No Right to Compensation for Legal Opening of a Public Pedestrian PathImprocedencia de indemnización por apertura legal de camino público peatonal

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

1.- The object of these proceedings, as established at the preliminary hearing, is for the judgment to declare: "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. III) That in case of opposition, both parties shall bear the costs, charged to both defendants. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 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. III) That, in case of opposition, the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to pay the procedural and personal costs of this litigation." (preliminary hearing minutes and statement of claim).- 2.- The MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA opposed the plaintiff's claims, requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed without merit, without raising any defenses. For his part, Name148168 answered the complaint incompletely, and the Procedural Judge ruled on his status as a party to the proceedings. (answers to the complaint).- 3.- During the adversarial stage, the witness statement of Name106450 was received. (oral trial video).- 4.- The procedures met the legal requirements, and no defects capable of causing nullity or defenselessness of the parties are observed.

5.- After deliberation, this judgment is issued and notified, within the period established by Article 111 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure.

-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-

WHEREAS:

I- PROVEN FACTS: The following factual framework has evidentiary support: 1) Name148167 is the owner of the farm registered in the Public Registry for the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29576, measuring 883 square meters and 20 square decimeters, bounded on the north by Name148169 and Name148168 in part, on the south by Name148170, on the east by a public street with 24 m 02 cm, and on the west by Name148171, without a reference cadastral map being indicated, although the background information is in the microfilmed folio for that province, farm number 00026217 and Placa29579. He acquired the property on September 29, 1982. (folios 17 to 18 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 2) Cadastral map No. G-10435-71, prepared by surveyor Name148172 in September 1971, indicates the existence of a plot of land measuring 883.20 square meters, a lot for titling (folios 19 to 21 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 3) Name148168 is the owner of the farm registered in the Public Registry for the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29577, measuring 1,090 square meters and 15 square decimeters, bounded on the north by Name148173 and another, on the south by Name148168, on the east by a public street, and on the west by Name148168, with map number Placa29580, acquired by consolidation, since January 3, 1992 (folios 25 to 26 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 4) By a writing dated April 30, 2008, a number of individuals informed the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA about an appropriation of a public street located 50 meters west of the Sánchez Bakery, an action being carried out by a neighbor of said street (folios 1 to 3 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 5) Mr. Name17278, in a petition dated May 11, 2008, consulted the Cadaster Department of the defendant entity, asking it to indicate whether the property located south of Name148168's house and the Hotel Daysita (50 meters north of the Sánchez Bakery, stadium sector), was or was not part of a public street (folio 12 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 6) The Department of Cadaster and Real Estate of the MUNICIPALITY OF LIBERIA issued official letter No. OF.CAT-111-06-2007 dated June 20, 2008, in which it stated: "After verifying the municipal archives and cadastral and registry information for the consulted area, I certify that the access located approximately 50 m north of the Sánchez Bakery is Dirección17959; thus protected under articles 33 and 34 of the General Law of Public Roads and article No. 7 of the Construction Law. Note: The access has never been formally handed over to the Municipality of Liberia (as specified by the Urban Planning Law)" (folio 17 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 7) Mr. Name17278, in a petition dated June 27, 2008, acting as special attorney-in-fact for Name148167, filed a motion for reversal and an alternative appeal against official letter No. OF.CAT-111-06-2007 (folios 18 to 30 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 8) The Inspections Unit of the defendant Municipality issued Inspection Slip No. 98, dated December 30, 2008, determining that it involves a public access, Dirección17960, and part of the access is not delimited, with an approximate width of 6 meters, it is fenced in parts and there is no impediment to passing through; it is an old access previously used by people on foot going towards Dirección17961; farm registration number Placa29581 is located as property No. 2 according to the 2008 cadastral map, projection Dirección17962 (folios 32 to 51 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 9) The Planning and Construction Control office of the sued Local Corporation, by official letter No. SPCC-014-2009 dated March 23, 2009, summoned Name148167 to the public hearing to be held on April 28, 2009, at 8:30 am, as part of the ordinary administrative procedure to hear the case regarding the closure of an alleged road located in Dirección17960, Liberia District, under articles 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, at which time the statements of the attending witnesses would be taken and documentary evidence would be received, granting 3 business days to provide the names of the three witnesses to be presented by the interested party and to indicate a place to receive notifications (folios 66 and 83 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 10) The hearing was held on April 28, 2009, starting at 8:45 am, in the presence of Name148167, who made statements regarding his interest in the matter being discussed, and various testimonies were taken, including that of Mr. Name106450 (folios 99 to 125 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 11) The Urban Development and Control office of the Local Corporation issued the unnumbered report dated August 4, 2009, reaching the following conclusion: "Based on the facts, documentary and testimonial evidence, field inspections carried out by the Department of Urban Development and Control, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, having demonstrated during the process that the road was open for public service for more than one year, as established in the testimonial evidence; in addition to the documentary evidence indicating such nature of the portion of land. That it is an UNCLASSIFIED URBAN PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ROAD stipulated in article 1 of the General Law of Public Roads with a width of 7 meters; therefore, according to said law, it is of a public nature. For all of the foregoing, this directing body determines to forward this technical study to the Municipal Council of Liberia, so that it is this body that issues the final decision in the specific case. As the directing body, it is recommended to carry out a cadastral survey of the access and take the steps for definitive registration in favor of the Municipality of Liberia," a document which was notified to the plaintiff on August 18, 2009 (folios 126 to 141 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 12) The Municipality of Liberia published in Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 159 of Tuesday, August 17, 2010, the agreement of the Municipal Council of Liberia, article two of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, stating: "The Municipal Council of Liberia agrees to: Approve the resolution issued by the Department of Urban Planning and Construction Control, in the case of the access to Dirección3421, in accordance with the General Law of Public Roads, it is agreed: once the administrative procedures have been exhausted in accordance with article 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, it orders the opening of the public road, with a width of 7 meters; within a period of three business days, it orders the removal of any element obstructing said road; upon failure to comply with said order, the municipality shall do so on its own account. The administrative remedies provided by law may be filed against the resolution adopted by the municipality within the three days following publication in the official gazette; this information shall only be valid for the reopening of the road, given its public importance; however, judicially, it shall have no value other than that which the courts grant it, in accordance with their powers. Approved unanimously." (folio 156 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 13) The Municipal Mayor, by official letter No. ALDE-LC-0201-2011 dated March 10, 2011, ordered the Road Technical Unit to carry out the reopening of the public road Dirección3421 and send the machinery to execute the resolution published in Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 159 on August 17, 2010 (folio 176 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 14) Without indicating the date, the defendant Municipality opened Dirección3421, using machinery to remove the obstacles on the road (folio 177 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 15) The street opened by the Municipality is identified as an area without major infrastructure, with ballast and grass along its route (photographs at folios 28 to 30 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing and the statement of Name106450); 16) Cadastral map No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, from the Guanacaste Section, 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 (folios 63 to 67 and 73 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 17) By resolution No. 454-2013 at 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, the Third Section of the Contentious Administrative Court resolved the appeal per saltum filed by the plaintiff against article two of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, of the Municipal Council of Liberia, and confirmed the challenged agreement, thus exhausting the administrative channel (folios 116 to 121 of the judicial file, admitted at the trial hearing).

II.- UNPROVEN FACTS: 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.

III.- SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER: 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: 1) Formal conduct, which translates into the issuance of administrative acts, understood as final acts or, at least, acts with their own effect, which of course affect the sphere of rights or interests of the administered parties; 2) Material action, which arises from conduct that may occur under the following circumstances: 2.1) It is not preceded by an administrative act that legitimizes or supports it, issued in accordance with the law; 2.2) there is a valid but ineffective administrative act; 2.3) there is a valid and effective administrative act, but the material execution bears no relation to it; 2.4) there is an administrative act, and its execution conforms to it, but it suffers from illegality and loses its legitimizing force; 3) Omission, which refers to administrative inactivity as a source of liability. All of these manifestations can be a source of administrative liability, according to the relative factual framework, and it is therefore important to bear in mind what has been stated.

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

1.- The object of this proceeding, set at the preliminary hearing, is for the judgment to declare: "I) That the undersigned Nombre148167, in his capacity as owner, holds full ownership (pleno dominio) over the entirety of the farm registered in the Partido de Guanacaste under registration number Placa29578, including the right to fence the lot on all its sides. II) That, consequently, the defendants Municipalidad de Liberia and Nombre148168 must refrain from preventing, or in any way disturbing, the lawful possession of the undersigned owner over the entirety of the related property. III) That in the event of opposition, both parties shall bear the costs. ALTERNATIVELY. In the event that for any reason it is determined that placing the undersigned in possession of the entirety of the property is not appropriate because the 7-meter-wide strip running through the lot from north to south along its eastern boundary is a de facto public pedestrian path, I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipalidad de Liberia be ordered to pay the undersigned owner the total value of said strip according to the resulting surface area and the price determined, both through expert evidence, at the judgment execution stage. II) That the Municipalidad de Liberia be ordered to return to the undersigned the proportional part of the land tax paid on the strip considered to be a de facto public pedestrian path, together with statutory interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert at the judgment execution stage. III) That, in the event of opposition, the Municipalidad de Liberia be ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this litigation." (preliminary hearing record and complaint brief).- 2.- The MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA opposed the plaintiff's claims, requesting that the complaint be dismissed, without pleading any defenses. For his part, Nombre148168 answered the complaint incompletely, and the Processing Judge ruled on his status as a procedural party. (answers to the complaint).- 3.- Within the adversarial stage, the testimonial statement of Nombre106450 was received. (oral trial video).- 4.- The legal requirements were fulfilled in the proceedings, and no defects capable of causing nullity or defenselessness of the parties are observed.

5.- After deliberation, this judgment is rendered and notified within the period provided by Article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-

WHEREAS:

I- OF THE PROVEN FACTS: The following factual picture has evidentiary support: 1) Nombre148167 is the owner of the farm registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29576, which measures 883 meters and 20 square decimeters, bounded on the north by Nombre148169 and Nombre148168 in part, on the south by Nombre148170, on the east by a public street measuring 24 m 02 cm, and on the west by Nombre148171, without indicating a reference cadastral plan, although the background on the microfilmed folio of that province is indicated, farm number 00026217 and Placa29579. He acquired the property on September 29, 1982. (folios 17 to 18 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 2) Cadastral plan No. G-10435-71 prepared by surveyor Nombre148172 in September 1971 indicates the existence of a plot of 883.20 square meters, a lot for titling (folios 19 to 21 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 3) Nombre148168 is the owner of the farm registered in the Public Registry under the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29577, which measures 1,090 meters and 15 square decimeters, bounded on the north by Nombre148173 and another, on the south by Nombre148168, on the east by a public street, and on the west by Nombre148168, with plan number Placa29580, acquired by consolidation, since January 3, 1992 (folios 25 to 26 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 4) By a writing dated April 30, 2008, a series of individuals informed the MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA about an appropriation of a public street located 50 meters west of the Panadería Sánchez, an action carried out by a party bordering said street (folios 1 to 3 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 5) Mr. Nombre17278, in a petition dated May 11, 2008, consulted the Catastro Department of the defendant entity, asking whether the property located south of the house of Nombre148168 and Hotel Daysita (50 meters north of Panadería Sánchez, stadium sector), was part of a public street or not (folio 12 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 6) The Department of Catastro y Bienes Inmuebles of the MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA issued official communication No. OF.CAT-111-06-2007 of June 20, 2008, in which it stated: "After verification of the municipal archives and cadastral and registry information for the consulted area; I certify that the access located approximately 50 m north of Panadería Sánchez is Dirección17959; thus protected under articles 33 and 34 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and article No. 7 of the Ley de Construcciones. Note: The access has never been formally handed over to the Municipalidad de Liberia (as specified by the Ley de Planificación Urbana)" (folio 17 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 7) Mr. Nombre17278, in a petition dated June 27, 2008, acting as special attorney-in-fact for Nombre148167, filed a motion for reconsideration and appeal in subsidy against official communication No. OF.CAT-111-06-2007 (folios 18 to 30 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 8) The Inspection Unit of the defendant Municipality issued Inspection Report No. 98, dated December 30, 2008, determining that it is a public access, Dirección17960, and part of the access is not delimited, with an approximate width of 6 meters, in parts it is fenced and there is no impediment to pass, it is an old access that people used to travel on foot in the direction of Dirección17961, farm registration number Placa29581 is located as property No. 2 according to the 2008 cadastral map, projection Dirección17962 (folios 32 to 51 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 9) The Planning and Construction Control office of the sued Local Corporation, through official communication No. SPCC-014-2009 of March 23, 2009, summoned Nombre148167 to the public hearing to be held on April 28, 2009, at 8:30 am, as a step in the ordinary administrative procedure to address the closure of an alleged path located at Dirección17960, of the Liberia District, under articles 32 and 33 of the Ley General de Caminos, an occasion on which the statements of the witnesses present would be taken, and documentary evidence would be received, granting 3 business days to provide the name of the three witnesses the interested party would present, and to indicate a place to receive notifications (folios 66 and 83 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 10) The hearing was held on April 28, 2009, starting at 8:45 am, with the presence of Nombre148167, who made statements regarding his interest in what was being discussed there, and various testimonies were taken, including that of Mr. Nombre106450 (folios 99 to 125 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 11) The Urban Development and Control office of the Local Corporation issued the unnumbered report dated August 4, 2009, reaching the following conclusion: "Based on the facts, documentary and testimonial evidence, field inspections carried out by the Department of Urban Development and Control, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 32 and 33 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, it having been demonstrated during the process that the path was open to public service for more than one year, as stated in the testimonial evidence; in addition to the documentary evidence in which such nature of the portion of land is indicated. That it is an UNCLASSIFIED PUBLIC URBAN PEDESTRIAN PATH stipulated in article 1 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos with a width of 7 meters; therefore, according to said law, it is of a public nature. For all the foregoing, this directing body determines to refer the present technical study to the Concejo Municipal de Liberia, so that it is this body that issues the final decision in the specific case. As the directing body, it is recommended to conduct a cadastral survey of the access and carry out the steps for its definitive registration in favor of the municipalidad de Liberia," a document which was notified to the plaintiff on August 18, 2009 (folios 126 to 141 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 12) The Municipalidad de Libera published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 159 of Tuesday, August 17, 2010, the agreement of the Concejo Municipal de Liberia, article second of the ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, stating: "The Concejo Municipal de Liberia agrees: To approve the resolution issued by the Department of Urban Planning and Construction Control, in the case of the access at Dirección3421, in accordance with the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, it is agreed: once the administrative procedures have been exhausted in accordance with article 33 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, it orders the opening of the public path, with a width of 7 meters, within three business days it orders the removal of any element obstructing said path, if this order is not fulfilled, the municipality will do it on its own account. The administrative remedies provided for in the legal system may be filed against the resolution taken by the municipality within three days following publication in the official gazette; this information will only govern the reopening of the road, given its public significance; but, judicially, it will have no other value than that which the courts grant it, in accordance with their powers." Approved unanimously." (folio 156 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 13) The Municipal Mayor, through official letter No. ALDE-LC-0201-2011 of March 10, 2011, ordered the Unidad Técnica Vial to carry out the reopening of the public road Dirección3421 and to send the machinery to execute the resolution published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 159 on August 17, 2010 (folio 176 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 14) Without indicating the date, the defendant Municipality carried out the opening of Dirección3421, using the machinery to remove the obstacles on the road (folio 177 of the administrative file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 15) The street opened by the Municipality is identified as an area without major infrastructure, with ballast and grass along its path (photographs from folios 28 to 30 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing, and the declaration of Nombre106450); 16) The surveyed plan (plano catastrado) No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, of the Guanacaste Section, 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 (folios 63 to 67 and 73 of the judicial file, admitted at the preliminary hearing); 17) Through resolution No. 454-2013 at 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolved the appeal per saltum filed by the plaintiff, against the second article of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, of the Concejo Municipal of Liberia, and confirmed the challenged agreement, thereby exhausting the administrative channel (folios 116 to 121 of the judicial file, admitted at the trial hearing).

            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: 1) The formal conduct, which translates into the issuance of administrative acts, understood as final or, at least, with their own effect, which of course have an impact on the sphere of rights or interests of the administered parties; 2) The material activity, which arises from conduct that may occur under the following circumstances: 2.1) It is not preceded by an administrative act that legitimizes or grounds it, issued in accordance with the law, 2.2) there is a valid but ineffective administrative act, 2.3) there is a valid and effective administrative act but the material execution bears no relation to it, 2.4) there is an administrative act and its execution conforms to it, but it suffers from illegality and loses its legitimizing force; 3) The omission, which refers to administrative inactivity as a source generating liability. All these manifestations can be a source generating administrative liability, according to the relative factual picture, and for this reason, it is important to keep what has been stated in mind.

            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. II) That the Municipality of Liberia be ordered (sic) to return to the undersigned the proportional part of the territorial tax paid on the strip that is considered a de facto public pedestrian path, together with legal interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert at the judgment enforcement stage.", must also be declared without merit based on the absence of a right to grant what is claimed (Arts. 43 and 44 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, Arts. 4, 5 and 7 of the Ley de Construcciones, Arts. 32 and 33 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 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 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** ** 1.-** The object of this proceeding, established in the preliminary hearing, is for the judgment to declare: "*I) That the undersigned Nombre148167, in his capacity as owner, has full ownership (pleno dominio) over the entirety of the property of the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29578. Including the right to fence the lot on all its sides. II) That consequently the defendants Municipalidad de Liberia and Nombre148168 must refrain from preventing, or in any way disturbing, the undersigned owner's legitimate possession of the entirety of the related property. III) That in case of opposition, both costs are borne by both defendants. SUBSIDIARILY. In the event that for any reason it is determined that placing the undersigned in possession of the entirety of the property is not appropriate because the 7-meter-wide strip that runs through the lot from north to south along its eastern boundary is a de facto public pedestrian path (camino público peatonal de hecho), I request that it be declared: I) That the Municipalidad de Liberia is ordered (sic) to pay the undersigned owner the total value of said strip according to the resulting surface area and the price determined, both by expert evidence, in the judgment enforcement stage. II) That the Municipalidad de Liberia is ordered (sic) to return to the undersigned the proportional part of the territorial tax paid on the strip considered a de facto public pedestrian path, together with legal interest, amounts to be calculated by a qualified expert in the judgment enforcement stage. III) That, in case of opposition, the Municipalidad de Liberia is ordered (sic) to pay the procedural and personal costs of this litigation*". **(preliminary hearing record and complaint brief).-** **2.-** The **MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA** opposed the plaintiff's claims, requesting that the complaint be declared without merit, without raising exceptions in its defense. For his part, Nombre148168 answered the complaint incompletely, and the Proceedings Judge resolved regarding his status as a procedural party. **(answers to the complaint).-** **3.-** Within the adversary proceedings, the testimonial statement of **Nombre106450** was received. **(oral trial video).-** **4.-** In the proceedings, the legal requirements were met and no defects likely to cause nullity or defenselessness of the parties are observed.

**5.-** After deliberation, this judgment is issued and notified, within the term established by Article 111 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code.

**-Drafted by Dr. Palacios García-** **WHEREAS:** **I- OF THE PROVEN FACTS:** The following factual framework has evidentiary support: **1)** Nombre148167, is the owner of the property registered in the Public Registry to the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29576, measuring 883 square meters and 20 square decimeters, bordering north with Nombre148169 and Nombre148168 in part, south with Nombre148170, east with a public street measuring 24 m 02 cm, and west with Nombre148171, without a referenced cadastral map being indicated, although the antecedents in the microfilmed folio of that province are, property number 00026217 and Placa29579. He acquired the property on September 29, 1982. **(folios 17 to 18 of the judicial file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 2)** The cadastral map N° G-10435-71 prepared by surveyor Nombre148172, in September 1971, indicates the existence of a 883.20-square-meter lot, a property for titling **(folios 19 to 21 of the judicial file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 3)** Nombre148168 is the owner of the property registered in the Public Registry to the Partido de Guanacaste, registration number Placa29577, measuring 1,090 square meters and 15 square decimeters, bordering north with Nombre148173 and another, south with Nombre148168, east with a public street, and west with Nombre148168, with map number Placa29580, acquired by consolidation, since January 3, 1992 **(folios 25 to 26 of the judicial file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 4)** By a written communication dated April 30, 2008, a number of people informed the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA** about an appropriation of a public street located 50 meters west of the Sánchez Bakery, an action carried out by a neighbor adjoining said street **(folios 1 to 3 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 5)** Mr. Nombre17278, in a document dated May 11, 2008, consulted the Cadastre Department of the defendant entity, asking whether the property located south of the house of Nombre148168 and the Hotel Daysita (50 meters north of the Sánchez Bakery, stadium sector), was or was not part of a public street **(folio 12 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 6)** The Cadastre and Real Estate Department of the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA** issued official communication N° OF.CAT-111-06-2007 dated June 20, 2008, in which it stated: "*After verification of the municipal archives and cadastral and registry information of the consulted area; I attest that the access located approximately 50 m north of Sánchez Bakery is Dirección17959 ; thus protected by articles 33 and 34 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) and by Article N° 7 of the Construction Law. Note: The access has never been formally handed over to the Municipalidad de Liberia (as specified by the Urban Planning Law)*" **(folio 17 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 7)** Mr. Nombre17278, in a document dated June 27, 2008, acting as special attorney-in-fact for **Nombre148167** , filed a motion for reversal and a subsidiary appeal against official communication N° OF.CAT-111-06-2007 **(folios 18 to 30 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 8)** The Inspections Unit of the defendant Municipality issued Inspection Report N° 98, dated December 30, 2008, determining that it concerns a public access, Dirección17960 , and part of the access is not delimited, with an approximate width of 6 meters, it is fenced in parts and there is no impediment to passing, it is an old access that people traveled on foot towards Dirección17961, property registration number Placa29581 is located as property N° 2 according to the 2008 cadastral map, projection Dirección17962 **(folios 32 to 51 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 9)** The Planning and Construction Control office of the sued Local Corporation, through official communication N° SPCC-014-2009 dated March 23, 2009, summoned **Nombre148167** to the public hearing to be held on April 28, 2009, at 8:30 am, as part of the ordinary administrative procedure to hear the closing of an alleged road located on Dirección17960 , in the District of Liberia, protected by Articles 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, on which occasion the statements of the witnesses present would be taken, and documentary evidence would be received, granting 3 business days to provide the name of the three witnesses the interested party would present, and to indicate a place for receiving notifications **(folios 66 and 83 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 10)** The hearing was held on April 28, 2009, starting at 8:45 am, with the presence of **Nombre148167**, who made statements regarding his interest in what was being discussed there, and various testimonies were taken, among them, that of Mr. Nombre106450 **(folios 99 to 125 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 11)** The Development and Urban Control office of the Local Corporation issued the unnumbered report dated August 4, 2009, reaching the following conclusion: "*Based on the facts, documentary and testimonial evidence, field inspections carried out by the Department of Development and Urban Control, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, having been demonstrated during the process that the road was open to public service for more than a year, as noted in the testimonial evidence; in addition to the documentary evidence indicating such nature of the portion of land. That it is an UNCLASSIFIED URBAN PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ROAD (CAMINO PÚBLICO URBANO PEATONAL NO CLASIFICADO) stipulated in Article 1 of the General Law of Public Roads with a width of 7 meters; therefore, in accordance with said law, it is of a public nature. For all the foregoing, this directing body determines to forward the present technical study to the Municipal Council of Liberia, so that it is this body that issues the final decision on the specific case. As the directing body, it is recommended to carry out a cadastral survey of the access and carry out the procedures for definitive registration in favor of the Municipalidad de Liberia*", a document which was notified to the plaintiff on August 18, 2009 **(folios 126 to 141 of the administrative file, admitted in preliminary hearing); 12)** The Municipalidad de Liberia published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta N° 159 of Tuesday, August 17, 2010, the agreement of the Municipal Council of Liberia, second article of the ordinary session N° 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, indicating: "*The Municipal Council of Liberia agrees: To approve the resolution issued by the Department of Urban Planning and Construction Control, in the case of the access of Dirección3421, in accordance with the General Law of Public Roads, it is agreed: having exhausted the administrative procedures in accordance with Article 33 of the General Law of Public Roads, it orders the opening of the public road, with a width of 7 meters, within three business days it orders the elimination of any element that obstructs said road, failing compliance with said order, the municipality will do it at its own expense. The resolution taken by the municipality may be subject to the administrative remedies provided for in the legal system within three days following its publication in the official gazette; this information shall only govern for the reopening of the road, given its public importance; but, in judicial matters, it shall have no other value than that which the courts grant it, in accordance with their powers*." Approved unanimously." (folio 156 of the administrative file, admitted in the preliminary hearing); 13) The Municipal Mayor, through official communication No. ALDE-LC-0201-2011 of March 10, 2011, ordered the Technical Road Unit to reopen the public road Dirección3421 and to send the machinery to execute the resolution published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 159 on August 17, 2010 (folio 176 of the administrative file, admitted in the preliminary hearing); 14) Without indicating the date, the defendant Municipality opened Dirección3421, using the machinery to remove the obstacles on the road (folio 177 of the administrative file, admitted in the preliminary hearing); 15) The street opened by the Municipality is identified as an area without major infrastructure, with ballast and grass along its path (photographs from folios 28 to 30 of the judicial file, admitted in the preliminary hearing and the statement of Nombre106450); 16) Cadastral plan No. 47566 dated October 17, 1961, of the Guanacaste Section, shows the existence of a street with a 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 (folios 63 to 67 and 73 of the judicial file, admitted in the preliminary hearing); 17) Through resolution No. 454-2013 of 3:15 p.m. on October 31, 2013, the Third Section of the Administrative Litigation Court resolved the per saltum appeal filed by the plaintiff against the second article of ordinary session No. 31-2010 of August 3, 2010, of the Municipal Council of Liberia, and confirmed the challenged decision, thereby exhausting the administrative channel (folios 116 to 121 of the judicial file, admitted in the trial hearing).

II.- FACTS NOT PROVEN: 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.

III.- MERITS OF THE CASE: 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: 1) Formal conduct, which translates into the issuance of administrative acts, understood as final or, at least, with their own effect, that of course have an impact on the sphere of rights or interests of the administered parties; 2) Material action, which arises from conduct that can occur under the following circumstances: 2.1) It is not preceded by an administrative act that legitimizes or grounds it, issued in accordance with the law, 2.2) there is a valid but ineffective administrative act, 2.3) there is a valid and effective administrative act but the material execution bears no relation to it, 2.4) there is an administrative act and its execution conforms to it, but it suffers from illegality and loses its legitimizing force; 3) Omission, which refers to administrative inactivity as a source generating liability. All these manifestations can be a source generating administrative liability, depending on the relative factual situation, and for this reason it is important to keep the foregoing in mind.

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

1.- El objeto del presente proceso, fijado en audiencia preliminar, es para que en sentencia se declare: "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. III) Que en caso de oposición son ambas costas a cargo de ambos demandados. SUBSIDIARIAMENTE. 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. III) Que, en caso de oposición, se condena (sic) a la Municipalidad de Liberia al pago de las costas procesales y personales del presente litigio". (acta de audiencia preliminar y escrito de la demanda).- 2.- La MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA se opuso a las pretensiones del actor, solicitando que la demanda se declare sin lugar, sin alegar excepciones en su defensa. Por su lado Nombre148168 contestó la demanda en forma incompleta, y el Juez Tramitador resolvió acerca de su condición como parte procesal. (contestaciones de la demanda).- 3.- Dentro del contradictorio se recibió la declaración testimonial de Nombre106450 . (video de juicio oral).- 4.- En los procedimientos se cumplieron los requisitos de ley y no se observan vicios susceptibles de producir nulidad o indefensión de las partes.

5.- Previa deliberación, se dicta y se notifica esta sentencia, dentro del plazo dispuesto por el artículo 111 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

-Redacta el Dr. Palacios García-

CONSIDERANDO:

I- DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS: Tiene sustento probatorio el siguiente cuadro fáctico: 1) Nombre148167 , es propietario de la finca inscrita en el Registro Público al Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa29576 , que mide 883 metros con 20 decímetros cuadrados, que linda al norte con Nombre148169 y Nombre148168 en parte, al sur con Nombre148170 , al este con calle pública con 24 mts 02 cm y al oeste con Nombre148171 , sin que se indique un plano catastrado de referencia, aunque sí los antecedentes en folio microfilmado de esa provincia, finca número 00026217 y Placa29579. El inmueble lo adquirió desde el 29 de setiembre de 1982. (folios 17 al 18 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 2) El plano catastrado N° G-10435-71 elaborado por el agrimensor Nombre148172 , en setiembre de 1971, indica la existencia de un terreno de 883.20 metros cuadrados, lote para titular (folios 19 al 21 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 3) Nombre148168 es propietario de la finca inscrita en el Registro Público al Partido de Guanacaste, matrícula Placa29577 , que mide 1.090 metros con 15 decímetros cuadrados, que linda al norte con Nombre148173 y otro, al sur con Nombre148168 , al este con calle pública y al oeste con Nombre148168 , con plano número Placa29580, adquirida por reunión, desde el 3 de enero de 1992 (folios 25 al 26 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 4) Mediante un escrito de fecha 30 de abril de 2008, una serie de personas informaron a la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA acerca de una apropiación de una calle pública ubicada de la Panadería Sánchez 50 metros al oeste, acción que realizaba un colindante dicha calle (folios 1 al 3 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 5) El señor Nombre17278 , en libelo de fecha 11 de mayo de 2008, consultó al Departamento de Catastro de la entidad demandada, se indicara si el predio ubicado al sur de la casa de Nombre148168 y el Hotel Daysita (50 metros norte de la Panadería Sánchez, sector del estadio), era o no parte de calle pública (folio 12 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 6) El Departamento de Catastro y Bienes Inmuebles de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LIBERIA emitió el oficio N° OF.CAT-111-06-2007 de 20 de junio de 2008, en el cual señaló: "Previa verificación de los archivos municipales e información catastral y registral de la zona consultada; hago constar que el acceso localizado aproximadamente 50 m norte de Panadería Sánchez es Dirección17959 ; así amparado al artículo 33 y 34 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y al artículo N° 7 de la Ley de Construcciones. Nota: El acceso nunca ha sido entregado formalmente ante la Municipalidad de Liberia (como lo especifica la Ley de Planificación Urbana)" (folio 17 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 7) El señor Nombre17278 , en libelo de fecha 27 de junio de 2008, actuando como apoderado especial de Nombre148167 , presentó recurso de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio contra el oficio N° OF.CAT-111-06-2007 (folios 18 al 30 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 8) La Unidad de Inspecciones de la Municipalidad demandada, levantó la boleta N° 98 de Inspección, de fecha 30 de diciembre de 2008, determinando que se trata de un acceso público, Dirección17960 , , y parte del acceso no está delimitado, con un ancho aproximado de 6 metros, en partes está cercado y no tiene impedimento para pasar, se trata de un acceso antiguo que lo transitaban personas a pie en dirección a Dirección17961 , la finca matrícula Placa29581 se ubica como el predio N° 2 según el mapa catastral 2008, proyección Dirección17962 (folios 32 al 51 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 9) La oficina de Planificación y Control Constructivo de la Corporación Local accionada, mediante oficio N° SPCC-014-2009 de 23 de marzo de 2009, convocó a Nombre148167 a la audiencia pública que se realizaría el 28 de abril de 2009, a las 8:30am, como trámite del procedimiento ordinario administrativo para conocer del cierre de un supuesto camino situado en Dirección17960 , del Distrito de Liberia, amparado a los artículos 32 y 33 de la Ley General de Caminos, ocasión en la cual se tomaría la declaración de los testigos presentes, y se recibiría la prueba documental, concediendo 3 días hábiles para aportar el nombre de los tres testigos que presentaría el interesado, y señalara lugar para recibir notificaciones (folios 66 y 83 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 10) La audiencia se llevó a cabo el día 28 de abril de 2009 a partir de las 8:45 am, con la presencia de Nombre148167 , quien hizo manifestaciones en torno a su interés en lo que allí se discutía, así como se evacuaron distintos testimonios, entre ellos, el del señor Nombre106450 (folios 99 al 125 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 11) La oficina de Desarrollo y Control Urbano de la Corporación Local emitió el informe sin número de fecha 4 de agosto de 2009, llegando a la siguiente conclusión: "Con fundamento en los hechos, prueba documental y testimonial, inspecciones de campo efectuadas por el Departamento de Desarrollo y Control Urbano y conforme a lo que establecen los artículos 32 y 33 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, habiéndose demostrado durante el proceso que el camino estuvo abierto al servicio público por más de un año, según consta en la prueba testimonial; además de la prueba documental en la que se indica tal naturaleza de la porción de terreno. Que es CAMINO PÚBLICO URBANO PEATONAL NO CLASIFICADO estipulado en el artículo 1 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos con un ancho de 7 metros; por lo que conforme a dicha ley es de carácter público. Por todo lo antes expuesto el presente órgano director, determina remitir el presente estudio técnico al Concejo Municipal de Liberia, para que sea este órgano quien emita la decisión final del caso en concreto. Cómo órgano director se recomienda realizar un levantamiento catastral del acceso y realizar las diligencias de inscripción definitiva a favor de la municipalidad de Liberia", documento el cual se le notificó al actor en fecha 18 de agosto de 2009 (folios 126 al 141 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 12) La Municipalidad de Libera publicó en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta N° 159 de martes 17 de agosto de 2010, el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Liberia, artículo segundo de la sesión ordinaria N° 31-2010 de 3 de agosto de 2010, indicando: "El Concejo Municipal de Liberia acuerda: Aprobar la resolución emitida por el Departamento de Planificación Urbana y Control Constructivo, en el caso del acceso de la Dirección3421 , de conformidad con la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, se acuerda: una vez agotados los procedimientos administrativos de conformidad con el artículo 33 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, ordena la apertura del camino público, con un ancho de 7 metros, en el plazo de tres días hábiles ordena eliminar todo elemento que obstaculice dicho camino, de no cumplir con dicha orden, la municipalidad lo hará por su cuenta. De la resolución que tome la municipalidad cabrán los recursos administrativos previstos en el ordenamiento dentro de los tres días siguientes a la publicación en el diario oficial, esta información únicamente regirá para la reapertura de la vía, dada su trascendencia pública; pero, en lo judicial, no tendrá otro valor que el que le concedan los tribunales, de conformidad con sus facultades. Aprobado por unanimidad." (folio 156 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 13) El Alcalde Municipal, mediante el oficio N° ALDE-LC-0201-2011 de 10 de marzo de 2011, le ordenó a la Unidad Técnica Vial realizar la reapertura del camino público Dirección3421 y enviar la maquinaria para ejecutar la resolución publicada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta N° 159 el día 17 de agosto de 2010 (folio 176 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 14) Sin indicarse la fecha, la Municipalidad demandada hizo la apertura de la Dirección3421 , utilizando la maquinaria para remover los obstáculos sobre la vía (folio 177 del expediente administrativo, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 15) La calle abierta por la Municipalidad se identifica como una zona sin mayor infraestructura, con lastre y zacate en su trayecto (fotografías de folios 28 al 30 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia preliminar y declaración de Nombre106450 ); 16) El plano catastrado N°47566 de fecha 17 de octubre de 1961, de la Sección de Guanacaste, evidencia la existencia de una calle con un 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 (folios 63 al 67 y 73 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia preliminar); 17) Mediante la resolución N° 454-2013 de 15:15 horas de 31 de octubre de 2013, la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolvió el recurso de apelación per saltum interpuesto por el actor, contra el artículo segundo de la sesión ordinaria N° 31-2010 de 3 de agosto de 2010, del Concejo Municipal de Liberia, y confirmó el acuerdo impugnado, dando por agotada la vía administrativa (folios 116 al 121 del expediente judicial, admitido en audiencia de juicio).

II.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: 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.

III.- FONDO DEL ASUNTO: 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: 1) La conducta formal, que se traduce en la emisión de actos administrativos, entiéndase finales o, al menos, con efecto propio, que por supuesto causen estado en la esfera de derechos o intereses de los administrados; 2) La actuación material, que nace a partir de una conducta que puede presentarse en las siguientes circunstancias: 2.1) No está precedida de acto administrativo que la legitime o la fundamente, emitido de conformidad con la ley, 2.2) existe un acto administrativo válido pero ineficaz, 2.3) existe un acto administrativo válido y eficaz pero la ejecución material no guarda relación con él, 2.4) existe un acto administrativo y su ejecución se ajusta al mismo, pero padece de ilicitud y pierde su fuerza legitimadora; 3) La omisión, que refiere a la inactividad administrativa como fuente generadora de responsabilidad. Todas esas manifestaciones pueden ser fuente generadora de responsabilidad administrativa, según el cuadro fáctico relativo, y por ello es importante tener presente lo indicado.

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