 1981 se inscribió en el Registro Público la segregación en cabeza propia de la finca 80616, dando nacimiento al lote F16, con la matrícula de folio real No. Placa18127 del Partido de Heredia, cabida de 1613,74 m2, como "terreno bosques potreros lote 16-F", al que se le levantó el plano catastrado No. H-0479163-1982 (inmueble objeto de discusión en esta causa). No existe en los autos, un sólo documento que acredite que ese fraccionamiento obtuvo el visado municipal. Entiende esta Cámara, que existen anormalidades en esa inscripción registral del lote, pues conforme al numeral 34 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, el visado municipal es un acto administrativo formal que debió haberse expedido como requisito indispensable para el fraccionamiento y para que el desarrollador obtuviera legalmente la inscripción de este inmueble. Aún y cuando se desconocen las causas de ello, lo cierto es que el agravio de la parte apelante ha quedado totalmente desacreditado, pues las piezas del expediente indican que su lote nunca ha sido visado por la corporación municipal.

VII.- Se aprecia también otro plano general del residencial levantado en noviembre de 1993 (que expresa que se basó en el plano general de 1980 que nunca fue aprobado, indicado en el Considerando anterior), que fue sometido a aprobación del INVU únicamente para efectos del Plan Regulador, mas no para efectos de fraccionamiento. Por ello, no se puede entender que los lotes contenidos en este fraccionamiento contaran con la aprobación del INVU. Ello se refuerza con la prueba que consta dentro del del expediente del residencial, que consiste en un estudio que fue solicitado por el Concejo Municipal a la empresa Ingeniería y Urbanismo S.A., de fecha 24 de noviembre de 1993, que luego de haber analizado las aprobaciones del INVU existentes, otorgadas el 27 de abril de 1976 y 23 de noviembre de 1978, para los efectos de interés, arribó a las siguientes conclusiones:

"En el Bloque F hay 32 lotes en el plano original y 45 lotes en la reubicación, con una diferencia de 13 lotes de los cuales el F14, F15, F16, F25, F26 y F26a son lotes ubicados dentro de la zona reservada, sometido a la aprobación del INVU una vez que se corrigiera el cauce de la Quebrada Monge." (ver folios 36 a 48 del expediente del Residencial) De lo anterior se concluye con claridad, que el lote No. F16 no fue contemplado como parte del proyecto originalmente aprobado por el INVU, y que, por ende, su segregación carece de la aprobación de la corporación local. Ello lleva a concluir que el agravio que sostenía la existencia de un visado anterior, ha quedado desacreditado con la prueba traída a los autos.

VIII.- Cualquier tesis tendiente a sostener, como lo hace la apelante, que la municipalidad impuso limitaciones ilegítimas sobre su derecho de propiedad, es claramente incorrecta, pues la limitación nace claramente de la disposición normativa. El inmueble con matrícula de folio real Placa18127, se encuentra afectado por la limitación de la zona inalienable establecida en el Decreto LXV, situación que bien puede coexistir con el derecho de propiedad privada de las fincas que se encuentran inscritas en el residencial. Esta situación era conocida por el representante de Inmobiliaria del Monte S.A., el señor Alvaro Batalla Esquivel, pues durante el año 2011 realizó gestiones ante el gobierno local para que esa limitación no afectara diecisiete fincas que se encontraban inscritas desde antes de la declaratoria de inalienabilidad (folio 382 del expediente del residencial). Aún con esta circunstancia, la señora Nombre104433 adquirió el inmueble de cita, compra que fue inscrita en el Registro Público el 3 de octubre del 2012, con una nueva naturaleza, ahora como "terreno para construir", con una medida de 1613,64 m2, que corresponde al lote 16-F del residencial "El Tirol". Ciertamente ella adquirió a la luz de la publicidad registral, sin embargo, la ausencia del visado del plano de su lote bien podía apreciarlo a simple vista. Aún y cuando el análisis histórico de los antecedente de dominio refleja que fue propiedad privada desde antes de 1888, ello no impidió al legislador a afectar por motivos de interés público, dichos terrenos. La vinculancia de las regulaciones urbanísticas y ambientales y el sometimiento que deben los administrados a las normas que ellas imponen, por ser de orden público, integran el contenido del derecho de propiedad, en tanto establecen el ámbito autorizado o legítimo de su ejercicio, al contener algunas de las limitaciones autorizadas por el artículo 45 constitucional, bajo el entendido de que no se produce un despojo de la propiedad privada ni la privación del atributo primario del dominio. Por tal motivo, resulta obligado reservar las zonas que tienen una especial afectación en razón de su uso, tales como las que están cerca de los aeropuertos, las que están destinadas a protección de los patrimonios forestal e histórico y arquitectónico, que derivan de los artículos 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, según lo ordena el artículo 25 de la misma Ley de Planificación Urbana. O sea, que aún cuando existan lotes debidamente fraccionados e inscritos, ellos no necesariamente están dispuestos para el libre uso y disposición de sus propietarios, pues la normativa de orden público es la que determina, a fin de cuentas, el uso que se les puede dar en definitiva, regulación de la cual las autoridades locales no pueden separarse. En este sentido, el correcto ejercicio de los poderes de fiscalización y policía del Gobierno Local son determinantes, pues el área en que se encuentra este lote, es de recarga acuífera y tiene un alto valor desde el punto de vista ambiental. Lo anterior quiere decir que no es posible otorgarle a la parte recurrente, el visado requerido, pues ello fue taxativamente prohibido en el Voto de la Sala Constitucional No. Placa18128 en aplicación del citado Decreto LXV, debiendo someterse por imperativo constitucional, a las limitaciones legítimas impuestas sobre el uso y disfrute de la tierra. Por esta razón, deberá confirmarse la resolución del Alcalde de San Rafael de Heredia, No. 1342-2013-AMSRH de las 10:00 horas del 17 de octubre del 2013 venida en alzada, conforme los términos aquí expresados. No habiendo ulterior recurso, se deberá dar por agotada la vía administrativa.

POR TANTO:

Se confirma la resolución impugnada y se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Sección Tercera.

Resolución No. 33-2105 de las 11:15 horas del 30 de enero del 2015.

2 de 11