← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00043-2015 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII · 07/05/2015
OutcomeResultado
The plaintiff's lawsuit is fully dismissed with costs, as he failed to prove any encroachment on his registered property area or disturbance of possession by the Municipality's opening of the public road.Se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda del propietario, condenándolo en ambas costas, al no acreditar afectación a la cabida registral de su finca ni perturbación en la posesión por la apertura municipal del camino público.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Court dismisses in full a property owner's lawsuit against the Municipality of Liberia and a neighbor. The plaintiff sought a declaration of full ownership, including a 7-meter strip opened by the Municipality as a public pedestrian path following an administrative procedure under Article 33 of the General Law on Public Roads. The Court finds the plaintiff failed to prove that the opened public road area encroached on his registered property area, or that his possession was disturbed. As to the subsidiary claim for compensation and proportional tax refund, it is denied because the plaintiff was the infractor in a legally-conducted reopening procedure. The judgment distinguishes two modalities of administrative self-protection over public domain assets: "reactive" (direct coercion when public ownership is indisputable) and "declaratory" (summary procedure under Art. 33 LGCP when ownership is unclear), the latter applying here.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo desestima íntegramente la demanda de un propietario contra la Municipalidad de Liberia y un colindante. El actor solicitaba que se declarara su pleno dominio sobre todo el inmueble, incluyendo una franja de 7 metros que la Municipalidad había abierto como camino público peatonal tras un procedimiento administrativo conforme al artículo 33 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. El Tribunal concluye que el actor no probó que el área abierta como calle pública afectara la cabida registral de su finca, ni que hubiera sido perturbado en su posesión. Respecto a la pretensión subsidiaria de indemnización y devolución del impuesto territorial, la rechaza porque el actor figuró como infractor en el procedimiento de reapertura, el cual fue llevado a cabo legalmente. La sentencia distingue dos modalidades de autotutela administrativa sobre bienes demaniales: la "reaccional" (coacción directa cuando la titularidad pública es indiscutible) y la "declarativa" (procedimiento sumario previsto en el art. 33 LGCP cuando la titularidad no es evidente), aplicándose esta última al caso.
Key excerptExtracto clave
It is true that regarding public domain assets (speaking of them in general), administrative action replaces the injunctive remedy, as a means for the Administration to protect its property (principle of self-protection). However, this administrative action must be differentiated into two modalities. The first (reactive self-protection) refers to direct coercion, in which the Administration, on behalf of the community, defends its real right by its own hand, given that the asset, its use, and its purpose, particularly when demanial, do not admit discussion about the owner's title, meaning there is no doubt it pertains to the State or an autonomous territorial or institutional entity (we are not talking exclusively about roads, nor are we covering private assets of Public Administrations). (...) The second (declaratory self-protection), however, refers us to cases in which circumstances prevent easily and without error identifying that title, that purpose, or that public peculiarity distinguishing the asset. In such cases the law provides that to remove the closure, narrowing, building or fence constructed on the road, an administrative inquiry must be followed, a kind of summary or special procedure, aimed at proving the closed road is not privately owned. For this reason, the statements of three witnesses must be collected to attest, that is, since when the road was at the service of the community or of private individuals and since when it was narrowed or closed, and a technical report must be included. (...)Cierto que tratándose de bienes demaniales (hablando de ellos en general), la acción administrativa sustituye a la interdictal, como medio para que la Administración proteja sus bienes (principio de autotutela). No obstante debe diferenciarse esta acción administrativa, en dos modalidades. La primera (autotulela reaccional) referida a la coacción directa, en la cual la Administración, a nombre de la colectividad, defiende su derecho real, por mano propia, dado que el bien, su uso y su destino, particularmente demanial, no admite discusión en cuanto a la titularidad del propietario, entiéndase que no hay duda de que se trata del Estado o un ente autónomo territorial o institucional (no estamos hablando de vías, exclusivamente, ni tampoco estamos abarcando los bienes privados de las Administraciones Públicas). (...) La segunda (autotulela declarativa) sin embargo, nos refiere a casos en los que la circunstancia impide identificar con suma facilidad, sin margen de error, esa titularidad, ese destino, o esa pecularidad pública que supone distingue al bien. En tales supuestos la ley dispone que para remover el cierre, el estrechamiento, la edificación o la cerca construida sobre la vía, deba seguirse una información administrativa, una especie de procedimiento sumario o especial, que tiene por objeto comprobar que la vía cerrada, no es de dominio privado. Por esa razón debe recopilarse la declaración de tres testigos, para hacer constar lo pertinente, entiéndase, desde cuando estaba el camino al servicio colectivo o de particulares y desde cuando fue estrechada o cerrada, debiendo incluir un informe técnico. (...)
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"no puede abrirse una vía sin cumplir el procedimiento que dispone la LGCP."
"a road cannot be opened without following the procedure set forth by the LGCP."
Considerando V
"no puede abrirse una vía sin cumplir el procedimiento que dispone la LGCP."
Considerando V
"la segunda (autotulela declarativa) sin embargo, nos refiere a casos en los que la circunstancia impide identificar con suma facilidad, sin margen de error, esa titularidad, ese destino, o esa pecularidad pública que supone distingue al bien."
"the second (declaratory self-protection), however, refers us to cases in which circumstances prevent easily and without error identifying that title, that purpose, or that public peculiarity distinguishing the asset."
Considerando V
"la segunda (autotulela declarativa) sin embargo, nos refiere a casos en los que la circunstancia impide identificar con suma facilidad, sin margen de error, esa titularidad, ese destino, o esa pecularidad pública que supone distingue al bien."
Considerando V
"no se comprobó que el área que ocupa la calle 13, integre parte de la cabida del inmueble privado."
"it was not proven that the area occupied by 13th Street forms part of the private property's area."
Considerando IV
"no se comprobó que el área que ocupa la calle 13, integre parte de la cabida del inmueble privado."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
Proceedings for declaratory relief CED115338 Plaintiff/ Name148167 Defendants/ Municipality of Liberia and Name148168 No. 43-2015 CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL, EIGHTH SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, GOICOECHEA, at eight o'clock on the seventh of May of the year two thousand fifteen.- Proceedings for declaratory relief filed by Name148167, holder of identity card No. CED115339, against the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA, represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact Ronny José Mora Mayorga, holder of identity card No. CED115340, and Name148168, holder of identity card CED115337°.
WHEREAS
-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-
WHEREAS:
I- PROVEN FACTS: The following factual framework has evidentiary support:
The plaintiff did not prove: 1) That the declaration of a public street adopted by the Municipal Council through an administrative act affected the area of the farm in the Partido de Guanacaste number Placa29582, reducing in any way the measurement of 883.20 square meters indicated in the Registry. 2) That the defendant Municipality incurred in material conduct that produced a real, certain, effective, and individualizable injury to the plaintiff. 3) That the co-defendants disturb the plaintiff's possession of the farm owned by him, registered in the Public Registry for the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582.
In order to frame the central aspect of the dispute, as well as the relevant analysis, we observe that the plaintiff clearly established the scope of his claims, without there being an annulment action regarding the formal administrative conduct recorded in the declaration of a public street ordered by the agreement of the Municipal Council of Liberia, article two of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, confirmed by resolution No. 454-2013 at 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, by the Third Section of the Contentious Administrative Court, when resolving the appeal per saltum. In this way, the proceedings are excluded from the hypothesis of so-called plenary jurisdiction actions, and we must refer to the context of what was claimed by the plaintiff. We also note that the defendant local corporation did not raise defenses, while Name148168 did not do the same, nor did he indicate a place for notifications. The discussion falls upon this scenario, and we will review the plaintiff's claims in order. It is relevant to recall that traditionally the legality control of administrative conduct, based on constitutional precept 49, which constitutes a Fundamental Right, occurs over three manifestations:
IV.SITUATION OF THE PRIMARY CLAIM.- Starting from the previous tripartite classification, we must say that the primary claim is utterly meaningless for several reasons, which we will now review. It is crucial that the plaintiff was not interested in proving whether the opening of the public street, as a result of the formal conduct of the defendant Municipality, reduced the area of the farm registered in the Public Registry for the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582. There is no suitable element of analysis for that purpose, and it is insufficient to imagine that the proof comes from cadastral map No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971, based on the design contained therein and the boundaries. This is because that information is completely contrary to what is contained in other cadastral maps, dating from before and after the one of interest to the plaintiff. Specifically, we refer to cadastral map No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, from the Guanacaste Section, which evidences the existence of a street with a layout that coincides with Dirección3421, both in terms of its location relative to the adjacent farms and its placement on the "hoja ciudad Liberia," the same occurring in cadastral maps No. G-017-75 of January 2, 1975, No. G-289371-77 of November 1, 1977, No. G-395891-80 of July 7, 1980, No. G-405695-80 of September 22, 1980, No. G-740202-2001 of October 4, 2001.
Furthermore, note that cadastral map No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971, is not correlated with the farm registered in the Public Registry for the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582, according to the information in the registry certification provided by Mr. Name148167 when filing his lawsuit. Nor can it be concluded that the administrative conduct cut off a certain number of square meters from the plaintiff's farm, simply by relying on the boundaries indicated in the registry certification of ownership provided by the interested party, since such an indication does not allow such an assertion to be made, lacking technical evidence to prove it. The fact that the northern boundary in that certification mentions that it adjoins Name148169 and Name148174 in part is not enough to assume that Dirección3421—for that reason—did not exist. Rather, the cadastral information visible in the case file shows that the data in the 1971 cadastral map is wrong, and the boundaries contained in the registry certification of the plaintiff's property also do not reflect reality.
The plaintiff's position would be supported, for example, if he had presented an expert report from a topographer or surveyor who, upon measuring the registry area and that of the public street, yielded relevant data demonstrating the injury to private property. However, the only certainty is the absence of indications showing that the area of the mentioned farm was reduced by the material execution of the administrative act, the nullity of which—in any case—has not been requested. Given the lack of evidence, what can be affirmed is that the opening of Dirección3421 was lawful, with no evidence that the co-defendants disturbed the possession of the owner of the cited farm. In that context, the testimonial evidence provided by the plaintiff is inadequate to demonstrate one thing or the other (reduction of area or disturbance of possession), whether due to lack of suitability or because it did not even address the point.
Given the current state of affairs, it is not observed that the plaintiff was disturbed in his right to fence his farm. It goes without saying that, logically, he is prevented from building any type of obstacle to passage on the public street because said area is alien to his registered property, the contrary not having been proven. Therefore, the primary claim referring to: "I) That the undersigned Name148167, in his capacity as owner, has full dominion over the entirety of the farm in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29578, including the right to fence the lot on all its sides. II) That consequently, the defendants Municipality of Liberia and Name148168 must refrain from preventing, or in any way disturbing, the legitimate possession of the undersigned owner over the entirety of the related property," must be dismissed without merit, since nothing prevents the plaintiff from exercising full dominion over his farm, and there is no evidence that he was disturbed in his right, as it was not proven that the area occupied by Dirección3421 forms part of the size of the private property.
V.SITUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM.- For this purpose, we take into account that the opening of a public road must comply with the legal administrative procedure (see Constitutional Chamber, No. 2010016599 at 10:01 hrs. on October 8, 2010), thereby respecting the procedures established for that purpose in Article 33 of the General Law of Public Roads (LGCP) (Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972). Consequently, a road cannot be opened without complying with the procedure set forth in the LGCP. That said, it is worth clarifying that the LGCP (Art. 1) distinguishes between the national road network (primary, secondary, tertiary, and restricted-access highways) and the cantonal road network, which incorporates roads not included in the national road network (local roads, local streets, unclassified roads). There is a prohibition against closing, narrowing, building on, or fencing a road or street legally or de facto handed over to the service of the community, or to owners or residents of a locality (Art. 32 LGCP), so that, if the foregoing occurs, the legal framework must be respected for the reopening of the road.
It is true that, in the case of demanial assets (speaking of them in general), administrative action replaces interdictal action as a means for the Administration to protect its assets (principle of self-help). However, this administrative action must be differentiated into two modalities. The first (reactional self-help), referring to direct coercion, in which the Administration, on behalf of the community, defends its real right on its own, given that the asset, its use, and its purpose, particularly demanial, admits no discussion regarding the ownership by the proprietor, meaning there is no doubt that it belongs to the State or an autonomous territorial or institutional entity (we are not exclusively speaking of roads, nor are we covering the private assets of Public Administrations). For example, a public park registered in the name of a Municipality, or even when not registered, if it was handed over to public use without margin for error, or if its designation is recorded on official maps or the cadaster, would constitute a basis authorizing the use of direct coercion without needing to observe due process, because the possession held by the managed party is openly illegitimate or contrary to the service they provide (Arts. 261 to 263 of the Civil Code).
The same criterion could apply to a route that is part of the national road network, and even to those belonging to the cantonal road network, provided that ownership is indisputable; therefore, a private individual cannot prevent passage or free transit. The second (declaratory self-help), however, refers us to cases in which the circumstance prevents easy identification, with no room for error, of that ownership, that purpose, or that public peculiarity that supposedly distinguishes the asset. In such cases, the law provides that to remove the closure, narrowing, construction, or fence built on the road, an administrative information proceeding must be followed, a type of summary or special procedure, whose purpose is to verify that the closed road is not privately owned. For this reason, the statements of three witnesses must be gathered to record the relevant facts, understood as since when the road was at the service of the collective or private individuals, and since when it was narrowed or closed, and a technical report must be included.
For this purpose, the violator must also be heard, which undoubtedly requires proper prior notification regarding the purpose of the proceeding, the rights afforded to them, and the specific consequence, so that if it is proven that the road was affected without authorization, or that it was at collective service for more than one year, its reopening will be ordered within a period of no more than three days, and in default of the obligated party, the order will be executed on its own account. Note that this is an administrative act that requires a prior procedure to sustain its validity and efficacy (Arts. 129 to 189 General Law of Public Administration -LGAP-). It should be clarified that the reopening procedure remains current, without having been modified by the application of Law No. 9078 of October 4, 2012 (Art. 231). Rather, that legal text, which regulates traffic regulations for motor vehicles on public land roads, reaffirms the previous explanation, allowing the deduction that said regulation is aimed at strengthening reactional protection without excluding declaratory protection (Art. 2, subsections 17 to 20, and Article 131, Law No. 9078), so that in the event of a dispute over ownership, the legal procedure must be followed (see Constitutional Chamber, Ruling No. 2010016599).
This preamble allows us to indicate that, in the sub litem, given the absence of an annulment claim, the compensation requested by the plaintiff excluded the hypothesis of abnormal functioning. Independent of this omission in the lawsuit, it was not proven in any case that the administrative conduct caused injury by reducing the area of his property. Precisely along these lines, compensation for lawful conduct is also not applicable, since the opening of Dirección3421 required an administrative proceeding in which the plaintiff figured as the violator, so the procedure carried out by the defendant Municipality aimed to remove the obstacles placed by Mr. Name148167 on a portion of said Dirección3421, as was even admitted in his lawsuit. Within that framework, it would be illogical to compensate the violator. The outlined analysis also applies to the conduct "to do" requested by the plaintiff (proportional refund of the "territorial" tax), which lacks support due to the variables explained above.
Consequently, what was requested alternatively, namely: "Should it be determined for any reason that placing the undersigned in possession of the entirety of the property is not appropriate because a 7-meter-wide strip running through the lot from north to south along its eastern boundary is in fact a public pedestrian path, I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to pay the undersigned owner the total value of the aforementioned strip according to the resulting surface area and the price determined, both by expert evidence, at the judgment enforcement stage. II) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to refund to the undersigned the proportional part of the territorial tax paid on the strip considered to be, in fact, a public pedestrian path, together with statutory interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert at the judgment enforcement stage." must also be dismissed without merit, based on the absence of a right to grant what was claimed (Arts. 43 and 44 of the Urban Planning Law, Arts. 4, 5, and 7 of the Construction Law, Arts. 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, Art. 2 subsections 17 to 20 and Art. 231 of Law No. 9078).
VI.CONCLUSION.- The defendants did not raise defenses; however, the claims must be dismissed without merit due to being inadmissible, as set forth in the preceding whereas clauses. As there is no merit for exemption, the general rule of awarding costs against the losing party applies, in this case, the plaintiff.
THEREFORE
The lawsuit filed by Name148167 against the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA is dismissed without merit in all its aspects. The plaintiff is ordered to pay both types of costs.
LET IT BE NOTIFIED.- Alner Palacios García Nombre18366 Nombre72048 2 Ordinary Proceeding CED115338 Plaintiff/ Nombre148167 Defendant/ Municipalidad de Liberia and Nombre148168 Nº 43-2015 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT, EIGHTH SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, GOICOECHEA, at eight o'clock on the seventh of May of the year two thousand fifteen.- Ordinary proceeding filed by Nombre148167, holder of identity card Nº CED115339, against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA, represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact Ronny José Mora Mayorga, holder of identity card Nº CED115340, and Nombre148168, holder of identity card CED115337°.
WHEREAS
-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-
WHEREAS:
I- OF THE PROVEN FACTS: The following factual picture has evidentiary support:
II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: The plaintiff did not prove: 1) That the declaration of public street adopted by the Concejo Municipal through an administrative act affected the area of the property in the Partido de Guanacaste, number Placa29582, thereby reducing in any way the measurement of 883.20 square meters indicated by the Registry. 2) That the defendant Municipality engaged in any material activity that would have caused the plaintiff a real, certain, effective, and individualizable damage. 3) That the co-defendants disturbed the plaintiff's possession of his property, registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582.
III.- MERITS OF THE CASE: For the purpose of framing the dispute, in its core aspect, as well as the pertinent analysis, we note that the plaintiff clearly established the scope of his claims, without there being an annulment claim regarding the formal administrative conduct contained in the declaration of public street ordered by the agreement of the Concejo Municipal of Liberia, second article of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, ratified by resolution No. 454-2013 at 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, by the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, when resolving the appeal per saltum. In this way, the process is excluded from the hypothesis of those called plenary jurisdiction claims, and we must refer to the context of what was sought by the plaintiff. We also note that the defendant local corporation did not raise defenses, while Nombre148168 did not do the same nor did it designate a place for notifications. Upon this scenario the discussion falls, and we will review the plaintiff's claims, in their order. It is relevant to recall that traditionally, the legality control of administrative conduct, based on Constitutional precept 49, which stands as a Fundamental Right, occurs over three manifestations:
IV.- SITUATION OF THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM.- Based on the previous tripartite classification, we must say that the principal claim is absolutely meaningless. This is for several reasons, which we proceed to review. It is transcendental that the plaintiff showed no interest in proving whether the opening of the public street, as a consequence of the defendant Municipality's formal conduct, reduced the area of the property registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582. There is no element of analysis suitable for that purpose, and it is not sufficient to imagine that the proof comes from the surveyed plan (plano catastrado) No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971, relying on the design contained therein and the boundaries. This is because that information is completely contrary to that contained in other surveyed plans (planos catastrados), dated both before and after the one of interest to the plaintiff.
Specifically, we refer to the surveyed plan (plano catastrado) No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, of the Guanacaste Section, which evidences the existence of a street with a layout that coincides with Dirección3421, both regarding its location in relation to the adjoining properties and its placement on the "hoja ciudad Liberia", the same occurring in the surveyed plans (planos catastrados) No. G-017-75 of January 2, 1975, No. G-289371-77 of November 1, 1977, No. G-395891-80 of July 7, 1980, No. G-405695-80 of September 22, 1980, No. G-740202-2001 of October 4, 2001. Moreover, see that the surveyed plan (plano catastrado) No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971, is not correlated with the property registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29582, according to the information in the registry certification provided by Mr. Nombre148167 when filing his claim.
Nor can it be concluded that the administrative conduct removed any quantity of square meters from the plaintiff's property, simply by relying on the boundaries indicated by the registry property certification provided by the interested party, since such an indication does not allow sustaining such an assertion, as it lacks technical proof to support it. It is not enough that the north boundary of that certification mentions that it adjoins Nombre148169 and Nombre148174 in part, to suppose that Dirección3421 -for that reason- did not exist. Rather, the survey information visible in the record shows that the data from the 1971 surveyed plan (plano catastrado) is erroneous, and the boundaries contained in the registry property certification of the plaintiff's property do not reflect reality either. The plaintiff's position would be supported, for example, if he had presented an expert report from a topographer or a land surveyor, who, after measuring the registered area and that of the public street, could provide a relevant piece of data demonstrating the injury to private property.
However, the only certainty is the absence of any indication showing that the area of the mentioned property was reduced by the material execution of the administrative act, the annulment of which -in any case- has not been requested. Given the lack of proof, what can be affirmed is that the opening of Dirección3421 was lawful, with no evidence that the co-defendants disturbed the possession of the owner of the cited property. In this context, the testimonial evidence provided by the plaintiff is inadequate to demonstrate one thing or the other (reduction of area or disturbance of possession), either due to a lack of suitability or because it did not even refer to the point. Given the current state of affairs, it is not observed that the plaintiff was disturbed in his right to fence his property. It goes without saying that, logically, he is prevented from building any type of obstacle to passage over the public street, because that area is outside his registered property, since the contrary has not been demonstrated.
This being the case, the principal claim referring to: "I) That the undersigned Nombre148167, in his capacity as owner, holds full dominion over the entirety of the property in the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29578. Including the right to fence the lot on all its sides. II) That consequently, the defendants Municipality of Liberia and Nombre148168 must refrain from impeding, or in any way disturbing, the legitimate possession of the undersigned owner over the entirety of the related property"; must be declared without merit, since nothing impedes the exercise of the full dominion that the plaintiff may have over his property, and there is no record of his right having been disturbed, as it was not proven that the area occupied by Dirección3421 forms part of the area of the private property.
V.- SITUATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY CLAIM.- For this purpose, we consider that the opening of a public road must comply with the legal administrative procedure (see Constitutional Chamber, No. 2010016599 at 10:01 a.m. on October 8, 2010), thus respecting the procedures that Article 33 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos (LGCP) (Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972) provides for this purpose. Hence, a road cannot be opened without following the procedure established by the LGCP. Having said the above, it is appropriate to specify that the LGCP (Art. 1) distinguishes between the national road network (primary, secondary, tertiary, and restricted-access highways), as opposed to the cantonal road network (red vial cantonal) which incorporates roads not included in the national road network (local roads, local streets, unclassified roads).
There is a prohibition against closing, narrowing, building upon, or fencing a road or street delivered by law or in fact to the service of the community, or to the owners or residents of a locality (Art. 32 LGCP), so that, if the foregoing has occurred, the legal framework must be respected for the reopening of the road. It is true that, in the case of public domain assets (demanial assets, speaking of them in general), administrative action replaces possessory actions, as a means for the Administration to protect its assets (principle of self-help (autotutela)). However, this administrative action must be differentiated into two modalities. The first (reactive self-help (autotulela reaccional)) refers to direct coercion, in which the Administration, on behalf of the community, defends its real right by its own hand, given that the asset, its use, and its purpose, particularly public domain, does not admit discussion regarding the owner's title, meaning there is no doubt that it belongs to the State or a territorial or institutional autonomous entity (we are not speaking exclusively of roads, nor are we encompassing the private assets of Public Administrations).
For example, a public park registered in the name of a Municipality, or even if not registered, was delivered to public use without room for error, or, if its designation is recorded in official maps or the cadastre, would be a basis empowering the use of direct coercion, without needing to observe due process, since the possession held by the administered party is openly illegitimate, or contrary to the service they provide (Arts. 261 to 263 of the Civil Code). The same criterion could be applied to a route that is part of the national road network, and even to those belonging to the cantonal road network (red vial cantonal), provided that such ownership is indisputable, therefore, a private individual cannot impede passage or free transit. The second (declaratory self-help (autotulela declarativa)), however, refers us to cases in which the circumstance prevents identifying that ownership, that purpose, or that public peculiarity distinguishing the asset with great ease and without room for error.
In such cases, the law provides that to remove the closure, narrowing, building, or fence constructed on the road, an administrative inquiry (información administrativa) must be followed, a type of summary or special procedure, whose object is to verify that the closed road is not of private domain. For this reason, the declaration of three witnesses must be collected, to record the pertinent facts, meaning, from when the road was in collective or private service and from when it was narrowed or closed, and must include a technical report. For this purpose, the offender must also be heard, which undoubtedly requires prior due notification, about the purposes of the proceeding, the rights they possess, and the specific consequence, so that if it is verified that the road was affected without authorization, or that it was in collective service for more than one year, the reopening will be ordered within a period not exceeding three days, and in the default of the obligated party, the order will be executed at their expense.
Note that this is an administrative act that requires a prior procedure to sustain its validity and effectiveness (Arts. 129 to 189 Ley General de la Administración Pública -LGAP-). It is worth clarifying that the reopening procedure maintains its current relevance, without having been modified by the application of Law No. 9078 of October 4, 2012 (Art. 231). In fact, that legal text, which regulates the regulations for automobile transit on public land roads, reaffirms the previous explanation, allowing it to be deduced that such regulation is aimed at strengthening the reactive protection without excluding the declaratory (Art. 2, subsections 17 to 20, and Article 131, Law No. 9078), so that in the event of a dispute regarding ownership, the legal procedure must be followed (see Constitutional Chamber, Voto No. 2010016599). This preamble allows us to indicate that, in the sub litem, given the absence of an annulment claim, the compensation requested by the plaintiff excluded the hypothesis of abnormal operation.
Regardless of that omission in the claim, in any case, it was not proven that the administrative conduct caused an injury by reducing the area of his property. Precisely along these lines, compensation for lawful conduct is also not applicable, since the opening of Dirección3421 compelled an administrative procedure in which the plaintiff was identified as the offender, so that the procedure carried out by the defendant Municipality had the purpose of removing the obstacles that Mr. Nombre148167 placed on a portion of said Dirección3421, as he even admitted in his claim. Within that framework, compensating the offender would be illogical. The analysis outlined also applies to the "obligation to do" conduct requested by the plaintiff (proportional refund of the "territorial" tax), which lacks support due to the variables explained ut supra. Hence, what was requested in a subsidiary manner, namely: "Should it be determined for any reason that it is not appropriate to place the undersigned in possession of the entirety of the property because the strip 7 meters wide that runs through the lot from north to south along its east boundary is a de facto public pedestrian path, I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to pay the undersigned owner the total value of the cited strip according to the resulting surface area and the price to be determined, both through expert evidence, at the judgment enforcement stage.
VI.- CONCLUSION.- The defendants did not raise defenses; however, the claims must be declared without merit as unfounded, according to what has been set forth in the preceding recitals. As there is no merit for exoneration, the general rule of awarding costs against the losing party applies, in this case, the plaintiff.
POR TANTO
The claim of Nombre148167 against the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA is declared without merit, in all its respects. The plaintiff is ordered to pay both sets of costs.
NOTIFY.
Alner Palacios García Name18366 Name72048 2 { "laws": [ { "law_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "160225", "law_year": "1968", "law_num": "4240", "law_ver": "80861", "law_date": "15 Nov 1968", "law_id": "35669", "art_num": "43" }, { "law_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "160226", "law_year": "1968", "law_num": "4240", "law_ver": "80861", "law_date": "15 Nov 1968", "law_id": "35669", "art_num": "44" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "172181", "law_year": "1972", "law_num": "5060", "law_ver": "101756", "law_date": "22 Aug 1972", "law_id": "38653", "art_num": "32" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de Caminos Públicos", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "172182", "law_year": "1972", "law_num": "5060", "law_ver": "101756", "law_date": "22 Aug 1972", "law_id": "38653", "art_num": "33" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77197", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "129" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77198", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "130" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77199", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "131" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77200", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "132" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77201", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "133" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77202", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "134" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77203", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "135" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77204", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "136" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77205", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "137" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77206", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "138" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77207", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "139" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77208", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "140" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77209", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "141" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77210", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "142" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77211", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "143" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77212", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "144" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77213", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "145" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77214", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "146" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77215", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "147" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77216", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "148" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77217", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "149" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77218", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "150" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77219", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "151" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77220", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "152" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77221", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "153" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77222", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "154" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77223", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "155" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77224", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "156" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77225", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "157" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77226", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "158" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77227", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "159" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77228", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "160" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77229", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "161" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77230", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "162" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77231", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "163" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77232", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "164" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77233", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "165" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77234", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "166" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77235", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "167" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77236", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "168" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77237", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "169" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77238", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "170" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77239", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "171" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77240", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "172" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77241", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "173" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77242", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "174" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77243", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "175" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77244", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "176" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77245", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "177" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77246", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "178" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77247", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "179" }, { "law_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "law_type": "Ley", "art_id": "77248", "law_year": "1978", "law_num": "6227", "law_ver": "90116", "law_date": "02 May 1978", "law_id": "13231", "art_num": "180" Sobre el fondo del asunto.
La recurrente pretende la instalación de un gasolinera en su propiedad sita en Playa Hermosa, la cual se encuentra dentro del Patrimonio Natural del Estado (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE) -zona marítimo terrestre (zona marítimo terrestre, ZMT). De la prueba aportada se desprende la condición de ocupante precario que ostenta, porque reconoce que no es dueña, ni concesionaria, sino que ocupa tácitamente el inmueble, mediante una compraventa de bien ajeno, es decir, de un área que no es –ni podría ser legalmente– susceptible de apropiación por los particulares. El dominio Público se regula fundamentalmente por la Ley General de la Administración Pública, concretamente la posesión precaria, en los artículos 181 al 189 según los siguientes lineamientos: La posesión de dominio público solo es posible para la administración, pero puede otorgarse el uso a los particulares, mediante permisos de uso precario del dominio público (artículo 181).
El artículo 182 dispone para los permisos de uso las siguientes reglas: “(…) 5. El titular del permiso de uso sobre dominio público no tendrá derecho a indemnización alguna aunque la Administración lo revoque o modifique, salvo la que corresponda por daños y perjuicios o por las mejoras útiles que se hubieren realizado con conocimiento y sin oposición del concedente. 6. Podrá autorizarse la prestación del servicio o actividad objeto del permiso en forma exclusiva cuando razones de interés público lo justifiquen, mientras subsistan dichas razones, sin que el particular adquiera derecho a la permanencia de la exclusividad (…)”. En el considerando III del Decreto Ejecutivo 25721, se declaró de conveniencia nacional el desarrollo de la Gran Área Metropolitana, así como de los proyectos que se encuentran en las unidades vecinales del Área Metropolitana, como Playa Hermosa, pese a esta declaratoria, la recurrente no califica como permisionaria según los artículos de comentario.
En todo caso los permisos de uso sobre éstos bienes demaniales, deben ser formalmente otorgados por la Administración, que es la única que posee título legal sobre éstos bienes imprescriptibles, inalienables e inembargables. La recurrente carece de legitimación para solicitar las autorizaciones de construcción de desarrollos comerciales que se requieren, porque no ostenta ningún título idóneo (artículos 261 a 263 del Código Civil y 4, 5 y 7 de la Ley de Construcciones y su Reglamento), válido y eficaz para actuar como titular de la finca donde se propone construir la gasolinera. Según las constancias que obran en el expediente, la recurrente no ostenta el uso del suelo, ni autorizaciones de las entidades competentes. El inciso 17 al 20 del artículo 2 de la Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial, en cuanto a los requisitos que debe reunir la construcción de una gasolinera, dispone que se debe contar con accesos autorizados por el MOPT a vías de dominio público.
On the merits of the case. The appellant seeks the installation of a gas station on her property located in Playa Hermosa, which lies within the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE) - maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre, ZMT). The evidence submitted reveals her status as a precarious occupant (ocupante precario), because she acknowledges that she is neither the owner nor the concessionaire, but rather tacitly occupies the property by means of a sale of another's property, that is, of an area that is not—nor could legally be—susceptible to appropriation by private individuals. The Public Domain is fundamentally regulated by the Ley General de la Administración Pública, specifically regarding precarious possession, in Articles 181 through 189 according to the following guidelines: Possession of the public domain is only possible for the administration, but use may be granted to private individuals through permits for precarious use of the public domain (Article 181).
Article 182 establishes the following rules for use permits: “(…) 5. The holder of a use permit over the public domain shall not be entitled to any compensation even if the Administration revokes or modifies it, except for that which corresponds for damages or for useful improvements that were made with the knowledge and without the opposition of the grantor. 6. The provision of the service or activity that is the object of the permit may be authorized on an exclusive basis when reasons of public interest so justify, for as long as such reasons subsist, without the individual acquiring any right to the permanence of that exclusivity (…)”. *Considerando* III of Decreto Ejecutivo 25721 declared the development of the Gran Área Metropolitana, as well as projects located in the neighborhood units of the Área Metropolitana, such as Playa Hermosa, to be of national convenience. Despite this declaration, the appellant does not qualify as a permit holder according to the articles under discussion.
In any case, use permits over these public domain assets must be formally granted by the Administration, which is the only entity holding legal title over these assets that are imprescriptible, inalienable, and unattachable. The appellant lacks standing to request the required construction authorizations for commercial developments, because she does not hold any suitable, valid, and effective title (Articles 261 to 263 of the Código Civil and 4, 5, and 7 of the Ley de Construcciones and its Reglamento) to act as the owner of the property where the gas station is proposed to be built. According to the records in the case file, the appellant does not hold the land use, nor authorizations from the competent entities. With respect to the requirements that the construction of a gas station must meet, subsections 17 through 20 of Article 2 of the Ley de Tránsito por Vías Públicas Terrestres y Seguridad Vial stipulate that it must have access points to public roads authorized by the MOPT.
SITUATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY CLAIM.- For this purpose, we take into account that the opening of a public road must comply with the legally established administrative procedure (see Constitutional Chamber [Sala Constitucional], No. 2010016599 of 10:01 hrs on October 8, 2010), thus respecting the procedures set forth for this purpose by Article 33 of the General Public Roads Law (Ley General de Caminos Públicos, LGCP) (Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972). Hence, a road cannot be opened without complying with the procedure established by the LGCP. Having said this, it is appropriate to specify that the LGCP (art. 1) differentiates between the national road network (carreteras primarias, secundarias, terciarias, and de acceso restringido), as opposed to the cantonal road network, which includes roads not included in the national road network (caminos vecinales, calles locales, caminos no clasificados).
There is a prohibition against closing, narrowing, building upon, or fencing off a road or street that has been legally or de facto dedicated to the service of the community, or to the service of property owners or neighbors of a locality (art. 32 LGCP), such that, if the foregoing occurs, the legal framework must be respected for the reopening of the road. It is true that, in the case of public domain assets (dominio público) (speaking of them generally), the administrative action replaces the possessory action (acción interdictal), as a means for the Administration to protect its assets (principle of self-protection [autotutela]). However, a distinction must be made regarding this administrative action, in two modalities. The first modality (reactive self-protection [autotutela reaccional]) refers to direct coercion, in which the Administration, on behalf of the community, defends its real property right by its own hand, given that the asset, its use, and its purpose, particularly public domain assets (demanial), does not admit discussion regarding the ownership of the proprietor, meaning there is no doubt that it pertains to the State or an autonomous territorial or institutional entity (we are not speaking exclusively of roads, nor are we encompassing the private assets of Public Administrations).
For example, a public park registered in the name of a Municipality, or even if not registered, was unquestionably dedicated to public use, or its encumbrance (afectación) is recorded in official maps or the cadastre, would serve as a basis to authorize the use of direct coercion, without the need to observe due process, because the possession held by the individual is openly illegitimate, or contrary to the service they provide (arts. 261 to 263 of the Civil Code [Código Civil]). The same criterion could be applied to a route that is part of the national road network, and even to those belonging to the cantonal road network, as long as that ownership is indisputable; therefore, an individual cannot impede passage or free transit. The second modality (declaratory self-protection [autotutela declarativa]), however, refers us to cases in which the circumstance prevents identifying that ownership, that purpose, or that public peculiarity that supposedly distinguishes the asset, with great ease and without room for error.
In such cases, the law provides that to remove the closure, narrowing, building, or fence constructed on the road, an administrative investigation (información administrativa) must be conducted, a kind of summary or special procedure, the purpose of which is to verify that the closed road is not of private domain. For this reason, the statement of three witnesses must be collected, to record the pertinent facts, that is, from when the road was at the collective or private service and from when it was narrowed or closed, and a technical report must be included. For this purpose, the offender must also be heard, which undoubtedly requires proper prior notification, regarding the purposes of the proceeding, the rights they possess, and the specific consequence, so that if it is proven that the road was affected without authorization, or that it was at the collective service for more than one year, the opening will be ordered within a period no greater than three days, and in the event of the obligated party's default, the order will be executed at their expense.
Note that this is an administrative act that requires the prior procedure to support its validity and effectiveness (arts. 129 to 189 General Public Administration Law [Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP]). It should be clarified that the reopening procedure maintains its currency, without having been modified by the application of Law No. 9078 of October 4, 2012 (art. 231). Rather, that legal text, which regulates the norms for automobile traffic on public land roads, reaffirms the preceding explanation, allowing the deduction that said regulation is aimed at strengthening the reactive protection (tutela reaccional) without excluding the declaratory protection (tutela declarativa) (art. 2 subsections [incisos] 17 to 20 and article 131, Law No. 9078), such that in the event of a dispute regarding ownership, the legal procedure must be followed (see Constitutional Chamber [Sala Constitucional], Vote [Voto] No. 2010016599).
This preamble allows us to indicate that, in the sub lite, given the absence of an annulment claim (pretensión anulatoria), the compensation requested by the plaintiff excluded the hypothesis of abnormal functioning (funcionamiento anormal). Independently of that omission in the complaint, in any case, it was not proven that the administrative conduct caused an injury by diminishing the area of his property. Precisely along these lines, compensation for lawful conduct is also not applicable, since the opening of calle 13 required an administrative procedure in which the plaintiff appeared as the offender, such that the procedure carried out by the defendant Municipality was aimed at removing the obstacles that Mr. Hernández placed upon a portion of said calle 13, as he even admitted in his complaint. In this framework, it would be illogical to compensate the offender. The analysis outlined also applies to the request for "action" ("de hacer") sought by the plaintiff (proportional refund of the "territorial" tax), which lacks support due to the variables explained above (ut spra).
Hence, what was requested in the subsidiary form, namely: "In the event that for any reason it is determined that it is not appropriate to place the undersigned in possession of the entire property because the 7-meter-wide strip that runs through the lot from north to south along its eastern boundary is a de facto pedestrian public road, I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to pay the undersigned owner the total value of the cited strip according to the resulting area and the price determined, both through expert evidence, at the sentence execution stage. II) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to refund to the undersigned the proportional part of the territorial tax paid on the strip considered a de facto pedestrian public road, together with legal interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert at the sentence execution stage.", must also be denied based on the absence of a legal right to grant what is claimed (arts. 43 and 44 of the Urban Planning Law [Ley de Planificación Urbana], arts. 4, 5 and 7 of the Constructions Law [Ley de Construcciones], arts. 32 and 33 of the General Public Roads Law [Ley General de Caminos Públicos], art. 2 subsections [incisos] 17 to 20 and art.
Ordinary proceedings CED115338 Plaintiff/ Nombre148167 Defendant/ Municipalidad de Liberia and Nombre148168 Nº 43-2015 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT, SECTION EIGHT, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, GOICOECHEA, at eight o'clock on the seventh of May of the year two thousand fifteen.- Ordinary proceedings filed by Nombre148167 , bearer of identity card Nº CED115339, against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA, represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact Ronny José Mora Mayorga, bearer of identity card Nº CED115340, and Nombre148168, bearer of identity card CED115337°.
WHEREAS
-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-
WHEREAS:
I- OF THE PROVEN FACTS: The following factual framework has evidentiary support:
The plaintiff did not prove: 1) That the declaration of public street adopted by the Municipal Council through an administrative act affected the area of the property in the Partido de Guanacaste, number Placa29582, reducing in any way the measurement of 883.20 square meters indicated by the Registry. 2) That the defendant Municipality incurred in a material activity that produced a real, certain, effective, and individualizable injury to the plaintiff. 3) That the co-defendants disturb the plaintiff's possession regarding the property belonging to him, registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, title number Placa29582.
For the purpose of situating the controversy in its core aspect, as well as the pertinent analysis, we note that the plaintiff clearly established the scope of his claims, without there being an annulment regarding the formal administrative conduct contained in the declaration of public street ordered by the decision of the Municipal Council of Liberia, second article of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, ratified by resolution No. 454-2013 of 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, of the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Court, when resolving the per saltum appeal. In this way, the proceeding is excluded from the hypothesis of those called full jurisdiction, and we must refer to the context of what the plaintiff sought. We also note that the defendant local corporation did not raise defenses, while Nombre148168 did not do the same, nor did it indicate a place for notifications. The discussion falls upon this scenario, and we will review the plaintiff's claims, in order. It is relevant to recall that traditionally the legality control of administrative conduct, based on Constitutional precept 49, which stands as a Fundamental Right, occurs over three manifestations:
IV.SITUATION OF THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM.- Starting from the previous tripartite classification, we must say that the principal claim lacks sense in absolute terms. The foregoing for several reasons, which we proceed to review. It is transcendental that the plaintiff did not take an interest in proving whether the opening of the public street, as a consequence of the formal conduct of the defendant Municipality, reduced the area of the property registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, title number Placa29582. There is no element of analysis suitable for that purpose, and it is not sufficient to imagine that the evidence comes from cadastral plan No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971, relying on the design contained therein and the boundaries. This is so because that information is completely contrary to that contained in other cadastral plans, of dates both prior to and after the one of interest to the plaintiff.
We specifically refer to cadastral plan No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, of the Guanacaste Section, which shows the existence of a street for the layout that coincides with Dirección3421, both in terms of its location relative to the adjoining properties and its placement on the "Liberia city sheet," and the same occurs in cadastral plans No. G-017-75 of January 2, 1975, No. G-289371-77 of November 1, 1977, No. G-395891-80 of July 7, 1980, No. G-405695-80 of September 22, 1980, No. G-740202-2001 of October 4, 2001. Furthermore, note that cadastral plan No. G-10435-71 of October 14, 1971 is not correlated with the property registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, title number Placa29582, according to the information from the registry certification provided by Mr. Nombre148167 when filing his lawsuit. Nor can it be concluded that the administrative conduct cut off any quantity of square meters from the plaintiff's property, simply by relying on the boundaries indicated by the registry certification of ownership provided by the interested party, since such an indication does not allow sustaining such an assertion, as it lacks technical evidence to support it.
It is not enough that the northern boundary of that certification mentions that it borders Nombre148169 and Nombre148174 in part, to suppose that Dirección3421 -for that reason- did not exist. Rather, the cadastral information visible in the record shows that the data from the cadastral plan of the year 1971 is erroneous, and the boundaries contained in the registry certification of ownership of the plaintiff's real estate also do not reflect reality. The plaintiff's position would have support, for example, if he had presented an expert report from a surveyor, who, after measuring the registered area and that of the public street, provided relevant data demonstrating the injury to the private property. However, the only certainty is the absence of evidence showing that the area of the mentioned property was reduced by the material execution of the administrative act, the annulment of which -in any event- has not been requested. Given the lack of evidence, what is viable to
affirm is that the opening of Dirección3421 was in accordance with the law, without evidence that the co-defendants disturbed the possession of the owner of the cited property. In this context, the witness evidence provided by the plaintiff is inadequate to prove one thing or the other (reduction of area or disturbance of possession), either due to a lack of suitability or because it did not even refer to the point. Given the current state of things, it is not observed that the plaintiff was disturbed in his right to fence his property. It goes without saying that, logically, he is prevented from constructing any type of obstacle to passage on the public street, because that area is separate from his registered property, as the contrary has not been proven. Thus, the principal claim referring to: "I) That the undersigned Nombre148167, in his capacity as owner, has full dominion over the entirety of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, title number Placa29578.
Including the right to fence the lot on all its sides. II) That consequently the defendants Municipality of Liberia and Nombre148168 must refrain from preventing, or in any way disturbing, the legitimate possession of the undersigned owner over the entirety of the related property"; must be declared without merit, since nothing impedes the exercise of full dominion that the plaintiff may have over his property, nor is it recorded that he has been disturbed in his right, since it was not proven that the area occupied by Dirección3421 forms part of the area of the private real estate.
V.SITUATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY CLAIM.- For this purpose we take into account that the opening of a public road must comply with the administrative procedure established by law (see Constitutional Chamber, No. 2010016599 of 10:01 a.m. on October 8, 2010), thus respecting the procedures provided for this purpose in Article 33 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos, LGCP) (Law No. 5060 of August 22, 1972). Hence, a road cannot be opened without complying with the procedure established by the LGCP. Having said the above, it is pertinent to specify that the LGCP (Art. 1) differentiates between the national road network (primary, secondary, tertiary, and restricted-access highways), as opposed to the cantonal road network which incorporates roads not included in the national road network (local roads, local streets, unclassified roads). There is a prohibition against closing, narrowing, building on, or fencing a road or street that has been given, by law or in fact, to the service of the community, or to the owners or residents of a locality (Art. 32 LGCP), so that, once the foregoing has occurred, the legal framework must be observed for the reopening of the road.
It is true that in the case of public domain assets (speaking of them in general), the administrative action substitutes the possessory action, as a means for the Administration to protect its assets (principle of self-help). However, this administrative action must be differentiated into two modalities. The first (reactional self-help) refers to direct coercion, in which the Administration, on behalf of the community, defends its real right, by its own means, given that the asset, its use, and its destination, particularly in the public domain, does not admit of discussion regarding the ownership of the proprietor, meaning there is no doubt that it belongs to the State or a territorial or institutional autonomous entity (we are not speaking exclusively of roads, nor are we encompassing the private assets of Public Administrations). For example, a public park registered in the name of a Municipality, or even if not registered, having been given over to public use without room for error, or, its designation being recorded on official maps or the cadastre, would constitute a basis empowering the use of direct coercion, without the need to observe a due process, since the possession held by the individual is openly illegitimate, or contrary to the service they render (Arts. 261 to 263 of the Civil Code).
The same criterion could be applied in the case of a route that forms part of the national road network, and even those belonging to the cantonal road network, as long as that ownership is indisputable; therefore, an individual cannot impede passage or free transit. The second (declaratory self-help), however, refers to cases in which the circumstance prevents easy identification, without margin of error, of that ownership, that destination, or that public peculiarity that supposedly distinguishes the asset. In such cases, the law provides that to remove the closure, narrowing, building, or fence constructed on the road, an administrative investigation must be conducted, a type of summary or special proceeding, which aims to verify that the closed road is not under private domain. For this reason, the statements of three witnesses must be collected, to record the pertinent facts, that is, how long the road had been at the service of the community or private individuals and since when it was narrowed or closed, and an expert report must be included.
For that purpose, the violator must also be heard, which undoubtedly requires proper prior notification about the purposes of the proceeding, the rights they have, and the specific consequence, so that if it is verified that the road was affected without authorization, or that it was at the collective service for more than one year, the reopening shall be ordered within a period of no more than three days, and should the obligated party default, the order shall be executed at his expense. Note that this is an administrative act that requires the prior procedure to sustain its validity and effectiveness (Arts. 129 to 189 of the General Law of Public Administration -Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP-). It is worth clarifying that the reopening procedure maintains its timeliness, without having been modified by the application of Law No. 9078 of October 4, 2012 (Art. 231). Rather, that legal text, which regulates the traffic regulations for motor vehicles on public land roads, reaffirms the previous explanation, allowing us to deduce that that regulation is aimed at strengthening reactional protection without excluding the declaratory one (Art. 2, subsections 17 to 20 and Article 131, Law No. 9078), such that in case of a dispute over ownership, the legal procedure must be followed (see Constitutional Chamber, Ruling No. 2010016599).
This preamble allows us to indicate that, in the sub litem case, given the absence of a claim for annulment, the compensation requested by the plaintiff excluded the hypothesis of abnormal operation. Independently of that omission from the lawsuit, in any event it was not proven that the administrative conduct caused an injury by reducing the area of his real estate. Precisely along these lines, compensation for lawful conduct is also not applicable, since the opening of Dirección3421 required an administrative proceeding in which the plaintiff appeared as the violator, such that the procedure carried out by the defendant Municipality had the purpose of removing the obstacles that Mr. Nombre148167 placed on a portion of said Dirección3421, as he even admitted in his lawsuit. Within this framework, it would be illogical to compensate the violator. The analysis outlined also applies to the "to do" conduct requested by the plaintiff (proportional refund of the "territorial" tax), which lacks support due to the variables explained above.
Hence, what was requested in a subsidiary manner, namely: "If for any reason it is determined that it is not appropriate to place the undersigned in possession of the entirety of the real estate because the strip 7 meters wide that runs through the lot from north to south along its eastern boundary is a de facto pedestrian public road, I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered to pay the undersigned owner the total value of the cited strip according to the resulting surface area and the price determined, both through expert evidence, in the enforcement of judgment stage. II) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered to refund to the undersigned the proportional part of the territorial tax paid on the strip considered a de facto pedestrian public road, along with legal interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert in the enforcement of judgment stage.", must also be declared without merit based on the absence of a right to grant what was claimed (Arts. 43 and 44 of the Urban Planning Law, Arts. 4, 5 and 7 of the Construction Law, Arts. 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, Art. 2 subsections 17 to 20 and Art. 231 of Law No. 9078).
VI.CONCLUSION.- The defendants did not raise defenses; however, the claims must be declared without merit as they are improper, according to what has been set forth in the preceding recitals. As there is no merit to exempt from costs, the general rule of costs against the losing party applies, in this case the plaintiff.
THEREFORE
The lawsuit of Nombre148167 against the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA is declared without merit, in all its aspects. The plaintiff is ordered to pay both sets of costs.
NOTIFY.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold">Alner Palacios García </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold">Name18366</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold">Name72048</span><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> 2</span></p>
Proceso de conocimiento CED115338 Actor/ Nombre148167 Demandado/ Municipalidad de Liberia y Nombre148168 Nº 43-2015 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECCIÓN OCTAVA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, GOICOECHEA, a las ocho horas del siete de mayo del año dos mil quince.- Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por Nombre148167 , portador de la cédula de identidad Nº CED115339, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA, representada por su apoderado especial judicial Ronny José Mora Mayorga, portador de la cédula de identidad Nº CED115340 y Nombre148168 , portador de la cédula de identidad CED115337° .
RESULTANDO
-Redacta el Dr. Palacios García-
CONSIDERANDO:
I- DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS: Tiene sustento probatorio el siguiente cuadro fáctico:
El actor no probó: 1) Que la declaratoria de calle pública adoptada por el Concejo Municipal mediante acto administrativo, afectara la cabida de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste número Placa29582, reduciendo de alguna forma la medida de 883,20 metros cuadrados que indica el Registro. 2) Que la Municipalidad demandada haya incurrido en una actividad material que le hubiese producido al accionante, un daño real, cierto, efectivo e individualizable. 3) Que los codemandados perturben la posesión del actor respecto de la finca de su propiedad, inscrita en el Registro Público al Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa29582.
A efectos de ubicar la controversia, en su aspecto medular, así como el análisis pertinente, observamos que la parte actora estableció claramente el alcance de sus pretensiones, sin que exista una anulatoria respecto de la conducta administrativa formal que consta en la declaratoria de calle pública ordenada por el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Liberia, artículo segundo de la sesión ordinaria N° 31-2010 de 3 de agosto de 2010, ratificado por la resolución N° 454-2013 de 15:15 horas de 31 de octubre de 2013, la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, al resolver el recurso de apelación per saltum. De esta forma el proceso queda excluido de la hipótesis de aquellos denominados de plena jurisdicción, debiendo remitirnos al contexto de lo pretendido por el accionante. Igualmente hacemos notar que la corporación local demandada no opuso excepciones, mientras que Nombre148168 no hizo lo propio ni tampoco señaló lugar para notificaciones. Sobre este escenario recae la discusión, y revisaremos las pretensiones del actor, en su orden. Resulta relevante recordar que tradicionalmente el control de legalidad de la conducta administrativa, a partir del precepto 49 Constitucional, que se erige en un Derecho Fundamental, ocurre sobre tres manifestaciones:
IV.SITUACIÓN DE LA PRETENSIÓN PRINCIPAL.- Partiendo de la anterior clasificación tripartita, hemos de decir que la pretensión principal carece de sentido en términos absolutos. Lo anterior por varias razones, que entramos a revisar. Resulta trascendental que el actor no se interesó en probar si la apertura de la calle pública, a consecuencia de la conducta formal de la Municipalidad demandada, redujo la cabida de la finca inscrita en el Registro Público al Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa29582. No existe un elemento de análisis que sea idóneo para ese fin, sin que sea suficiente imaginar que la prueba proviene del plano catastrado N° G-10435-71 de 14 de octubre de 1971, amparado al diseño allí contenido y las colindancias. Ello por cuanto esa información resulta completamente contraria a la que contienen otros planos catastrados, de fecha anterior y posterior al que interesa al accionante.
Específicamente nos referimos al plano catastrado N°47566 de fecha 17 de octubre de 1961, de la Sección de Guanacaste, el cual evidencia la existencia de una calle para el trazado que coincide con la Dirección3421 , tanto a nivel de su ubicación respecto de las fincas colindantes así como su colocación en la "hoja ciudad Liberia", ocurriendo lo mismo en los planos catastrados N° G-017-75 de 2 de enero de 1975, N° G-289371-77 de 1 de noviembre de 1977, N° G-395891-80 de 7 de julio de 1980, N° G-405695-80 de 22 de setiembre de 1980, N° G-740202-2001 de 4 de octubre de 2001. Además véase que el plano catastrado N° G-10435-71 de 14 de octubre de 1971 no está correlacionado con la finca inscrita en el Registro Público al Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa29582, según la información de la certificación registral aportada por el señor Nombre148167 , al presentar su demanda. Tampoco puede concluirse que la conducta administrativa le cercenó alguna cantidad de metros cuadrados a la finca del actor, simplemente atenido a los linderos que señala la certificación registral de propiedad aportada por el interesado, puesto que tal indicación no permite sostener semejante afirmación, al adolecer de prueba técnica que lo acredite.
No basta que el lindero norte de esa certificación mencione que colinda con Nombre148169 y Nombre148174 en parte, para suponer que la Dirección3421 -por esa razón- no existía. Más bien la información catastral visible en autos, enseña que el dato del plano catastrado del año 1971 es equivocado, y los linderos contenidos en la certificación registral de propiedad del inmueble del actor, tampoco reflejan la realidad. La posición del demandante tendría sustento, por ejemplo, si hubiese presentado un informe pericial de un topógrafo o de un agrimensor, quien previa medición del área registral y el de la calle pública, arrojare un dato relevante demostrando la lesión a la propiedad privada. Sin embargo lo único cierto es la ausencia de indicios que muestren que la cabida de la finca mencionada haya sido reducida por la ejecución material del acto administrativo, cuya nulidad -de todas maneras- no ha sido pedida.
Ante la carencia de prueba lo que resulta viable de afirmar es que la apertura de la Dirección3421 se ajustó a derecho, sin evidencia de que los codemandados perturbaren la posesión del propietario de la finca citada. En ese contexto la prueba testimonial aportada por el actor resulta inadecuada para demostrar una cosa o la otra (reducción de cabida o perturbación de la posesión), bien sea por carencia de idoneidad o porque ni siquiera se refirió al punto. Dado el actual estado de las cosas no se observa que el actor fuese perturbado en su derecho de cercar la finca de su propiedad. Demás estar decir que, lógicamente, queda impedido de construir cualquier tipo de obstáculo al paso sobre la calle pública, porque dicha área es ajena a su propiedad registral, al no demostrarse lo contrario. Así las cosas la pretensión principal referida a: "I) Que corresponde al suscrito Nombre148167 , en su condición de propietario, el pleno dominio sobre la totalidad de la finca del Partido de Guanacaste matrícula número Placa29578.
Incluido el derecho de cercar el lote por todos sus costados. II) Que en consecuencia deben los demandados Municipalidad de Liberia y Nombre148168 abstenerse de impedir, o de cualquier manera perturbar, la legítima posesión del suscrito propietario sobre la totalidad del predio relacionado"; debe ser declarada sin lugar, puesto que nada impide el ejercicio del pleno dominio que tenga el accionante sobre la finca de su propiedad, sin que conste haber sido perturbado en su derecho, puesto que no se comprobó que el área que ocupa la Dirección3421 , integre parte de la cabida del inmueble privado.
V.SITUACIÓN DE LA PRETENSIÓN SUBSIDIARIA.- Para este fin tomamos en cuenta que la apertura de un camino público debe cumplir el procedimiento administrativo de ley (vid. Sala Constitucional, Nº 2010016599 de 10:01 hrs de 8 de octubre de 2010) respetando así los trámites que al efecto prevé el artículo 33 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos (LGCP) (Ley Nº 5060 de 22 de agosto de 1972). De allí que no puede abrirse una vía sin cumplir el procedimiento que dispone la LGCP. Dicho lo anterior, conviene precisar que la LGCP (art. 1) diferencia entre red vial nacional (carreteras primarias, secundarias, terciarias y de acceso restringido), en contraposición a la red vial cantonal que incorpora vías no incluidas en la red vial nacional (caminos vecinales, calles locales, caminos no clasificados). Existe una prohibición para cerrar, estrechar, edificar o cercar un camino o calle entregado por ley o de hecho al servicio de la colectividad, al de propietarios o vecinos de una localidad (art. 32 LGCP), de manera que, ocurrido lo anterior, para la reapertura de la vía debe respetarse el marco legal.
Cierto que tratándose de bienes demaniales (hablando de ellos en general), la acción administrativa sustituye a la interdictal, como medio para que la Administración proteja sus bienes (principio de autotutela). No obstante debe diferenciarse esta acción administrativa, en dos modalidades. La primera (autotulela reaccional) referida a la coacción directa, en la cual la Administración, a nombre de la colectividad, defiende su derecho real, por mano propia, dado que el bien, su uso y su destino, particularmente demanial, no admite discusión en cuanto a la titularidad del propietario, entiéndase que no hay duda de que se trata del Estado o un ente autónomo territorial o institucional (no estamos hablando de vías, exclusivamente, ni tampoco estamos abarcando los bienes privados de las Administraciones Públicas). Por ejemplo, un parque público inscrito a nombre de una Municipalidad, o aún no estando, quedó entregado al uso público sin margen de error, o bien, constando su afectación en los mapas oficiales o el catastro, resultaría base que faculte el uso de la coacción directa, sin necesidad de observar un debido proceso, pues la posesión que detenta el administrado es abiertamente ilegítima, o contraria al servicio que prestan (arts. 261 al 263 del Código Civil).
El mismo criterio podría aplicarse tratándose de una ruta que integra la red vial nacional, e incluso de aquellas que pertenecen a la red vial cantonal, siempre y cuando sea indiscutible esa titularidad, por ende, un particular no puede impedir el paso o el libre tránsito. La segunda (autotulela declarativa) sin embargo, nos refiere a casos en los que la circunstancia impide identificar con suma facilidad, sin margen de error, esa titularidad, ese destino, o esa pecularidad pública que supone distingue al bien. En tales supuestos la ley dispone que para remover el cierre, el estrechamiento, la edificación o la cerca construida sobre la vía, deba seguirse una información administrativa, una especie de procedimiento sumario o especial, que tiene por objeto comprobar que la vía cerrada, no es de dominio privado. Por esa razón debe recopilarse la declaración de tres testigos, para hacer constar lo pertinente, entiéndase, desde cuando estaba el camino al servicio colectivo o de particulares y desde cuando fue estrechada o cerrada, debiendo incluir un informe técnico.
Para ese efecto además debe oírse al infractor, lo que sin duda requiere de la debida notificación previa, acerca de los fines del trámite, los derechos que le asisten y de la consecuencia específica, de manera que si se comprueba que el camino fue afectado sin autorización, o que estuvo al servicio colectivo por más de un año, se reordenará la apertura en un plazo no mayor de tres días, y en rebeldía del obligado, se ejecutará por su cuenta la orden. Nótese que se trata de un acto administrativo que requiere del procedimiento previo, para sustentar su validez y eficacia (arts. 129 al 189 Ley General de la Administración Pública -LGAP-). Cabe aclarar que el trámite de reapertura mantiene su actualidad, sin que haya sido modificado por la aplicación de la Ley Nº 9078 de 4 de octubre de 2012 (art. 231). Más bien ese texto legal, que regula la normativa de tránsito de automotores por las vías públicas terrestres, reafirma la explicación anterior, permitiendo deducir que aquella regulación está dirigida a fortalecer la tutela reaccional sin excluir la declarativa (art. 2 incisos 17 al 20 y artículo 131, Ley Nº 9078), de manera que en caso de discusión acerca de la titularidad, debe cumplirse el trámite legal (vid.
Sala Constitucional, Voto Nº 2010016599). Este preámbulo permite indicar que, en el sub litem, ante la ausencia de una pretensión anulatoria, la indemnización que pide al actor excluyó la hipótesis del funcionamiento anormal. Independientemente de esa omisión de la demanda, en todo caso no se comprobó que la conducta administrativa causara una lesión por disminuir la cabida de su inmueble. Precisamente en esta línea tampoco cabe la indemnización por conducta lícita, ya que la apertura de la Dirección3421 obligó a un trámite administrativo en donde el actor figuró como infractor, de manera que el procedimiento llevado a cabo por la Municipalidad demandada, tuvo como finalidad remover los obstáculos que puso el señor Nombre148167 sobre una porción de dicha Dirección3421 , según lo admitió incluso en su demanda. En ese marco resultaría ilógico indemnizar al infractor. El análisis esbozado también aplica frente a la conducta "de hacer" solicitada por el actor (devolución proporcional del impuesto "territorial"), que carece de soporte a causa de las variables explicadas ut spra.
De allí que lo pedido en forma subsidiaria, a saber: "En caso de que por cualquier razón se determine que no procede poner al suscrito en posesión de la totalidad del inmueble por ser camino público peatonal de hecho la franja de 7 metros de ancho que recorre el lote de norte a sur a lo largo de su lindero este, solicito que se declare: I) Que se condena (sic) a la Municipalidad de Liberia a pagar al suscrito propietario el valor total de la citada franja según la superficie que resulte y el precio que se determine, ambos mediante prueba pericial, en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia. II) Que se condena (sic) a la Municipalidad de Liberia a devolver al suscrito la parte proporcional del impuesto territorial cancelado sobre la franja que se considera camino público peatonal de hecho, junto con los intereses de ley, montos que se calcularán por perito idóneo en la etapa de ejecución de sentencia.", también debe ser declarado sin lugar a partir de la ausencia de derecho para conceder lo reclamado (arts. 43 y 44 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, arts. 4, 5 y 7 de la Ley de Construcciones, arts. 32 y 33 de Ley General de Caminos Públicos, art. 2 incisos 17 al 20 y art. 231 de la Ley N° 9078).
VI.CONCLUSIÓN.- Los demandados no alegaron excepciones, no obstante las pretensiones deben ser declaradas sin lugar por improcedentes, según lo expuesto en los considerandos que anteceden. Al no haber mérito para exonerar, se aplica la regla general de condena en costas para la parte vencida, en este caso el accionante.
POR TANTO
Se declara sin lugar, en todos sus extremos, la demanda de Nombre148167 contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA. Se condena en ambas costas a la parte actora. NOTIFÍQUESE.- Alner Palacios García Nombre18366 Nombre72048 2
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.