Denial of water service individualization for failure to meet urban planning requirementsRechazo de individualización de servicios de agua por incumplimiento de requisitos urbanísticos

FILE: 12-000666-1028-CA SUBJECT: ORDINARY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF: Nombre40366 DEFENDANTS: INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS Nº 4-2014-I ADMINISTRATIVE CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURAL COURT, SECTION ONE, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, ANEXO A, Goicoechea, at sixteen o'clock on the twenty-eighth of January of two thousand fourteen.- Ordinary proceedings filed by Nombre40366, who is of legal age, a merchant, resident of San Jerónimo de Moravia, Platanares, at the bakery located at Dirección4958, identity card number CED32057 (folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20), against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, represented by its general judicial attorney-in-fact, Adilia Campos Vargas, who is of legal age, single, an Attorney, resident of Tibás, identity card number CED32058 (folios 23 to 34). Appearing, in her capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, is Licenciada Floribeth González Amador, who is of legal age, divorced, an attorney, resident of Zapote, identity card number CED32059 (folio 35) and exclusively as procedural director for the plaintiff, Licenciado Juan Carlos Gutiérrez Morales, an attorney with Costa Rican Bar Association card number seven thousand eight hundred seven. (Folios 17 and 20 verso, as well as folios 42 to 45 and the digital recording of the preliminary hearing kept by this office).-

WHEREAS:

1.- That by means of a statement of claim filed before the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court, on the sixth day of August of two thousand twelve (folios 06 and 17) in relation to the provisions of the Procedural Judge during the preliminary hearing held on the twenty-seventh day of June of two thousand thirteen (folios 42 to 45), Mrs. Nombre40366 brought an action against the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, exclusively so that the judgment declares as follows: “1- … to grant this claim. / 2- That by reason thereof, Acueductos y Alcantarillados be ordered to place the main pipe and its respective meters on each of our rights. / 3- That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this action (…)”. (Folios 16, 17 and 20, in relation to those going from 42 to 45 and what was resolved in the preliminary hearing held on the twenty-seventh day of June of two thousand thirteen).- 2.- That under the terms of the resolution issued by the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court, at ten hours seventeen minutes on the thirteenth of November of two thousand twelve, it was determined that this matter corresponds to an ordinary proceeding regulated by the Administrative Contentious Procedural Code, and therefore its referral for the cognizance of this Judicial Office was ordered. (Folio 18).- 3.- That having granted the statutory transfer to the representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, it responded in opposition to the claim, under the terms of the pleading filed with the court on the sixth day of March of two thousand thirteen. In its defense, no preliminary procedural defenses or substantive defenses were raised. It was also requested that the claim be declared without merit in all its aspects and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs. (Folios 23 to 34).- 4.- That the preliminary hearing was held on the twenty-seventh day of June of two thousand thirteen, with the participation of both parties involved in the procedural legal relationship. At said hearing, it was not necessary to adopt any measure corresponding to the cleansing of the proceeding, no preliminary procedural defenses were raised, the disputed facts with relevance for the proceeding were determined, and a ruling was issued on the admissibility of all the evidence proposed by the parties. (Folios 24 to 45, in relation to the digital recording of the preliminary hearing held on the twenty-seventh day of June of two thousand thirteen kept by this office).- Drafted by Judge Felipe Córdoba Ramírez and resolved unanimously, with the affirmative vote of Judge Claudia Bolaños Salazar and Judge Rodrigo Huertas Durán.-

WHEREAS

I.- Proven facts. Of relevance for the resolution of this proceeding, the following are taken as proven: 1) That Mrs. Nombre40366 is a registered co-owner of the domain over the property registered in the National Registry, Canton of San José, registered folio number Placa7409, right identified with number zero zero five, located in the Second District, San Jerónimo, Fourteenth Canton, Moravia, since the eighteenth day of April of two thousand eight, a property on which a dwelling she uses as her home was built. (Folio 15 of the judicial file, and the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of two thousand fourteen, a proceeding of which a digital audio and video recording is kept); 2) That in addition to Mrs. Nombre40366, third parties are co-owners of rights in the related property, who, forming at least eleven autonomous families, have erected on the site equally autonomous buildings which they use as homes, with all of said dwellings having as their exclusive material access to a public street, a dead-end alley. (The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible at folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of two thousand fourteen); 3) That the building used by Mrs. Nombre40366 as her home on the site of interest has the drinking water supply service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados identified as “NIS: 340-1813” in the name of the related Mrs. Nombre40366, “mailing location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. (The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible at folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of two thousand fourteen and the copy of the billing for the related service visible at folio 9 of the main file); 4) That Mrs. Nombre40366 shares with third parties, also co-owners of the property and residents of some of the dwellings erected on the site, the drinking water supply service “NIS: 340-1813”, “mailing location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. (The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible at folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of two thousand fourteen, a proceeding of which a digital audio and video recording is kept); 5) That on the fifteenth day of March of two thousand eleven, personnel from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados allegedly carried out an inspection for the home review and/or supply, on the property referred to in the previous proven fact and in relation to the drinking water supply service provided at the site in the name of Mrs. Nombre40366, from which service order number 17279793 was issued, in which it was recorded, by way of comments made by the responsible official and in what is relevant, that: “There is an internal leak on a 200-meter stretch in a green zone. It is recommended to cut into sections to locate the same …”. (Folio 43 of the administrative file); 6) That on the seventeenth day of March of two thousand eleven, a group of five persons who identified themselves as “Nombre40367, (illegible), Nombre40368, Nombre40369 and Nombre40370”, submitted to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a document which, although it states in its heading that it is addressed to said authorities exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366, is not signed by her, and in which the following was indicated, in what is relevant: “I, Nombre40366, ID 1 10055 836, do not agree with said re-inspection carried out on my property on the 15th of March, 2011, because the person who performed it stated that I have a leak in a 200-meter area in front of my house in a green zone; / When in reality it is a public easement (paso de servidumbre pública) passage, where a branch of pipes belonging / To all neighbors passes, where it would be impossible to review or dig as said inspector stated, to avoid problems with the neighbors, for this reason we ask for your understanding. / We would be grateful if you would take us into account to be able to finance the main pipe and transfer of meters because there is a public easement passage where we have public lighting service and electricity meters for each house. Sincerely, Neighbors very affected by high water consumption and hoping for a prompt response”. (Folio 44 of the administrative file); 7) That in response to the request referred to in the previous proven fact, on the twenty-second of March of two thousand eleven, an official communication was issued by the Technical Studies Zona IV office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by means of which the petitioner was informed that the reason for the fluctuations occurring in the service billing was due to the existence of leaks located inside the property of interest (visible and non-visible), indicating to her that according to the Customer Service Regulations (Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes), articles 12 and 13, it is the user's responsibility to keep the installations intended for the drinking water supply in good condition, which are located inside the private property, while it was also noted that, for the solution of the problem occurring associated with the existence of leaks, the actions (improvements) to be adopted had been communicated to her previously by way of recommendations, so that once these were carried out, a new inspection should be requested to verify what is pertinent. (Folios 41 to 43 of the administrative file); 8) That on the eighth of November of two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366, formulated before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, in what is of interest, a request for the drinking water supply services that she identified with numbers NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407 to be transferred, and for the installation of what she identified as new services, for those she identified as: “Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366, Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefrry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”. (Folio 55 of the administrative file); 9) That on the ninth of November of two thousand eleven, the office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as “Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe”, issued the memorandum identified with number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, according to which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed, in what is relevant, of the following: “In response to your query regarding ceding the easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA, as well as the transfer of hydrometers and request for new services, I indicate the following: According to the consultation made to the Urbanizations Department (Departamento de Urbanizaciones), a formal request must be submitted stating that they are willing to cede said easement in favor of AyA. This must be addressed to Eng. Katty Borges (provide a copy of the cadastral plan), address Dirección4959. / Regarding what corresponds to the transfer of hydrometers and new services, as these are several rights, each co-owner must comply with the requirements stipulated in the Customer Service Regulations (Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente).” (Folio 86 of the administrative file); 10) That on the twenty-eighth of November of two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366, submitted to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a note by means of which she indicated that the petitioners of the request to individualize the drinking water supply service on the property of interest agreed to cede a right-of-way (servidumbre de paso) in favor of the defendant Institute, for which purpose, they indicated they provided the cadastral plans of the rights, and it was also added in the note: “unregistered plans are attached”. (Folio 09 of the administrative file); 11) That on the fifth of December of two thousand eleven, Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as “UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”, issued the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the “Office of Urbanizations UEN P y C” on the seventh of December of the same year -both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados-, according to which and in what is of interest, it was indicated as follows in relation to the case at hand: “This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement (servidumbre) on the farm with cadastral plan SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Management of Systems Management GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within rights-of-way (servidumbres de paso), for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes the regulations of INVU, (Regulation for the national control of subdivisions and urbanizations (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones), Chapter II) regarding the configuration of easements (width, length, area, and quantity of internal subdivisions fronting on easements). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore no individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them”. (Folio 76 of the administrative file); 12) That on the twenty-fourth of January of two thousand twelve, the office identified as “Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”, addressed the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, to the office of the Dirección Zona IV-GAM, by means of which, in addition to reporting the content of the memorandum issued by Engineer Isidro Solís number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added in what is pertinent that: “For its part, the topography department conducted a visit to the property on the 19th of January of this year. The objective of the visit was to inspect the easement that provides access to the interior dwelling houses and which is intended to be constituted in favor of AyA, in order to determine whether or not it is possible to approve the easement plans. The width of the easement varies approximately between 3.89 and 4.15 m, while the access to the buildings exceeds 250 m in length. Given this situation, the width of the easement contravenes what is established in executive decree N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3 establishes (…). / Given that this canton has a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and in response to the recommendation made by Lic. Melissa Chaves, with the Municipalidad de Moravia being the governing body in matters of administration of its territory, Arch. Dilana Vargas (an official of the Institution) was consulted regarding the feasibility of constituting the easement in terms of the minimum and maximum dimensions established by this body. Likewise, it was reported that the easement to be constructed does not comply with what is established in the Regulatory Plan. / According to the easement plan submitted to the urbanizations department last December 19, 2011, the neighbors request the constitution of a pipeline right-of-way (servidumbre de paso de tubería) with a width of 4.00 m and 337.51 m in length, according to what has already been mentioned, the document provided does not comply with the different regulations and statutes that the law establishes. Therefore, said plans cannot be approved, until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted or a higher body determines otherwise”. (Folios 78 to 80 of the administrative file); 11) That by means of the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth of April of two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of a right-of-way for the provision of the individualized drinking water supply service on the property of which she is an owner of a right, in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed on the same, over the already existing private right-of-way that provides access to the properties built inside the same, on the grounds that, FIRST: according to the criteria issued by the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within a right-of-way for internal properties; that the width of the easement proposed to be constituted according to the administrative procedure carried out comprises a width that is very reduced in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work for a potential distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones) of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution in its session number 3391, of December 13, 1982, published in Supplement (Alcance) number 18 of the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 57 of the twenty-third of March of nineteen hundred eighty-three, in its Second Chapter (width, length, area, and quantity of internal subdivisions fronting on an easement); that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration for each property; SECOND: That according to the criteria of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) having conducted a visit to the site of interest, it was determined that “the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement contravenes what is established in Executive Decree N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3, establishes: “The area necessary for the establishment of an easement for drinking water, stormwater, and sewerage shall have a minimum width of six meters…” / This decree applies exclusively to districts within the Urban Control Area (Área de Control Urbanístico), of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia is a part. Regarding the length of the easement, it notes that, in concordance with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 “… The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.”; THIRD: that this matter being also contemplated in the regulations comprising the regulatory plan (plan regulador) of the Municipalidad de Moravia, a municipal official identified as Engineer Diana Vargas was consulted, and she indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement do not comply with what is established in said Regulatory Plan, all of the above for which: “… the neighbors' request, according to the cadastral plan already indicated, is to constitute the right-of-way with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that a pipeline can be installed subsequently, according to what was previously indicated, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with what is established in the Regulations and Statutes that the indicated Law, so this request cannot be approved, until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or a higher body determines otherwise”. (Folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file).- II.- Unproven facts: Of relevance for the resolution of this proceeding are the following: 1) That the procedures carried out by Mrs. Nombre40366 before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados were not attended to in their entirety by said entity. (Folios 5 and 5 of the judicial file and 41 to 48 and 51 to 53 of the administrative file); 2) That the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted to other users different from Mrs. Nombre40366, approvals for the location of the installations necessary for the supply of drinking water on private property, without requiring the constitution of an easement in favor of said institute that complies with the dimensions, technical, and urbanistic requirements demanded by the legal system for those purposes and/or, as the case may be, that said Institute has built, for the benefit of other users at sites other than the one of interest, drinking water supply systems inside private properties, under the same conditions as the property of which the related Mrs. Nombre40366 is a partial owner. (The case records); 3) That the buildings erected individually and autonomously on the property have a right-of-way registered in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system. (The case records, particularly the evidence visible at folios 01 to 09, 13 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 55 to 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 to 83 all from the administrative file and folio 15 of the main file); 4) That Mrs. Nombre40366 brought suit in the present case in the name or on behalf of any of the other co-owners of the property registered in the National Registry, Canton of San José, registered folio number Placa7409. (The case records).- III.- Regarding the grievances formulated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated in argumentative support of her action -in summary according to her statement of claim-, that being the owner of the domain of a right over the registered farm -this Court adds, in the National Registry, Real Property Section- of the canton of San José, registered folio number Placa7409, she is a user of the drinking water supply services provided by the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, both she and “approximately eleven more rights”, -what follows is clarified by this Court, for it should be understood as such-, all users of the same service and co-owners of the property in question. That the meters placed by the defendant entity on the occasion of and for the purposes of the provision of the aforementioned service and the recording of consumption on their part, are installed on the street, for which reason they are subject to damage caused by vehicles and ill-intentioned persons, who “break or damage them”, thereby causing the bills to show high consumption, inappropriate and high, caused by leaks and the repair of those meters. That the meter -it must be understood again- corresponding to the plaintiff's consumption has been destroyed for a year. That as a result of the above, approximately three neighbors do not have the mentioned service, which violates their right to health and a dignified life. That she has been harmed in her economic resources due to high charges for the provision of the service, which harms everyone disproportionately, with the sole justification from the defendant public authority being that they -the affected users must be understood- must make requests to individualize the service. That it was for this reason, that on the sixteenth of March of two thousand eleven, she proceeded to formulate, jointly with the affected neighbors, a request for meters to be placed house by house in front of each of their properties in order to solve the problem, before which the authorities of the defendant Institute indicated that they had to comply with a series of regulatory requirements, the latter which they complied with. She adds that consequently with the above, on the ninth of November of two thousand eleven, Licenciada Flor de María Zúñiga -it must be understood, an official of the defendant Institute told them that they -the affected service users- had to declare they were willing to cede an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the Institute, as well as provide the respective cadastral plan of the property, both of which they provided to the defendant authority on the eleventh of January of two thousand twelve. She affirms that by the date of the filing of the claim, two months had passed without having received an affirmative response to their management in violation of her right to petition and equality before the law, since in her opinion: “… under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests, as it charges me rates that do not correspond to those charged to others, demands I pay fines that are also not my responsibility, and which correspond exclusively to the poor service and efficacy offered by them, because if there were individual meters, I would know where my consumption comes from, and my possible excesses, not as it is now where there is a single service that thereby makes it difficult to determine the real consumption of each user, which as I mentioned violates the principle of equality, as we must pay for the ineffectiveness of the institution in clear detriment to our constitutional and fundamental rights”. She added that faced with her management -it must be understood- the defendant Institute notified her by means of the memorandum she identifies with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05 of the rejection of her request and the reasons why it was not admissible, this on the occasion of aspects linked exclusively to the length and width of the easement required for the purpose of locating the installations necessary for the provision of the service according to the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo among others. She believes that despite the negative response to her procedure, in the same canton where the service of interest is located, and a “countless” number of places in the country “there are narrower and longer easements and even in squatter settlements, where said services exist individually, which in clear and obvious reason violates my constitutional rights”. Finally, she reports that on the property there exist other public services such as public lighting, internet, and cable, among others. In support of her action, the plaintiff limited herself to citing articles 1 and following, as well as 41, both of the Law Regulating the Constitutional Jurisdiction, 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, 1 and following of the Administrative Contentious Procedural Code, as well as the first and following of the General Law of Public Administration without outlining any argumentative structure in that section of the statement of claim. Faced with the above and in what is of interest, the Procedural Judge in charge of the present matter ordered the plaintiff, by resolution issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes on the seventh of December of two thousand twelve, upon considering that the claim completely lacked legal grounds, to state what was pertinent. In response to the above, by pleading filed with the court on the fourteenth of December of two thousand twelve (folio 20), the plaintiff indicated as follows: “A-I base my claim on articles 27, 41 of the Political Constitution, norms that protect my right to petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me regarding my health, and in the economic field. Grounds that I protect and sustain with articles 11, 112, 275, following and concordant of the General Law of Public Administration, insofar as my claim is directed against a public institution such as AyA, by reason of the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without having an affirmative response to our petition, and right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that violates the right to petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B-I base my claim on the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which sustains all the aforesaid, and authorizes me according to the amparo filed to resort to this present instance.” C- Under the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), in its first article, subsequent and concordant articles, given that the service being requested is aimed at improving my socioeconomic level and well-being, and given that AyA does not respond in a timely manner, and each time it does, it requests more requirements, despite being an omission (sic) and complacent with respect to other users who, under the same conditions, have the silver-plated (sic) service, I consider that the arguments put forth are sufficient to proceed with this lawsuit. / D- Likewise, based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution. / E- Under Article 261 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), given that my petition was resolved after the requested deadline, which grants me standing to assert my rights in the jurisdictional [venue] (sic) to which I am turning." Thus, the petition requested that the judgment declare exclusively as follows: "1- That the present lawsuit be granted. / 2- That, accordingly, Acueductos y Alcantarillados (sic) be ordered to install the main pipe and its respective meters for each of our rights. / 3- That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this action (...)".

IV.- Regarding the defense arguments made by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). The representation of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) indicated, at the time of answering the lawsuit and in summary, that the plaintiff is indeed the owner of a right over the property she mentions, and that the Institute bills her for the service identified with number Placa7410, located in Moravia, seven hundred meters east and fifty meters north of the "Taller Hermanos Solís," having for this purpose a meter or hydrometer installed on the public road. This is so because it is an institutional asset to which the public officials in charge of taking the periodic readings registered by it regarding consumption, as well as proceeding with the eventual suspension of service in cases where it is appropriate, must have access. It clarifies that the consumption registered by the plaintiff, and for which she has been issued the respective billings, corresponds to the average reflected by her, which has even been lower than actual consumption, having been determined because the meter reading could not be taken and in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 of the "current regulation" (it does not identify the regulatory body it refers to), so the plaintiff's statement that she is being charged high or unjustified amounts due to damages that may have occurred to the hydrometer is not true. It indicated that this is reflected in the Report issued in due course by the Head of the Guadalupe Regional Office, which it identifies with number UEN-SC-ZIV-ET-2013-122 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand thirteen. That it is not aware that there are service users at the site who are being deprived of drinking water supply due to the problem the plaintiff claims to present, nor that she is being a victim of the economic effects she claims. It added that it is true that the plaintiff filed a request on May sixteenth, two thousand eleven, which was delivered to the Commercial Department Zona IV GAM the day after its filing, just as it is true that, to proceed with said request, Mrs. Nombre40366 was told that she had to comply with a series of requirements stipulated by regulation. In this vein, it is indicated that the person in charge of processing new services in the area instructed Mrs. Nombre40366 pursuant to official letter number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153 dated November ninth, two thousand eleven, stating that her procedure had to be directed to what it identified as the Urbanizations Department (Departamento de Urbanizaciones), before which the interested parties had to express their willingness to cede an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute. In order to place a hydrometer for each user, each one of them had to comply with the requirements stipulated in the Regulations for the Provision of Services to Clients of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados). Then, it added that, aware of the relevant request, the UEN of Systems Optimization (which is an office of the defendant Institute), through the person of Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, issued memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, pursuant to which the following was ordered: "This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement (servidumbre) on the cadastral plan farm SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub-Management of Systems Management GAM, the provision of individualized services is not carried out within access easements (servidumbres de paso) for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement (servidumbre) is very reduced compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes INVU regulations, (Regulations for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations [Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones], Chapter II) regarding the formation of easements (servidumbres) (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions [fraccionamientos] fronting easements [servidumbres]). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore, they also lack individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them." Added to the above is the content of Article 3 of Executive Decree 25902, regarding what regulates the minimum width that an easement (servidumbre) destined for drinking water in urbanizations must measure, and point II.2.1.1 of the Regulations for the Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el control de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), regarding what regulates the length of access easements (servidumbres) to interior lots in properties like the one at hand. It was stated in the report that the easement (servidumbre) that would serve the purposes sought by the plaintiff averages three meters seventy-five centimeters in width, despite the request being to constitute one of four meters in width and three hundred thirty-seven meters fifty-seven centimeters in length, which is misaligned with the technical requirements noted. Thus, it indicated that all the requests made by the plaintiff were answered, it being another matter that the response was negative based on the stated technical reasons. Finally, it reported that in the Topography Area of the defendant Institute, there is no record of approved plans for the constitution of access and pipeline easements (servidumbre de paso y tubería) by the authorities of the defendant Institute that, in the Canton of Moravia, comprise dimensions smaller than those indicated in the cited regulations. In summary, the representation of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados) alleged that the actions taken in rejection of the request made by the plaintiff, and in the various administrative instances where this occurred, are in accordance with the law, as it responded to technical regulations included in the Regulations for the Provision of Services to Clients (Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes), the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) identified as judgment number 2004-12185, the Constitutive Law of the defendant Institute, and Executive Decree number 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE.

V.- Regarding the relevant urban planning regulation linked to the matter at hand. The siting and operation of infrastructure intended for the provision of the public drinking water supply service involves the deployment of an activity of an urban planning nature that encompasses interests unfolding in this sphere, from the national to the local level, including aspects related to public health and environmental matters, which together inform the activities linked to urban development. This being so, the first thing to be noted is that, since it is urban regulation that governs the matter, when it comes to the siting of the infrastructure necessary for providing the service of interest to the buildings that people erect in the exercise of the "ius aedificandi," municipal governments have traditionally been recognized as having a competence, in more cases than not exclusive, without prejudice to what will be said regarding national urban planning. Merely by way of example, in legal doctrine it has been said that "(...) urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the first among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre28 and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.). Along the same lines described, only to the extent that some urban planning aspect encompasses urban planning in general terms of the entire national territory, do the competences of other non-local or municipal Public Administrations concur, such as the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo) -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, the Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Ambiental) (a deconcentrated body), the Ministry of National Planning, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, and, in whatever is also competent, the General Directorate of Civil Aviation. Regarding local urban planning, the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), in its Article 1, Decree Law number 833, of November fourth, nineteen forty-nine, promulgated by the De Facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, established that Municipalities would be responsible for ensuring, in urban matters, the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty on public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected in each canton, without prejudice to the powers that other laws grant to other administrative bodies. Pursuant to Article 74 of said legal body, no building may be erected in contravention of what the applicable legal system mandates in urban matters. This entails the recognition of legitimate limitations on the exercise by the individual of the marginal attributes of ownership that emerge as a result of the property right enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution and detailed in the Civil Code, in its Article 264, particularly in subsection 3) recognizing the right of transformation. Since, from the outset, the above implies the concurrence of municipal competences linked with other non-local authorities, it has been the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) that, at the level of applying Constitutional Law, has taken on the task of outlining some criteria to achieve the separation of matters that can be considered in this local sphere from the national sphere, given that the Magna Carta is sparing in establishing express rules in this regard. (See judgments of the Constitutional Chamber [Sala Constitucional] numbers 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656). Thus, and along the lines pointed out above, the aforementioned high Court has ratified that, based on the provisions of Article 169 and the first paragraph of Article 170, both of the Constitution, the primary competence in local urban planning matters corresponds to the municipalities, excluding any other public entity. In fact, the formerly effective Municipal Code itself, under Law 4574 of May fourth, nineteen seventy, repealed as of nineteen ninety-eight, once Law number 7794 of April thirtieth of that year came into effect, expressly recognized municipal competence in matters of control and oversight of urban development, in the terms of its Article 4. In accordance with the preceding provision, and as a derivative of the constitutional norms mentioned above, Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) number 4240 of November fifteenth, nineteen sixty-eight came into being, as they textually provide as follows: "Article 15.- In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development within the limits of their jurisdictional territory is recognized. Consequently, each one of them shall arrange what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail to establish a specific controlling regime." (Highlighting is not from the original). "Article 19.- Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due observance of the regulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community." In accordance with the above, it follows from this legal postulate that both the regulatory activity and the verification of compliance or non-compliance with local urban planning regulations is a municipal competence, which involves, on the part of local governments, the need for them to have and exercise, in order to guarantee orderly urban development adjusted to the legal order, the typical powers of what is known as police power. In what concerns us, these powers of control and oversight in the urban sphere acquire enormous relevance in urbanization processes from the perspective related to construction activity and subdivision (fraccionamiento) of properties. Thus, in addition to the related police powers, pursuant to the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) in its Article 74, the following is established: "Licenses. Any work related to construction, executed in the populations of the Republic, whether of a permanent or provisional nature, must be executed with a license from the corresponding Municipality." For its part, Article 87 of the same legal body reads: "The municipality shall exercise surveillance over the works executed in its jurisdiction, as well as over the use given to them. Furthermore, it shall have the mission of monitoring the observance of the precepts of this Law…". This police power is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on what the legal order dictates, it ensures its observance in practice to promote urban order, and consequently the protection of health, tranquility, the safety of individuals, and the protection of the environment. Urban regulation, it must be clearly recognized then, implies restrictions on the attributes of ownership over real property included in Article 264 of the Civil Code, particularly that of transformation, and of course, on the right to private property pursuant to Article 45 of the Constitution. The foregoing is reasonable to the extent that this fundamental right, residing in an individual, is limited by the right of other subjects in consideration of the duty to coexist in society, in respect and consideration for the rest of the citizens, which is nothing other than attending to the general interest. (Also see judgments of the Constitutional Chamber [Sala Constitucional] number 401-91 of fourteen hours on February twentieth, 619-91, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, of fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three).

VI.- Regarding subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization activities. Specifically, both concepts, subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization, are relevant for the purposes of this ruling, so they are explained below. Subdivision (fraccionamiento) involves the division of a property for the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which implies, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (of the plans), that the subdivision (fraccionamiento) conforms in size and characteristics to the current urban planning provisions, especially the local land Regulatory Plan - if one exists - as well as to the regulations contained in special public order laws and their regulations. Subdivision (fraccionamiento) is known as "simple" when it occurs in previously urbanized areas, and this is so because, due to the finalist principle of interpreting norms, the legislator has assumed that in these cases, the properties to be subdivided already have appropriate access (among other things, for the provision of public services) and green areas, both aspects resulting from a previous orderly urban development that adhered to the legal system, over which the exercise of control and oversight has already been previously exercised by the competent public authorities. Thus, Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) provides that: "(...) the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities is excepted for simple subdivisions [fraccionamientos] of parcels in previously urbanized areas…". When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have, as a presupposition, as stated, access to the properties, parks, and community facilities in compliance with the relevant regulations, thus their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and of course, their right to be recipients of all essential public services, is considered protected (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason -it is reiterated-, the legislator has not deemed it necessary to demand, in the case of a "simple" subdivision (fraccionamiento), greater endowments of land for reasons of social interest, in favor of adequate social coexistence. On the other hand, when the urbanization process based on subdivisions (fraccionamientos) entails the material enabling of autonomous properties for the first time for urban purposes, prior verification must be made that each property has accesses, such as streets, as well as green areas and parks, and the necessary services for the use and enjoyment of the people linked to the properties and their use, including the provision of the drinking water supply service. In this regard, one can observe the provisions of Article 308 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) -if one recalls that there are non-local planning regulations that must be respected, even by Local Governments- which refers to prior requirements that must be met for the plans of a construction project to be approved in what concerns the Ministry of Health: "Article 308.- In the formation of new cities or populations and the opening of new streets, they may not be laid out or oriented without the approval of the Ministry. / Neither may buildings be constructed on new streets if the necessary sanitation works have not been previously carried out, such as the construction of drains, sewer systems, installation of drinking water pipes, and the filling or leveling of land to avoid water stagnation of any kind. / Without prejudice to the powers of other competent authorities or entities in the matter, every person engaged in the urbanization of land and the construction of buildings for housing must comply with the provisions of the sanitary standards that the Ministry dictates on the matter to safeguard people's health." (Highlighting is not from the original). Furthermore, Article 313 of the same legal body provides: "Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements: (...) / 8. Basic sanitation means: a) Continuous supply of drinking water, in sufficient quantity and pressure, accessible to all occupants." It is not irrelevant to mention that the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Ley Constitutiva del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), in its Article 21, provided that: "All projects for the construction, expansion, or modification of systems for the supply of drinking water and the disposal of sewage and rainwater, whether public or private, must be previously approved by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), which may carry out the inspection it deems appropriate to verify that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said prior approval shall be mandatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), urbanizations, or lotifications in any part of the country, and no other state agency shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. Violation of this mandate shall cause the nullity of any construction permit granted in contravention of this prohibition, with the parceling or project, as the case may be, being considered legally non-existent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), No. 4240 of November 15, 1968." The norm referred to by this provision, by remission to the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), indicates for these purposes: "Article 34.- The Public Registry shall suspend the registration of documents concerning the subdivision [fraccionamiento] of properties included in urban districts without the verification specified in the preceding article. / The municipal approval of plans or sketches, which do not need to have been cadastrally registered, shall be issued by the municipal engineer or executive, or the person to whom they delegate such functions, within fifteen days following their submission, free of charge, without being subject to the payment of stamps or any other tax, nor to the payment of taxes, contributions, or services owed by the parties. If the foregoing is not accepted, a notarial certification on the plan regarding this circumstance shall serve as municipal approval. The substantiated refusal of the respective municipality or the indicated officials, made in writing within the cited period, is preserved." Finally, the article preceding this one, from the same legal body, reads: "Article 33.- For any land subdivision [fraccionamiento] or real estate located in urban districts and other areas subject to urban planning control, it shall be essential to have previously approved, in the authorized municipal office, the plan indicating the location and area of the resulting portions, and also that the authorizing notary or public official attests in the act of issuance or granting of the respective document that the division coincides with what is expressed in said plan. / Subdivisions [Fraccionamientos] made by private document, similarly to public documents, shall be deemed ineffective if they lack a notarial or municipal statement regarding the pre-existence of the approved plan." (Highlighting is not from the original). In the case of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization for the first time, therefore, we are faced with a complex process that introduces limitations and conditions on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law [Ley de Planificación Urbana]), which the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated are fully consistent with Constitutional Law and do not violate fundamental rights (Voto N° 5097-93 of ten hours twenty-four minutes on October fifteenth, nineteen ninety-three). The concept of a residential project or subdivision (fraccionamiento), which we shall call "complex" based on the foregoing, is provided for in the already related Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which, as relevant, provides: " Every land subdivider [fraccionador] (...) and every urbanizer shall cede free of charge for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is established for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by setting percentages of the total area to be subdivided [fraccionar] or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the relevant standards. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands that must be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided [fraccionar] or urbanized...". (Highlighting is not from the original). The obligation of the one who subdivides or urbanizes to provide each emerging property with the indicated accesses, to the extent that the legal system so imposes, as well as green areas, parks, and the provision of infrastructure in accordance with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and regulations, is an unavoidable condition for the exercise of the right to build, which has, among others, the purpose of guaranteeing an adequate and orderly provision of essential public services. Consequently, regarding this activity, the local government must exercise in a timely manner the police power it possesses as a Public Administration, guaranteeing the residents of the canton that the works to be erected will be carried out in respect of urban planning norms and with the technical conditions those norms stipulate. It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those properties to maintain that, in those specific cases, there is no "simple subdivision" (fraccionamiento), but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the indicated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable access to properties through public roads that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) and the Regulations for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones). In the absence—in this last case—of concrete provisions in local norms, the general norms governing urban planning in the nation apply. In light of the above, the control that the local government is responsible for verifying is of special interest, in this case, when it comes to the approval of construction permits, since it must corroborate that compliance is fully met with the requirements of the law, particularly those for which other non-local Public Administrations must have acted as a filter, namely, and among others, those related to the provision of public roads, green and community areas, and especially—of relevance for the resolution of this matter—the enabling and implementation, at the expense of the urbanizer, of the necessary elements for the suitable provision of public services such as electricity, telephone, drinking water, and sewage systems. The failure of urban projects to comply with the requirements established in the urban planning system obliges—per se—the rejection of the requests filed for their construction, in application of the principle of legality. It is relevant to remember that the legal framework (bloque de legalidad) is comprised not only of written sources, starting with the Political Constitution and other infra-constitutional regulations, but also by the values and principles emanating from it, international treaties—with special significance of those relating to fundamental rights connected to health and the environment—as well as laws and regulatory provisions, as ordered by Article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). In addition, the unequivocal rules of science and technique apply, as they also constitute a delimiting parameter for administrative discretion pursuant to Article 16 of the cited legal body, as it obliges the Administration to ensure that its actions are duly motivated by the theoretical knowledge acquired from the different methodologies and disciplines of science and technique when merited. In this way, the will of public institutions that exercise some type of control in this matter does not depend on their free will, but rather on objective evaluations obtained in accordance with the technical rules applicable to the specific case and, of course, the law. In this sense, the objectivity of technical criteria is highlighted, given that "... if a technique is scientific and therefore, by definition, certain, objective, and universal, subject to uniform rules that do not depend on the personal appreciation of an individual subject, it is obvious that one cannot speak in this aspect of 'complete discretion,' but rather it corresponds, on the contrary, to speak of little less than 'regulation' (subjection to norms, in the case of technique)" (MARTÍN GONZÁLEZ, M., in his work El grado de determinación legal de los conceptos jurídicos. RAP, number 54, 1967, p.239), cited by DESDENTADO DAROCA, Eva. Los problemas del control judicial de la discrecionalidad técnica. (Un estudio crítico de la jurisprudencia. Editorial Civitas, S. A. Madrid. Spain. 1997. p. 43.). In accordance with the foregoing, it was expressed by Nombre28 in the Legislative Commission that discussed the bill for the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de Administración Pública), that to include the unequivocal rules of science and technique as a parameter of administrative discretion, it was necessary to consider "... the cases in which the Administration acts in technical matters that have a clear and precise meaning in the case, the technical rules are going to be, in this case, like laws; the violation of the technical aspects of an administrative act of a public service is naturally going to be an illegality, exactly as if a legal precept were being violated." (QUIRÓS CORONADO, Roberto. Ley General de Administración Pública, Concordada y Anotada con el Debate Legislativo y la Jurisprudencia Constitucional. Editorial Aselex, S. A.)

San José, Costa Rica. 1996. p. 99.). Having clarified the foregoing, then, alignment with the rules, at least formally considered unambiguous, of science and technique, is an indispensable condition that is incorporated into the parameters of administrative activity within the framework of its discretionary action.- VII.- On the potable water supply service in the urban sphere. Observing what has been expressed above, it is understood that the aspect related to the availability and physical space, as well as the material access to the infrastructure necessary for the provision of the potable water service, is an indispensable and prior requirement in order to carry out a subdivision (fraccionamiento) and/or urbanize a property, including therein the construction process of building in exercise of the right of transformation, derived in this case from the “ius aedificandi”. Thus, regarding the construction project in question, it must be accredited prior to the issuance of the construction license by means of the information comprising the corresponding plan and that which must be supplied by whoever administers the potable water provision service, that it has gone through the approval, control, and oversight by the public authorities that, according to special laws, are competent, by the certification that the building will have an appropriate system, juridically and legally, to, among other aspects, supply potable water to the property and, to that extent, to its occupants. Pointing in this direction is the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, in its Second Chapter, which, regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans for a project require the approval of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, given that the majority of public services whose systems or infrastructure are indispensable to be placed on the land, or subsoil comprising the accesses or public roads to the buildings, require minimum and indispensable urban and technical conditions for the Municipalities to permit subdivisions (fraccionamientos). Among these requirements, the following stand out: “II.1 Requisitos. (…) / II.1.3 Los lotes deberán contar con los servicios mínimos existentes en la zona”; “II.2 Accesos: II.2.1 Lotes frente a servidumbre: Todas las parcelas resultantes de un fraccionamiento tendrán acceso directo a vía pública. En casos calificados, el INVU y las Municipalidades podrán admitir la subdivisión de lotes mediante servidumbres de paso, siempre que se cumpla con las siguientes normas: La servidumbre se aceptará en terrenos especiales en que por su ubicación o dimensión se demuestre que es imposible fraccionar con acceso adecuado a vías públicas existentes, utilizándose preferentemente para casos en que ya existan viviendas en el lote. / II.2.1.1 En subdivisiones hasta dé tres (3) lotes para vivienda unifamiliar, se tendrá una servidumbre de tres metros (3,00 m.) de ancho. De éstos, noventa centímetros (0,90 m.) corresponderán a la acera. La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros. / II.2.1.2 Por cada lote adicional para vivienda unifamiliar se requiere un metro (1,00 m.) adicional en el ancho de la servidumbre, hasta completar seis metros (6,00 m.) de ancho. / II.2.1.3 Frente a servidumbres solamente se podrá segregar un máximo de seis (6) lotes . / II.2.1.4 Todos los lotes resultantes de las subdivisiones, deberán tener las medidas reglamentarias. El área de la servidumbre no será computable para efectos de cálculo del área mínima de lote y sobre ella no podrán hacerse construcciones, salvo las de tapias. / Artículo II.2.1.5. La segregación autorizada frente a servidumbre, en los términos de los artículos anteriores, implica que la entrada a los lotes será considerada servidumbre de paso común y en todo momento para cualquier autoridad o funcionarios de las entidades encargadas a prestar servicios públicos, de cualquier índole, así como de aquél a las que corresponde el control urbanístico, municipal, de seguridad pública, salud, bomberos y cualquier otro similar. / No obstante lo indicado en el párrafo anterior, en cuanto a servidumbres, ni la municipalidad, ni ninguna institución pública tienen obligación de darles mantenimiento, ni de prestar servicios en los lotes interiores .”. (The highlighting is not from the original). On the other hand, there is the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano, Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902 of February twelfth, nineteen ninety-seven, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta number 66 of April seventh, nineteen ninety-seven, which provides, regarding what it has identified as special non-construction areas, according to its article 3, that: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros pudiendo ser mayor si así lo estableciera el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, además: 3.1 Tales áreas no podrán edificarse pero si podrán dedicarse a parques y juegos infantiles. (…). 3.2 Igualmente podrán dedicarse a la construcción de calles y alamedas con las especificaciones que fije el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 Los planos constructivos de urbanizaciones con servidumbres deberán ir acompañados de la nota de aprobación del anteproyecto por parte de Nombre5630. 3.4 Sobre las áreas de servidumbre de Nombre5630 no podrán realizarse ningún tipo de edificación. 3.5 Dichas servidumbres no podrán considerarse vías públicas para efectos de segregación de propiedades enfrentando a ellas, salvo que queden establecidas previamente como calles en los proyectos de Urbanización. (…)”. (The highlighting is not from the original). It can be added, in consonance with what has been indicated up to this point, that regarding the plans that, for construction purposes, must be approved and/or endorsed as a condition prior to the granting of a municipal construction license, the Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo number 27967, of July first, nineteen ninety-nine, must also be observed, which established the need for those construction plans to be drawn up in alignment with what was indicated above, in the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (article 8), as well as the Reglamento de Construcciones and its reforms (article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, when applicable. The Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción clearly subjected the endorsement of those technical instruments for urbanizations, condominiums of individual primary filial properties (condominios de lotes), and residential complexes, to inter-institutional control in each area of its specialty, for which entities such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo through its Dirección de Urbanismo, the Ministerio de Salud, through its Oficinas Regionales de Salud, and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, at a minimum, participate in the procedure. This regulation was repealed by Decreto Ejecutivo 36550 of April twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 117, of June seventeenth, two thousand eleven, which in its article 2 reiterated the need for the aforementioned inter-institutional intervention, and also linked to the procedure the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, the Cuerpo Nacional de Bomberos, the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, and the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Particularly for the case of properties intended to be subjected to the horizontal property regime and urbanizations (article 8), it results that the respective plans must therefore be in alignment with the Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de Propiedad en Condominio, Decreto Ejecutivo number 32303, of March second, two thousand five, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 74 of April nineteenth, two thousand five and its reforms; the related Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, and its reforms, approved in session of the Junta Directiva of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two; the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos of the Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados and its reforms, approved in session of its Junta Directiva number 2006-730 of February twenty-second, two thousand seven, published in Alcance number 8 of the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven; the also already cited Reglamento de Construcciones, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 56, Alcance Nº 17 of March twenty-second, nineteen eighty-three and its reforms; the Manual de Disposiciones Técnicas Generales al Reglamento sobre Seguridad Humana y Protección Contra Incendios (2007 version and its reforms, Memorándum Resolutivo 2007-2320 of August first, two thousand seven); the “Guía de Trámites para el Registro de la Responsabilidad Profesional” of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 93 of May fifteenth, two thousand eight, and the respective municipal regulatory plan. Now then, there also exists a normative body that encompasses, on the technical level, aspects that every water supply system, among others, for potable water, must respect, which is the Regulation number 2006-730, published in Alcance number 8, of the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven, called “Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos”. Then, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados additionally has a regulation that partially governs the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, which is a relationship that is, in addition, typical of public service. This is the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado number 96, of June twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six. This regulation and the previous one must be related to article 39 of the Ley de Planificación urbana which states as follows: “No se dará permiso para urbanizar terrenos: a) Cuando el proyecto no satisfaga las normas mínimas reglamentarias, o los interesados no hayan cumplido los trámites pertinentes, entre los que está la aprobación indispensable de los planos por la Dirección de Urbanismo y el Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;…”. (The highlighting is not from the original). The indicated regulatory norms not being found at any level to be in disagreement with the provisions of the applicable legislation on the matter, in article 7 of the last cited regulation, it is systematically recalled what is already advanced by the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, by indicating that it is the owner of a property on which a building exists, who is responsible for requesting from the Institute the supply of potable water through the proper connection to the infrastructure that is located on public roads, when these are located in front of service networks operated and administered by the same, notwithstanding this, this is when technically feasible according to the provisions of its article 16, (which refers to the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, among other applicable sources). This provision referring to the standing to request potable water supply services, obeys and responds harmoniously with the provisions of article 12 of the Ley General de Agua Potable, number 1634, since in the event of default, caused by an outstanding debt generated by the provision of the potable water supply service, there is a legal mortgage on the property where the service is provided, charged to the subscriber, which compels us to say that only whoever possesses the capacity to dispose of that patrimony (the property), could encumber it in this way. (See article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). It is thus, how article 11 of the related Reglamento indicates the following: “Artículo 11.- La deuda proveniente del servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado sanitario que brinda AyA, impone hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble que los recibe, siendo la propiedad la que por ley responde a las obligaciones del cliente ante éste (Ley No 1634, Ley General de Agua Potable), lo anterior sin perjuicio de que Nombre5630 pueda indistintamente utilizar el juicio hipotecario, prendario o simple como medios compulsivos de pago. Las responsabilidades contraídas son transferidas de propietario a propietario sin posibilidad de renuncia”. The related norm is logical and necessary, insofar as it aims to safeguard the continuity of an essential service, which, in addition, is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, for which reason its sustainability is of public interest par excellence. The need for it to be the one who builds, to whom it corresponds, insofar as it concerns the placement of the infrastructure necessary for the provision of the service on private property, the provision activity from which the need for potable water supply arises, is also recognized in number 12 of the same indicated regulation, which reads as follows: “Los servicios de agua potable y de alcantarillado sanitario los suministra AyA, hasta el límite de propiedad. / Los sistemas e instalaciones internos necesarios para el disfrute de los mismos, son responsabilidad del propietario y permanecen bajo su propiedad exclusiva”. (the highlighting is not from the original. See also article 18). In this way and in consonance with what has been said, it is the exclusive obligation of the property owner to maintain the installations that they themselves have provided within the private property (article 13), consequently being the sole responsible party for any inadequate functioning of the service, if it is caused by some circumstance that arises affecting the system they have on their property. That is why one must not confuse the attribution that the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados has, in the face of a claim by an individual for a billing they deem misaligned with actual consumption, which proceeds upon the simple request of the user, for inspections to be carried out within the private property in order to detect any circumstance that allows justifying the consumption that a specific service registers (just as article 26 of the cited regulation provides), with the duty to install infrastructure and maintain it, which within the private property, we insist, corresponds exclusively to the property owner, as part of the construction process and subsequent use and enjoyment of the service (article 28).- VIII.- On requests for the connection of a new potable water supply service and/or, the independent or individualized provision of several services for the same user. In the case of requirements for the connection of new services formulated by the property owner, the applicant must accredit to the Institute that the building to which the liquid is intended to be provided was constructed with approved and/or endorsed plans that reflect that it has direct access by public road or an easement (servidumbre) constituted in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, and that a network (infrastructure) for the service of interest exists on the property, which is an unavoidable requirement, all in compliance with the dimensions demanded by the legal order. The easement (servidumbre) legally constituted in favor of the Institute in these cases is the means that enables the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed with the placement or siting of infrastructure, making use of its resources (with the respective costs of the work charged, that said, to the property owner) and the connection of the service within the private property, thereby guaranteeing free access to the property for the purpose of exercising the tasks of control, oversight, and good administration of the service, the latter associated with reading the hydrometer records for the purpose of billing and collection for the corresponding consumption, given that under no assumption is the service free. The technical conditions for this to be feasible, moreover, would have to be those incorporated in the respective regulation and that are particular to the type of service in question, which implies that they need not necessarily correspond to services of another type, such as, solely by way of example, telecommunications and/or electricity. Article 32 cited above, replicates the need for it to be the property owner who requests the connection of a new service, if they comply with a series of formal and technical requirements in this regard. Always in accordance with the regulation of interest, the user of the service may request from the Institute, among other things, the individualization of the service, which implies the placement of a hydrometer that records consumption on a property independently and the existence of several independent buildings on the same property (article 37). In these cases, in accordance with article 38 of the same regulatory body, these individualizations only proceed in cases where the interested party has also individualized the respective installations and when technically possible. For all purposes, in the case of horizontal condominiums, the Junta Administradora must constitute and register an easement (servidumbre) of passage in the name of the referred institute; otherwise, the installations must reach the property limit, facing a public road. In all cases, it is the owner of each property or building who is entitled to request and become a subscriber of the entity providing the service, as an indispensable requirement, given the civil liability involved in the obligations inherent to whoever receives the supply of this good (legal mortgage on the property) before whoever provides its supply by way of a public service, which is not free. Thus, in accordance with article 40 ibidem, in cases where a property that has the related services is segregated, the owner of the lot where the connections are located is obliged to notify of said subdivision (fraccionamiento) and to request the individualization of their connection, upon prior payment of any balance in the respective account. Said article indicates that “… Para todos los efectos las propiedades segregadas responden en parte proporcional a las obligaciones adquiridas por la finca original. Los dueños de los lotes segregados podrán solicitar a Nombre5630 nuevas conexiones conforme a los requerimientos establecidos en este Reglamento…”. (The highlighting is not from the original). Finally, article 42 provides that: “Si por algún motivo el propietario requiere que sus conexiones sean trasladadas a otro sitio dentro de su propiedad, que también tenga acceso al sistema público, podrá así solicitarlo. Nombre5630 estudiará el caso y si el traslado es técnicamente posible y han realizado las obras necesarias dentro de los sistemas internos para la nueva localización, se procederá a hacerlo efectivo previo pago de los costos correspondientes”. (The highlighting is not from the original). From the foregoing, another requirement is that the property for which the service is to be individualized is, from the registry point of view, segregated as an autonomous unit, since only this one would be responsible for any unhonored civil obligation for the supply of the good.- IX.- On the object and basis of the action. The lawsuit that is heard under the terms of the present instrument centrally comprises a single claim, whereby it is expected that the judicial authority condemns the defendant Administration to the deployment of a specific activity - condemnation to do - consisting of the order to proceed with the “placement of the main pipe and its respective meters in each of our rights” as has thus been determined as a result of the filed lawsuit that occupies us and what was provided during the procedural phase of this judicial process. Without fear of error, the action seeks to reverse the negative administrative act, comprised in the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April sixteenth, two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, according to which the request of the plaintiff -and others, it is presumed-, for potable water supply services to be individualized on the property of which they are co-owners, with the offer to legally constitute an aqueduct easement (servidumbre) on the site, thus affecting the property of the petitioners in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados as a condition demanded by the latter, was rejected. Taking note that the lawsuit did not incorporate any petitionary heading directed at the annulment of this formal negative administrative act, the action nonetheless seeks to reverse that administrative decision. The basis of the action, on the other hand, does not question at any argumentative level the reason for the act thus issued, but rather aspects foreign to it. The plaintiff indicated centrally that, caused by the record of billings she deems elevated, as well as the damages that third persons cause to the infrastructure and hydrometers placed at the property entrance, in a public zone, some of her neighbors are deprived of this service, for which reason she was interested in the service that is materially supplied to her, and that she shares with other co-owners of the property - which must be understood as a liberality of hers given the need of these neighbors of hers with whom she contributes or collaborates in that way - being individualized, through the placement of a main pipe that feeds all of the dwellings within the private property comprising the property, as well as hydrometers for each housing unit built on the site, so that a service is billed for each of the homeowners according to their consumption and autonomously. The foregoing constituted the cause or reason that motivated the plaintiff to request the intervention of the defendant Institute. In the manner indicated, the lawsuit does not include any discussion or challenge that proposes to analyze whether the billings that have been made to her for the consumption of the liquid have been correctly determined or not by the Administration, but rather, and exclusively, whether it is proper to order it to individualize the services (new and existing) in the stated terms. The propriety of the logical axis of the lawsuit, then, revolves around the assertion that the condemnation to do in this case is, in the plaintiff's opinion, appropriate, inasmuch as, first, they complied, according to what she states, with the requirements that were at the time required of them, among other things, declaring that they were, together with her co-owner neighbors of the property, willing to cede in favor of the defendant Institute a right of easement (servidumbre) and provided the plans required for that purpose; second, that two months passed without the administration having given them an affirmative response to their petition in violation of their right of petition. Paradoxically and in contradiction with the foregoing, the same plaintiff reports being aware that her request was expressly rejected, and this was due to the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted over the property in favor of the defendant institution, in accordance with the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo among others, not having complied with the required minimums; third, that in her case the Institute treats them unequally before the law, in view of the fact that in “a myriad” of cases within the same canton, third parties who are in the same situation -and circumstances, one must understand- have indeed been given what is denied to them; and, fourth, that on the property, other institutions provide public services such as lighting, internet, and cable, among others, without any problem. Strictly legally, she based her action without outlining any argumentative structure in that section of the lawsuit brief, limiting herself to citing articles 1 and following, as well as 41, both of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 and 140 subsection 3) of the Constitución Política, 1 and following of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as the first and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. In addition, and at the requirement of the Processing Judge then in charge of this matter, (see ruling issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes of December seventh, two thousand twelve), it was indicated in a writing presented to the judicial court on December fourteenth, two thousand twelve (folio 20) as follows: “A- I base myself on article 27, 41 of the Constitución Política, norms that protect my right of petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me regarding my health, and in the economic field. Foundation that I support and sustain with articles 11, 112, 275, following and concordant of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as my lawsuit is directed to a public institution such as the A y A, due to the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without us having an affirmative response to our petition, and right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that threatens the right of petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B- I base my lawsuit on the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, which sustains all of the above-said, and empowers me (sic) according to the amparo filed to resort to this instance. / C- On the Ley General de Salud, in its first article, following and concordant, because the service being requested is aimed at improving my socio-economic level and my well-being, and given that the A y A does not respond in time, and each time it does, it asks for more requirements, despite being omissive (sic) and accommodating with respect to other users who under the same conditions have (sic) the service presented (sic), I consider that the argued grounds are sufficient to proceed with the present lawsuit. / D- Likewise based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitución Política. / E- On article 261 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because my petition was resolved within a period subsequent to the requested one, which gives me standing to assert my rights (sic) in the jurisdictional (sic) body to which I am resorting”. In this way, in a manner that must be stated is somewhat confusing, she added in what is most relevant, that the propriety of what is sought would have to obey the fact that her petition was not addressed within the legal deadline, with which she seems to suggest in this Tribunal's opinion - without expressing it so - that some sort of positive silence in the face of her petition should have occurred. Having said the foregoing, this Chamber of judges proceeds to carry out the analysis that shall be stated.- X.- On the impropriety of the lawsuit in all its aspects. This Tribunal considers that the present matter shall be resolved, imposing a declaration of the impropriety of the lawsuit in all its aspects, for the reasons that will be stated.- 1.- On the facts that have been deemed proven in this case. As a faithful reflection of the evidence contained in the records, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that Ms. Nombre40366 , is a registered co-owner of the domain over the property inscribed in the Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, folio real registration number Placa7409 , right identified with number zero zero five, located in Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, since April eighteenth, two thousand eight (registry certification visible on folio 15 of the judicial file). In addition to not having been a disputed fact, it was also verified with the practice by this Tribunal of the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen at the site of interest, that on the property that is registry-wise configured as a strip of land, with a single material access to a public road, a countless number of dwellings have been built, each of which is inhabited, presumably as was stated by the plaintiff, by the rest of the co-owners in rights of the property in question. These buildings are autonomous and independent, although adjacent one to another, and as the plaintiff so indicated, at least eleven families reside on these properties. The buildings erected do not face a public street, but do face an alleyway that gives them access to it.

(Statements made by the plaintiff in her complaint, visible at folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20 in application of article 341 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as what was observed in the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January two thousand fourteen). As recorded by an engineering professional from the office of the defendant Institute and appearing in the administrative file opened for this purpose, identified as the UEN de Optimización de Sistemas according to memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, the access alley to the dwellings built internally has an average width of three meters seventy-five centimeters. (The report is visible at folio 76 of the administrative file). In the administrative file and by reason of the registry and cadastral documents presented in due course by the interested parties, as well as other documents that are copies of the testimony of the public deeds through which they acquired co-ownership of the property and other documents of transfer of ownership or simple possession in the same terms (the evidence is visible at folios 01 to 09, 13 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 55 to 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 to 83 all of the administrative file), the internal buildings that do not front a public street and do not have access constituted as an easement (servidumbre de paso) registered in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system, such that it must be materially insisted, from a material standpoint it concerns an access alley that, although existing in reality, does not exist from a legal and registry standpoint. (See also folio 15 of the main file). The property, moreover, is held in co-ownership and each of its occupants has asserted they inhabit a dwelling that has been built autonomously with a single access constituted by that alley; however, none of these rights is formally and registrally located. Thus, there is nothing more than a single property on which dwellings have been erected, numbering at least eleven, without the property having been formally subdivided (fraccionado) or developed. From a strictly legal standpoint then, the properties that have been claimed, owned by each proprietor, do not exist as a unit against third parties by lacking registry existence. Well then, as the same plaintiff narrates in her action, in the case of the dwelling she inhabits, it has potable water supply service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as “NIS: 340-1813,” precisely in the name of the related Mrs. Nombre40366, with “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004,” as appears from the copy of the billing for the related service visible at folio 9 of the main file. The plaintiff also narrated, and this could be verified by the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of this year, that she shares with third parties, also co-owners of the property and residents of some of the dwellings built on the site, the potable water supply service to which she is a subscriber, that is, the one identified with “NIS: 340-1813,” “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004.” It being impossible to determine whether it was ex officio or at the request of the plaintiff, or in her case, at the request of one of the co-owners of the property because of the amounts being billed for the provision of the service, on the fifteenth day of March two thousand eleven, personnel of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados would have carried out an inspection for a domiciliary review and/or supply at the property referred to in the previously proven fact and in relation to the potable water supply service provided at the site in the name of Mrs. Nombre40366. As a result, service order number 17279793 was prepared, in which the following was recorded by way of comments made by the responsible official and which is relevant: “There is an internal leak in a 200-meter stretch in a green zone. It is recommended to cut x (sic) sections to locate it…”. (The record is visible at folio 43 of the administrative file). As observed at folio 44 of the administrative file and as a reaction to these findings, on the seventeenth day of March two thousand eleven, a group of five persons who identified themselves as Nombre40367; Nombre40368 (sic); Nombre40369; and Nombre40370, presented before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a document in which, although its heading states it is addressed to said authorities exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366, it is not signed by her, in which the following was indicated and which is relevant: “I Nombre40366, ID 1 10055 836 do not agree with said re-inspection that was done to me on the 15th day of March 2011, because (sic) the person who performed it stated that I have a leak in an area of 200 meters in front of my house in a green zone; (sic) / When in reality it is a public servitude passage, where a branch of pipes passes / Of all the neighbors, where it could never be reviewed or dug as said whose (sic) inspector, to avoid problems with the neighbors, for this reason we request your understanding. / We would appreciate being taken into account in order to finance the main pipe and relocation of meters because there is a public servitude passage in which we have public lighting service and house-by-house electricity meters (sic) Sincerely (sic) Neighbors very affected by high water consumption and hoping for a prompt response.” (Folio 44 of the administrative file). In response to said request, on the twenty-second day of March two thousand eleven, the Estudios Técnicos Zona IV office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados addressed a writing to Mrs. Nombre40366, informing her that the reason for the fluctuations occurring in the service billing was the existence of leaks located inside the property of interest (visible and non-visible), indicating that pursuant to the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, articles 12 and 13, it is the user’s responsibility to keep in good condition the installations that, being intended for potable water supply, are located inside private property, while at the same time, for the solution of the problem that arose associated with the existence of leaks, at the time, the actions (improvements) to be adopted would have been communicated as recommendations, so once these had been carried out, they were to request a new inspection to verify what was pertinent in relation to the water meter (hidrómetro) and its operation. (Folios 41 to 43 of the administrative file). There is also evidence of a subsequent request at folio 55 of the administrative file, made exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366, on this occasion, on the eighth day of November two thousand eleven, by which she requested the relocation of the potable water supply services that she identified with numbers NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, (only one of them corresponds to the plaintiff), as well as that other services be installed, which she identified as new, for those whom she identified as: “Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366, Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”. Barely one day after the formulation of the previous request, that is, on the ninth day of November two thousand eleven, the “Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe” office issued the memorandum identified with number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed in what is relevant, the following: “In response to your inquiry regarding granting the easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA, as well as the relocation of water meters (hidrómetros) and request for new services, I indicate the following: According to the consultation made to the Urbanizaciones Department, a formal request must be submitted that they are willing to grant said easement in favor of AyA. This must be addressed to Ing. Katty Borges (provide a copy of the cadastral plan), address Dirección4959. / As for what corresponds to the relocation of water meters and new services, as there are several rights, each co-owner must comply with the requirements stipulated in the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente.” (See folio 86 of the administrative file). On the twenty-eighth day of November two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366 presented another note by which she indicated that those requesting the individualization of the potable water supply service on the property of interest were in agreement to grant a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) in favor of the defendant Institute, for which purpose, she indicated they provided the cadastral plans of the rights and it was added in the note additionally: “plans without cadastral registration are attached.” (See folio 09 of the administrative file). Thus, on the fifth day of December two thousand eleven, Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as “UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM,” issued the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the “Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C” on the seventh day of December of the same year—both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados—by which, and in what is of interest, the following was indicated in relation to the case before us: “This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement on the property of cadastral plan SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within right-of-way easements (servidumbres de paso) for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes the INVU regulations, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the configuration of easements (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions fronting easements). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore no individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them.” (See folio 76 of the administrative file). On the twenty-fourth day of January two thousand twelve, the office identified as “Urbanizaciones UEN P y C” addressed the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, to the office of the Dirección Zona IV-GAM, by which, in addition to informing about the content of the memorandum issued by Engineer Isidro Solís number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added in the relevant part that: “For its part, the topography department conducted a visit to the property on the 19th day of January of this year. The objective of the visit was to inspect the easement (servidumbre) that provides access to the interior dwelling houses and that is intended to be constituted in favor of AyA, to determine whether it is possible to approve or not the easement plans. The width of the easement varies approximately between 3.89 and 4.15 m, while the access to the buildings exceeds 250 m in length. Given this situation, the width of the easement contravenes the provisions of executive decree N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3 establishes (…). / Given that this canton has a Regulating Plan and attending to the recommendation made by Lic. Melissa Chaves, with the Municipalidad de Moravia being the governing body in matters of administration of its territory, the feasibility of constituting the easement in terms of minimum and maximum dimensions established by this entity was consulted with Arq. Dilana Vargas (an official of the Institution). Likewise, it was reported that the easement to be built does not comply with what is established in the Regulating Plan. / According to the easement plan presented to the urbanizaciones department on the past 19th of December 2011, the neighbors request that a pipeline right-of-way easement be constituted with a width of 4.00 m and a length of 337.51 m. As previously mentioned, the document provided does not comply with the different regulations and statutes that the law establishes. Therefore, said plans may not be approved until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted or a superior entity determines otherwise.” (See folios 78 to 80 of the administrative file). Finally, the request made by the plaintiff herein was responded to by memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth day of April two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of the individualized potable water supply service on the property of which she owns a right and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed on it, over the already existing private right-of-way easement that provides access to the buildings constructed inside it, and thus, for the individualization of services (new and existing), for the reason that: FIRST: according to the opinion issued by the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within a right-of-way easement for internal properties; that the width of the easement proposed to be constituted per the administrative request made, comprises a very reduced width in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work on a potential distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution in its session number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, published in Alcance number 18 of Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 57 of March twenty-third, nineteen eighty-three, in its Second Chapter (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions fronting an easement); that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration of each property; SECOND: That according to the opinion of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having conducted a visit to the site of interest, it was determined that “the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement contravenes the provisions of Executive Decree N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3 establishes: ‘The area necessary for the establishment of a potable water, stormwater, and sewer easement shall have a minimum width of six meters…’ / This decree applies only to districts within the Área de Control Urbanístico, of which the Distrito de San Jerónimo, Cantón de Moravia is a part. Regarding the length of the easement, it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Ing. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 ‘… The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.’; THIRD: that this matter being also contemplated in the regulations comprising the regulating plan of the Municipalidad de Moravia, a municipal official identified as Ingeniera Diana Vargas, when consulted, indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement do not comply with what is established in said Regulating Plan, all of the above for which: ‘… the neighbors’ request being, according to the indicated cadastral plan, that a right-of-way easement be constituted with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that later a pipeline may be installed, according to what was previously indicated, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with what is established in the Regulations and Statutes that the indicated Law establishes, so said request cannot be approved, until such time as the minimum width and maximum length permitted are complied with, or a superior entity determines otherwise.’” (Folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file). It suffices to indicate that the petitioner does not question in the present case the reality of the technical as well as the legal assessments with which the rejection of her request was supported, which formed the grounds for such act. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, at first glance what was observed by the defendant authority and the decision taken would have conformed to the applicable legal and regulatory provisions in the matter, as has been set forth in this ruling, so that even on an ex officio review, it could not be said that there are circumstances allowing the annulment of the formal negative act issued against the interests of the plaintiff. As for the arguments she formulated in support of her complaint, that irrespective of the annulment of the act, it is intended that its effects be reversed, the following is stated.-\n\n2.- Regarding the alleged disregard of the right to petition and/or, in her case, the operation of the affirmative administrative silence (silencio positivo) doctrine. This Court finds that the plaintiff is not correct in her reproaches. In this regard, it suffices to indicate at a first level, that as the representation of the defendant Institute correctly points out, the plaintiff seems to confuse the violation of the referenced right with the fact that her requests were not successful by virtue of the express rejection given to what was administratively required in due course. Note that, as indicated above, the request made was responded to by memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth day of April two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request. Said act was justified on various grounds, among others, some of a technical nature, none of which she questions by considering them incorrectly assessed, which would have indicated a defect in the grounds for the negative act issued against her interests, which would have, in addition to causing its annulment—which, moreover, is not an extreme that has been requested in the present action. Thus, from the outset, her allegation that a request such as the one she formulated was not responded to does not conform to the reality of the facts, so the corresponding matter having been accredited in view of the evidence in the administrative file, the rejection of what was requested along this line of argument must be imposed, even overlooking the fact that the annulment of the stated formal negative act is not sought, which is undoubtedly a necessary premise that, having been omitted in the action, equally and from the outset prevents granting the order to act that is sought against the defendant Institute. Nor is it correct, due to the same circumstance, that the doctrine of affirmative administrative silence (silencio positivo) operated in the specific case. Note in this regard that the rule that provides for this scenario is set forth in article 330 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, in the following terms: “1. The silence of the Administration shall be understood as positive when it is expressly so established or when it concerns authorizations or approvals that must be granted in the exercise of oversight and guardianship functions. / 2. Silence shall also be understood as positive when it concerns requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations.” A prerequisite for the doctrine to be deemed to have operated is that the Administration remained silent faced with such a request, that is, that it did not rule on it within the period provided by the legal system for it to operate, even if only to reject the request. It is reiterated in the sense that, regardless of whether in cases such as the one before us—given what was requested of the Administration—the figure that causes the emergence of a presumed positive act by affirmative administrative silence is susceptible to operating (which would lead one to suppose that, had that been the case, the party would be requesting the enforcement of said act, something that is also not the subject of this case), the truth is that her request was attended to by way of its rejection upon the issuance of a formal and express act, a circumstance that, having been proven, is sufficient to affirm that the plaintiff is not correct in her argument, so that for this reason too her complaint is not admissible in application of the related legal rule. As a separate point, the allegation that the plaintiff and the rest of the petitioners have fulfilled all the requirements demanded by the legal system, statutory or infra-legal, so that the individualization of the services of interest on private property would be admissible, which is analyzed as follows.-\n\n3.- Regarding the non-compliance with the legally and regulatorily required conditions for the individualization of potable water services and installation of water meters on private property to be admissible. It cannot be overlooked that, as a fact that has been deemed proven in this matter and is reiterated, just as the plaintiff herself accredited with the evidence provided by her party, visible at folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file, by memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth day of April two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of the individualized potable water supply service on the property of which she owns a right and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed on it, over the already existing private right-of-way easement that provides access to the buildings constructed inside it. The act in question expressed the grounds on which it was based, this being an objective material element of said conduct, which is not questioned by the plaintiff at any level. Thus, it is one thing that the plaintiff and other interested parties have provided, at the requirement of the Administration, the documentation and information that the latter required administratively, and another thing that the content of this documentation demonstrates compliance with the requirements demanded by the legal system, understood as a block of legality, in order to make their aspirations admissible. In this way, note that the rejection of the request was motivated by various aspects, which in summary can be summed up as: in the opinion of the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within a right-of-way easement for internal properties; that the width of the easement proposed to be constituted per the administrative request made comprises a very reduced width in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work on a potential distribution network to be installed, to which is added that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Added to this act was that the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having conducted a visit to the site of interest, determined that “the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement contravenes the provisions of Executive Decree N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3 establishes: ‘The area necessary for the establishment of a potable water, stormwater, and sewer easement shall have a minimum width of six meters…’ / This decree applies only to districts within the Área de Control Urbanístico, of which the Distrito de San Jerónimo, Cantón de Moravia is a part. Regarding the length of the easement, it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Ing. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 ‘… The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.’; that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration of each property in the name of each co-owner—this Court adds. Furthermore, it was indicated that the constitution of an easement in the proposed terms is impeded by the regulations comprising the municipal regulating plan, which was supported by a consultation made with personnel of the respective Municipality (Ingeniera Diana Vargas) as affirmed in the act communicated in due course to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was informed that: ‘… the neighbors’ request being, according to the indicated cadastral plan, that a right-of-way easement be constituted with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that later a pipeline may be installed, according to what was previously indicated, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with what is established in the Regulations and Statutes that the indicated Law establishes, so said request cannot be approved, until such time as the minimum width and maximum length permitted are complied with, or a superior entity determines otherwise.’” This Court considers that, even overlooking the circumstance of whether the construction of the dwellings on the site of interest by the co-owners of the property registered in the Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, real folio registration Placa7409, historically conformed or not to the conditions imposed by the block of legality, as this activity is regulated by the rules governing urban planning law and the exercise of “ius aedificandi,” (subdivision (fraccionamiento) and/or development on properties, as well as the regulation for the granting of municipal construction licenses), it is clear, as it does not constitute a disputed fact, that indeed the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) that the interested parties intended to constitute in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados are legally unfeasible, by not meeting the requirements that the urban planning legal order establishes as an insurmountable condition, as well as the corresponding technical requirements. See the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, in its Second Chapter, which, regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans for a project require the approval of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, given that the majority of public services whose systems or infrastructure are indispensable to be placed on the ground or subsoil that comprises the accesses or public roads to the buildings, require indispensable minimum urban planning and technical conditions for the Municipalities to permit subdivisions, specifically its numeral 2.1.1, which provides that: “In subdivisions of up to three (3) lots for single-family dwellings, there shall be an easement of three meters (3.00 m.) in width. Of this, ninety centimeters (0.90 m.) shall correspond to the sidewalk. The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters. / II.2.1.2 For each additional lot for single-family dwellings, an additional meter (1.00 m.) in the width of the easement is required, up to a total of six meters (6.00 m.) in width. / II.2.1.3 Fronting easements, a maximum of only six (6) lots may be segregated. / II.2.1.4 All lots resulting from the subdivisions must have the regulatory dimensions. The area of the easement shall not be computable for purposes of calculating the minimum lot area, and no constructions may be made on it, except for boundary walls. / Article II.2.1.5. The segregation authorized fronting an easement, under the terms of the previous articles, implies that the entrance to the lots shall be considered a common right-of-way easement and at all times for any authority or officials of the entities charged with providing public services, of any kind, as well as for that which corresponds to urban planning, municipal, public safety, health, fire department, and any other similar control.” Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, with respect to easements, neither the municipality nor any public institution has an obligation to maintain them or to provide services on the interior lots." (Highlighting not in original). Additionally, there is the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana (Greater Metropolitan Area Regional Urban Development Plan), Executive Decree number 25902 of February 12, 1997, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 66 of April 7, 1997, which provides, regarding what it has identified as special non-construction areas according to its Article 3, that: "The area necessary for the establishment of an easement for potable water, stormwater, and sewerage shall have a minimum width of six meters, and may be greater if so established by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, furthermore: 3.1 Such areas may not be built upon but may be used for parks and playgrounds. (…). 3.2 They may likewise be used for the construction of streets and tree-lined walks with the specifications set by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 The construction plans for developments with easements must be accompanied by the preliminary project approval note from Nombre5630. 3.4 No type of building may be carried out on the easement areas of Nombre5630. 3.5 Said easements may not be considered public roads for the purposes of property segregation of properties facing them, unless they are previously established as streets in the development projects. (…)". (Highlighting not in original). It can be added, in accordance with what has been indicated up to this point, that regarding the plans which, for construction purposes, must be approved and/or endorsed as a precondition for the granting of a municipal construction license, the Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción (Regulation for the Procedure of Plan Endorsement for Construction), Executive Decree number 27967, of July 1, 1999, established the need for those construction plans to be drawn up in accordance with the aforementioned regulation, and the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Developments) (Article 8), as well as the Reglamento de Construcciones (Construction Regulation) and its amendments (Article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, when applicable. On the other hand, and without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation number 2006-730, published in Alcance (Supplement) number 8, of the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 55 of March 19, 2007, named "Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos" (Technical Regulation for the Design and Construction of Developments, Condominiums, and Subdivisions), the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados has an additional regulation that governs, in part, the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, in a relationship that is, additionally, typical of a public service. This is the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado (Regulation for the Provision of Services to the Subscriber) number 96, of June 24, 1996. This regulation must be related to Article 39 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana (Urban Planning Law) which states: "No permit shall be granted to develop land: a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Dirección de Urbanismo and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;…". The indicated regulatory provisions are not found at any level to be in disagreement with what is provided in the applicable legislation on the matter, and Article 7 thereof recalls that it is the owner of a property on which a building exists who is responsible for requesting the Institute to provide the potable water supply through the appropriate connection to the infrastructure located on public roads, when these are situated in front of service lines, operated and administered by the Institute, notwithstanding this, that is, when it is technically appropriate as provided in Article 16 (which refers to the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, among other applicable sources). This provision concerning the standing to request potable water supply services obeys and responds harmoniously with the provisions of Article 12 of the Ley General de Agua Potable (General Potable Water Law), number 1634, because in the event of default, based on an outstanding debt generated by the provision of potable water supply service, a legal mortgage applies to the property where the service is provided, charged to the subscriber, which means that only someone who has the capacity to dispose of that patrimony (property) could encumber it in this way. (See Article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). It is thus that Article 11 of the related regulation states the following: "Article 11.- The debt arising from the potable water and sanitary sewerage service provided by AyA imposes a legal mortgage on the property that receives them, with the property being what by law responds for the client's obligations before it (Law No. 1634, Ley General de Agua Potable), the foregoing without prejudice to Nombre5630 being able to indistinctly use mortgage, pledge, or summary proceedings as compulsory means of payment. The contracted responsibilities are transferred from owner to owner without the possibility of waiver." The related provision is logical and necessary, insofar as it aims to safeguard the continuity of an essential service which, in addition, is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, so its sustainability is a matter of public interest par excellence. None of the co-owners of the property of interest has registered their right, nor do they have duly endorsed or approved plans, much less the formal registration of an access easement that gives them access to the public road, which, in addition to meeting the technical requirements demanded by the regulations regarding potable water supply and which requires that the easement also be constituted for an aqueduct in favor of the Institute, complies with the general urban planning regulations. This being so, there is nothing left to say but that the claim that the requirements demanded by the legal system have been fulfilled is far from correct, and since the contrary is clear, it renders the plaintiff's complaint inadmissible and, therefore, imposes the impropriety of what is petitioned in this case in that regard.

4.- Regarding the argument related to unequal treatment before the law. The plaintiff alleged in argumentative support of her action that what the defendant Institute denies to her, it has granted to other service users within the same canton, in a "myriad" of cases. At a first level of analysis, the only evidence in this regard, which accounts for a single case concerning which the plaintiff would have deemed this alleged situation to have occurred, is not conclusive. It is the judicial site inspection conducted on January 13, 2014, after observing the property of which the plaintiff is a co-owner, at a distance of approximately five hundred meters from the site where it is located. It is this Tribunal's opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to support the related argument, so the alleged unequal treatment before the law is not acceptable. In this sense, given that no evidence has been introduced regarding the legal and registry situation of this property—despite it apparently and at first glance being a plot of land that also has the shape of a strip (similar to the plaintiff's and others' property) on which several dwellings have been built that, possessing individualized services such as the one of interest, have access to a public street, or to an easement that provides access to it, or, where appropriate, a road or alleyway that fulfills that function, without also possessing the dimensions mandated by the legal system that are necessary to legally constitute an aqueduct easement in favor of the defendant Institute—nothing has been brought to the process that suggests it is a property possessing identical circumstances to those present in the plaintiff's property. Along these lines, it has not been proven—due to the complete absence of evidence in this regard—that the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted to those service users other than Mrs. Nombre40366, approvals for the placement of the installations necessary for the supply of potable water on private property, without requiring the constitution of an easement in favor of said institute that complies with the dimensions, technical, and urban planning requirements demanded by the legal system for those purposes and/or, where appropriate, that said Institute has constructed, for the benefit of other users at sites different from the one of interest, potable water supply systems inside private properties, under the same conditions as the property of which the related Mrs. Nombre40366 is a partial owner. It is reiterated that the registry situation of the property, nor the date of the existence of the access to the public street it possesses, nor the legal nature of the access it has, were proven. It must be stated that it should have been clearly proven that it is not an alleyway under the same legal and registry conditions as the property of interest. Furthermore, even if it were a case of equal conditions between these two properties, the truth is that it would only speak of the placement of works intended for water supply on a private property in contravention of what the legal system provides, understood as a block of legality, which third parties have carried out with the concurrence of the defendant Institute. This Tribunal could not accept the thesis that, under the protection of unequal treatment before the law, as alleged, given that on one occasion the Institute did not observe its own regulations, it is appropriate or legitimate to exempt from the duty of observance incumbent upon the Public Administration to conform its conduct to said legal order for all cases, even in the future (principle of legality), nor an exemption from the exercise of control and oversight that, at the urban level, is jointly exercised with the defendant Institute by other public institutions, including the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo itself and the Municipality with territorial jurisdiction for this purpose. In relation to this latter municipal administrative authority, it should be added that according to information gathered by the authorities of the defendant Institute, its regulatory plan does not admit the legal constitution of an easement like the one proposed by the plaintiff in the administrative venue, moreover, described in non-endorsed and/or authorized plans for the purpose. In this way, even if identical circumstances were present in both cases, the fact that individualized services such as those sought have been irregularly installed in no way implies that it is also legitimate to breach the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm for the case of the party filing suit. In any case, as has been stated above by this judicial authority, these are legal and sub-legal norms which, among other things, are directed not only at guaranteeing the provision of a specific public service in suitable conditions from a technical point of view, but also at guaranteeing other values such as public health and the environment, from the perspective of orderly urban development, matters linked to rights equally guaranteed by the Political Constitution, which would not allow an exception to or superimposition of the service for the service's sake, over the urban order, safety, and public health, within the framework of the right of the interested parties and their neighbors in the surrounding area to a healthy environment. In accordance with the foregoing, the complaint is not admissible and imposes the declaration of the impropriety of what was petitioned.

5.- Regarding other arguments formulated in support of the action by the plaintiff. In her complaint, the plaintiff has formulated arguments linked to negative impacts, which she claims have been identified as damages caused by third parties, that caused by leaks or inadequate measurements registered by the water meter, high, disproportionate, and unjustified billings for the service, which affect her economically and restrict her right to the service and the right to health. Thus, the plaintiff has indicated that the fact that the water meter corresponding to her service, as well as those placed in relation to other co-owners of the property where they have all built dwellings, are located in public areas and not on their private property, is what allows them to suffer constant damage caused by third parties. Associated with the impact on her right to health, she accused that there are persons on the property—whom she does not identify at any level—who are being deprived of the potable water supply service in violation of their rights. This Tribunal considers, given the logical axis of this action, specifically understood as the petitums of the complaint, that these arguments are sterile and unconducive to determining the appropriateness or not of what is petitioned. It must be revisited that, at its core, the complaint is directed exclusively at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the placement of a main pipe and individualized water meters for each of the dwellings, owned, in principle, by third parties other than the plaintiff who coexist on the same property, being co-owners thereof. As explained by this judicial authority above, the object of the process is reduced to ordering the related conduct, which is legally regulated under the terms so set forth in this instrument. Taking note that it is also not explained whether it is irregular for the existing water meters to be located in public areas, when that is proper according to the legal system as related above, nothing in the relief sought and what has been analyzed up to this point suggests that improper billing and/or the existence of circumstances involving damage to the water meters placed in public areas, or the pipes on the private property of interested third parties and the plaintiff herself, have constituted a premise upon which the plaintiff herself considers her complaint appropriate. Instead, those circumstances only explain or account for the reasons that led Mrs. Nombre40366's will, at the time, to petition the Institute as she did, for the individualization of, among other services, that of which she is the sole titular holder and which, through her liberality (it could not be understood otherwise, as based on a spirit of collaboration with her neighbors), she allows to supply potable water to those third parties, who, moreover, she does not fully identify. For this reason, these aspects are not elaborated upon, considering what has been stated up to this point in the judgment sufficient to settle the matter.

6.- Regarding aspects linked to active standing in the specific case. Just for the sake of more abundant reasoning, it must be reminded to the plaintiff that standing constitutes one of the essential prerequisites of the process, whose verification must be carried out ex officio by the adjudicator, since, together with the right and the interest, they constitute the essential pillars for a complaint to be declared successful. This is informed since the plaintiff's claim truly seeks to impact a situation in relation to which she herself has placed herself in the circumstances in which she finds herself. We assert this because, according to what she seeks and informs in support of her complaint, being the titular holder of a potable water supply service that she shares with third parties, she seeks to have the Institute ordered to individualize the service that would have to be provided to third parties. That is, despite indirectly seeking to solve a problem that afflicts her, linked to high consumption and therefore billings, which, separately, she alleges have been due to eventual malfunctions of the water meter due to damage caused by third parties or, where applicable, the existence of leaks, the truth is that it occurs within the framework of shared use that allows third parties to make use of the service of which she is the subscriber. Thus, and on the other hand, directly seeking to have services individualized through the placement of water meters in front of her neighbors' dwellings is nothing other than asking for others and not for herself. Therefore, and for the case that interests us, it must be kept in mind that standing is a substantive prerequisite of every jurisdictional process and as such, its analysis is mandatory for Judges, even ex officio, if the respective exception (of lack of active and/or passive standing) is not raised. This aspect relates to the "... specific substantive legal situation in which a subject, or plurality of subjects, finds themselves, in relation to what constitutes the litigious object of a specific process; standing, definitively, will indicate to us in each case who are the true titular holders of the substantive relationship that is sought to be elucidated in the scope of the process; who are the subjects whose procedural participation is necessary for the Judgment to be 'effective'." (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborío Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Derecho Procesal Administrativo Costarricense. Editorial Juricentro. San José, Costa Rica. p.162.). It concerns the fitness of the intervening subjects to be a party in a process, which is derived or originates from the existing relationship between their sphere of interests and rights, in direct relation to the challenged administrative conduct. Thus, "... a subject is granted standing in a proceeding or in a specific process by virtue of the prior impact suffered in their qualified interests or rights" (Jiménez Meza, Nombre25610. El Nuevo Proceso Contencioso Administrativo. Collective Work. Poder Judicial. Escuela Judicial. San José. Costa Rica. p. 79.) If the intervening parties lack standing, it can be concluded that the development of the entire process will not serve to solve the specific intersubjective conflict raised, because that lack will determine the non-existence of the legal relationship between them. Before the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, the "legal situations of every person" are protectable, in relation to their subjective rights and/or legitimate interests according to subsection 1) of Article 1, in relation to Article 10, subsection 1), paragraph a), both of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (Administrative Litigation Procedure Code) and this, in relation to the various manifestations of administrative conduct, any of them, such that to obtain effective and substantive judicial protection in an administrative litigation process, it is required to be the titular holder of a subjective right or at least a legitimate interest. (See also Article 49 of the Political Constitution). It is clear that said subjective right or legitimate interest must be derived or originate in some sort of administrative legal relationship. It is with respect to these, then, that one can request a declaration of non-conformity with the legal system, annulment, modification, or adaptation of administrative conduct, the restoration, recognition, or declaration of a legal situation, the setting of limits and rules imposed by the legal system for the exercise of administrative powers, an order to perform a specific act, an order to abstain from a conduct, and a judgment for damages (Article 42 of the cited Código Procesal). This prerequisite must be understood in a double dimension, namely, active standing, relating to the person or persons appearing as plaintiffs, precisely referring to the alleged entitlement to the subjective right or legitimate interest claimed as infringed, which is conceived as the suitability to perform acts of exercising the power of action that empowers them to demand the satisfaction of a specific performance or object; and, for its part, passive standing, in relation to the defendant, which manifests as the fitness to bear the exercise of that power. It is also important to refer to the key concepts for determining whether or not the substantive prerequisite is met, linked to the presence of that subjective right or legitimate interest. The former has been defined in national doctrine as "... that power to act validly within certain limits, and/or to be the beneficiary of public conduct, demanding from the Public Power (and specifically from the Administration), by coercive means if necessary, the corresponding concrete and specific conduct, granted by the Legal System to that subject or subjects for the satisfaction of their ends and interests." (González Camacho, Óscar Eduardo. La Justicia Administrativa. Tomo II. El Control Judicial de la Inactividad Administrativa. Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas Sociedad Anónima. San José. Costa Rica. p.178.) Meanwhile, the latter is substantive, not procedural, as it forms part of the administered party's material legal sphere, which "must entail a benefit as a consequence of the elimination of the administrative action, or a harm derived from its maintenance, a benefit or harm that can be material or legal, as well as moral, religious, scientific, or economic (257 LGAP)", (highlighting not in original). (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborío Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Op. Cit. p. 185). It is required that the interest be legitimate, that is, it is essential that it be protected, even if indirectly, in the legal system. This has been the sense in which the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice) has pronounced in its jurisprudence, stating "... It is consequently necessary to reiterate the concept of standing which rests, according to reiterated jurisprudence of this Chamber, on the necessary correspondence that must exist between the plaintiff and the titular holder of the claimed right or legitimate interest. It constitutes, as is known, an essential prerequisite of the procedural legal relationship, indispensable for a favorable judgment. It is generally held by that person (natural, legal, public, or private) who suffers an injury as a consequence of an administrative conduct (active or omissive), against which they protest before the Judge, in request of the protection of their legal situation or that of the collective they belong to. It derives, as can be seen, from the link or relationship maintained with the formulated procedural claim." (Judgment number 11-F-S1-2012, of nine hours twenty-five minutes of January 12, two thousand twelve). Having reached this point, it is worth considering that active standing comprises two widely differentiable or separable legal aspects: the first corresponds to a merely formal-procedural aspect, which in doctrine and jurisprudence has been called 'legitimatio ad procesum'. This particular topic has to do with the procedural capacity of the acting party, in accordance with civil legislation; and by virtue thereof, it refers to the generic capacity to sue or else to bring a specific claim against a third party. 'Legitimatio ad procesum' has also been called merely adduced or alleged standing. (JIMÉNEZ MEZA, Nombre25610, La legitimación administrativa, Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas, 3rd ed., San José, 2000.). The analysis of the presence of this duality of standing can present various nuances, since, given that it refers to the entitlement "that the party bringing the process claims to have," we could find ourselves in the presence of the defense of interests that could ascend from individualized private parties, to collective interests residing in a differentiable or determinable group of persons united by common interests (including corporate ones), and diffuse interests, which are not differentiated from those concerning a specific group of persons from the whole of society. In each case, standing would present various nuances. The second scope is what has been called in national doctrine and jurisprudence 'legitimatio ad causam', and which, relating to substantive law, that is, to the entitlement or not of the better right within the framework of an administrative legal relationship, refers to standing as a requirement for the exercise of the power of action and which affects the effectiveness of the process, that is, the success or failure of the matter if it is heard on the merits. Unlike legitimatio ad procesum, this is not a validity requirement, so it should not be confused with it. It is valid to conclude, once all the foregoing has been stated, that standing to the cause is the fitness to be a specific party, but as a derivation of the possession or entitlement of a right or legitimate interest, which when it refers to the capacity to sue, is active standing. This must be duly justified, through the evidence that accompanies the filing brief of any complaint, as well as through that which can be introduced into the process. In the case of standing to the process, if the complaint is not filed on one's own behalf, there must be proof of the representation claimed by whoever exercises the right of action, in cases where the legal system so imposes, with the exception of what is indicated regarding the defense of supra-individual interests, especially when dealing with groups not organized under a formal associative form with legal personhood. If this latter condition does not exist, the Judge could declare the claim inadmissible and archive the case file even ex officio, since whoever acts under such circumstances does not have a right to effective judicial protection from the jurisdictional sphere. By reason of the aforesaid, it is evident that the institution of standing—to the process or to the cause—belongs to the general theory of process, as it refers to the character of the effect it has in relation to the power of action, that is, it operates as a requirement for the effectiveness of the jurisdictional ruling required for the resolution of the conflict raised. At a more pragmatic level, when dealing with standing to the process, the adjudicator must verify the presence of the qualities in whoever claims to be filing suit, which condition the valid appearance of that person in the process to represent another. This implies that the Judge should verify the standing to the process adduced in the first instance as a prerequisite for admissibility of the complaint, when not at that moment the substantial standing to the cause—which must be declared in the judgment on the merits—at the time of admitting the process or claim and processing it. This is as mandated by Article 58, subsection 1), paragraph a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. By reason of the foregoing, there can be no protection nor any claim before the Judge, without a right to action, exercised through a jurisdictional process. The right and the legitimate interest to the claim are linked to this, granting them the role of legitimizing element (legitimatio ad procesum) and of an indispensable substantive prerequisite for its definitive estimation in judgment (legitimatio ad causam), where the existence of a legitimate interest would suffice as a legitimizing element (legitimatio ad procesum), which in this case translates into the due link between the acting subject and the claim outlined in her complaint. Obviously, the analysis of this important substantive prerequisite of the complaint must be left for judgment, since it is only at that time that it can be verified whether the alleged entitlement—of the subjective right or legitimate interest—adduced upon filing the action is present. Well then, the plaintiff also lacks standing in the cause, if she intends, as is the case specifically, without alleging to represent any third party, for the effect and scope of the ruling she expects to be declared appropriate and in favor of the object of the process to fall on others (whom she furthermore does not identify) and not on herself, in material reality. Note that she seeks in this case to have the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados ordered to proceed with "the placement of the main pipe and its respective meters in each of our rights." The claim refers to the rest of the co-owners of the property, on which each of them—as deduced from the evidence available—has materially erected an autonomous and individual building which they use with their own, as a dwelling house.

This circumstance is reinforced by the testimonial evidence of the plaintiff herself, particularly the statement of Mr. Nombre40371, in the oral and public trial hearing held on January fourteen, two thousand fourteen, who was clear in indicating that, being a neighbor of the plaintiff and one of the original residents of the property of interest, together with other co-owners, as he also is, they have independently and individually filed requests before the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for a potable water supply service with the respective meter to be placed in front of each of the dwellings they claim to own, all within a private property. Thus, nothing else can be said but that what is sought aims to directly impact the interests of third parties, and only indirectly those of Mrs. Nombre40366, not to mention the claim beyond the individualization of the services that she, by her own will, shares with third parties, for a new service to be placed for them. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff compares the water service supplied to her is not a circumstance that even the plaintiff herself attributes as a consequence of any conduct by the defendant Institute. In conclusion, given that Mrs. Nombre40366 does not claim to represent anyone, and is acting in her personal capacity, she lacks the substantive right to claim the placement of services for others, who are not part of the procedural legal relationship before us, nor have they appeared in this case, not even as co-adjuvants and/or interested parties with their own claims. It cannot be overlooked that, according to the regulations governing the matter (see Considerando VII of this judgment), it is the person who proves to be the owner of an individualized real property, or consequently, the entirety of those who prove to be the titleholders of a real property jointly by virtue of sharing its ownership without their rights having been located, who can become subscribers of a potable water service, among other things, because only in this way can the property’s title be encumbered due to the legal mortgage that is understood to privilege the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in case of default in payment for the services it provides, as an automatic effect of a person or group thereof becoming subscribers of said institute. (See regarding the participation of third parties in the process, Article 13 and 15 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Thus, the plaintiff lacks standing in the cause, which speaks to the substantive right to access what she petitions, and therefore, on these grounds as well, her lawsuit is inappropriate in all its aspects.- XI.- Corollary. In conclusion of everything set forth up to this point, it is the criterion of this Court that the plaintiff has not proven the merit of her lawsuit by reason of any of the reproaches she formulated in support thereof, while not demonstrating she holds the right she claimed entitles her to compel the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed to engage with third parties who are not party to the present procedural legal relationship; therefore, since the claim is directed at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the placement of the main pipe (tubo madre) and its respective meters for each of the remaining co-owners of the property she inhabits, which is the main and core of the action, this action is inappropriate in all its aspects, as is hereby ordered.- XII.- On costs. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so. The losing party in this case has been Mrs. Nombre40366, and in this Court's criterion, no circumstance or premise whatsoever has existed to justify exempting her from said award under subsections a) and b) of the related numeral, as well as under Article 194 of the same legal body. Consequently, Mrs. Nombre40366 is ordered to pay both costs generated as a consequence of the processing of this case, in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. The determination of the amount corresponding to costs shall be settled by the competent judge in the sentence execution phase at the request of the winning party.-

POR TANTO

The lawsuit filed by Mrs. Nombre40366 against the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared inappropriate in all its aspects. Mrs. Nombre40366 is ordered to pay, in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, both costs arising from this action.- Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Rodrigo Huertas Durán (Folio 86 of the administrative file); 10) That on November twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366 , submitted a note to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by which she indicated that the applicants of the request to individualize the drinking water supply service on the property of interest were in agreement to grant an easement (servidumbre) of way in favor of the sued Institute, for which purpose, they indicated they would provide the cadastral plans of the rights and the note further added: “uncadastrated plans are attached.” (Folio 09 of the administrative file); 11) That on December fifth, two thousand eleven, Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as “UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”, issued memorandum identified with number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the “Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C” on December seventh of the same year —both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados—, wherein, and in what is of interest, it was stated as follows regarding the case at hand: “This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement (servidumbre) on the property of cadastral plan SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within easements (servidumbres) of way, for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement (servidumbre) is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes the regulations of the INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the configuration of easements (servidumbres) (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions facing easements). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore no individual property registry, so water service cannot be provided to these.” (Folio 76 of the administrative file); 12) That on January twenty-fourth, two thousand twelve, the office identified as “Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”, directed memorandum identified with number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, to the office of the Dirección Zona IV-GAM, through which, in addition to reporting on the content of the memorandum issued by Engineer Isidro Solís numbered SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added in the relevant part that: “For its part, the topography department conducted a visit to the property on January 19th of this year. The objective of the visit was to inspect the easement (servidumbre) that provides access to the interior dwelling houses and that is intended to be constituted in favor of AyA, in order to determine whether or not it is possible to approve the easement plans. The width of the easement varies approximately between 3.89 and 4.15 m, for its part, the access to the constructions exceeds 250 m in length. Given this situation, the width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3 establishes (…). / Given that this canton has a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and heeding the recommendation made by Lic. Melissa Chaves, with the Municipalidad de Moravia being the governing body in matters of administration of its territory, the feasibility of constituting the easement in terms of minimum and maximum dimensions established by this entity was consulted with Arch. Dilana Vargas (an official of the Institution). Likewise, it was reported that the easement (servidumbre) to be built does not conform to the provisions of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). / According to the easement plan presented to the urbanizations department on December 19, 2011, the neighbors request the constitution of a pipeline easement (servidumbre) of way with a width of 4.00 m and a length of 337.51 m, as already mentioned, the submitted document does not conform to the different regulations and statutes established by law. Therefore, those plans cannot be approved, until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or a superior entity determines otherwise.” (Folios 78 through 80 of the administrative file); 11) That through memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April sixteenth, two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of an easement (servidumbre) of way for the provision of individualized drinking water supply service on the property of which she is a partial owner, in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed within it, upon the private easement (servidumbre) of way, already existing and which provides access to the buildings constructed inside it, on the grounds that: FIRST: according to the criterion issued by the Direction of the UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within an easement of way for internal properties; that the width of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted according to the administrative procedure performed, comprises a very reduced width in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work on a potential distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution in its session number 3391, of December 13, 1982, published in Alcance number 18 of the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 57 of March twenty-third, nineteen eighty-three, in its Second Chapter (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions facing an easement); that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registry of each property; SECOND: That according to the criterion of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having conducted a visit to the site of interest, it was determined that “the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that the length of the same exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3°, establishes: ‘The area necessary for the establishment of a drinking water, stormwater, and sewage easement (servidumbre) shall have a minimum width of six meters…’ / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area (Área de Control Urbanístico), of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia, forms part. Regarding the length of the easement, it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 ‘… The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.’”; THIRD: that this matter also being contemplated in the regulations comprising the regulatory plan (plan regulador) of the Municipalidad de Moravia, after consulting a municipal official identified as Engineer Diana Vargas, she indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement (servidumbre) do not conform to the provisions of said Regulatory Plan, all of the foregoing, therefore: “… the neighbors’ request being, according to the already indicated cadastral plan, to constitute the easement (servidumbre) of way with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that a pipeline may later be installed, in accordance with the aforementioned, this request does not conform to the technical conditions nor to those established in the Regulations and Statutes indicated by Law, therefore said request cannot be approved, until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or a superior entity determines otherwise.” (Folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file).- II.- Unproven facts: Of relevance for the resolution of this proceeding are the following: 1) That Mrs. Nombre40366 ’s procedures performed before the entity were not attended to in their totality by the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. (Folios 5 and 5 of the judicial file and 41 through 48 and 51 through 53 of the administrative file); 2) That the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted to other users different from Mrs. Nombre40366 , approvals for the placement of the installations necessary for the supply of drinking water on private property, without requiring the constitution of an easement in favor of said institute that complies with the dimensions, technical and urbanistic requirements demanded by the legal system for these purposes and/or, as applicable, that said Institute has constructed, in favor of other users at sites different from the one of interest, drinking water supply systems inside private properties, under the same conditions as the property of which the related Mrs. Nombre40366 is a partial owner. (The case record); 3) That the individually and autonomously constructed buildings on the property have an easement (servidumbre) of way registered in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system. (The case record, particularly the evidence visible at folios 01 through 09, 13 through 22, 24 through 27, 29, 30, 55 through 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 through 83 all of the administrative file and folio 15 of the main file); 4) That Mrs. Nombre40366 has sued in the present case in the name or representation of any of the other co-owners of the property registered in the Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409 . (The case record).- III.- On the reproaches formulated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff expressed in argumentative support of her action —in synthesis according to her complaint—, that being the owner of a right to a property registered —this Court adds, in the Registro Nacional, Sección de Bienes Inmuebles— of the Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409 , she is a user of the drinking water supply services provided by the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, both she and “approximately eleven more rights” —let the following be clarified by this Court, as it should be understood thus—, all users of the same service and co-owners of the property in question. That the meters placed by the defendant entity for the purpose and effect of providing the mentioned service and recording her consumption, are installed on the street, so they are subject to damage caused by vehicles and ill-intentioned persons, who “break or damage them,” thereby causing the bills to reflect high, inappropriate, and elevated consumption, caused by leaks and the repair of those meters. That the meter —again, it must be understood— corresponding to the plaintiff’s consumption, has been destroyed for a year. That as a result of the foregoing, approximately three neighbors lack the mentioned service, which violates their right to health and a dignified life. That she has been harmed in her economic resources due to high charges for the provision of the service, and that it harms everyone disproportionately, with the sole justification from the defendant public authority being that they —the affected users, it must be understood— must submit requests to make the service independent. That it was for this reason, that on March sixteenth, two thousand eleven, she proceeded to formulate, jointly with the affected neighbors, a request for meters to be located house by house and in front of each of their properties in order to solve the problem, to which the authorities of the defendant Institute indicated they had to comply with a series of regulatory requirements, which they subsequently complied with. She adds that, consequently, on November ninth, two thousand eleven, Licenciada Flor de María Zúñiga —it must be understood, an official of the defendant Institute— indicated that they —the affected service users— had to declare they were willing to grant an easement in favor of the Institute, as well as provide the respective cadastral plan of the property, both of which they provided to the defendant authority on January eleventh, two thousand twelve. She affirms that on the date the complaint was filed, two months had elapsed without their procedure having received an affirmative response, in violation of her right to petition and to equality before the law, since in her opinion: “…under equal conditions, the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests, because it charges me rates that do not correspond to those charged to others, it demands that I pay fines that also do not concern me, and that correspond exclusively to the poor service and effectiveness provided by them, because if there were individual meters, I would know where my consumption originates, and my possible excesses, not as it is now where there is a single service that thereby makes it difficult to determine the real consumption of each user, which as I cited, violates the principle of equality, because we must pay for the institution’s inefficiencies in clear detriment to our constitutional and fundamental rights.” She added that in response to her procedure —it must be understood— the sued Institute communicated to her through the memorandum it identifies with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, the rejection of her request and the reasons why it was not granted, this due to aspects exclusively linked to the length and width of the easement (servidumbre) required for the placement of the installations necessary for the provision of the service, according to the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo among others. She estimates that despite the negative response to her procedure, in the same canton where the service of interest is located, and a “myriad” of locations in the country “there exist narrower and longer easements and even on precarious lands, where such individualized services exist, which in clear and obvious reason violates my rights of a constitutional nature.” Finally, she reports that there are other public services on the property such as public lighting, internet, and cable, among others. In support of her action, the plaintiff limited herself to citing Articles 1 and following, as well as 41, both of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), 1 and following of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as the first and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, without outlining any argumentative structure in that section of the complaint. In view of the foregoing and in what is of interest, the Case Management Judge in charge of this matter, by ruling issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes on December seventh, two thousand twelve, upon finding that the complaint completely lacked substantiation, ordered the plaintiff to express what was pertinent. In response to the above, by a brief submitted to the judicial court on December fourteenth, two thousand twelve (folio 20), the plaintiff stated as follows: “A- I base my claim on Articles 27, 41 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), norms that protect my right to petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me in terms of my health, and in the economic field. Grounds that I support and sustain with Articles 11, 112, 275, following and concordant of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as my complaint is directed at a public institution such as AyA, due to the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without us having an affirmative response to our petition, and right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that violates the right to petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B- I base my complaint on the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, which sustains all of the foregoing, and empowers me, according to the amparo filed, to resort to this court. / C- On the Ley General de Salud, in its Article one, following and concordant, because the service being requested is aimed at improving my socio-economic level and my well-being, and given that AyA does not respond in time, and each time it does so, it requests more requirements, despite being neglectful and complacent with respect to other users who under the same conditions have the stated service, I consider the grounds put forward are sufficient to proceed with this complaint. / D- Likewise, based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). / E- On Article 261 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because my petition was resolved within a period subsequent to that requested, which gives me standing to assert my rights in the jurisdictional court to which I am resorting.” Thus, it was petitioned that the judgment declare exclusively as follows: “1- That this complaint be declared with merit. / 2- That by reason thereof, Acueductos y Alcantarilllado [sic] be ordered to place the main pipe and its respective meters in each of our rights. / 3- That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of both aspects of this action (…).”- IV.- On the defense arguments formulated by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. The representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados indicated, at the time of answering the complaint and in synthesis, that indeed the plaintiff is the owner of a right to the property she mentions, and that the Institute bills her for the service identified with number Placa7410, located in Moravia, seven hundred meters east and fifty meters north of the “Taller Hermanos Solís,” counting for this purpose with a meter or hydrometer that is installed on public roads, which is so because it is an institutional asset to which the public officials in charge of taking the periodic readings recorded by it for the consumption made must have access, as well as to proceed with the eventual suspension of the service in cases where that is appropriate. It clarifies that the consumption registered by the plaintiff, and for which the respective billings have been made, corresponds to the average reflected by her, which has even turned out to be lower than the real consumption, having been determined from the inability to read the meter registry and in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 of the “current regulation” (it does not identify the regulatory body it references), therefore the plaintiff’s claim that she is being charged high or unjustified amounts due to damages that may have occurred to the hydrometer is not true. It indicated that this is reflected in the Report issued in due course by the Head of the Regional Office of Guadalupe, which it identifies with number UEN-SC-ZIV-ET-2013-122 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand thirteen. That it is not aware of any service users at the site being deprived of the drinking water supply due to the problem the plaintiff claims to be experiencing, nor that she is being a victim of the economic damages she alleges. It added that it is true that the plaintiff submitted a procedure on May sixteenth, two thousand eleven, which was delivered to the Commercial Management Zone IV GAM the day after its submission, just as it is true that, to proceed with said request, Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed that she had to comply with a series of formally established regulatory requirements.

In this line of thought, it is indicated that the person responsible for processing new services in the area instructed Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">pursuant to official letter number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153 dated November ninth, two thousand eleven, to the effect that her application should be directed to what she identified as the Department of Urbanizations, before which the interested parties had to express their willingness to cede an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute, and for the placement of a water meter for each user, each one must comply with the requirements stipulated in the Customer Service Provision Regulations of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Then, she added that upon learning of the management of interest, the UEN de Optimización de Sistemas (which is an office of the defendant Institute) through the person of Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco issued memorandum number </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, which provided as follows: "This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement on the property with cadastral map SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within passage easements (servidumbres de paso) for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes INVU regulations (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the configuration of easements (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) fronting an easement). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral map, and therefore no individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">. Adding to the foregoing is the content of Article 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo 25902, insofar as it regulates the minimum width that an easement destined for potable water in residential developments (urbanizaciones) must measure, and point II.2.1.1 of the Reglamento para el control de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, insofar as it governs the length of access easements to interior lots on properties such as the one at hand. It was affirmed in the report that the easement that would serve the purposes sought by the plaintiff reaches an average of three meters seventy-five centimeters in width, despite the fact that one of four meters in width and three hundred thirty-seven meters fifty-seven centimeters in length was requested, which is in misalignment with the technical requirements noted. Thus, she indicated that all the steps taken by the plaintiff were answered, it being another matter that the response proved negative due to the said technical reasons. Finally, she reported that in the Surveying Department of the defendant Institute, there is no record of passage and pipeline easement (servidumbre de paso y tubería) constitution plans approved by the authorities of the defendant Institute that, in the Canton of Moravia, encompass dimensions smaller than those indicated in the cited regulations. In summary, the representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados alleged that the actions taken in rejection of the request made by the plaintiff and in the various administrative instances where it was so, are in accordance with the law insofar as they responded to technical regulations comprised in the Customer Service Provision Regulations, the pronouncement of the Sala Constitucional identified as judgment number 2004-12185, the Constitutive Law of the defendant Institute, and Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE.- **V.- On the pertinent urban planning regulation related to the matter at hand.** The siting and operation of infrastructure intended for the provision of the public service of potable water supply involves the deployment of an activity of an urban planning nature that encompasses interests that unfold in this area, from the national to the local, including aspects related to health and environmental matters, which collectively inform the activities linked to urban development. That being so, the first thing that must be noted is that since it is urban regulation that governs the subject, when it comes to the siting of the necessary infrastructure for the provision of the service of interest to the buildings that people erect in the exercise of "ius aedificandi," a competence has traditionally been recognized in municipal governments, in more cases than not exclusive, without prejudice to what will be said when it comes to national urban planning. Solely by way of example, doctrine has stated that "(...) the urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the foremost among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre28 and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.). Along the same lines described, only to the extent that some urban planning aspect encompasses the urban ordering in general terms of the entire national territory, do the competences of other non-local or municipal Public Administrations concur, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated organ), the Ministry of National Planning, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, and, in whatever is also competent, the Dirección General de Aviación Civil. Regarding local urban planning, the Ley de Construcciones in its Article 1, Decreto Ley number 833, of November fourth, nineteen hundred forty-nine, promulgated by the De Facto Government of the Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, established that the Municipalities would be responsible for ensuring, in urban matters, the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty on public roads and the buildings and constructions erected in each canton, **without prejudice** to the powers that other laws grant to other administrative bodies. According to Article 74 of said legal body, no building could be erected in contravention of what is mandated by the applicable legal framework in urban planning matters. This means the recognition of legitimate limitations on the exercise by the individual of the marginal attributes of ownership that emerge as a result of the property right enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution and detailed in the Civil Code, in its numeral 264, particularly in subsection 3) which recognizes the right of transformation. Given that, from the outset, the foregoing supposes the concurrence of municipal competences linked with other non-local authorities, it has been the Sala Constitucional that, at the level of the application of Constitutional Law, has undertaken to delineate some criteria to manage to separate the matter that can be considered in this local sphere from the national one, given that the Magna Carta is sparing in establishing express rules in this regard. (See judgments of the Sala Constitucional number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656). Thus, and along the line pointed out above, the aforementioned high Court has ratified that based on the provisions of Article 169 and the first paragraph of Article 170, both of the Constitution, the primary competence in matters of local urban planning corresponds to the municipalities to the exclusion of any other public entity. In fact, the former Código Municipal itself, in force under Ley 4574 of May fourth, nineteen hundred seventy, repealed as of the year nineteen hundred ninety-eight once Ley number 7794 of April thirtieth of that year came into effect, expressly recognized municipal competence in the control and supervision of urban development, in the terms of its Article 4. In consonance with the previous provision and as a derivative of the constitutional norms mentioned above, Articles 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana number 4240 of November fifteenth, nineteen hundred sixty-eight came to be, as they textually provide as follows: "**Artículo 15.-** *In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development within the limits of their jurisdictional territory is recognized. Consequently, each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador) and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of their effects to other sectors where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific controlling regime.*" (Emphasis not in the original). "*Artículo 19.- Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due compliance with the regulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community.*" In accordance with the foregoing, it follows from this legal postulate that both regulatory activity and the verification of compliance or non-compliance with local urban planning regulations is a municipal competence, which involves the need for local governments to have and exercise, in order to guarantee orderly urban development adjusted to the legal order, typical powers of what is known as police power. In what interests us, these powers of control and supervision in the urban field acquire enormous relevance vis-à-vis development processes from the perspective related to the construction activity and subdivision (fraccionamiento) of real estate. Thus, in addition to the related police powers, pursuant to Article 74 of the Ley de Construcciones, the following is established: *“Licencias. Toda obra relacionada con la construcción, que se ejecute en las poblaciones de la República, sea de carácter permanente o provisional, deberá ejecutarse con licencia de la Municipalidad correspondiente”* [Licenses. Any construction-related work carried out in the towns of the Republic, whether permanent or provisional, must be carried out with a license from the corresponding Municipality]. For its part, numeral 87 of the same legal body reads: *“La municipalidad ejercerá vigilancia sobre las obras que se ejecuten en su jurisdicción, así como sobre el uso que se les dé. Además, tendrá la misión de vigilar la observancia de los preceptos de esta Ley…”* [The municipality shall exercise surveillance over the works carried out in its jurisdiction, as well as over the use given to them. Furthermore, it shall have the mission of watching over the observance of the precepts of this Law…]. This police power is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on what the legal order dictates, it ensures its observance in practice in order to promote urban order, and consequently the protection of health, tranquility, the safety of persons, and the protection of the environment. Urban regulation, it must be clearly recognized then, implies restrictions on the attributes of ownership over real property encompassed in Article 264 of the Civil Code, particularly that of transformation and, of course, on the right to private property according to Article 45 of the Constitution, the foregoing being reasonable to the extent that this fundamental right, residing in an individual, is limited by the right of other subjects in consideration of the duty to coexist in society, in respect and consideration for the rest of the citizens, which is nothing other than attending to the general interest. (Also see judgments of the Sala Constitucional number 401-91 at fourteen hours on February twentieth, 619-91 at fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864 at fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three).- **VI.- On subdivision (fraccionamiento) and development (urbanización) activities.** Specifically, both concepts, subdivision (fraccionamiento) and development (urbanización), are relevant for the purposes of this ruling, so they are explained below. Subdivision (fraccionamiento) involves the division of a property with the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which implies, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (of the plans), that the subdivision conforms in size and characteristics to the urban planning provisions in force, especially the local Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) -if one exists- as well as the regulations contained in special public order laws and their regulations. Subdivision is known as **"simple"** when it occurs in previously urbanized areas, and this is so because, based on the finalist principle of norm interpretation, the legislator has started from the premise that in these cases, the parcels to be subdivided already have appropriate accesses (among other things, for the provision of public services) and green areas, both aspects resulting from a previous, orderly urban development adhering to the legal system over which control and supervision has already been previously exercised by the competent public authorities. Thus, Article 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana provides that: *“(…) se exceptúa de la obligación de ceder áreas para parques y facilidades comunales a los simples fraccionamientos de parcelas en áreas previamente urbanizadas…”* [(…) the simple subdivision of parcels in previously urbanized areas is exempted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…]. When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have, as a prerequisite, as has been pointed out, access to the properties, parks, and community facilities in compliance with the strict regulations, whereby their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, of course, their right to be recipients of all essential public services (Article 50 of the Constitution) is supposedly protected. For this reason -it is reiterated- the legislator has not deemed it necessary to demand, in the case of "simple" subdivision, greater provisions of land for reasons of social interest, in favor of adequate social coexistence. On the other hand, when the urbanization process based on subdivisions involves the material enablement of autonomous parcels for the first time for urban purposes, prior verification must be made that each parcel has accesses, such as streets, as well as green areas and parks, in addition to the **<u>services</u>** necessary for the use and enjoyment of the persons linked to the properties and their use, among which is the provision of the potable water supply service. In this regard, one may observe the provisions of Article 308 of the Ley General de Salud -if one remembers that there are regulations of non-local scope that must be respected, even by Local Governments- which refers to the prior requirements that must be met for the plans of a construction project to be approved as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned: *“Artículo 308.- En la formación de nuevas ciudades o poblaciones y apertura de nuevas calles, no se podrán trazar ni orientar éstas sin la aprobación del Ministerio. / No se podrán tampoco construir edificios en las nuevas calles si no se han hecho previamente los trabajos necesarios de saneamiento, como la construcción desagües, alcantarillados,* ***instalación de cañerías de agua potable*** *y los rellenos o nivelación de los terrenos para evitar los estancamientos de agua y cualquier clase. / Sin perjuicio de las facultades de otras autoridades o entidades competentes en la materia, toda persona que se ocupe de la urbanización de terrenos y de la construcción de edificios para la vivienda, deberá cumplir las disposiciones de las normas sanitarias que sobre la materia dicte el Ministerio en resguardo de la salud de las personas”* [Article 308.- In the formation of new cities or towns and the opening of new streets, these may not be plotted or oriented without the approval of the Ministry. / Nor may buildings be constructed on new streets if the necessary sanitation works have not been previously carried out, such as the construction of drains, sewer systems, **potable water pipe installation**, and the filling or leveling of land to avoid water stagnation of any kind. / Without prejudice to the powers of other competent authorities or entities in the matter, any person engaged in land development (urbanización de terrenos) and the construction of residential buildings must comply with the provisions of the sanitary standards that the Ministry issues on the matter to protect the health of persons]. (Emphasis not in the original). Furthermore, Article 313 of the same legal body provides: *“Toda vivienda individual, familiar o multifamiliar, deberá cumplir con los siguientes requisitos sanitarios: (…) / 8. Medios de saneamiento básico: a) Abastecimiento continuo de agua potable, en cantidad y presión suficientes, accesibles a todos los ocupantes”* [Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements: (…) / 8. Basic sanitation means: a) Continuous supply of potable water, in sufficient quantity and pressure, accessible to all occupants]. It is not superfluous to mention that in the Constitutive Law of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, in its Article 21, it was provided that: *“Todo proyecto de construcción, ampliación o modificación de sistemas de abastecimiento de agua potable y disposición de aguas servidas y pluviales, público o privado, deberá ser aprobado previamente por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, el que podrá realizar la inspección que estime conveniente para comprobar que las obras se realizan de acuerdo con los planes aprobados. Dicha* ***aprobación previa*** *será obligatoria en todos los casos de construcción de fraccionamientos, urbanizaciones o lotificaciones en cualquier parte del país y ningún otro organismo estatal otorgará permisos o aprobaciones de construcción sin tal aprobación por parte del Instituto. La infracción de este mandato ocasionará* ***la nulidad de cualquier permiso de construcción*** *otorgado en contravención de esta prohibición teniéndose por legalmente inexistente la parcelación o el proyecto en su caso, con las consecuencias, en cuanto a terceros, que prevé el artículo 35 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, N° 4240 de 15 de noviembre de 1968”* [Any construction, expansion, or modification project for potable water supply systems and sewage and stormwater disposal, public or private, must be previously approved by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which may carry out the inspection it deems convenient to verify that the works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said **prior approval** shall be mandatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), developments (urbanizaciones), or tract divisions (lotificaciones) in any part of the country, and no other state body shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. The violation of this mandate shall cause **the nullity of any construction permit** granted in contravention of this prohibition, the parceling or the project being considered legally non-existent in such case, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968]. The norm referred to by this numeral through remittance to the Ley de Planificación Urbana, indicates to the effects as follows: *“Artículo 34.- El Registro Público suspenderá la inscripción de documentos, sobre fraccionamiento de fincas comprendidas en distritos urbanos, sin la constancia que indica el artículo anterior. / El visado municipal de planos o croquis, los cuales no es necesario que hayan sido catastrados, lo extenderá el ingeniero o ejecutivo municipales, o la persona en quien ellos delegaren tales funciones, dentro de los quince días siguientes a su presentación y en forma gratuita, sin estar sujeto al pago de timbres o cualquier otro tributo, ni al pago de impuestos, contribuciones o servicios que debieren las partes. De no aceptarse lo anterior, valdrá, como visado municipal, una constancia notarial en el plano sobre esa circunstancia. Queda a salvo la negativa fundada, de la municipalidad respectiva o de los funcionarios indicados, hecha por escrito dentro del citado plazo”* [Article 34.- The Public Registry shall suspend the registration of documents regarding the subdivision of properties within urban districts, without the certification indicated in the previous article. / The municipal approval (visado municipal) of plans or sketches, which do not need to have been cadastrated, shall be issued by the municipal engineer or executive, or the person to whom they delegate such functions, within the fifteen days following their presentation and free of charge, without being subject to the payment of stamps or any other tax, nor to the payment of taxes, contributions, or services owed by the parties. If the foregoing is not accepted, a notarial certification on the plan regarding this circumstance shall serve as municipal approval. A substantiated refusal by the respective municipality or the indicated officials, made in writing within the cited period, is reserved]. Finally, the article preceding this one from the same legal body reads: *“Artículo 33.- Para todo fraccionamiento de terrenos o inmuebles situados en distritos urbanos y demás áreas sujetas a control urbanístico, será indispensable haber visado antes, en la oficina municipal autorizada, el plano que indique la situación y cabida de las porciones resultantes y que, además, el notario o funcionario público autorizante, dé fe en el acto de extensión u otorgamiento del documento respectivo, de que la división coincide con la que exprese dicho plano. / Los fraccionamientos que se hagan por documento privado, al igual que en los documentos públicos,* ***se reputarán ineficaces si carecen de razón notarial o municipal sobre la preexistencia del plano visado*** *”.* [Article 33.- For any subdivision (fraccionamiento) of terrain or real estate situated in urban districts and other areas subject to urban control, it shall be indispensable to have previously approved, at the authorized municipal office, the plan indicating the location and area of the resulting portions, and moreover, that the authorizing notary or public official, in the act of issuing or granting the respective document, attests that the division coincides with that expressed on said plan. / Subdivisions made by private document, just as in public documents, **shall be deemed ineffective if they lack notarial or municipal certification regarding the pre-existence of the approved plan**”]. (Emphasis not in the original). In the case of subdivision and urbanization for the first time, then, we are dealing with a complex process that introduces limitations and conditions on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana), which the Sala Constitucional has indicated are completely in accordance with Constitutional Law and do not violate fundamental rights (Voto N° 5097-93 at ten hours twenty-four minutes on October fifteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-three). The concept of a residential project or subdivision, which we shall call, based on the foregoing, "complex," is provided for in the aforementioned numeral 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which in the relevant part provides: *“* ***Todo fraccionador*** **_de terrenos_* ** * (…) y todo* ***urbanizador*** *cederá gratuitamente al uso público tanto las áreas destinadas a vías como las correspondientes a parques y facilidades comunales; lo que fijará por los dos conceptos últimos se determinará en el respectivo reglamento, mediante la fijación de porcentajes, del área total a fraccionar o urbanizar, que podrá fluctuar entre un cinco por ciento a un veinte por ciento, según el tamaño promedio de los lotes, el uso que se pretenda dar al terreno y las normas al respecto. No obstante lo anterior, la suma de los terrenos que deben cederse para vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales no excederá de un cuarenta y cinco por ciento de la superficie total del terreno a fraccionar o urbanizar...”* [**Every subdivider (fraccionador)** *of terrain* (…) and every **developer (urbanizador)** shall cede gratuitously to public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is to be provided for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the establishment of percentages of the total area to be subdivided or developed, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the relevant norms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the land that must be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or developed...]. (Emphasis not in the original). The obligation of the one who subdivides or develops to provide each emerging property with the indicated accesses, to the extent imposed by the legal system, as well as green areas, parks, and the provision of infrastructure in accordance with the urban provisions establishing minimum standards in terms of space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and regulations, is an unavoidable condition for the exercise of the right to build, which aims, among other things, to guarantee an adequate and orderly provision of essential public services. Regarding this activity, consequently, the local government must timely exercise the police power it holds as a Public Administration, guaranteeing to the residents of the canton that the works to be erected will be carried out in respect of urban planning norms and with the technical conditions that those provide. It is sufficient that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide diverse services to some of those parcels to maintain that there is no "simple subdivision" in those specific cases, but rather a residential project **that must, consequently, comply with all the indicated requirements**.

Urban residential projects may only enable access to the properties via <span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">public roads (vías públicas)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) and the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones. In the absence, -in the latter case-, of specific provisions in local regulations, the general rules governing urban planning in the nation apply. In light of the foregoing, the control that the local government must verify is of special interest, in this case, regarding the approval of construction permits, since it must corroborate that the legal requirements are fully complied with, particularly those for which other non-local Public Administrations must have provided a filter, namely and among others, those related to the provision of public roads, green and communal areas (áreas verdes y comunales), and especially -of relevance for the resolution of this matter- the enabling and implementation, at the developer's (urbanizador) expense, of the elements necessary for the suitable provision of public services such as electricity, telephone, potable water (agua potable), and sewerage (alcantarillado). The failure of urban projects to adapt to the requirements established in urban planning obliges -</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">per se</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">- the rejection of the proceedings initiated for their construction in application of the principle of legality. It is relevant to recall that the block of legality (bloque de legalidad) is comprised not only of the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">written sources (fuentes escritas)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> starting from the Political Constitution and other infra-constitutional regulations, but also of the values and principles emanating from it, international treaties -with special significance those relating to fundamental rights related to health and the environment-, as well as laws and regulatory provisions, as ordered by Article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). In addition, the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">univocal rules of science and technique (reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> apply, insofar as they also constitute a delimiting parameter of administrative discretion pursuant to Article 16 of the cited legal body, as it obliges the Administration to have its actions duly motivated by the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">theoretical knowledge acquired from the different methodologies and disciplines of science and technique</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> when warranted. Thus, the will of public institutions that exercise some type of control in this matter does not depend on their free will, but rather on the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">objective assessments (valoraciones objetivas) obtained in accordance with the technical rules applicable to the specific case and, of course, with the law. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">In this sense, the objectivity of technical criteria is highlighted, since \"... </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">if a technique is scientific and therefore, by definition, certain, objective, and universal, subject to uniform rules that do not depend on the personal appreciation of an individual subject, it is obvious that one cannot speak in this regard of 'complete discretion,' but rather, on the contrary, one must speak of little less than 'regulation' (subjection to norms, in the case of technique)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">\" (MARTÍN GONZÁLEZ, M., in his work </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline">El grado de determinación legal de los conceptos jurídicos.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> RAP, number 54, 1967, p.239),</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> cited by DESDENTADO DAROCA, Eva. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline">Los problemas del control judicial de la discrecionalidad técnica. (Un estudio crítico de la jurisprudencia</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. Editorial Civitas, S. A. Madrid. España. 1997. p.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> 43.). In accordance with the above, Nombre28</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">expressed in the Legislative Commission that discussed the bill for the General Law of Public Administration, that to include the univocal rules of science and technique as a parameter of administrative discretion, it was necessary to consider \"... </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">the cases in which the Administration acts in technical matters that have a clear and precise meaning in the case, the technical rules will be, in this case, like laws, the violation of the technical aspects of an administrative act of a public service, naturally will be an illegality exactly as if a legal precept were being violated.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">\" (QUIRÓS CORONADO, Roberto. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline">Ley General de Administración Pública, Concordada y Anotada con el Debate Legislativo y la Jurisprudencia Constitucional.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> Editorial Aselex, S. A. San José, Costa Rica. 1996. p. 99.). Having clarified the above, then, compliance with the rules, at least formally considered univocal, of science and technique is an indispensable condition that is incorporated into the parameters of administrative activity within the framework of its discretionary action.- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">VII.- On the potable water supply service in the urban context.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> Observing what was expressed in the preceding lines, the aspect related to the availability and physical space, as well as the material access to the infrastructure necessary for the provision of potable water service, is an indispensable and prior requirement in order to subdivide (fraccionar) and/or urbanize (urbanizar) a property, including therein the construction process of a building in exercise of the right of transformation, derived in this case from the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“ius aedificandi”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. Thus, regarding the construction project in question, prior to the issuance of the construction license, it must be accredited, through the information contained in the corresponding plan and that which must be supplied by whoever administers the potable water provision service, that the approval, control, and supervision by the public authorities that are competent under special laws have been completed, through proof that the building will have an appropriate system, juridically and legally, for, among other aspects, supplying potable water to the property and, to that extent, to its occupants. Pointing in this direction is the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, in its Second Chapter, which, regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans for a project require the approval of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, given that most public services whose systems or infrastructure must necessarily be located on the ground or subsoil comprising the access points or public roads to the buildings, require </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">minimum indispensable urbanistic and technical conditions (condiciones urbanísticas y técnicas indispensables mínimas) for the Municipalities to permit subdivisions. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">Among these requirements, the following stand out: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“II.1 Requirements. (…) / II.1.3 The lots must have the minimum existing services in the area”;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic"> “II.2 Access: II.2.1 Lots fronting an easement (servidumbre): All parcels resulting from a subdivision shall have direct access to a public road. In qualified cases, the INVU and the Municipalities may admit the subdivision of lots by means of right-of-way easements (servidumbres de paso), provided that the following rules are met: The easement will be accepted on special terrains where, due to their location or dimension, it is demonstrated that it is impossible to subdivide with adequate access to existing public roads, preferably being used for cases where dwellings already exist on the lot. / II.2.1.1 In subdivisions of up to three (3) lots for single-family housing, there shall be an easement three meters (3.00 m.) wide. Of this, ninety centimeters (0.90 m.) shall correspond to the sidewalk. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The length of an access easement to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. / II.2.1.2 For each additional lot for single-family housing, one additional meter (1.00 m.) is required in the width of the easement, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">up to a maximum width of six meters (6.00 m.)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. / II.2.1.3 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Facing easements, only a maximum of six (6) lots may be segregated</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. / II.2.1.4 All lots resulting from the subdivisions must have the regulatory measurements. The area of the easement shall not be computable for purposes of calculating the minimum lot area, and no constructions may be made on it, except for boundary walls. / Article II.2.1.5. The segregation authorized facing an easement, under the terms of the previous articles, implies that the entrance to the lots shall be considered a common right-of-way easement </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">and at all times for any authority or officials of the entities responsible for providing public services</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">, of any nature, as well as for those responsible for urban, municipal, public safety, health, fire department, and any other similar control. / </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Notwithstanding what is indicated in the preceding paragraph regarding easements, neither the municipality nor any public institution has the obligation to maintain them or to provide services to the interior lots</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">.\"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. (The highlighting is not from the original). On the other hand, there is the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano, Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902 of February twelfth, nineteen ninety-seven, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta number 66 of April seventh, nineteen ninety-seven, which provides, regarding what it has identified as special non-construction areas, according to its article 3, that: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“The area necessary for the establishment of a </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">potable water easement (servidumbre de agua potable)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">, stormwater, and sewerage shall have </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">at least</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">a width of six meters, potentially being greater if so established by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, in addition: 3.1 Such areas may not be built upon but may be used for parks and children's playgrounds. (…). 3.2 They may also be used for the construction of streets and tree-lined walks with the specifications set by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The construction plans for urbanizations with easements</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">must be accompanied by the preliminary project approval note from Nombre5630</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. 3.4 No type of building may be carried out on Nombre5630's easement areas. 3.5 Said easements may not be considered public roads for purposes of segregating properties facing them, unless they are previously established as streets in Urbanization projects. (…)”. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">(The highlighting is not from the original)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">It can be added, in line with what has been indicated up to this point, that regarding the plans which, for construction purposes, must be approved and/or stamped (visados) as a condition prior to the granting of a municipal construction license, the Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo number 27967, of July first, nineteen ninety-nine, must also be observed, which established the need for those construction plans to be drawn up in compliance with what was indicated above, in the</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (article 8), as well as the Reglamento de Construcciones and its amendments (article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, when applicable. The Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción clearly subjected the approval (visado) of these technical instruments for urbanizations, condominiums of individualized primary affiliate properties (condominiums of lots), and residential complexes, to inter-institutional control in each area of its specialty, so entities such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo through its Dirección de Urbanismo, the Ministry of Health, through its Regional Health Offices, and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, at a minimum, participate in the procedure. This regulation was repealed by Decreto Ejecutivo 36550 of April twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 117, of June seventeenth, two thousand eleven, which in its article 2 reiterated the need for the aforementioned inter-institutional intervention, and also linked to the procedure the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, the National Fire Department (Cuerpo Nacional de Bomberos), the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones), and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes). Particularly for the case of properties intended to be subjected to the horizontal property regime and urbanizations (article 8), it results that the respective plans must then be in compliance with the Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de Propiedad en Condominio, Decreto Ejecutivo number 32303, of March second, two thousand five, published in the Official Gazette “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">La Gaceta”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> number 74 of April nineteenth, two thousand five and its amendments; the related Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, and its amendments, approved at the session of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two; the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos of the Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados and its amendments, approved at the session of its Board of Directors number 2006-730 of February twenty-second, two thousand seven, published in Alcance number 8 of the Official Gazette “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">La Gaceta”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven; the also already cited Reglamento de Construcciones, published in the Official Gazette “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">La Gaceta”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> number 56, Alcance Nº 17 of March twenty-second, nineteen eighty-three and its amendments; the Manual de Disposiciones Técnicas Generales al Reglamento sobre Seguridad Humana y Protección Contra Incendios (version 2007 and its amendments, Resolutive Memorandum 2007-2320 of August first, two thousand seven); the “Guía de Trámites para el Registro de la Responsabilidad Profesional” of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, published in the Official Gazette “</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">La Gaceta”</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">number 93 of May fifteenth, two thousand eight, and the respective municipal regulatory plan (plan regulador). Now then, there is also a regulatory body that encompasses, on a technical level, aspects that any water provision system must respect, among others, potable water, which is Regulation number 2006-730, published in Alcance number 8, of the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven, called “Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos”. Subsequently, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados additionally has a regulation that partly regulates the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, which is also a typical public service relationship. This is the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado number 96, of June twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six. This regulation and the previous one must be related to article 39 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación urbana), which states: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“Permission shall not be given to urbanize lands: a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the indispensable approval of the plans by the Dirección de Urbanismo and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">;…”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. (The highlighting is not from the original). The indicated regulatory provisions not being at any level in disagreement with what is established in the applicable legislation on the matter, article 7 of the last cited regulation systematically recalls what the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones already anticipates, by indicating that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">it is the owner of a property on which there is a building who is responsible for requesting the Institute to supply potable water through the appropriate connection to the infrastructure located on the public roads</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, when these are located in front of service networks operated and administered by the same, notwithstanding that this is when technically appropriate under the provisions of its article 16, (which refers to the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, among other applicable sources). This provision regarding the standing to request potable water supply services obeys and corresponds harmoniously with the provisions of article 12 of the General Law of Potable Water (Ley General de Agua Potable), number 1634, since in case of default, due to an unpaid debt generated by the provision of the potable water supply service, a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) applies over the property where the service is provided, charged to the subscriber, which means that only whoever has the capacity to dispose of that patrimony (the property) could encumber it in this way. (See article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). Thus, article 11 of the related Regulation states the following: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“Article 11.- The debt arising from the potable water and sanitary sewerage service provided by AyA imposes a legal mortgage on the property that receives them, it being the property that by law answers for the client's obligations before it (Law No. 1634, General Law of Potable Water), the foregoing without prejudice to Nombre5630 being able to indistinctly use mortgage, pledge, or simple proceedings as compulsory means of payment. The contracted responsibilities are transferred from owner to owner without possibility of waiver”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. The related rule is logical and necessary, to the extent that it seeks to protect the continuity of an essential service, which, in addition, is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, for which reason its sustainability is of public interest par excellence. The need for it to be the person who builds who is responsible, insofar as it concerns the placement of the infrastructure necessary for the provision of the service on private property, for the provision activity that becomes necessary for potable water supply, is also recognized in Article 12 of the same indicated regulation, which reads as follows: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">“Potable water and sanitary sewerage services are supplied by AyA, up to the property line</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. / </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The internal systems and installations necessary for their enjoyment are the responsibility of the owner and remain under their exclusive ownership</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">”.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">(the highlighting is not from the original. See also article 18).</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">Thus, and in accordance with what has been said, it is an exclusive obligation of the property owner to maintain the installations that they themselves have provided within the private property (article 13), being consequently the sole party responsible for any inadequate functioning of the service, if it is caused by any circumstance that affects the system they have on their property. That is why the power held by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, upon a claim by an individual for a billing they deem out of line with actual consumption—which proceeds upon a simple request from the user for inspections to be carried out within the private property in order to detect any circumstance that may justify the consumption recorded by a given service (just as article 26 of the cited regulation so provides)—must not be confused with the duty to install infrastructure and maintain it within the private property, which, it is insisted, corresponds exclusively to the property owner, as part of the construction process and subsequent use and enjoyment of the service (article 28).- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VIII.- On requests for the connection of a new potable water supply service and/or the independent or individualized provision of multiple services for the same user. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">In the case of requests for the connection of new services formulated by the property owner, the applicant must prove to the Institute that the building to which the liquid is intended to be supplied was constructed with approved and/or stamped plans reflecting that it has direct access via a public road or </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">an easement (servidumbre) constituted in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and that a network (infrastructure) for the service of interest exists on the property, which is an unavoidable requirement, all in compliance with the dimensions demanded by the legal order. The easement legally constituted in favor of the Institute in these cases is the means that enables the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed with the placement or installation of infrastructure, using its own resources (with the respective construction costs borne by the property owner, of course) and the connection of the service within the private property, thereby guaranteeing free access to the property for the purposes of carrying out tasks of control, supervision, and good administration of the service, the latter associated with the reading of the water meter records for billing and collection purposes for the corresponding consumption, given that under no circumstance is the service free.</span></p> The technical conditions for this to be permissible would also have to be those incorporated in the respective regulation and that are particular to the type of service in question, which implies that they need not necessarily correspond to services of another type, such as, merely by way of example, telecommunications and/or electricity. Article 32 cited above reiterates the need for the property owner to be the one requesting the connection of a new service, provided they comply with a series of formal and technical requirements in this regard. Always in accordance with the pertinent regulation, the service user may request the Institute, among other things, the individualization (independización) of the service, which implies the placement of a water meter (hidrómetro) that records consumption in a property independently and the existence of several independent buildings on the same property (article 37). In these cases, in accordance with article 38 of the same regulatory body, these individualizations (independizaciones) are only permissible in cases where the interested party has also individualized (independizado) the respective installations and when it is technically possible. For all purposes, in the case of horizontal condominiums, the Administrative Board must constitute and register an easement (servidumbre) of passage in the name of said institute, otherwise, the installations must reach the property boundary, facing a public road. In all cases, it is the owner of each property or building who is entitled to request and become a subscriber of the service-providing entity as an indispensable requirement, given the civil liability involved in the obligations inherent to whoever receives the supply of this good (legal mortgage on the property) vis-à-vis the entity providing its supply as a public service, which is not free. Thus, in accordance with article 40 ibidem, in cases where a property that has the related services is segregated (segregada), the owner of the lot where the connections are located is obligated to notify of said subdivision (fraccionamiento) and to request the individualization (independización) of their connection, upon payment of any balance in the respective account. Said numeral indicates that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">“…</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">For all purposes, segregated (</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">segregadas</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">) properties are proportionally liable for the obligations acquired by the original farm</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The owners of the segregated lots may request new connections from Nombre5630 in accordance with the requirements established in this Regulation…</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">”</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. (Emphasis not in the original). Finally, article 42 provides that: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">“If for any reason the owner requires that their connections be moved to another site within their property, which also has access to the public system, they may so request. Nombre5630 will study the case </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">and if the relocation is technically possible and they have carried out the necessary works within the internal systems for the new location</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">, it will be made effective upon payment of the corresponding costs”</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. (Emphasis not in the original). From the foregoing, another requirement is that the property for which the service is to be individualized, from a registry standpoint, be segregated (segregado) as an autonomous unit, as only this unit would be liable for any unfulfilled civil obligations for the supply of the good.- **IX.- On the object and grounds of the action.** The lawsuit that is being heard under the terms of this instrument essentially comprises a single claim, pursuant to which it is expected that the judicial authority will order the defendant Administration to carry out a specific activity—an order to do—consisting of the order to proceed with the “*placement of the main pipe and its respective meters on each of our rights*” as has been determined as a result of the lawsuit filed that occupies us and what has been ordered during the processing phase of this judicial process*.* Without fear of error, the action seeks **to reverse the negative administrative act, comprised in the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April sixteenth, two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados**, according to which the request of the plaintiff—and others, it is presumed—, for drinking water supply services to be individualized (individualizados) on the property of which they are co-owners, with the offer to legally constitute a water easement (servidumbre de acueducto) on the site, thus encumbering the petitioners' property in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados as a condition required by it, was rejected. Taking note that the lawsuit did not incorporate any petition aimed at the annulment of this formal negative administrative act, the action nonetheless seeks to reverse said administrative decision. The grounds of the action, on the other hand, do not question at any argumentative level the reason for the act thus issued, but rather aspects extraneous to it. The plaintiff essentially indicated that, due to the billing record she considers high, as well as the damage caused by third parties to the infrastructure and water meters (hidrómetros) placed at the entrance of the property, in a public area, some of her neighbors are deprived of this service, for which reason she was interested in having the service that is materially supplied to her, and which she shares with other co-owners of the property—it should be understood, as a liberality on her part given the need of these neighbors of hers with whom she contributes or collaborates in that way—be individualized (individualizado), through the placement of a main pipe that feeds all the dwellings within the private property comprising the property, as well as water meters (hidrómetros) for each housing unit built on the site, so that a service is billed for each of the homeowners according to their consumption and autonomously. The foregoing constituted the cause or reason that motivated the plaintiff to request the intervention of the defendant Institute. As indicated, the lawsuit does not include any discussion or questioning that proposes to analyze whether the billings made to her for liquid consumption have been correctly determined or not by the Administration, but rather, and exclusively, whether it is appropriate to order the individualization (individualización) of services (new and existing) in the stated terms. The viability of the logical axis of the lawsuit then revolves around the assertion that the order to do in this case is, in the plaintiff's opinion, appropriate, because **firstly**, they say they complied with the requirements that were requested of them at the time, among other things, declaring that together with her neighboring co-owners of the property, they were willing to cede an easement right (derecho de servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute and provided the required plans for that purpose; **secondly**, that two months elapsed without the administration having given them an affirmative response to their request, in violation of their right to petition. Paradoxically and in contradiction with the foregoing, the plaintiff herself reports being aware that her request was expressly rejected, and this was due to the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted on the property in favor of the defendant institution according to the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, among others, not meeting the required minimums; **thirdly**, that in her case the Institute gives them unequal treatment before the law, in view of the fact that in “*countless*” cases within the same canton, third parties who are in the same situation—and circumstances, it must be understood—have been given what is being denied to them; and, **fourthly**, that on the property, other institutions provide public services such as lighting, internet, and cable, among others, without any problem. Strictly from a legal standpoint, she based her action without outlining any argumentative structure in that section of the lawsuit, limiting herself to citing articles 1 et seq., as well as 41, both of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 and 140 subsection 3) of the Constitución Política, 1 et seq. of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as the first and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Furthermore, and at the request of the Processing Judge then in charge of this matter, (see ruling issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes on December seventh, two thousand twelve), she indicated in a writing presented to the judicial court on December fourteenth, two thousand twelve (folio 20) as follows: *“A- I base my claim on article 27, 41 of the Constitución Política, provisions that protect my right to petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me in terms of my health, and in the economic field. Grounds which I support and sustain with articles 11, 112, 275, et seq. and concordant of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as my lawsuit is directed against a public institution such as AyA, by reason of the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without having an affirmative response to our petition, and right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that violates the right to petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B- I base my lawsuit on the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, which supports all of the foregoing, and empowers me (sic) according to the amparo filed to resort to this instance. / C- On the Ley General de Salud, in its first article, et seq. and concordant, because the service being requested is aimed at improving my socio-economic level and my well-being, and given that AyA does not respond in time, and each time it does it requests more requirements, despite being an omission (sic) and complacent with respect to other users who under the same conditions have (sic) the requested (sic) service, I consider that the grounds put forward are sufficient to proceed with this lawsuit. / D- Likewise based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitución Política. / E- On article 261 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because my petition was resolved after the requested deadline, which gives me standing to assert my rights (sic) in the jurisdictional (sic) instance to which I am resorting”*. In this way, and it must be noted it is somewhat confusing, she added, in what is most relevant, that the appropriateness of what was sought must be because her request was not addressed within the legal deadline, thus seeming to insinuate in the opinion of this Court—without expressing it so—that a sort of positive silence must have occurred regarding her request. Having said the foregoing, this Chamber of judges proceeds to carry out the analysis that will be stated.- **X.- On the inadmissibility of the lawsuit in all its aspects.** This Court considers that this matter must be resolved by declaring the inadmissibility of the lawsuit in all its aspects, for the reasons that will be stated.- **1.- On the facts that have been deemed proven in the present case.** As a faithful reflection of the evidence in the record, this Court has deemed it proven that Mrs. Nombre40366, is a registered co-owner of the domain over the property registered in the National Registry, Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409, right identified with number zero zero five, located in Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, since April eighteenth, two thousand eight (registry certification visible at folio 15 of the judicial file). In addition to having been an uncontested fact, it was also verified through the conduct by this Court of the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen at the site of interest, that on the property, which is registrally configured as a strip of land, with a single material access to a public road, a countless number of dwellings have been built, each of which is inhabited, presumably as affirmed by the plaintiff, by the rest of the co-owners in rights of the property in question. These buildings are autonomous and independent, although adjacent to one another, and as indicated by the plaintiff, at least eleven families are residing in these properties. The buildings erected do not face a public street, but they face an alleyway that provides them access to it. (The statements of the plaintiff in her lawsuit writ, visible at folios 16 and 17, in relation to 20 in application of article 341 of the Código Procesal Civil, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen). As recorded by an engineering professional from the office of the defendant Institute and appearing in the administrative file prepared for this purpose, identified as the UEN de Optimización de Sistemas according to memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, the access alley to the internally built dwellings has an average width of three meters and seventy-five centimeters. (The report is visible at folio 76 of the administrative file). In the administrative file and on the occasion of the registry and cadastral documents presented in due course by the interested parties, as well as other documents that are a copy of the testimony of the public deeds through which they acquired co-ownership of the property and other documents of transfer of domain or simple possession in equal terms (the evidence is visible at folios 01 to 09, 13 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 55 to 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 to 83 all of the administrative file) the internal buildings that do not face a public street and do not have access constituted as a registered easement of passage (servidumbre de paso) in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system, for which reason it must be materially insisted, it is, from a material point of view, an access alley that, although existing in reality, does not exist from a legal and registry point of view. (See also folio 15 of the main file). The farm, on the other hand, is in co-ownership and each of its occupants has affirmed, inhabits a dwelling that has been built autonomously with a single access constituted by that alleyway; however, none of these rights is formally and registrally located. Thus, there is nothing more than a single property, on which dwellings have been built up to at least eleven, without the property having been formally subdivided (fraccionado) or urbanized. From a strictly legal point of view then, the properties that have been claimed, are owned by each owner, do not exist as a unit vis-à-vis third parties as they have no registry existence. Well then, as the plaintiff herself narrates in her action, in the case of the dwelling she inhabits, it has the drinking water supply service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as “NIS: 340-1813” precisely in the name of the related Mrs. Nombre40366, with “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”, as is evident from the copy of the billing for the related service visible at folio 9 of the main file. The plaintiff also narrated, and this could be verified through the conduct of the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth of this year, that she shares with third parties, also co-owners of the property and residents in some of the dwellings built on the site, the drinking water supply service of which she is the subscriber, that is, the one identified with “NIS: 340-1813”, “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. Without it being possible to determine if it was ex officio or at the request of the plaintiff, or in her case, at the request of any of the co-owners of the property due to the amounts being billed for the provision of the service, on March fifteenth, two thousand eleven, personnel from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, reportedly carried out an inspection for a domiciliary review and/or supply, on the property referred to in the previously proven fact and in relation to the drinking water supply service provided on the site in the name of Mrs. Nombre40366. As a result, service order number 17279793 was issued, in which the following was recorded as comments made by the responsible official and what is relevant: *“There is an internal leak in a 200-meter stretch in a green zone. It is recommended to cut in (sic) sections to locate it…”* (The record is visible at folio 43 of the administrative file). As observed at folio 44 of the administrative file and in reaction to these findings, on March seventeenth, two thousand eleven, a group of five people who identified themselves as Nombre40367; Nombre40368 (sic); Nombre40369 and Nombre40370, presented to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a document in which, although its header states that it is addressed to said authorities exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366, it is not signed by her, in which the following was indicated, and what is relevant: *“I Nombre40366, ID 1 10055 836 do not agree with said re-inspection that was carried out on March 15, 2011, for reason (sic) that the person who performed it stated that I have a leak in a 200-meter area in front of my house in a green zone; (sic) / When in reality it is a public easement passage, where a branch of pipes runs / From all the neighbors, where one could never check or dig as said (sic) inspector said, to avoid problems with the neighbors, for this reason we request your understanding. / We would appreciate being considered to be able to finance the main pipe and relocation of meters because there is a public easement passage in which we have public lighting service and electricity meters house by house (sic) Sincerely (sic) Neighbors greatly affected by high water consumption and awaiting a prompt response”*. (Folio 44 of the administrative file). In response to said request, on March twenty-second, two thousand eleven, the Estudios Técnicos Zona IV office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, addressed Mrs. Nombre40366 in writing, informing her that the reason for the fluctuations occurring in the service billing was due to the existence of leaks located inside the property of interest (visible and non-visible), indicating that according to the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, articles 12 and 13, it is the user's responsibility to maintain in good condition the installations that, being intended for the supply of drinking water, are located inside the private property, at the same time, for the solution of the problem presented associated with the existence of leaks, the actions (improvements) to be adopted had reportedly been communicated to her at the time as recommendations, so that once these were carried out, a new inspection should be requested to verify the pertinent aspects in relation to the water meter (hidrómetro) and its operation. (Folios 41 to 43 of the administrative file). A subsequent request also appears at folio 55 of the administrative file, exclusively made by Mrs. Nombre40366, on this occasion, on November eighth, two thousand eleven, through which she requested the relocation of the drinking water supply services that she identified with numbers NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, (only one of them corresponds to the plaintiff) as well as the installation of other services, which she identified as new, for those she identified as: *“Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366, Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”*. Just one day after the formulation of the previous request, that is, on November ninth, two thousand eleven, the *“Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe”* office issued the memorandum identified with number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, through which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed of what is relevant, the following: *“In response to your query, regarding ceding the easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA, as well as the relocation of water meters (hidrómetros) and request for new services, I indicate the following: According to the query made to the Urbanizations Department, a formal request must be submitted stating that they are willing to cede said easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA. This must be addressed to Eng. Katty Borges (provide a copy of the cadastral plan), address Dirección4959. / Regarding what corresponds to the relocation of water meters (hidrómetros) and new services, as there are several rights, each co-owner must meet the requirements stipulated in the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente”*. (See folio 86 of the administrative file). On November twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366, presented another note indicating that the petitioners of the request to individualize (individualizar) the drinking water supply service on the property of interest, were in agreement to cede an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso) in favor of the defendant Institute, to which effect, they indicated they provided the cadastral plans of the rights and the note also added: *“uncadastral plans are attached”*. (See folio 09 of the administrative file).

Thus, on December 5, 2011, Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as *“UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”*, issued memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the *“Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”* on December 7 of that same year—both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados—in which, and as is relevant, the following was stated regarding the case at hand: *“This UEN does not approve the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) on the property with cadastral map SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within access easements (servidumbres de paso) for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement (servidumbre) is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder access and maintenance work on any network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes INVU regulations (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the conformation of easements (servidumbres) (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) facing the easement (servidumbre)). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral map, and therefore also do not have individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them.”* (See folio 76 of the administrative file). On January 24, 2012, the office identified as *“Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”* sent memorandum number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14 to the Dirección Zona IV-GAM, by which, in addition to reporting the content of the memorandum issued by Engineer Isidro Solís number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added in the relevant part that: *“For its part, the topography department conducted a visit to the property on January 19 of this year. The objective of the visit was to inspect the easement (servidumbre) that provides access to the interior dwelling houses and which is intended to be constituted in favor of AyA, in order to determine whether it is possible to approve or not the easement (servidumbre) plans. The width of the easement (servidumbre) varies approximately between 3.89 and 4.15 m, while the access to the constructions exceeds 250 m in length. Given this situation, the width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3 establishes (…). / Given that this canton has a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and attending to the recommendation made by Lic. Melissa Chaves, the Municipality of Moravia being the governing body in matters of administration of its territory, a consultation was made before Arq. Dilana Vargas (institution official) about the feasibility of constituting the easement (servidumbre) with respect to the minimum and maximum dimensions established by this entity. Similarly, it was reported that the easement (servidumbre) to be constructed does not comply with the provisions of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador). / According to the easement (servidumbre) plan submitted to the urbanizations department on December 19, 2011, the neighbors request that a pipeline easement (servidumbre de paso de tubería) be constituted with a width of 4.00 m and a length of 337.51 m; according to the aforementioned, the provided document does not comply with the different regulations and statutes that the law establishes. Therefore, said plans cannot be approved until they meet the minimum width and maximum length allowed or a superior entity determines otherwise.”* (See folios 78 to 80 of the administrative file). Finally, the request made by the plaintiff here was answered by means of memorandum number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April 16, 2012, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed of the rejection of her request for the approval of an access easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of individualized potable water supply service on the property of which she owns a right and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed upon it, over the existing private access easement (servidumbre de paso) that provides access to the buildings constructed inside the same and thereby, to the individualization of services (new and existing), because: **FIRST:** according to the criteria issued by the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within access easements (servidumbre de paso) for internal properties; that the width of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted according to the administrative procedure carried out includes a very reduced width in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and the maintenance work of any eventual distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not comply with the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution in its session number 3391 of December 13, 1982, published in Alcance number 18 of the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 57 of March 23, 1983, in its Chapter Two (width, length, area and number of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) facing the easement (servidumbre)); that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral map, nor individual registration of each property; **SECOND:** According to the criteria of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) having conducted a visit to the site of interest, it was determined that *“the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3 establishes: “The area necessary for the establishment of an easement (servidumbre) for potable water, stormwater, and sewer systems shall have a minimum width of six meters…” / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area (Área de Control Urbanístico), of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia, is a part. Regarding the length of the easement (servidumbre), it notes that, in agreement with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 “… The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.”*; **THIRD:** this matter being also contemplated in the regulations comprising the regulatory plan of the Municipality of Moravia, a municipal official identified as Engineer Diana Vargas was consulted and indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement (servidumbre) do not comply with the provisions of said Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), all of the above for which: *“… the neighbors’ request being, according to the aforementioned cadastral map, to constitute the access easement (servidumbre de paso) with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that a pipeline may later be installed, according to the above, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with the provisions of the Regulations and Statutes indicated by Law, so said request cannot be approved until they meet the minimum width and maximum length allowed, or a superior entity determines otherwise.”* (Folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file). It suffices to indicate that the petitioner does not question in the present case the reality of the technical and legal assessments upon which the rejection of her request was based, constituting the grounds of said act. Furthermore, in this Tribunal's opinion, at first glance, what was observed by the respondent authority and the decision taken would have been adjusted to the legal and regulatory regulation applicable to the matter, as has been set forth in this judgment, so that not even by conducting an ex officio review could it be said that circumstances exist that would allow declaring the nullity of the formal negative act issued against the plaintiff's interests. As for the arguments she did formulate in support of her complaint, which seek reversal of the act’s effects regardless of its annulment, the following is stated.- **2.- Regarding the alleged non-observance of the right to petition and/or, as applicable, the operation of the institute of positive silence (silencio positivo).** This Tribunal considers that the plaintiff is not correct in her reproaches. In this regard, it suffices to indicate at a first level that, as the representation of the defendant Institute rightly points out, the plaintiff seems to confuse the violation of the referenced right with the fact that her petitions were not successful by virtue of the express rejection made to what she had administratively requested in due course. Note that, as indicated above, the request made was answered by means of memorandum number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April 16, 2012, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed of the rejection of her request. This act was justified on various grounds, including some of a technical nature, none of which she challenges by considering them incorrectly assessed, which would have spoken of a defect in the grounds of the negative act issued against her interests, which would have, in addition to causing its annulment, which, moreover, is not an extreme that has been petitioned for in the present action. Thus, from the outset, her argument that a request such as the one she formulated received no response does not align with the reality of the facts; therefore, this circumstance having been accredited in view of the evidence contained in the administrative file, the rejection of what was petitioned along this line of reasoning must be imposed, even overlooking the fact that the annulment of the stated formal negative act is not sought, which is undoubtedly a necessary assumption, and which having been omitted from the action, also impedes, from the outset, granting the order to act that is sought against the defendant Institute. Nor is it correct, due to the same circumstance, that the institute of positive silence (silencio positivo) has operated in the specific case. Observe in this regard that the norm providing for this supposition is contained in Article 330 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública in the following terms: *“1. The silence of the Administration shall be understood as positive when expressly so established or when it concerns authorizations or approvals that must be granted in the exercise of oversight and tutelage functions. / 2. Silence shall also be understood as positive when it concerns requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations.”* A prerequisite for the institute to be considered to have operated is that the Administration remains silent regarding such a petition, that is, that it does not rule on it within the period provided by the legal system for it to operate, even if only to reject the petition. It is reiterated that, regardless of whether in cases such as the one at hand—given what was requested of the Administration—the figure that causes the emergence of a presumed positive act by positive silence (silencio positivo) is capable of operating (which would suggest that, had it been so, the party would be petitioning the forced execution of said act, a matter that is also not the object of the present case), the truth is that her request was indeed attended to in rejection of it upon the issuance of a formal and express act, a circumstance that having been proven is sufficient to affirm that the plaintiff is not correct in her argument, so her complaint is also not admissible for this reason in application of the related legal norm. As a separate point, the argument that the plaintiff and the rest of the petitioners have complied with all the requirements demanded by the legal system, both legal and infra-legal, in order for the individualization of the services of interest on private property to be feasible, will be analyzed next.- **3.- Regarding the non-compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements demanded so that the individualization of potable water services and installation of water meters (hidrómetros) on private property is feasible.** It cannot be overlooked that, as a fact that has been deemed proven in this matter and is reiterated, as the plaintiff herself accredited with the evidence provided on her part visible at folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file, by means of memorandum number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April 16, 2012, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed of the rejection of her request for the approval of an access easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of individualized potable water supply service on the property of which she owns a right and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed upon it, over the existing private access easement (servidumbre de paso) that provides access to the buildings constructed inside the same. The act in question expressed the grounds on which it was based, this being an objective material element of said conduct that is not challenged by the plaintiff at any level. Thus, it is one thing that the plaintiff and other interested parties provided, at the Administration’s requirement, the documentation and information that it administratively requested, and quite another that the content of that documentation accounts for compliance with the requirements demanded by the legal system, understood as a legal block, to make their aspirations feasible. Observe in this way that the rejection of the petition was motivated by various aspects, which in summary boil down to: that in the opinion of the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within access easements (servidumbre de paso) for internal properties; that the width of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted according to the administrative procedure carried out includes a very reduced width in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and the maintenance work of any eventual distribution network to be installed, to which is added that the dimensions do not comply with the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Added to this act was that the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having conducted a visit to the site of interest, determined that *“the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3 establishes: “The area necessary for the establishment of an easement (servidumbre) for potable water, stormwater, and sewer systems shall have a minimum width of six meters…” / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area (Área de Control Urbanístico), of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia, is a part. Regarding the length of the easement (servidumbre), it notes that, in agreement with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 “… The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.”*; that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral map, nor individual registration of each property in the name of each co-owner—this Tribunal adds—. Furthermore, it was indicated that the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) in the proposed terms is prevented by the regulations comprised in the municipal regulatory plan, which was supported by a consultation made with personnel of the respective Municipality (Engineer Diana Vargas), as is affirmed in the act communicated in due course to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was told that: *“… the neighbors’ request being, according to the aforementioned cadastral map, to constitute the access easement (servidumbre de paso) with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that a pipeline may later be installed, according to the above, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with the provisions of the Regulations and Statutes indicated by Law, so said request cannot be approved until they meet the minimum width and maximum length allowed, or a superior entity determines otherwise.”* This Tribunal considers that, even overlooking the circumstance of whether the construction of the dwellings at the site of interest by the co-owners of the property registered in the Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, under real folio registration Placa7409, historically complied or not with the conditions imposed by the legal block, insofar as such activity is regulated by the rules governing urban law and the exercise of “ius aedificandi” (subdivision (fraccionamiento) and/or development on properties, as well as the regulation for granting municipal construction permits), it is clear—as it does not constitute a disputed fact—that the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) that the interested parties intended to constitute in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados are indeed legally unfeasible, as they do not meet the requirements that the urban-type legal order provides as an unavoidable condition, as well as the corresponding technical requirements. See the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, number 3391 of December 13, 1982, in its Chapter Two, which, regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans of a project require the approval of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, given that most public services whose systems or infrastructure are indispensable to be placed on the land or subsoil comprising the accesses or public roads to the buildings require indispensable minimum urban and technical conditions for the Municipalities to allow subdivisions (fraccionamientos), specifically its section 2.1.1, which provides that: *“In subdivisions of up to three (3) lots for single-family housing, there shall be an easement (servidumbre) of three meters (3.00 m.) in width. Of these, ninety centimeters (0.90 m.) shall correspond to the sidewalk. **The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.** / II.2.1.2 For each additional lot for single-family housing, one additional meter (1.00 m.) in the width of the easement (servidumbre) is required, **up to a total of six meters (6.00 m.) in width.** / II.2.1.3 **Facing easements (servidumbres), a maximum of only six (6) lots may be segregated.** / II.2.1.4 All lots resulting from the subdivisions must have the regulatory measurements. The area of the easement (servidumbre) shall not be computable for purposes of calculating the minimum lot area and no constructions may be built on it, except for walls. / Article II.2.1.5. The segregation authorized facing an easement (servidumbre), under the terms of the preceding articles, implies that the entrance to the lots shall be considered a common access easement (servidumbre de paso común) **and at all times for any authority or officials of the entities charged with providing public services**, of any nature, as well as those responsible for urban, municipal, public safety, health, fire department, and any other similar control. / **Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, regarding easements (servidumbres), neither the municipality nor any public institution is obliged to provide maintenance or provide services in the interior lots.**" (The highlighting is not from the original). On the other hand, there is the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902 of February 12, 1997, published in the Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” number 66 of April 7, 1997, which provides regarding those it has identified as special non-construction areas according to its Article 3, that: *“The area necessary for the establishment of an easement (servidumbre) for **potable water**, stormwater, and sewer systems shall have **as a minimum** a width of six meters, and it may be greater if so established by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, additionally: 3.1 Such areas may not be built upon but may be dedicated to parks and children’s playgrounds. (…). 3.2 Likewise, they may be dedicated to the construction of streets and tree-lined walks with the specifications set by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 The construction plans for developments with easements (servidumbres) **must be accompanied by the approval note of the preliminary project from Nombre5630.** 3.4 No type of building may be constructed on the easement (servidumbre) areas of Nombre5630. 3.5 Said easements (servidumbres) may not be considered public roads for purposes of segregating properties facing them, unless they are previously established as streets in the Development projects. (…).”* (The highlighting is not from the original). It can be added, in line with what has been indicated up to this point, that regarding the plans that for construction purposes must be approved and/or certified as a condition prior to the granting of a municipal construction permit, the Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo number 27967, of July 1, 1999, established the necessity that said construction plans must be drawn up in compliance with the aforementioned, and with the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (Article 8), as well as the Reglamento de Construcciones and its reforms (Article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, when applicable.

Furthermore, and without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation number 2006-730, published in Scope number 8, of Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven, titled “Technical Regulations for the Design and Construction of Residential Developments, Condominiums, and Subdivisions (Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos),” the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados has an additional regulation that governs, in part, the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, in a relationship that is also typical of a public service. This is the Subscriber Service Provision Regulation (Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado) number 96, of June twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six. This regulation must be related to Article 39 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which states as follows: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“No permit shall be granted to develop land: a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Urban Planning Directorate and the National Water and Sewer Service;…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Finding the indicated regulation at no level to be in disagreement with the provisions of the applicable legislation on the matter, in its Article 7, it recalls that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">it is the owner of a property on which a building exists who is responsible for requesting from the Institute the supply of potable water through the proper connection to the infrastructure that is located on public roads</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">, when these are located in front of service networks operated and administered by the same, notwithstanding this, that is, when it is technically feasible according to its Article 16, (which refers to the Technical Regulations for the Design and Construction of Residential Developments, Condominiums, and Subdivisions, among other applicable sources). This provision regarding the standing to request potable water supply services conforms and responds harmoniously with the provisions of Article 12 of the General Potable Water Law (Ley General de Agua Potable), number 1634, since in the event of default, due to an unpaid debt generated by the provision of the potable water supply service, a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) is imposed on the property where the service is provided to the subscriber, which means that only someone with the capacity to dispose of that asset (property) could encumber it in this way. (See Article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). Thus, Article 11 of the related regulation states the following: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Article 11.- The debt arising from the potable water and sanitary sewer service provided by AyA imposes a legal mortgage on the property that receives them, it being the property that by law is liable for the client’s obligations to it (Law No. 1634, General Potable Water Law), the foregoing without prejudice to the fact that Nombre5630 may indistinctly use mortgage, pledge, or summary proceedings as means of compulsory payment. The responsibilities contracted are transferred from owner to owner without the possibility of waiver”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. The related provision is logical and necessary, insofar as it aims to safeguard the continuity of an essential service that, in addition, is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, and therefore its sustainability is of public interest par excellence. None of the co-owners of the property of interest has registered their right in the registry, nor do they have duly vised or approved plans, much less the formal registration of an easement (servidumbre) of way that gives them access to the public road, which, in addition to complying with the technical requirements demanded by the regulations on potable water supply and requiring that the easement (servidumbre) also be constituted for aqueduct purposes in favor of the Institute, complies with the general urban planning regulations. This being so, there is nothing more to say than that the reproach that the requirements demanded by the legal system have been fulfilled is far from correct, so that the contrary being clear, makes the plaintiff's reproach unacceptable and therefore, imposes the impropriety of what was petitioned in this cause in that regard.- 4.- Regarding the allegation related to unequal treatment under the law. The plaintiff argued in evidentiary support of her action that what is denied to her by the defendant Institute, it has granted to other users of the service within the same canton, in a “multitude” of cases. At a first level of analysis, the only evidence on file in this regard, which accounts for a single case in relation to which the plaintiff would have to consider that this assumption has occurred, is not conclusive. It concerns the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January, two thousand fourteen, after having observed the property of which the plaintiff is a co-owner, at a distance of approximately five hundred meters from the site where it is located. It is the opinion of this Tribunal that the evidence is not sufficient to support the related allegation, so the alleged unequal treatment under the law is not acceptable. In this sense, since there has been no evidence whatsoever that speaks about the legal and registry status of this property, although in appearance and at first glance, it is a piece of land that also has the conformation of a strip (similar to the plaintiff's and others' property) on which several dwellings have been built that, having individualized services such as the one of interest, have access facing a public street, or an easement (servidumbre) that provides access to it, or, as the case may be, a road or alley that fulfills that function, without also possessing the dimensions mandated by the legal system, which must exist in order to legally constitute an aqueduct easement (servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute, nothing has been brought to the process that supposes it is a property that possesses identical circumstances to those that concur in the plaintiff's property. Along these lines, it has not been proven, due to a total absence of evidence in this regard, that the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted to those service users other than Mrs. Nombre40366 approvals for the siting of installations necessary for the supply of potable water on private property, without requiring the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) in favor of said institute that complies with the dimensions, technical requirements, and urban planning requirements demanded by the legal system for those purposes and/or, as the case may be, that said Institute has built in favor of other users at sites other than the one of interest, potable water supply systems inside private properties, under the same conditions as the property of which the related Mrs. Nombre40366 is part owner. It is reiterated that the registry status of the property was not proven, nor the date of the existence of the access to a public road that it possesses, nor the legal nature of the access it has. It must be indicated that it should have been clearly proven that it is not an alley under the same legal and registry conditions as the property of interest. Moreover, if there were equality of conditions between these two properties, the truth is that this would only speak of the siting of works intended for water supply on a private property in contravention of what the legal system, understood as a block of legality, provides, which third parties have done with the concurrence of the defendant Institute. This Tribunal could not accept the thesis that under the protection of unequal treatment under the law, such as that alleged, given that on one occasion the Institute may not have observed its own regulations, the dispensation of the duty of observance incumbent upon the Public Administration to adjust its conduct to said legal order for all cases, even in the future (principle of legality), becomes appropriate or legitimate, nor a dispensation from the exercise of control and supervision that, at the urban level, is jointly exercised with the defendant Institute by other public institutions, including the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo itself as well as the Municipality with territorial jurisdiction for it. In relation to this latter municipal administrative authority, it is added that according to information gathered by the authorities of the defendant Institute, its regulatory plan does not admit the legal constitution of an easement (servidumbre) like the one proposed by the plaintiff in the administrative venue, moreover, described in plans not vised and/or authorized for that purpose. In this way, even in the event that equal circumstances applied in both cases, the fact that individualized services like those sought have been irregularly installed in no way implies that it is also legitimate to breach the principle of singular non-derogability of the rule for the case of the plaintiff. In any event, as affirmed above by this judicial authority, these are norms of a legal and infra-legal order, which, among other things, are directed beyond guaranteeing the provision of a specific public service in suitable conditions from a technical point of view, to also guarantee other values such as health and the environment, from the perspective of orderly urban development, topics linked to rights equally guaranteed by the political constitution, which would not allow excepting or superimposing the service for the service itself, over urban order, safety, and health, within the framework of the right of the interested parties and their neighbors in the environment to a healthy environment. In accordance with the foregoing, the reproach is not acceptable and imposes the declaration of the impropriety of what was petitioned.- 5.- Regarding other allegations that were made in support of the action by the plaintiff. In her complaint, the plaintiff has formulated arguments linked to impacts, which she reproaches have been identified as damages caused by third parties, which cause, due to leaks or inadequate measurements recorded by the water meter, elevated, disproportionate, and unjustified billings for the service, which affect her economically, and restrict her right to the service and the right to health. Thus, the claimant has indicated that the fact that the water meter corresponding to her service, as well as those placed in relation to other co-owners of the property where everyone has built dwellings, are located in public areas and not on her private property, is what allows them to suffer constant damages caused by third persons. Associated with being affected in her right to health, she alleged that there are persons on the property—whom she does not identify at any level—who are being deprived of the potable water supply service in violation of their rights. This Tribunal considers, given the logical axis of the present action, specifically understood as the petitionary extremes of the complaint, that these allegations are sterile and inconclusive for the purpose of determining the appropriateness or not of what is petitioned. It must be reiterated that at its core, the complaint is directed exclusively at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the placement of a main pipe, and individualized water meters for each of the dwellings, owned, in principle, by third parties other than the plaintiff who coexist on the same property being its co-owners. As explained by this judicial authority above, the object of the process is reduced to ordering the related conduct, which is legally regulated in the terms that have been set forth in this instrument. Taking note that it is also not explained whether it is irregular for existing water meters to be in public areas, when this is proper according to the legal system as has been related above, nothing in the claims and what has been analyzed up to this point supposes that improper billings and/or the existence of circumstances that entail damages to the water meters placed in public areas, or the pipes on private property of interested third parties and the plaintiff herself, have constituted the presupposition from which the plaintiff herself considers her complaint appropriate. Instead, these circumstances only explain or attest to the reasons that motivated the will of Mrs. Nombre40366 at the time, to petition the Institute as she did, the individualization of, among other services, that of which she is the sole owner and which, by her liberality (it could not be understood otherwise than based on a spirit of collaboration with her neighbors), she allows to supply potable water to those third persons, whom, furthermore, she does not fully identify. By reason of the foregoing, no further discussion is made on these aspects, considering what has been said up to this point in the judgment to be sufficient to settle the matter.- 6.- On aspects linked to active standing in the specific case. Only for the sake of further reasoning, the plaintiff must be reminded that standing (legitimación) constitutes one of the essential presuppositions of the process, the verification of which must be carried out ex officio by the judge, since together with the right and the interest, they constitute the essential pillars for a complaint to be declared with merit. This is reported since the plaintiff's claim in reality seeks to impact a situation in relation to which she herself has placed herself in the circumstances in which she finds herself. We affirm this, because according to what she claims and reports in support of her complaint, being the owner of a potable water supply service that she shares with third parties, she seeks that the Institute be ordered to individualize the service that it would provide to third parties. That is, even though she indirectly seeks to solve a problem that afflicts her, linked to high consumption and therefore billings, which, apart from this, she alleges have been due to eventual malfunctions of the water meter due to damages caused by third parties or, as the case may be, the existence of leaks, the truth is that this occurs within the framework of the shared use that allows third parties to make use of the service of which she is the subscriber. Thus, and on the other hand, directly seeking that the individualization of services be ordered through the placement of water meters in front of her neighbors' dwellings is nothing other than asking for others and not for herself. Therefore, and for the case that concerns us, it must be borne in mind that standing (legitimación) is a substantive presupposition of every jurisdictional process and as such, its analysis is mandatory for Judges, even ex officio, if the respective exception (of lack of active and/or passive standing) is not raised. This aspect addresses the "... specific material legal situation in which a subject, or plurality of subjects, finds themselves, in relation to what constitutes the litigious object of a given process; standing, in short, will indicate to us in each case who are the true holders of the material relationship that is intended to be elucidated in the context of the process; which subjects whose procedural participation is necessary for the Judgment to be 'effective'." (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Costa Rican Administrative Procedural Law. Editorial Juricentro. San José, Costa Rica. p.162.). This concerns the aptitude of the intervening subjects to be a party in a process, which derives or originates from the relationship existing between the sphere of interests and rights of the same, in direct relation to the challenged administrative conduct. Thus, "... a subject acquires standing in a procedure or in a given process by virtue of the prior affectation suffered in their qualified interests or rights" (Jiménez Meza, Nombre25610. The New Contentious Administrative Process. Collective Work. Poder Judicial. Judicial School. San José. Costa Rica. p. 79.) If the intervening parties lack standing, it can be concluded that the development of the entire process will not serve to solve the intersubjective conflict specifically raised, because that lack will determine the non-existence of the legal relationship between them. Before the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction, the "legal situations of every person" are protectable, in relation to their subjective rights and/or legitimate interests (intereses legítimos) according to subsection 1) of the first numeral, in relation to Article 10, subsection 1), section a), both of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo and this, in relation to the diverse manifestations of administrative conduct, any of them, so that to obtain effective and substantive judicial protection in a contentious process, one must be the holder of a subjective right or at least "a legitimate interest. (See also Article 49 of the Constitución Política). It is clear that said subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) must be derived or originated from some sort of administrative legal relationship. It is with respect to these, then, that the declaration of non-conformity with the legal system, annulment, modification, or adaptation of administrative conduct, the restoration, recognition, or declaration of a legal situation, the setting of limits and rules imposed by the legal system for the exercise of administrative powers, the order to perform a specific conduct, the order to abstain from a conduct, and the award of damages and losses may be requested (Article 42 of the cited Código Procesal). This presupposition must be understood in a double dimension, namely, active standing (legitimación activa), relative to the person or persons who appear as plaintiffs, fully referring to the supposed ownership of the subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) alleged as infringed, which is conceived as the suitability to perform acts of exercise of the power of action that empowers them to demand the satisfaction of a specific benefit or object; and for its part, passive standing (legitimación pasiva), in relation to the defendant party, which manifests itself as the aptitude to bear the exercise of said power. It is also important to refer to the key concepts for determining whether or not the substantive presupposition is met, linked to the mediation of that subjective right or legitimate interest. The first has been defined in national doctrine as "... that power to validly act within certain limits, and/or to be a beneficiary of public conduct, demanding from the Public Power (and specifically from the Administration), by coercive means, if necessary, the concrete and specific corresponding conduct, granted by the Legal System to that or those subjects for the satisfaction of their ends and interests." (González Camacho, Óscar Eduardo. Administrative Justice. Volume II. Judicial Control of Administrative Inactivity. Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas Sociedad Anónima. San José. Costa Rica. p.178.) For its part, the second is substantive, not procedural, insofar as it forms part of the material legal sphere of the administered party, which "must entail a benefit as a consequence of the elimination of the administrative action, or a detriment derived from its maintenance, a benefit or detriment that may be, either material or legal, as well as moral, religious, scientific, or economic in nature (257 LGAP)", (highlighting is not from the original). (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Op. Cit. p. 185). It is required that the interest be legitimate, that is, it is essential that it be protected, even if indirectly, in the legal system. This has been the sense in which the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has pronounced in its jurisprudence, stating "... It is therefore necessary to reiterate the concept of standing which rests, according to reiterated jurisprudence of this Chamber, on the necessary correspondence that must exist between the plaintiff claimant and the holder of the right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) sought. It constitutes, as is known, an essential presupposition of the procedural legal relationship, indispensable for a favorable judgment. It is held, generally, by that person (physical, legal, public or private), who suffers an injury as a consequence of administrative conduct (active or omissive), against which they protest before the Judge, in requirement of the protection of their legal situation or that belonging to the collective they form. It derives, as can be seen, from the link or relationship maintained with the procedural claim formulated." (Judgment number 11-F-S1-2012, of nine hours twenty-five minutes of January twelfth, two thousand twelve). Having reached this point, it must be considered that active standing (legitimación activa) comprises two widely differentiable or separable legal aspects: the first corresponds to a merely formal-procedural aspect, which in doctrine and jurisprudence has been called “legitimatio ad procesum”. This particular topic has to do with the procedural capacity of the person bringing the action, in accordance with civil legislation; and by virtue of this, it refers to the generic capacity to sue or to deduce a specific claim against a third party. Legitimación “ad processum” has also been called merely adduced or alleged standing. (JIMÉNEZ MEZA, Nombre25610, Administrative Standing, Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas, 3rd ed., San José, 2000.). The analysis of the mediation of this dual facet of standing can present various nuances, since referring to the ownership “that the party claims to have” when filing the process, we could find ourselves in the presence of the defense of interests that could ascend from individualized private individuals, to collective ones residing in a differentiable or determinable group of persons united by common interests (corporate ones are included) and diffuse ones, which are not differentiated from those concerning a specific group of persons from the whole of society. In each case, standing would present various nuances. The second scope is what has been called in national doctrine and jurisprudence “legitimatio ad causam”, and which is pertinent to the substantive right, that is, to the ownership or not of the better right within the framework of an administrative legal relationship, which refers to standing as a requirement for the exercise of the power of action and that affects the effectiveness of the process, that is, the success or not of the matter if it is heard on the merits. Unlike legitimación ad processum, this is not a validity requirement, and therefore should not be confused with it.

Having said all of the foregoing, it is valid to conclude that standing to sue on the merits (legitimación a la causa) is the capacity to be a specific party, but as a derivation of the possession or ownership of a right or legitimate interest, which, when referring to the capacity to sue, constitutes active standing (legitimación activa). This must be duly justified through the evidence accompanying the filing brief of any lawsuit, as well as through that which is introduced into the process. In the case of standing to appear in the process (legitimación al proceso), if the lawsuit is not filed in one's own name, accreditation of the representation claimed by the person exercising the right of action must be provided, in cases where the legal system so requires, without prejudice to what has been indicated regarding the defense of supra-individual interests, especially when dealing with groups not organized under a formal associative form with legal personality. In the absence of this latter condition, the Judge may declare the claim inadmissible and archive the case file, even ex officio, since whoever brings an action under such circumstances does not have a right to effective judicial protection from the jurisdictional sphere. In light of the foregoing, it is evident that the institute of standing (legitimación) –to the process or to the merits– belongs to the general theory of process, insofar as it refers to the nature of its effect in relation to the power of action, that is, it operates as a requirement for the efficacy of the jurisdictional ruling required for resolving the dispute raised. At a more pragmatic level, when dealing with standing to appear in the process, the judge must verify the presence of the qualities in the person claiming to bring the action, which condition that person's valid appearance in the process to represent another. This implies that the Judge should verify the standing to appear in the process claimed in the first instance as a prerequisite for the admissibility of the lawsuit, when not at that moment the substantive standing on the merits (legitimación sustancial a la causa) –which must be declared in the final judgment on the merits– upon admitting the process or claim and giving it course. This is as mandated by Article 58, subsection 1) paragraph a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. In view of the above, there can be no protection or any claim before the Judge without a right to action, exercised through a jurisdictional process. This links the right and the legitimate interest to the claim, granting them the role of a legitimizing element (legitimatio ad procesum) and an indispensable material prerequisite for its definitive estimation in judgment (legitimatio ad causam), where the existence of a legitimate interest would suffice as a legitimizing element (legitimatio ad procesum), which in this case translates into the due connection between the acting party and the claim outlined in their lawsuit. Obviously, the analysis of this important substantive prerequisite of the lawsuit must be left for judgment, since it is only at that moment that it can be verified whether the alleged ownership –of the subjective right or legitimate interest– claimed in the filing of the action exists. Well then, the plaintiff also lacks standing on the merits (legitimación en la causa), if she intends, as is the case here, without claiming to represent any third party, that the effect and scope of the ruling she expects to be declared admissible and in favor of the object of the process has an impact on the material reality of others (whom she also does not identify) and not on her. Note that she seeks in this cause to order the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed with "the placement of the main pipe and its respective meters in each of our rights." The claim refers to the rest of the co-owners of the property, on which each one of them –as deduced from the evidence on file– has materially built an autonomous and individual building used by them and their families as a dwelling. This circumstance is reinforced by the testimonial evidence of the plaintiff herself, particularly the statement of Mr. Nombre40371, during the public oral trial hearing held on January 14, two thousand fourteen, who was clear in indicating that, being a neighbor of the plaintiff and one of the original residents of the property in question, he, together with other co-owners such as himself, have independently and individually filed requests before the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for a potable water supply service with the respective meter to be installed in front of each of the homes they claim to own, all within a private property. In this way, nothing else can be said but that what is sought intends to directly impact the interests of third parties, and only indirectly those of Mrs. Nombre40366, not to mention the claim, beyond the individualization of the services she shares by her own will with third parties, of having a new service installed for these latter. Furthermore, the fact that the plaintiff shares the water service supplied to her is not a circumstance that even the plaintiff herself attributes as a consequence of any conduct by the defendant Institute. In conclusion, as Mrs. Nombre40366 does not claim to represent anyone, and brings action in her personal capacity, she lacks the substantive right to claim the installation of services for others, who are not part of the procedural legal relationship at hand, nor have appeared in the present cause, not even as coadjuvants and/or interested parties with their own claims. It must not be lost sight of that, according to the regulations governing the matter (see Considerando VII of this ruling), it is whoever proves to be the owner of an individualized real property, or consequently, those who make up the totality of those who prove to be the title holders of a real property jointly by virtue of sharing ownership of the same without their rights having been located, who can become subscribers to a potable water service, among other things, because only in this way can the ownership of the property be encumbered by virtue of the legal mortgage that is presumed to privilege the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in case of default in the payment of the services it provides, as an automatic effect of a person or group thereof becoming subscribers of said institute. (See regarding the participation of third parties in the process, Article 13 and 15 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Thus, the plaintiff lacks standing on the merits (legitimación en la causa), which speaks to the substantive right to access what she petitions for, and therefore, also on these grounds, her lawsuit is inadmissible in all its aspects.- XI.- Corollary. In conclusion of everything set forth up to this point, it is the view of this Tribunal that the plaintiff has not proven the admissibility of her lawsuit based on any of the objections she formulated in support thereof, while she does not demonstrate possessing the right she claimed entitles her to compel the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed to engage with third parties who are not part of the present procedural legal relationship. Therefore, as the claim directed at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the installation of the main pipe and its respective meters for each of the remaining co-owners of the property she inhabits, the main and central claim of the action, this lawsuit becomes inadmissible in all its aspects, as is hereby ordered.- XII.- On the judicial costs. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal judicial costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. The losing party in the present cause has been Mrs. Nombre40366, and in the view of this Tribunal, no circumstance or prerequisite has arisen that would justify exempting her from said condemnation under the protection of its subsections a) and b) of the related numeral, as well as under the protection of Article 194 of the same legal body. Consequently, Mrs. Nombre40366 is ordered to pay both judicial costs incurred as a consequence of the processing of the present cause, in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. The determination of the amount corresponding to the judicial costs shall be set by the competent judge in the judgment enforcement phase at the request of the winning party.-

POR TANTO

The lawsuit filed by Mrs. Nombre40366 against the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared inadmissible in all its aspects. Mrs. Nombre40366 is ordered to pay, in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, both judicial costs derived from the present action.- Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Rodrigo Huertas Durán No prior defenses or substantive exceptions were raised in its defense. It was also requested that the claim be dismissed in its entirety and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay costs. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folios 23 to 34)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">4.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">That the preliminary hearing was held on June twenty-seventh, two thousand thirteen, with the participation of both parties involved in the procedural legal relationship. At said hearing, it was not necessary to adopt any measure for the cleansing of the proceedings, no prior defenses were raised, the contested facts significant to the proceedings were determined, and a ruling was issued on the admissibility of all the evidence proposed by the parties</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">. (Folios 24 to 45, in relation to the digital recording of the preliminary hearing </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">held on June twenty-seventh, two thousand thirteen, which this court retains)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial">Drafted by </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">Judge Felipe Córdoba Ramírez </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and decided unanimously, with the affirmative vote of Judge Claudia Bolaños Salazar and Judge Rodrigo Huertas Durán.- </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">WHEREAS</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">I.- Proven facts.</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> Relevant to the resolution of this proceeding, the following are deemed established: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">1)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">is a registered co-owner of the domain over the property recorded in the National Registry, Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, right identified with number zero zero five, located in Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, since April eighteenth, two thousand eight, a property on which a dwelling has been built that she uses as her family home. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 15 of the court file, and the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen, a proceeding of which a digital audio and video recording is retained)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">2) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That in addition to Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, third parties are co-owners of the related property in rights, who, comprising at least eleven autonomous families, have erected on the site equally autonomous buildings which they use as their family homes, with the exclusive material access to a public street for all of said dwellings being a dead-end alley. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible on folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">3)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That the building used by Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">as her family home on the property in question has potable water supply service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as "NIS: 340-1813," in the name of the related Mrs. Nombre40366, "shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004". </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible on folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen and the copy of the billing for the related service visible on folio 9 of the main file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">4)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">shares the potable water supply service "NIS: 340-1813", "shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004", with third parties, who are also co-owners of the property and residents of some of the dwellings built on the site. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(The statements of the plaintiff in her statement of claim, visible on folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen, a proceeding of which a digital audio and video recording is retained)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">5)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That on March fifteenth, two thousand eleven, personnel from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados allegedly conducted an inspection for home and/or supply review on the property referred to in the preceding proven fact and in relation to the potable water supply service provided on the site in the name of Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, from which service order number 17279793 was drawn up, in which it was recorded, by way of comments made by the responsible official and to the extent relevant, that: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"There is an internal leak along a 200-meter stretch in a green area. It is recommended to cut (sic) sections to locate it…"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 43 of the administrative file)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">6)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That on March seventeenth, two thousand eleven, a group of five people who identified themselves as </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"Nombre40367, (illegible), Nombre40368</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">, Nombre40369</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">and Nombre40370</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, presented a document before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which, despite stating in its heading that it is addressed to said authorities exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, was not signed by her, in which the following was stated, to the extent relevant: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"I, Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">, ID 1 10055 836, do not agree with said reinspection that was done to me on March 15, 2011, because (sic) the person who conducted it stated that I have a leak in a 200-meter area in front of my house in a green area; (sic) / When in reality it is a public easement (paso de servidumbre pública) passage, where a branch of pipes runs (sic) / Belonging to all the neighbors, where it would never be possible to inspect or dig as the aforementioned (sic) inspector said, to avoid problems with the neighbors, for this reason we ask for your understanding. / We would appreciate it if you would take us into account to finance the main pipe and relocation of meters because there is a public easement (paso de servidumbre pública) passage where we have public lighting service and electricity meters house by house (sic) Sincerely (sic) Neighbors very affected by high water consumption and awaiting a prompt response"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 44 of the administrative file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">7)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That in response to the request referred to in the preceding proven fact, on March twenty-second, two thousand eleven, the office of Estudios Técnicos Zona IV of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados issued an official letter informing the petitioner that the reason for the fluctuations occurring in the service billing was due to the existence of leaks located within the property in question (visible and non-visible), indicating that in accordance with the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, articles 12 and 13, it is the user's responsibility to maintain in good condition the installations intended for potable water supply located inside the private property, while at the same time, to solve the problem related to the existence of leaks, they had previously been informed, by way of recommendations, of the actions (improvements) to be taken, and therefore once these were completed, they should request a new inspection to verify the matter. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folios 41 to 43 of the administrative file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">8)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That on November eighth, two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">filed a request before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, which to the extent of interest, sought the relocation of the potable water supply services identified by numbers NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, and the installation of what she identified as new services, for those she identified as: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">, Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefrry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 55 of the administrative file)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">9)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> That on November ninth, two thousand eleven, the office of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe"</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, issued the memorandum identified with number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, through which Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">was informed, to the extent relevant, of the following: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"In response to your query, regarding the granting of the easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA, as well as the relocation of water meters and request for new services, I inform you of the following: According to the inquiry made to the Urbanizations Department, a formal request must be submitted stating that they are willing to grant said easement (servidumbre) in favor of AyA. This must be addressed to Ing. Katty Borges (provide a copy of the cadastral plan), address Dirección4959</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">. / Regarding matters pertaining to the relocation of water meters and new services, as there are several rights, each co-owner must comply with the requirements stipulated in the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 86 of the administrative file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">10) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That on November twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">submitted a note to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, indicating that the petitioners of the request to individualize the potable water supply service on the property in question agreed to grant a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) in favor of the defendant Institute, for which purpose they stated they were providing the cadastral plans of the rights, and the note also added: "uncadastered plans are attached". </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 09 of the administrative file)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">11) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That on December fifth, two thousand eleven, Ingeniero Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, issued the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> on the seventh of December of the same year—both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados—through which, and to the extent of interest, the following was stated regarding the case at hand: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"This UEN does not approve the construction of the easement (servidumbre) on the property with cadastral plan SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not carried out within right-of-way easements (servidumbres de paso) for internal properties. / 2- The width of the proposed easement (servidumbre) is very reduced compared to its length. This would hinder entry and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes the regulations of the INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the formation of easements (servidumbres) (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) facing easements). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore do not have individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folio 76 of the administrative file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">12) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That on January twenty-fourth, two thousand twelve, the office identified as </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"Urbanizaciones UEN P y C"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">, sent the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, to the office of Dirección Zona IV-GAM, through which, in addition to reporting on the content of the memorandum issued by Ingeniero Isidro Solís, number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added, to the extent pertinent, that: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"For its part, the topography department conducted a visit to the property on January 19 of this year. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the easement (servidumbre) that provides access to the interior dwellings and which is intended to be established in favor of AyA, in order to determine whether it is possible to approve the easement (servidumbre) plans or not. The width of the easement (servidumbre) varies approximately between 3.89 and 4.15 m, while the access to the buildings exceeds 250 m in length. Given this situation, the width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes what is established in Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3 establishes (…). / Given that this canton has a Plan Regulador and addressing the recommendation made by Lic. Melissa Chaves, with the Municipalidad de Moravia being the governing body for matters of territory administration, the feasibility of establishing the easement (servidumbre) regarding minimum and maximum dimensions established by this entity was consulted with Arq. Dilana Vargas (an official of the Institution). It was also reported that the easement (servidumbre) to be built does not comply with what is established in the Plan Regulador. / According to the easement (servidumbre) plan submitted to the urbanizations department on December 19, 2011, the neighbors request that a pipeline easement (servidumbre de paso de tubería) be established with a width of 4.00 m and a length of 337.51 m. As already mentioned, the provided document does not comply with the different regulations and statutes established by law. Therefore, said plans may not be approved until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted or a superior entity determines otherwise"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folios</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> 78 to 80 of the administrative file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">11) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That through the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April sixteenth, two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">was notified of the denial of her request for the approval of a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of individualized potable water supply service over the property in which she owns a right, in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed therein, over the existing private right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) that provides access to the buildings erected inside it, on the grounds that, FIRST: according to the opinion issued by the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not carried out within a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) for internal properties; that the width of the proposed easement (servidumbre) to be established as per the administrative procedure carried out, is very reduced in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work for a potential distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution at its session number 3391, on December 13, 1982, published in Supplement number 18 of the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 57 of March twenty-third, nineteen eighty-three, in its Second Chapter (width, length, area, and number of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) facing an easement (servidumbre)); that the interior lots lack an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration for each property; SECOND: That according to the opinion of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having conducted a visit to the site in question, it was determined that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes what is established in Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE, where Article 3° establishes: 'The area necessary for the establishment of a potable water, stormwater, and sewer easement (servidumbre) shall have a minimum width of six meters…' / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area, of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia, is a part. Regarding the length of the easement (servidumbre), it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Ing. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 '… The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.'</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">; THIRD: that this matter also being contemplated in the regulations comprising the plan regulador of the Municipalidad de Moravia, upon consulting a municipal official identified as Ingeniera Diana Vargas, she indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement (servidumbre) do not comply with what is established in said Plan Regulador, all of the foregoing meaning that: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">"… since the neighbors' request, according to the cadastral plan already indicated, is to establish (sic) the right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that a pipeline can later be installed, in accordance with the foregoing, this request does not comply with the technical conditions nor with those (sic) established in the indicated Regulations and Statutes that (sic) the Law, therefore said request cannot be approved until they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or until a superior entity determines otherwise"</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">(Folios 04 and 05 of the court file)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">.-</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">II.- Unproven facts:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt"> Relevant to the resolution of this proceeding, the following are deemed not established: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold">1) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">That the actions taken by Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt">before the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados were not fully addressed by that entity.</span></p> (Folios 5 and 5 of the judicial record and 41 to 48 and 51 to 53 of the administrative record); 2) That the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted other users, distinct from Mrs. Nombre40366, approvals for the location of the facilities necessary for the supply of potable water on private property, without requiring the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) in favor of said institute that meets the dimensions, technical, and urbanistic requirements demanded by the legal system for these purposes and/or, as applicable, that said Institute has built, in favor of other users in sites different from the one of interest, potable water supply systems inside private properties, under the same conditions as the real estate of which the related Mrs. Nombre40366 is partial owner. (The court records); 3) That the buildings erected individually and autonomously on the property have an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso) registered in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system. (The court records, particularly the evidence visible at folios 01 to 09, 13 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 55 to 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 to 83 all of the administrative record and folio 15 of the principal record); 4) That Mrs. Nombre40366 has sued in the present case in the name or representation of none of the other co-owners of the property registered in the National Registry, Partido de San José, under real folio registration number Placa7409. (The court records).- III.- Regarding the reproaches formulated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff expressed in argumentative support of her action -in synthesis according to her statement of claim-, that being the owner of a right over the registered estate -this Tribunal adds, in the National Registry, Sección de Bienes Inmuebles- of the Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409, she is a user of the potable water supply services provided by the Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, both she and "approximately eleven more rights" -the following is clarified by this Tribunal, as it should be understood thus-, all users of the same service and co-owners of the property in question. That the meters placed by the defendant entity on the occasion and for the effects of providing the mentioned service and recording consumption on her part, are installed on the street, for which reason they are subject to damage caused by vehicles and ill-intentioned persons, who "break or damage them," thereby causing the bills to report high, inappropriate, and elevated consumption, caused by leaks and the repair of those meters. That the meter -it must be understood again-, which corresponds to the plaintiff's consumption, has been destroyed for a year. That as a result of the foregoing, approximately three neighbors do not have the mentioned service, which violates their right to health and a dignified life. That she has been harmed in her economic resources due to high charges for the provision of the service and that it harms everyone disproportionately, with the sole justification by the defendant public authority being that they -the affected users, it must be understood- must make requests to individualize the service. That it was for this reason, that on the sixteenth of March, two thousand eleven, she proceeded to formulate jointly with the affected neighbors, a request for meters to be located house by house and in front of each of their properties in order to solve the problem, to which the authorities of the defendant Institute indicated that they had to comply with a series of regulatory requirements, the latter of which they complied with. She adds that consequently, on the ninth of November, two thousand eleven, the Licenciada Flor de María Zúñiga -it must be understood, an official of the defendant Institute- indicated that they -the affected service users- must declare their willingness to cede an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the Institute, as well as provide the respective cadastral plan of the property, both of which they provided to the defendant authority on the eleventh of January, two thousand twelve. She affirms that as of the date of filing the lawsuit, two months have elapsed without having received an affirmative response to her request, in violation of her right of petition and equality before the law, since in her opinion: "...under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests, since it charges me rates that do not correspond to those charged to others, it demands I pay fines that also do not concern me, and that correspond exclusively to the poor service and effectiveness offered by them, because if there were individual meters, I would know where my consumption comes from, and my possible excesses, not as it is now where what exists is a single service that thereby makes it difficult to determine the real consumption of each user, which as I cited violates the principle of equality, since we must pay for the inefficiencies of the institution in clear detriment of our constitutional and fundamental rights." She added that in response to her request -it must be understood-, the defendant Institute communicated to her by means of the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, the rejection of her request and the reasons why it was not proceeding, this on the occasion of aspects linked exclusively to the length and width of the easement (servidumbre) required for the purpose of locating the installations necessary for the provision of the service according to the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, among others. She estimates that despite the negative response to her request, in the same canton where the service of interest is located, and an "endless number" of places in the country "there exist narrower and longer easements and even on lands in precarious tenure, where said services exist individually, which in clear and obvious reason violates my constitutional rights." Finally, she reports that other public services exist on the property, such as public lighting, internet, and cable, among others. In support of her action, the plaintiff limited herself to citing articles 1 et seq., as well as 41, both of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, articles 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50, and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, 1 et seq. of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as well as article 1 et seq. of the Ley General de la Administración Pública without outlining any argumentative structure in said section of the statement of claim. In light of the foregoing and in what is of interest, the Processing Judge in charge of the present matter, ordered the plaintiff by resolution issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes on the seventh of December, two thousand twelve, deeming that the complaint completely lacked substantiation, to express what was pertinent. In response to the foregoing, by a writing presented to the judicial offices on the fourteenth of December, two thousand twelve (folio 20), the plaintiff indicated as follows: "A- I base my claim on articles 27 and 41 of the Political Constitution, norms that protect my right of petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me regarding my health, and in the economic field. Substantiation that I support and sustain with articles 11, 112, 275, et seq. and concordant of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as my lawsuit is directed against a public institution such as the A y A, by reason of the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without my having an affirmative response to our petition, and the right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that violates the right of petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B- I base my lawsuit on the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, which sustains all of the above, and empowers me according to the amparo filed to resort to this instance. / C- On the Ley General de Salud, in its first article, et seq. and concordant, by reason that the service being requested is aimed at improving my socioeconomic level and my well-being, and given that the A y A does not respond in time, and every time it does it asks for more requirements, despite being an omission and complacent with respect to other users who under the same conditions have the service proposed, I consider that the grounds put forward are sufficient to proceed with the present lawsuit. / D- Likewise based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution. / E- In article 261 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, by reason that my petition was resolved within a period subsequent to that requested, which gives me standing to assert my rights in the jurisdiction I am resorting to." Thus, it was petitioned that the judgment declare exclusively as follows: "1- That the present lawsuit be granted. / 2- That by reason thereof, Acueductos y Alcantarillados be ordered to place the main pipe and its respective meters on each one of our rights. / 3- That the defendant be condemned to pay both sets of costs of the present action (…)."- IV.- On the defense arguments formulated by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. The representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados indicated, at the time of responding to the lawsuit and in synthesis, that the plaintiff is indeed the owner of a right over the real estate she mentions and that the Institute bills her for the service identified with number Placa7410, located in Moravia, seven hundred meters east and fifty meters north of the "Taller Hermanos Solís", having for this purpose a meter or hydrometer that is installed on the public road, which is so, because it is an institutional asset to which the public officials in charge of taking the periodic readings that it records regarding the consumption made, as well as to proceed with the eventual suspension of the service in cases where it applies, must have access. It clarifies that the consumption recorded by the plaintiff, for which the respective billings have been made, corresponds to the average reflected by the meter, which has even turned out to be lower than the real consumption, having been determined based on the inability to read the meter's record and in accordance with the provisions of article 86 of the "current regulation" (it does not identify the regulatory body to which it refers), therefore the plaintiff's claim that high or unjustified charges are being made due to damages caused to the hydrometer is not true. It indicated that this is reflected in the Report issued in due course by the Head of the Regional Office of Guadalupe, which it identifies with number UEN-SC-ZIV-ET-2013-122 of the twenty-eighth of February, two thousand thirteen. That it has no evidence that there are service users at the site who are being deprived of the potable water supply due to the problem the plaintiff claims exists, nor that she is being a victim of the economic impacts she claims. It added that it is true that the plaintiff submitted a request on the sixteenth of May, two thousand eleven, which was delivered to the Commercial Headquarters Zona IV GAM the day after its submission, just as it is true that to proceed with said request, Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed that she had to comply with a series of regulations provided for by regulation. In this line of thought, it is indicated that the person in charge of processing new services in the zone instructed Mrs. Nombre40366, according to official letter number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153 of the ninth of November, two thousand eleven, in the sense that her procedure had to be directed to what it identified as the Department of Urbanizations, before which the interested parties had to express their willingness to cede an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute, and for the purpose of placing a hydrometer for each user, each one of them had to comply with the requirements stipulated in the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Later, it added that upon learning of the request of interest, the UEN de Optimización de Sistemas (which is an office of the defendant Institute), through the person of Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, issued memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, according to which the following was provided: "This UEN does not approve the construction of an easement on the estate cadastral plan SJ-26464-1976 for the following technical reasons: 1- In the Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, the provision of individualized services is not done within easements of passage, for internal properties. / 2- The width of the easement to be proposed is very reduced, compared to its length. This would hinder ingress and maintenance work on a network to be installed. / 3- It contravenes the INVU regulations (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Chapter II) regarding the formation of easements (width, length, area, and quantity of internal subdivisions facing easements). / 4- The internal lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, and therefore also lack individual property registration, so water service cannot be provided to them." Added to the foregoing is the content of article 3 of Decreto Ejecutivo 25902, in what it regulates the minimum width that the easement (servidumbre) destined for potable water in urbanizations must measure, and point II.2.1.1 of the Reglamento para el control de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, in what it governs the length of access easements to interior lots in properties like the one that concerns us. It was affirmed in the report that the easement that would serve the purposes sought by the plaintiff reaches an average of three meters seventy-five centimeters in width, despite the fact that the constitution of one four meters wide and three hundred thirty-seven meters fifty-seven centimeters long was requested, which is misaligned with the technical requirements noted. Thus, it indicated that all the requests formulated by the plaintiff were answered, it being another matter that the response was negative due to the said technical reasons. Finally, it reported that the Topography Area of the defendant Institute does not have a record of plans for the constitution of passage and pipeline easements approved by the authorities of the defendant Institute, which in the Canton of Moravia comprise dimensions smaller than those indicated in the cited regulations. In synthesis, the representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados alleged that the actions taken to reject the request formulated by the plaintiff and in the different administrative instances where it was so, are adjusted to law insofar as it responded to technical regulations comprised in the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, the pronouncement of the Sala Constitucional identified as ruling number 2004-12185, the Ley Constitutiva of the defendant Institute, and Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE.- V.- On the relevant regulation, of an urbanistic nature, linked to the matter that concerns us. The location and operation of infrastructure destined for the provision of the public service of potable water supply implies the deployment of an activity of an urbanistic nature that comprises interests that unfold in this sphere, from the national to the local, including aspects related to matters of health and environment, which together inform the activities linked to urban development. That being so, the first thing that must be pointed out is that, since it is urban regulation that governs the subject, when it comes to the location of the necessary infrastructure for the provision of the service of interest, to the buildings that people erect in the exercise of the “ius aedificandi”, a competence has traditionally been recognized in municipal governments, in more cases than not exclusive, without prejudice to what will be said, when it comes to national urban planning. Merely by way of example, doctrine has stated that \"(...) urban competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the first among all\" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre28 and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.). In the same line described, only to the extent that some urbanistic aspect encompasses urban planning in general terms across the entire national territory, do the competences of other Public Administrations of a non-local or municipal nature concur, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated body), the Ministry of National Planning, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, and insofar as it is also competent, the Dirección General de Aviación Civil. Regarding local urban planning, the Ley de Construcciones in its article 1, Decreto Ley number 833, of the fourth of November, nineteen hundred forty-nine, promulgated by the de facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, established that the Municipalities would be responsible for ensuring, in urban matters, the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty on public roads and the buildings and constructions erected in each canton, without prejudice to the powers that other laws grant to other administrative bodies. According to article 74 of said legal body, no building could be erected in contravention of what the applicable legal system mandates in urbanistic matters. This implies the recognition of legitimate limitations on the exercise by the individual of the marginal attributes of domain that emerge as a result of the property right enshrined in article 5 of the Constitution and detailed in the Civil Code, in what its numeral 264, particularly in its subsection 3), recognizes the right of transformation. Since, initially, the foregoing implies the concurrence of municipal competences linked with other non-local authorities, it has been the Sala Constitucional that, at the level of application of Constitutional Law, has been responsible for outlining some criteria to achieve the separation of matters that can be considered in this local sphere, from the national one, given that the Magna Carta is sparing in establishing express rules in this regard. (See rulings of the Sala Constitucional number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656). Thus, and in the line indicated above, the mentioned high Court has ratified that, based on the provisions of article 169 and the first paragraph of article 170, both of the Constitution, the primary competence in local urban planning matters corresponds to the municipalities to the exclusion of any other public entity. In fact, the Municipal Code itself, formerly in force under the terms of Law 4574 of the fourth of May, nineteen hundred seventy, repealed as of the year nineteen hundred ninety-eight, once Law number 7794, of the thirtieth of April of that year, came into force, expressly recognized municipal competence in matters of control and oversight of urban development, under the terms of its article 4. In consonance with the previous provision and as a derivative of the constitutional norms mentioned above, articles 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, number 4240 of the fifteenth of November, nineteen hundred sixty-eight, came into being, as they textually provide as follows: "Article 15.- In accordance with the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific control regime." (The highlighting is not from the original.). "Article 19.- Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due observance of the regulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community." In accordance with the foregoing, it follows from this legal postulate that both the regulatory activity and the verification of compliance or non-compliance with the urbanistic regulations at the local level is a municipal competence, which involves, on the part of local governments, the need for them to have and exercise, in order to guarantee orderly urban development adjusted to the legal order, powers typical of what is known as police power. In what concerns us, these powers of control and oversight in the urban sphere acquire enormous relevance in relation to urbanization processes from the perspective related to construction activity and subdivision (fraccionamiento) of real estate. Thus, in addition to the related police powers, according to the Ley de Construcciones in its article 74, the following is established: "Licenses.

All construction-related works executed in the towns of the Republic, whether permanent or temporary, must be carried out with a license from the corresponding Municipality</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic\">”</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. In turn, numeral 87 of the same legal body states: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“The municipality shall exercise oversight over the works executed in its jurisdiction, as well as over the use made of them. Furthermore, it shall have the mission of monitoring observance of the precepts of this Law…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. This police power is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on what the legal order dictates, it ensures its observance in practice in order to promote urban order, and consequently the protection of health, tranquility, the safety of persons, and the protection of the environment. Urban regulation, it must then be clearly recognized, implies restrictions on the attributes of ownership over an immovable property encompassed in Article 264 of the Civil Code, particularly that of transformation and, of course, on the right to private property according to Article 45 of the Constitution, the foregoing being reasonable insofar as this fundamental right, residing in an individual, is limited by the right of other subjects in consideration of the duty to coexist in society, in respect and consideration for the rest of the citizens, which is nothing other than attending to the general interest. (See also the judgments of the Constitutional Chamber number 401-91 of fourteen hours on February twentieth, 619-91, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both of nineteen ninety-one and 2003-2864, of fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three).-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">VI.-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">Regarding subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization activities. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">Specifically, both concepts, subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization, are relevant for the purposes of this ruling, so they are explained below. Subdivision (fraccionamiento) entails the division of a property with the purpose of introducing it into commerce among men, which implies, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (visado) (of the plans), that the subdivision (fraccionamiento) conforms in terms of size and characteristics to the urban planning provisions in force, especially to the local Land Use Plan (Plan Regulador) – if one exists – as well as to the regulations comprised in special public order laws and their regulations. Subdivision (fraccionamiento) is known as </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">“simple”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">when</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">it occurs</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">in previously urbanized areas</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">and this is so, because by virtue of the finalist principle of statutory interpretation, the legislator has presumed that in these cases, the lands to be subdivided (fraccionar) already have appropriate access points (among other things, for the provision of public services) and green areas, both aspects resulting from a prior orderly urban development adhering to the legal system over which the exercise of control and oversight has already been previously exercised by the competent public authorities. Thus, Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides that: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“(…) simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos) of parcels in previously urbanized areas are exempted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…”. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided (fraccionadas) parcels have, as a premise, as noted, access to the properties, parks, and community facilities in compliance with the strict regulations, whereby their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, of course, their right to be recipients of all essential public services is presumed protected (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason – it is reiterated –, the legislator has not deemed it necessary to require, in the case of “simple” subdivision (fraccionamiento), greater land endowments for reasons of social interest, in furtherance of adequate social coexistence. On the other hand, when the urbanization process based on subdivisions (fraccionamientos) entails the material enabling of autonomous properties for the first time for urban purposes, prior verification must be made that each property has access points, such as streets, in addition to green areas and parks, as well as the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">services</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> necessary for the use and enjoyment of the persons linked to the immovable properties and their use, among which is the provision of potable water supply service. In this regard, one may observe the provisions of Article 308 of the General Health Law – recalling that there are non-local projection regulations that must be respected, even by Local Governments – which refers to the prerequisites that must be met for the plans of a construction project to be approved regarding that which pertains to the Ministry of Health: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Article 308.- In the formation of new cities or towns and the opening of new streets, these may not be laid out or oriented without the approval of the Ministry. / Neither may buildings be constructed on new streets if the necessary sanitation works have not been previously carried out, such as the construction of drains, sewers, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">installation of potable water pipes</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">and the fill or leveling of the land to prevent water stagnation of any kind. / Without prejudice to the powers of other authorities or entities competent in the matter, every person engaged in the urbanization of land and the construction of buildings for housing must comply with the provisions of the sanitary standards that the Ministry dictates on the matter in safeguarding the health of persons”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. (The highlighting is not from the original). Furthermore, Article 313 of the same legal body provides: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must meet the following sanitary requirements: (…) / 8. Basic sanitation means: a) Continuous supply of potable water, in sufficient quantity and pressure, accessible to all occupants”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. It is worth mentioning that in the Constitutive Law of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), its Article 21 provided that: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Every project for the construction, expansion, or modification of potable water supply and sewage and stormwater disposal systems, whether public or private, must be previously approved by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), which may conduct the inspection it deems appropriate to verify that the works are being carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Said </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">prior approval</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">shall be mandatory in all cases of construction of subdivisions (fraccionamientos), urbanizations (urbanizaciones), or lotifications (lotificaciones) in any part of the country and no other state agency shall grant construction permits or approvals without such approval from the Institute. The violation of this mandate shall cause </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">the nullity of any construction permit</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">granted in contravention of this prohibition, the parcelization (parcelación) or the project, as the case may be, being considered legally non-existent, with the consequences, regarding third parties, provided for in Article 35 of the Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. The rule referred to by this numeral through remission to the Urban Planning Law states for these purposes as follows: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Article 34.- The Public Registry shall suspend the registration of documents regarding the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of properties comprised in urban districts, without the certification indicated in the preceding article. / The municipal approval (visado) of plans or sketches, which need not have been cadastrally surveyed, shall be issued by the municipal engineer or executive, or the person to whom they delegate such functions, within fifteen</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\"> days following their submission and free of charge, without being subject to the payment of stamps or any other tax, nor to the payment of taxes, contributions, or services owed by the parties. If the foregoing is not accepted, a notarial certification on the plan regarding this circumstance shall be valid as municipal approval (visado). The reasoned denial by the respective municipality or the indicated officials, made in writing within the aforementioned period, is preserved”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Finally, the article preceding this one, in the same legal body, reads: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Article 33.- For any subdivision (fraccionamiento) of lands or immovable properties located in urban districts and other areas subject to urban planning control, it shall be indispensable to have previously approved (visado), in the authorized municipal office, the plan indicating the location and area of the resulting portions and that, in addition, the notary or authorizing public official attests, in the act of extending or granting the respective document, that the division coincides with what said plan expresses. / Subdivisions (fraccionamientos) made by private document, just as in public documents, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">shall be deemed ineffective if they lack a notarial or municipal certification regarding the pre-existence of the approved (visado) plan</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">”. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">(The highlighting is not from the original)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">In the case of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization for the first time, therefore, we are dealing with a complex process that introduces limitations and conditions on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Chamber has indicated are entirely consistent with Constitutional Law and do not violate fundamental rights (Voto 5097-93 of ten hours twenty-four minutes on October fifteenth, nineteen ninety-three). The concept of a residential project or subdivision (fraccionamiento), which we shall henceforth call “complex”, is provided for in the related numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law cited above, which, in the pertinent part, provides: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Every subdivider (fraccionador)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">of lands</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">(…) and every </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">urbanizer (urbanizador)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\"> shall cede free of charge to public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is established for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the setting of percentages of the total area to be subdivided (fraccionar) or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, depending on the average size of the lots, the intended use of the land, and the rules in this regard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands that must be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided (fraccionar) or urbanized…”. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">(The highlighting is not from the original) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">The obligation of whoever subdivides (fracciona) or urbanizes to provide each emerging property with the indicated access points, insofar as the legal system so requires, as well as green areas, parks, and the provision of infrastructure in accordance with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards in terms of space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and regulations, is an unavoidable condition for the exercise of the right to build, which has, among others, the purpose of guaranteeing an adequate and orderly provision of essential public services. Regarding this activity, consequently, the local government must timely exercise the police power it possesses as a Public Administration, guaranteeing the residents of the canton that the works to be erected will be carried out in respect of the urban planning regulations and with the technical conditions those regulations provide. It is sufficient that a parcelization (parcelamiento) requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those properties, to maintain that in those specific cases there does not exist a “simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)”, but rather a residential project </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">that must, consequently, comply with all the specified requirements</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Urban residential projects may only enable access to the properties through </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">public roads</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Law of Public Roads and the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones). In the absence – in this latter case – of specific provisions in the local regulations, the general rules governing urban planning in the nation apply. In accordance with the foregoing, the control that the local government must verify is of special interest, in this case, concerning the approval of construction permits, since it must corroborate that full compliance is given with the legal requirements, particularly those that must have been filtered by other non-local Public Administrations, namely, and among others, those related to the provision of public roads, green and community areas, and especially – of relevance for the resolution of this matter – the enabling and implementation, at the urbanizer's (urbanizador) expense, of the necessary elements for the proper provision of public services such as electricity, telephone, potable water, and sewerage. The failure of urban development projects to conform to the requirements established in the urban planning system obliges – </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">per se</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> – the rejection of the actions initiated for their erection in application of the principle of legality. It is relevant to remember that the block of legality is composed not only of the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">written sources</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> starting from the Political Constitution and other sub-constitutional regulations, but also, and additionally, by the values and principles emanating therefrom, international treaties – with special significance those related to fundamental rights concerning health and the environment –, as well as laws and regulatory provisions, as ordered by numeral 6 of the General Law of Public Administration. In addition, the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">univocal rules of science and technique</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> apply, insofar as they also constitute a delimiting parameter of administrative discretion according to Article 16 of the cited legal body, as it obliges the Administration to ensure that its actions are duly motivated by the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">theoretical knowledge acquired from the different methodologies and disciplines of science and technique</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> when so warranted. In this manner, the will of the public institutions exercising some type of control in this matter does not depend on their free will, but rather on the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">objective assessments</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">obtained in accordance with the technical rules applicable to the specific case and, of course, the law. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">In this sense, the objectivity of technical criteria is highlighted, since \"... </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">if a technique is scientific and therefore, by definition, certain, objective, and universal, subject to uniform rules that do not depend on the personal appreciation of an individual subject, it is obvious that one cannot speak in this aspect of ‘complete discretion’, but rather, on the contrary, one must speak of little less than ‘regulation’ (subjection to norms, in the case of technique)’</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">\" (MARTÍN GONZÁLEZ, M., in his work </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">El grado de determinación legal de los conceptos jurídicos.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> RAP, number 54, 1967, p.239),</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> cited by DESDENTADO DAROCA, Eva. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">Los problemas del control judicial de la discrecionalidad técnica. (Un estudio crítico de la jurisprudencia</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Editorial Civitas, S. A. Madrid. Spain. 1997. p.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> 43.). In accordance with the foregoing, it was expressed by Name28</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">in the Legislative Commission that discussed the bill for the General Law of Public Administration, that to include the univocal rules of science and technique as a parameter of administrative discretion, it was necessary to consider \"... </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">the cases in which the Administration acts in technical matters that have a clear and precise meaning in the case, the technical rules are going to be, in this case, like laws, the violation of the technical aspects of an administrative act of a public service is naturally going to be an illegality exactly as if a legal precept were being violated.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">\" (QUIRÓS CORONADO, Roberto. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline\">Ley General de Administración Pública, Concordada y Anotada con el Debate Legislativo y la Jurisprudencia Constitucional.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> Editorial Aselex, S. A. San José, Costa Rica. 1996. p. 99.). Having clarified the foregoing, compliance with the rules, at least those formally considered univocal, of science and technique are an indispensable condition that is incorporated into the parameters of administrative activity within the framework of its discretionary action.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">VII.- Regarding the potable water supply service in the urban context.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> Observing what was expressed above, it is held that the aspect related to the availability and physical space, as well as the material access to the infrastructure necessary for the provision of potable water service, is an indispensable and prior requirement for the purpose of subdividing (fraccionar) and/or urbanizing an immovable property, including therein the constructive process of building in exercise of the right of transformation, derived in this case from the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“ius aedificandi”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Thus, regarding the construction project in question, it must be accredited prior to the issuance of the construction license, through the information contained in the corresponding plan and that which must be supplied by whoever administers the potable water supply service, that it has passed through the approval, control, and oversight by the public authorities that, in accordance with special laws, are competent, by certification that the building will have an appropriate system, juridically and legally, for, among other aspects, supplying potable water to the property and, to that extent, to its occupants. The Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, points in this direction, in its Second Chapter, which, regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans of a project require the approval of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), given that the majority of public services whose systems or infrastructure are indispensable to be located on the land or subsoil comprising the access points or public roads to the buildings, require </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">indispensable minimum urban planning and technical conditions for the Municipalities to permit subdivisions (fraccionamientos). </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">Among these requirements, the following stand out: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“II.1 Requirements. (…) / II.1.3 The lots must have the minimum services existing in the area”;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\"> “II.2 Access Points: II.2.1 Lots fronting an easement (servidumbre): All parcels resulting from a subdivision (fraccionamiento) shall have direct access to a public road. In qualified cases, the INVU and the Municipalities may admit the subdivision of lots by means of right-of-way easements (servidumbres de paso), provided the following rules are met: The easement (servidumbre) shall be accepted on special lands where, due to their location or dimension, it is demonstrated that it is impossible to subdivide (fraccionar) with adequate access to existing public roads, used preferably for cases where dwellings already exist on the lot. / II.2.1.1 In subdivisions up to three (3) lots for single-family housing, an easement (servidumbre) of three meters (3.00 m.) in width shall be provided. Of this, ninety centimeters (0.90 m.) shall correspond to the sidewalk. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.2 For each additional lot for single-family housing, an additional meter (1.00 m.) is required in the width of the easement (servidumbre), </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">up to a maximum of six meters (6.00 m.) in width</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.3 </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Fronting easements (servidumbres), a maximum of only six (6) lots may be segregated</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.4 All lots resulting from the subdivisions must have the regulatory measurements. The area of the easement (servidumbre) shall not be computable for purposes of calculating the minimum lot area and no constructions may be made upon it, except for boundary walls. / Article II.2.1.5. The segregation authorized fronting an easement (servidumbre), under the terms of the preceding articles, implies that the entrance to the lots shall be considered a common right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso común) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">and at all times for any authority or officials of the entities charged with providing public services</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">, of any kind, as well as for those responsible for urban planning, municipal, public safety, health, fire department, and any other similar control.</span> Notwithstanding the previous paragraph regarding easements (servidumbres), neither the municipality nor any public institution has the obligation to maintain them, nor to provide services on the interior lots." (Highlighting not in the original). On the other hand, there is the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano, Gran Área Metropolitana), Executive Decree number 25902 of February 12, 1997, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 66 of April 7, 1997, which provides regarding what it has identified as special non-construction areas, according to its Article 3, that: "The area necessary for the establishment of a drinking water easement (servidumbre de agua potable), stormwater, and sewerage shall have a minimum width of six meters, and may be greater if so established by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), furthermore: 3.1 Such areas may not be built upon but may be dedicated to parks and playgrounds. (...). 3.2 They may also be dedicated to the construction of streets and malls with the specifications set by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers. 3.3 The construction plans for developments with easements (servidumbres) must be accompanied by the preliminary project approval note from AyA. 3.4 No type of building may be carried out on AyA easement areas. 3.5 Such easements may not be considered public roads for purposes of property segregation facing them, unless they are previously established as streets in the Development projects. (...)". (Highlighting not in the original). It can be added, in line with what has been indicated up to this point, that regarding the plans that for construction purposes must be approved and/or certified as a precondition to the granting of a municipal construction license, the Regulation for the Plan Certification Procedure for Construction (Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción), Executive Decree number 27967, of July 1, 1999, must also be observed, which established the need for those construction plans to be drawn up in accordance with what is indicated above, in the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones) (Article 8), as well as the Construction Regulation (Reglamento de Construcciones) and its amendments (Article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana), when applicable. The Regulation for the Plan Certification Procedure for Construction clearly subjected the certification of those technical instruments for developments, condominiums of individualized primary subsidiary properties (lot condominiums), and residential complexes, to inter-institutional control in each area of its specialty, so that entities such as the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo) through its Urbanism Directorate, the Ministry of Health, through its Regional Health Offices, and the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, at a minimum, participate in the procedure. This regulation was repealed by Executive Decree 36550 of April 28, 2011, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 117, of June 17, 2011, which in its Article 2 reiterated the need for the aforementioned inter-institutional intervention, and also linked the Federated College of Engineers and Architects, the National Fire Department, the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE), the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) to the procedure. Particularly in the case of properties intended to be subject to the horizontal property regime and developments (Article 8), the respective plans must then be in compliance with the Regulation to the Regulatory Law of Condominium Property (Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de Propiedad en Condominio), Executive Decree number 32303, of March 2, 2005, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 74 of April 19, 2005 and its amendments; the related Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Developments, and its amendments, approved at the session of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism number 3391 of December 13, 1982; the Technical Regulations for the Design and Construction of Developments, Condominiums and Subdivisions of the National Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers and its amendments, approved at its Board of Directors session number 2006-730 of February 22, 2007, published in Supplement number 8 of the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 55 of March 19, 2007; the also already cited Construction Regulation, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 56, Supplement No. 17 of March 22, 1983 and its amendments; the Manual of General Technical Provisions to the Regulation on Human Safety and Fire Protection (2007 version and its amendments, Resolutive Memorandum 2007-2320 of August 1, 2007); the "Procedures Guide for the Registration of Professional Responsibility" of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects, published in the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 93 of May 15, 2008, and the respective municipal regulatory plan. Now then, there is also a regulatory body that encompasses, on a technical level, aspects that any water supply system, among others, for drinking water, must respect, which is Regulation number 2006-730, published in Supplement number 8, of the Official Gazette "La Gaceta" number 55 of March 19, 2007, called "Technical Regulations for the Design and Construction of Developments, Condominiums and Subdivisions" (Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos). Subsequently, the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers additionally has regulations that partly regulate the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, which is also a typical public service relationship. This is the Regulation for the Provision of Services to the Subscriber number 96, of June 24, 1996. This regulation and the previous one must be related to Article 39 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación urbana), which reads as follows: "No permit shall be given to urbanize land: a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Urbanism Directorate and the National Service of Aqueducts and Sewerage (Dirección de Urbanismo y el Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado);…" (Highlighting not in the original). With the indicated regulatory standards not being found at any level in disagreement with the provisions of the applicable legislation on the matter, in Article 7 of the last cited regulation, it is systematically recalled, what the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Developments already advances, by indicating that it is the owner of a property on which a building exists, who is responsible for requesting the Institute for the supply of drinking water through the proper connection to the infrastructure located on public roads, when these roads are located in front of service networks operated and administered by the same, notwithstanding which, this is when it is technically feasible according to its Article 16, (which refers to the Technical Regulations for Design and Construction of Developments, Condominiums and Subdivisions, among other applicable sources). This provision referring to the standing to request drinking water supply services, obeys and responds harmoniously with the provisions of Article 12 of the General Drinking Water Law (Ley General de Agua Potable), number 1634, since in the event of default, based on an unpaid debt generated by the provision of the drinking water supply service, a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) exists over the property in which the service is provided at the subscriber's expense, which imposes saying that only whoever has the capacity to dispose of that patrimony (the property) could compromise it in this way. (See Article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). Thus, Article 11 of the related Regulation states the following: "Article 11.- The debt arising from the drinking water and sanitary sewerage service provided by AyA imposes a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) on the property that receives them, it being the property which by law answers for the client's obligations to the same (Law No. 1634, General Drinking Water Law), the foregoing without prejudice to AyA being able to indistinctly use the mortgage, pledge, or simple lawsuit as compulsory means of payment. The contracted responsibilities are transferred from owner to owner without the possibility of renunciation." The related rule is logical and necessary, to the extent that it aims to safeguard the continuity of an essential service, which in addition is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, for which reason its sustainability is of public interest par excellence. The need for it to be whoever builds, to whom it corresponds, insofar as it concerns the placement of the infrastructure necessary for the provision of service on private property, the provision activity from which it becomes necessary for the drinking water supply, is also recognized in numeral 12 of the same indicated regulation, which reads as follows: "The drinking water and sanitary sewerage services are supplied by AyA, up to the property limit. / The internal systems and installations necessary for the enjoyment of the same, are the responsibility of the owner and remain under their exclusive property." (highlighting not in the original. See also Article 18). In this way and in consonance with what has been said, it is an exclusive obligation of the property owner to maintain the installations that they themselves have provided within the private property (Article 13), consequently being the sole responsible party for any inadequate functioning of the service, if it is caused by any circumstance that occurs affecting the system they have on their property. This is why the authority held by the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, in the face of a claim by an individual for billing that they estimate is misaligned with actual consumption, which proceeds upon the simple request of the user for inspections to be carried out within the private property in order to detect any circumstance that allows justifying the consumption recorded for a specific service (as provided in Article 26 of the cited regulation), should not be confused with the duty to install infrastructure and maintain it, which within the private property, it is insisted, corresponds exclusively to the property owner, as part of the construction process and subsequent use and enjoyment of the service (Article 28).- **VIII.- On requests for the connection of a new drinking water supply service and/or the independent or individualized provision of several services for the same user.** In the case of requirements for the connection of new services made by the property owner, the applicant must prove to the Institute that the building intended to be supplied with the liquid was constructed with approved and/or certified plans reflecting that there is direct access by public road or an easement (servidumbre) constituted in favor of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, and that a network (infrastructure) for the service of interest exists on the property, which is an unavoidable requirement, all in compliance with the dimensions demanded by the legal order. The legally constituted easement (servidumbre) in favor of the Institute in these cases is the means that enables the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers to proceed with the placement or installation of infrastructure, using its resources (with the respective costs of the work charged, however, to the property owner) and the connection of the service within the private property, thereby guaranteeing free access to the property for the purposes of exercising control, oversight, and good administration tasks of the service, the latter associated with reading the record of the hydrometers for the purposes of billing and charging for the corresponding consumption, given that under no circumstances is the service free. The technical conditions for this to be feasible also must be those incorporated in the respective regulation and which are particular to the type of service in question, implying that they should not necessarily correspond to services of another type, as may be, only by way of example, telecommunications and/or electricity. Article 32 cited above replicates the need for it to be the property owner who requests the connection of a new service, provided they meet a series of formal and technical requirements in this regard. Always according to the regulation of interest, the service user may request the Institute, among other things, the individualization of the service, which implies the installation of a hydrometer that independently records the consumption on a property and the existence of several independent buildings on the same property (Article 37). In these cases, according to Article 38 of the same regulatory body, these individualizations only proceed in cases where the interested party has also individualized the respective installations and when it is technically possible. For all purposes, in the case of horizontal condominiums, the Administrative Board must constitute and register an access easement (servidumbre de paso) in the name of the referenced institute; otherwise, the installations must reach the property limit, facing a public road. In all cases, it is the owner of each property or building who has standing to request and become a subscriber of the service-providing entity as an indispensable requirement, given the civil liability involved in the obligations inherent to whoever receives the supply of this good (legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) over the property) before the entity that provides its supply as a public service, which is not free. Thus, according to Article 40 ibidem, in cases where a property that has the related services is segregated, the owner of the lot where the connections are located is obligated to communicate said subdivision (fraccionamiento) and to request the individualization of their connection, upon prior payment of any balance in the respective account. Said numeral indicates that "… **For all purposes, the** __segregated__ **properties answer in proportional part for the obligations acquired by the original farm. The owners of the segregated lots may request new connections from AyA in accordance with the requirements established in this Regulation…**" (Highlighting not in the original). Finally, Article 42 provides that: "*If for any reason the owner requires their connections to be moved to another site within the property, which also has access to the public system, they may so request. AyA will study the case* **and if the move is technically possible and they have carried out the necessary works within the internal systems for the new location**, *it will proceed to make it effective upon prior payment of the corresponding costs.*" (Highlighting not in the original). From the foregoing, another requirement is that the property for which the service is to be individualized must be, from a registry point of view, segregated as an autonomous unit, since only this one would have to answer for any unpaid civil obligations for the supply of the good.- **IX.- On the object and basis of the action.** The claim that is known in the terms of this instrument mainly comprises a single petition, according to which it is expected that the judicial authority condemns the sued Administration to the execution of a specific activity – a condemnation to do (condena de hacer) – consisting of the order to proceed with the "laying of the main pipe and its respective meters in each of our rights" as has been determined as a result of the filed lawsuit that concerns us and what was ordered during the processing phase of this judicial proceeding. Without fear of error, the action seeks **to reverse the negative administrative act, comprised in the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April 16, 2012, issued by the Greater Metropolitan Area Zone IV Directorate (Dirección Zona IV-GAM) of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers**, according to which the request of the plaintiff -and others, presumably-, for drinking water supply services to be individualized on the property of which they are co-owners, with the offer to legally constitute an aqueduct easement (servidumbre de acueducto) on the site, thus burdening the property of the applicants in favor of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers as a condition demanded by the latter, was rejected. It being noted that the lawsuit did not incorporate any specific claim directed at the annulment of this formal negative administrative act, the action nevertheless seeks to reverse such administrative decision. The basis of the action, on the other hand, does not question at any argumentative level the reason for the act thus issued, but rather aspects extraneous to it. The plaintiff indicated mainly that, based on the record of billings she considers high, as well as the damages that third parties cause to the infrastructure and hydrometers placed at the property entrance, in a public area, some of her neighbors are deprived of this service, so she was interested in having the service that is materially supplied to her, and which she shares with other co-owners of the property -it should be understood, as a liberality on her part given the need of these neighbors of hers with whom she contributes or collaborates in that way- be individualized, through the installation of a main pipe that feeds all the dwellings within the private property comprising the property, as well as hydrometers for each housing unit built on the site, so that a service is billed for each of the dwelling owners according to their consumption and autonomously. The foregoing constitutes the cause or reason that motivated the plaintiff to request the intervention of the sued Institute. In the manner indicated, the lawsuit does not include any discussion or questioning proposing to analyze whether the billings made to her for liquid consumption have been correctly determined or not by the Administration, but rather, exclusively, whether ordering the individualization of the services (new and existing) in the stated terms is appropriate. The suitability of the logical axis of the lawsuit then revolves around the assertion that the condemnation to do in this case is, in the plaintiff's opinion, appropriate, because **first**, they state that they complied with the requirements that in due course were requested of them, among other things, declaring that together with her neighboring co-owners of the property, she was willing to cede an easement right (derecho de servidumbre) in favor of the sued Institute and provided the required plans for that purpose; **second**, that two months passed without the administration having given them an affirmative response to their request, in violation of their right of petition. Paradoxically and in contradiction with the foregoing, the plaintiff herself reports being aware that her request was expressly rejected, and this due to the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted over the property in favor of the defendant institution, according to the regulations of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, among others, not complying with the required minimums; **third**, that in her case the Institute gives them unequal treatment under the law, in view of the fact that in "a myriad" of cases within the same canton, third parties who are in her same situation -and circumstances, it must be understood- have indeed been given what is denied to them; and, **fourth**, that on the property, other institutions provide public services such as lighting, internet, and cable, among others, without any problem. In strictly legal terms, she based her action without outlining any argumentative structure in that section of the lawsuit brief, limiting herself to citing Articles 1 and following, as well as 41, both of the Regulatory Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, 1 and following of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), as well as the first and following of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). Additionally, and at the request of the Processing Judge then in charge of this matter, (see resolution issued at eleven hours thirty-nine minutes on December 7, 2012), it was indicated in a brief filed with the judicial court on December 14, 2012 (folio 20) as follows: "*A- I base my case on Articles 27, 41 of the Political Constitution, norms that protect my right of petition before the Public Administration to obtain a service that benefits me regarding my health, and in the economic field. A basis that I shelter and support with articles 11, 112, 275, following and concordant of the General Law of Public Administration, insofar as my lawsuit is directed at a public institution such as AyA, due to the nature of the service. Given that more than two months passed without having an affirmative response to our petition, and right to have a water service with its respective meter, an omission that violates the right of petition, the principles of constitutional equality, since under equal conditions the defendant treats me differently and harms my economic interests. / B- I base my lawsuit on the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, which sustains all of the above, and empowers me according to the filed amparo to resort to this instance. / C- In the General Health Law, in its first article, following and concordant, because the service being requested is aimed at improving my socioeconomic level and well-being, and given that AyA does not respond in time, and every time it does, it asks for more requirements, despite being omission and complacent regarding other users who in the same conditions have the presented service, I consider that the grounds set forth are sufficient to proceed with the present lawsuit.*" / D- Likewise, based on the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution. / E- In Article 261 of the General Public Administration Law, given that my petition was resolved after the requested deadline, which gives me standing to assert my rights (sic) in the jurisdictional (sic) venue to which I am appealing.” In this way, in a manner that must be noted is somewhat confusing, she added, in what carries greater relevance, that the admissibility of what was sought would have to stem from the fact that her request was not addressed within the legal deadline, with which she seems to insinuate in the opinion of this Court—without stating it explicitly—that a sort of positive silence should have ensued regarding her application. Having said the foregoing, this Chamber of judges proceeds to conduct the analysis to be set forth.- **X.- On the inadmissibility of the claim in all its aspects.** This Court considers that the present matter must be resolved by declaring the claim inadmissible in all its aspects, for the reasons that will be stated.- **1.- On the facts that have been taken as proven in this case.** As a faithful reflection of the evidence in the record, this Court has taken as proven that Mrs. Nombre40366 is a registered co-owner of the domain over the property registered in the National Registry, Partido de San José, real folio registration number Placa7409, right identified with the number zero zero five, located in Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, since the eighteenth day of April two thousand eight (registration certification visible on folio 15 of the judicial file). In addition to not having been a disputed fact, it was also verified through the judicial inspection carried out by this Court on the thirteenth day of January two thousand fourteen at the site of interest, that on the property that is registrally configured as a strip of land, with a single material access to a public road, a countless number of dwellings have been erected, each of which is inhabited, presumably as affirmed by the plaintiff, by the remaining co-owners of the rights in the property in question. These buildings are autonomous and independent, although adjoining one another, and as the plaintiff indicated, at least eleven families are residing on these properties. The erected buildings do not face a public street, but they have frontage to an alley that provides them access to it. (The statements of the plaintiff in her writ of claim, visible on folios 16 and 17, in relation to folio 20 in application of Article 341 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as what was observed during the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January two thousand fourteen). As recorded by an engineering professional from the office of the defendant Institute and stated in the administrative file opened for this purpose, identified as the UEN de Optimización de Sistemas according to memorandum number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, the access alley to the dwellings built internally has an average width of three meters seventy-five centimeters. (The report is visible on folio 76 of the administrative file). In the administrative file and on the occasion of the registry and cadastral documents submitted in due course by the interested parties, as well as other documents that are copies of the testimonies of the public deeds through which they acquired the co-ownership of the property and other documents of transfer of domain or simple possession in equal terms (the evidence is visible on folios 01 to 09, 13 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 55 to 67, 70, 71, 74, 81 to 83 all of the administrative file), the internal buildings do not have frontage to a public street and lack an access constituted as an easement (servidumbre) of passage registrally inscribed in the respective public registry in compliance with the requirements imposed by the legal system, which is why it must be materially reiterated, from a material point of view, it is an access alley that, although existing in reality, does not exist from a legal and registry standpoint. (See also folio 15 of the main file). The property, on the other hand, is under co-ownership and each one of its occupants has affirmed, occupying a dwelling that has been built autonomously with a single access constituted by that alley, however, none of these rights are formally and registrally located. Thus, there is nothing more than a single property, upon which dwellings have been erected, numbering at least eleven, without the property having been formally subdivided (fraccionado) or urbanized. From a strictly legal point of view, then, the properties that have been referred to, are owned by each owner, do not exist as a unit against third parties as they have no registry existence. Well, as the plaintiff herself narrates in her action, in the case of the dwelling she inhabits, it has the potable water supply service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identified as “NIS: 340-1813” precisely in the name of the related Mrs. Nombre40366, with “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”, as is evident from the copy of the service billing related, visible on folio 9 of the main file. The plaintiff also narrated, and this was verified through the judicial inspection carried out on the thirteenth day of January of this year, that she shares with third parties, also co-owners of the property and residents in some of the dwellings built on the site, the potable water supply service to which she is a subscriber, that is, the one identified with “NIS: 340-1813”, “shipping location: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. It being impossible to determine whether it was ex officio or at the request of the plaintiff, or if applicable, at the request of one of the co-owners of the property due to the amounts being invoiced for the provision of the service, on the fifteenth day of March two thousand eleven, personnel from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados would have conducted an inspection for a home checkup and/or supply, on the property referred to in the previous proven fact and in relation to the potable water supply service provided at the site in the name of Mrs. Nombre40366. As a result, service order number 17279793 was issued, in which the following was recorded by way of comments made by the responsible official and in what is relevant: *“Existe fuga interna en un trayecto de 200 en zona verde. Se recomienda cortar x (sic) secciones para localizar la misma…”* (The record is visible on folio 43 of the administrative file). As observed on folio 44 of the administrative file and as a reaction to these findings, on the seventeenth day of March two thousand eleven, a group of five persons who identified themselves as Nombre40367; Nombre40368 (sic); Nombre40369 and Nombre40370, submitted to the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, a document which, despite the heading stating that it was addressed to said authorities exclusively by Mrs. Nombre40366, is not signed by her, in which the following was stated and in what is relevant: *“Yo Nombre40366, Céd 1 10055 836 no estoy de acuerdo con dicha reinspección que se me hizo en día 15 de marzo del 2011, por motivo (sic) que la persona que la realizó expuso que tengo una fuga en un área de 200 metros en frente de mi casa en una zona verde; (sic) / Cuando en realidad es paso de servidumbre pública, donde pasa un ramal de tubos (sic) / De todos los vecinos, donde jamás se podría revisar o escarbar como dijo cuyo (sic) inspector, por evitar problemas con los vecinos, por este motivo solicitamos su comprensión. / Agradeceríamos para que nos tomen en cuenta para poder financiar el tubo madre y traslado de medidores debido a que existe paso de servidumbre pública en cual contamos con servicio de alumbrado público y medidores de electricidad casa por casa (sic) Atentamente (sic) Vecinos muy afectados por altos consumos de agua y esperando una pronta respuesta”* (Folio 44 of the administrative file). In response to said request, on the twenty-second day of March two thousand eleven, the office of Estudios Técnicos Zona IV of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, addressed in writing Mrs. Nombre40366, informing her that the reason for the fluctuations occurring in the service billing was due to the existence of leaks located inside the property of interest (visible and non-visible), indicating to her that according to the Customer Service Regulation, Articles 12 and 13, it is the user's responsibility to keep in good condition the installations that, being intended for the supply of potable water, are located inside the private property, while, for the solution of the problem presented, associated with the existence of leaks, the actions (improvements) to be adopted had been communicated at the time as recommendations, so that once these were completed, they should request a new inspection to verify what was pertinent in relation to the water meter and its operation. (Folios 41 to 43 of the administrative file). There is also a later application on folio 55 of the administrative file, exclusively made by Mrs. Nombre40366, on this occasion, on the eighth day of November two thousand eleven, according to which she requested the relocation of the potable water supply services that she identified with the numbers NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, (only one of them corresponds to the plaintiff) as well as the installation of other services, which she identified as new, for those she identified as: *“Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366, Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”*. Barely one day after the formulation of the previous request, that is, on the ninth day of November two thousand eleven, the office of *“Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe”*, issued the memorandum identified with number UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, by which Mrs. Nombre40366 was informed of the following, in what is relevant: *“En respuesta a su consulta, respecto a ceder la servidumbre a favor del AyA, así como el traslado de hidrómetros y solicitud de nuevos servicios, le indico lo siguiente: De acuerdo a la consulta hecha al Departamento de Urbanizaciones, se debe presentar formal solicitud de que están dispuestos a ceder dicha servidumbre a favor del AyA. Esta debe ser dirigida a la Ing. Katty Borges (aportar copia de plano catastro), dirección Dirección4959. / En cuanto a lo que corresponde a traslado de hidrómetros y nuevos servicios, al ser varios derechos, cada co-propietario debe cumplir con los requisitos estipulados en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente”* (See folio 86 of the administrative file). On the twenty-eighth day of November two thousand eleven, exclusively Mrs. Nombre40366, submitted another note by which she indicated that the applicants of the request to individualize the potable water supply service on the property of interest agreed to cede an easement (servidumbre) of passage in favor of the defendant Institute, for which purpose, they indicated they were providing the cadastral plans of the rights and it was added in the note: *“se adjuntan planos sin catastrar”* (See folio 09 of the administrative file). Thus, on the fifth day of December two thousand eleven, Engineer Isidro Solís Blanco, from the office identified as *“UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”*, issued the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, sent to the *“Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”* on the seventh day of December of the same year—both offices of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados—by which, in what is of interest, the following was stated in relation to the case at hand: *“Esta UEN no aprueba la construcción de servidumbre en la finca plano catastrado SJ-26464-1976 por las siguientes razones técnicas: 1- En la Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, la prestación de servicios individualizados, no se hace dentro de servidumbres de paso, para propiedades internas. / 2- El ancho de la servidumbre a proponer es muy reducido, comparado con la longitud de la misma. Lo que dificultaría el ingreso y los trabajos de mantenimiento en una red a instalar. / 3- Contraviene las regulaciones del INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Capítulo II) en cuanto a la conformación de servidumbres (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbres). / 4- Los lotes internos no tienen plano catastrado aprobado, y por ende tampoco registro individual de propiedad, por lo que no se puede dar el servicio de agua a estos”* (See folio 76 of the administrative file). On the date twenty-fourth of January two thousand twelve, the office identified as *“Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”*, addressed the memorandum identified with number SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, to the office of the Dirección Zona IV-GAM, through which, in addition to reporting on the content of the memorandum issued by Engineer Isidro Solís number SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, it added in what is pertinent that: *“Por su parte el departamento de topografía realizó una visita a la propiedad el día 19 de enero del presente año. El objetivo de la visita fue inspeccionar la servidumbre que da acceso a las casas de habitación interiores y que se pretende constituir a favor de AyA, con el fin de determinar si es posible aprobar o no los planos de servidumbre. El ancho de la servidumbre varía aproximadamente entre 3.89 y 4,15 m, por su parte el acceso a las construcciones supera los 250 m de largo. Ante esta situación el ancho de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el decreto ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3ero establece (…). / Dado que este cantón cuenta con Plan Regulador y atendiendo la recomendación hecha por la Lic. Melissa Chaves, siendo la Municipalidad de Moravia el ente rector en materia de administración de su territorio, se consultó ante la Arq. Dilana Vargas (funcionaria de la Institución) la factibilidad de constitución de la servidumbre en cuanto a dimensiones mínimas y máximas establecidas por este ente. De igual modo se informó que la servidumbre a construir no se apega a lo establecido en el Plan Regulador. / De acuerdo al plano de servidumbre presentado ante el departamento de urbanizaciones el pasado 19 de diciembre del 2011, los vecinos solicitan se constituya la servidumbre de paso de tubería con un ancho de 4,00 m y 337,51 m de longitud, según lo ya mencionado el documento aportado no se apega a los diferentes reglamentos y estatutos que la ley establece. Por lo cual no podrán ser aprobados dichos planos, hasta tanto cumplan con el ancho mínimo y longitud máxima permitidas o un ente superior determine lo contrario”* (See folios 78 to 80 of the administrative file). Finally, the request made by the plaintiff herein was answered by means of the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth day of April two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through which Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of an easement (servidumbre) of passage for the provision of the individualized potable water supply service over the property in which she owns a right, and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed therein, over the private easement (servidumbre) of passage, already existing and that gives access to the properties built inside the same, and in that regard, for the individualization of services (new and existing), on the grounds that: **FIRST:** according to the opinion issued by the Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), the provision of individualized services is not done within an easement (servidumbre) of passage for internal properties; that the width of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted according to the administrative application effected, comprises a width that is very reduced in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and the maintenance work of a potential distribution network to be installed; that the dimensions do not comply with the provisions of the National Regulation for the Control of Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Urbanizations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, approved by the Board of Directors of said institution in its session number 3391 of the thirteenth of December nineteen eighty-two, published in Alcance number 18 of the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 57 of the twenty-third of March nineteen eighty-three, in its Second Chapter (width, length, area, and quantity of internal subdivisions (fraccionamientos) fronting an easement (servidumbre)); that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration of each property; **SECOND:** That according to the opinion of the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) having conducted a visit to the site of interest, it was determined that *“the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Given this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3, establishes: “The area necessary for the establishment of an easement (servidumbre) for potable water, stormwater, and sewerage shall have a minimum width of six meters…” / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area, of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia is a part. Regarding the length of the easement (servidumbre), it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the National Regulation for the Control of Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Urbanizations, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 “… The length of an easement (servidumbre) of access to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.”*; **THIRD:** that this matter being also contemplated in the regulations comprising the regulatory plan of the Municipalidad de Moravia, a municipal official identified as Engineer Diana Vargas was consulted, and she indicated that the dimensions of the proposed easement (servidumbre) do not comply with the provisions of said Regulatory Plan, all of the foregoing, therefore: *“… since the neighbors' request is, according to the cadastral plan already indicated, to (sic) constitute the easement (servidumbre) of passage with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that later a pipeline can be installed, in accordance with the foregoing, this application does not comply with the technical conditions nor with those (sic) established in the applicable Regulations and Statutes that (sic) the indicated Law, and therefore said application cannot be approved, until such time as they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or a higher entity determines otherwise.”* (Folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file). Suffice it to say that the applicant does not question in this case the reality of the technical as well as legal assessments upon which the rejection of her application was based, this constituting the grounds for such action. Furthermore, in this Court's opinion, at first glance what was observed by the defendant authority and the decision taken would have been in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory provisions in the matter, as has been set forth in this judgment, so that even conducting an ex officio review, it could not be said that circumstances exist that would allow a declaration of nullity of the formal negative act issued against the interests of the plaintiff. Regarding the arguments she did formulate in support of her claim, which, regardless of the annulment of the act, seek to reverse its effects, the following is stated.- **2.- On the alleged disregard of the right of petition and/or, if applicable, the application of the institution of positive silence.** This Court considers that the plaintiff is not correct in her objections. On this matter, suffice it to state at a first level, that as the representation of the defendant Institute correctly points out, the plaintiff seems to confuse the violation of the referenced right with the fact that her applications were not successful by virtue of the express rejection made to what she had sought administratively in due course. It should be noted that, as indicated earlier, the request made was answered by means of the memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated the sixteenth day of April two thousand twelve, issued by the Dirección Zona IV-GAM of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, through which Mrs. Nombre40366 was notified of the rejection of her request. Such an act was justified on various grounds, among others, some of a technical nature, none of which she challenges by deeming them incorrectly assessed, which would have indicated a defect in the grounds of the negative act issued against her interests, which would in addition to causing its annulment, which, moreover, is not an extremity that has been sought in this action. In this way, from the outset her allegation that her request, such as the one she formulated, received no response, does not match the reality of the facts, and therefore, the corresponding matter having been proven based on the evidence in the administrative file, it necessitates the rejection of what was requested along this line of reasoning, even overlooking that she does not seek the annulment of the stated formal negative act, which is undoubtedly a necessary presupposition that, having been omitted in the action, equally and from the outset prevents acceding to the order to act that she seeks to have imposed against the defendant Institute. Nor is it correct, for the same circumstance, that the institution of positive silence has operated in this specific case.

Observe in this regard that the rule providing for this scenario is contained in Article 330 of the General Public Administration Law, in the following terms: </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">“1. The Administration’s silence shall be deemed positive when expressly so established or when it involves authorizations or approvals that must be granted in the exercise of oversight and guardianship functions. / 2. Silence shall also be deemed positive when it involves requests for permits, licenses, and authorizations”</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">. A prerequisite for the institute to be considered operative is that the Administration remains silent in the face of a formal petition, that is, that it does not pronounce on it within the period provided by the legal system for it to take effect, even if only to reject the petition. We reiterate that regardless of whether in cases such as the one before us—given what was requested of the Administration—the figure that gives rise to a presumed positive act by positive silence can operate (which would lead one to suppose that, had this been the case, the party would be petitioning for the forced execution of said act, which is also not the subject of this case), the fact is that her request was indeed addressed and rejected upon the issuance of a formal and express act, a circumstance which, having been proven, is sufficient to affirm that the party bringing the action is wrong in her argument, and therefore her claim is also not admissible for this reason in application of the related legal rule. As a separate point, the argument that the plaintiff and the other petitioners have fulfilled all the requirements demanded by the legal system, whether statutory or infra-statutory, so that the individualization of services on private property would be admissible, shall now be analyzed below.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">3.- Regarding non-compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements so that the individualization of potable water services and installation of water meters on private property is admissible.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> It cannot be overlooked that, as a fact that has been deemed proven in this matter and is reiterated, as the plaintiff herself credited with the evidence she provided, visible at folios 04 and 05 of the judicial file, by means of memorandum identified with number PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, dated April sixteenth, two thousand twelve, issued by the Zona IV-GAM Directorate of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">was notified of the rejection of her request for the approval of a passage easement (servidumbre de paso) for the provision of the individualized service of potable water supply on the property in which she owns a right and in favor of said Institute, so that a main pipe could be installed therein, over the private passage easement (servidumbre de paso) that already exists and provides access to the buildings erected within it. The act in question expressed the reason on which it was based, this being an objective material element of said conduct, which is not challenged by the plaintiff at any level. Thus, it is one thing that the plaintiff and other interested parties provided, at the Administration’s request, the documentation and information that it administratively required, and another that the content of that documentation demonstrates compliance with the requirements demanded by the legal system, understood as a block of legality, in order to make their aspirations admissible. In this manner, observe that the rejection of the petition was motivated by various aspects, which are summarized essentially as follows: in the opinion of the Directorate of the UEN for Optimization of systems of the GAM (memorandum SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), individualized services are not provided within a passage easement (servidumbre de paso) for internal properties; that the width of the easement (servidumbre) proposed to be constituted according to the administrative petition carried out, comprises a width that is very reduced in relation to its length, which hinders the entry of personnel and maintenance work for an eventual distribution network to be installed, to which is added that the dimensions do not conform to the provisions of the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. Added to this act was the fact that the Topography Department (memorandum SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14), having made a visit to the site of interest, determined that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“the observed width varies between 3.89 and 4.15 meters and that its length exceeds 250 meters. Faced with this situation, the indicated width of the easement (servidumbre) contravenes the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE where Article 3 establishes: ‘The area necessary for the establishment of a potable water, stormwater, and sewerage easement (servidumbre) shall have a minimum width of six meters…’ / This decree applies only to districts within the Urban Control Area, of which the District of San Jerónimo, Canton of Moravia, is a part. Regarding the length of the easement (servidumbre), it notes that, in accordance with what was mentioned by Eng. Isidro Solís, it exceeds the minimum established in the Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, as cited in point ii.2.1.1 ‘… The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters.’</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">; that the interior lots do not have an approved cadastral plan, nor individual registration of each property in the name of each co-owner - this Court adds -. Furthermore, it was indicated that the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) under the proposed terms is impeded by the regulations contained in the municipal regulatory plan, which was supported by a consultation made to the personnel of the respective Municipality (Engineer Diana Vargas) as is stated in the act communicated in its moment to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was informed that: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“… being the neighbors’ request, according to the cadastral plan already indicated, that a passage easement (servidumbre de paso) be constituted with a width of 4.00 meters and a length of 337.51 meters, so that later a pipeline can be installed, in accordance with what was previously indicated, this request does not adhere to the technical conditions or to the provisions of the Regulations and Statutes of the indicated Law, therefore this request cannot be approved, until such time as they comply with the minimum width and maximum length permitted, or until a higher entity determines otherwise”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. This Court considers, even overlooking the circumstance of whether the construction of the dwellings at the site of interest by the co-owners of the property registered in the National Registry, San José Division, real folio registration number Placa7409</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">, historically conformed or not to the conditions imposed by the block of legality since that activity is regulated by the rules governing urban planning law and the exercise of “ius aedificandi” (subdivisions (fraccionamiento) and/or urbanizations on properties, as well as the regulation for the granting of municipal building permits), it is clear, as it does not constitute a disputed fact, that indeed the dimensions of the easement (servidumbre) that the interested parties intended to constitute in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, are legally unfeasible, as they do not meet the requirements that the urban-planning legal system establishes as an unavoidable condition, as well as the corresponding technical requirements. See the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, number 3391 of December thirteenth, nineteen eighty-two, in its Second Chapter, which regarding subdivisions (fraccionamientos), provides that the plans for a project require the approval of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, given that most public services whose systems or infrastructure must necessarily be located on the land, or subsoil, comprising the accesses or public roads to the buildings, require minimum indispensable urban and technical conditions for the Municipalities to allow subdivisions (fraccionamientos), specifically its section 2.1.1, which provides that:</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\"> “In subdivisions of up to three (3) lots for single-family dwellings, an easement (servidumbre) of three meters (3.00 m.) in width shall be established. Of this, ninety centimeters (0.90 m.) shall correspond to the sidewalk. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">The length of an access easement (servidumbre) to interior lots shall not exceed 60 meters</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.2 For each additional lot for single-family dwellings, one additional meter (1.00 m.) in the width of the easement (servidumbre) is required, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">up to completing six meters (6.00 m.) in width</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.3 </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Facing easements (servidumbres), only a maximum of six (6) lots may be segregated</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. / II.2.1.4 All lots resulting from the subdivisions shall have the regulatory measurements. The area of the easement (servidumbre) shall not be computable for purposes of calculating the minimum lot area and no construction may be carried out on it, except for low boundary walls. / Article II.2.1.5. The authorized segregation facing an easement (servidumbre), under the terms of the preceding articles, implies that the entrance to the lots shall be considered a common passage easement (servidumbre de paso) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">and at all times for any authority or officials of the entities charged with providing public services</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">, of any kind, as well as for those responsible for urban planning, municipal, public safety, health, fire department, and any other similar control. / </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph regarding easements (servidumbres), neither the municipality nor any public institution has the obligation to maintain them or to provide services on the interior lots</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">\"</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. (Emphasis is not from the original). On the other hand, there is the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo number 25902 of February twelfth, nineteen ninety-seven, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 66 of April seventh, nineteen ninety-seven, which provides regarding what it has identified as special non-building areas according to its Article 3, that: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“The area necessary for the establishment of a </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">potable water easement (servidumbre de agua potable)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">, stormwater and sewerage easement shall have </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">a minimum</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">width of six meters, which may be greater if so established by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, in addition: 3.1 Such areas may not be built upon but may be used for parks and children’s playgrounds. (…). 3.2 Likewise, they may be used for the construction of streets and tree-lined walkways with the specifications set by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 The construction plans for urbanizations with easements (servidumbres) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">must be accompanied by the approval note of the preliminary project by Nombre5630</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. 3.4 No type of building may be carried out on the Nombre5630 easement (servidumbre) areas. 3.5 Said easements (servidumbres) may not be considered public roads for purposes of segregating properties facing them, unless they are previously established as streets in the Urbanization projects. (…)”. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">(Emphasis is not from the original)</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">Consistent with what has been indicated up to this point, it can be added that regarding the plans that for construction purposes must be approved and/or stamped as a condition prior to the granting of a municipal construction license, the Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo number 27967, of July first, nineteen ninety-nine, established the need for those construction plans to be drawn up in accordance with what is indicated above, and in the</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\"> Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (Article 8), as well as the Reglamento de Construcciones and its amendments (Article 4), without prejudice to the provisions of the Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, where applicable. On the other hand, and without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation number 2006-730, published in Supplement number 8, of the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 55 of March nineteenth, two thousand seven, called “Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos,” the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados has an additional regulation that partly governs the legal relationship it maintains with its subscribers, in a relationship that is also typical of public service. This is the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado number 96, of June twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-six. This regulation must be related to Article 39 of the Urban Planning Law, which reads as follows: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“No permit shall be granted to urbanize land: a) When the project does not satisfy the minimum regulatory standards, or the interested parties have not completed the pertinent procedures, among which is the indispensable approval of the plans by the Dirección de Urbanismo and the Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. Finding, at any level, no conflict between the regulatory rule indicated and the provisions of the applicable legislation on the matter, its Article 7 recalls that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">it is the owner of a property on which a building exists who is responsible for requesting from the Institute the supply of potable water through the proper connection to the infrastructure located on public roads</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">, when these are located in front of service networks, operated and administered by it, notwithstanding, this is, when technically admissible according to its Article 16 (which refers to the Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, among other applicable sources). This provision regarding the standing to request potable water supply services responds and harmoniously corresponds with the provisions of Article 12 of the General Potable Water Law, number 1634, because in case of default, due to an unpaid debt generated by the provision of potable water supply service, a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) over the property where the service is provided is placed at the subscriber’s expense, which requires stating that only whoever has the capacity to dispose of that patrimony (property), could encumber it in this way. (See Article 32 of this regulation for the case of new services). It is thus that Article 11 of the related regulation states the following: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“Article 11.- The debt arising from the potable water and sanitary sewerage service provided by AyA imposes a legal mortgage (hipoteca legal) on the property that receives them, it being the property that by law answers for the client’s obligations to it (Law No. 1634, General Potable Water Law), the foregoing without prejudice to the fact that Nombre5630 may indistinctly use mortgage, pledge, or summary proceedings as compulsory means of payment. The responsibilities contracted are transferred from owner to owner without the possibility of waiver”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">. The related rule is logical and necessary, to the extent that it seeks to safeguard the continuity of an essential service that, in addition, is an integral element of the fundamental right to health, so that its sustainability is of public interest par excellence. None of the co-owners of the property of interest has registry-located their right, nor do they have duly stamped or approved plans, much less the formal registration of a passage easement (servidumbre de paso) that gives them access to the public road, which, in addition to meeting the technical requirements demanded by the regulations on potable water supply and requiring that the easement (servidumbre) also be constituted for an aqueduct in favor of the Institute, complies with the general urban-planning regulations. This being so, there is nothing left to say but that the reproach that the requirements demanded by the legal system have been fulfilled is far from being correct, so that, the contrary being clear, the plaintiff’s reproach is not acceptable and, therefore, imposes the inadmissibility of what was petitioned in this case to that extent.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">4.- Regarding the argument related to unequal treatment before the law.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The plaintiff argued, in support of her action, that what is denied to her by the defendant Institute, it has granted to other service users within the same canton, in an </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic\">“endless”</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> number of cases. At a first level of analysis, the only evidence existing in this regard, which accounts for a single case in which the plaintiff would have considered that this scenario has occurred, is not conclusive. It concerns the judicial inspection carried out on January thirteenth, two thousand fourteen, after having observed the property of which the plaintiff is co-owner, at a distance of approximately five hundred meters from the site where it is located. It is the criterion of this Court that the evidence is not sufficient to support the related argument, and therefore the alleged unequal treatment before the law is not accepted. In this sense, without any evidence having been presented regarding the legal and registry situation of this property, even though apparently and at first glance, it is land that also is shaped like a strip (similar to the property of the plaintiff and others) on which several dwellings have been built</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> that, possessing individualized services such as the one of interest, have access facing a public street, or an easement (servidumbre) that provides access to it, or, in its case, a path or alleyway that fulfills that function, without also possessing the dimensions mandated by the legal system that must be present to be able to legally constitute an aqueduct easement (servidumbre) in favor of the defendant Institute, nothing has been brought to the process that supposes it is a property that possesses identical circumstances to those that concur in the plaintiff’s property. Along these lines, it has not been credited, due to a total absence of evidence in this regard, that the authorities of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados have granted to those service users other than Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, approvals for the placement of the installations necessary for the potable water supply on private property, </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline\">without requiring the constitution of an easement (servidumbre) in favor of said institute that meets the dimensions, technical and urban-planning requirements demanded by the legal system for those purposes</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and/or, where applicable, that said Institute has built, for the benefit of other users at sites other than the one of interest, potable water supply systems within private properties, under the same conditions as the property of which the said Mrs. Nombre40366</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">is a part owner. We insist that the registry situation of the property was not proven, nor the date of the existence of the access to a public road that it possesses, nor the legal nature of the access it has. It must be indicated that it should have been clearly proven that it is not an alleyway under the same legal and registry conditions as the property of interest. Moreover, if it were a case of equality of conditions between these two properties, the fact is that this would only speak of the placement of work intended for water supply on a private property in violation of what the legal system, understood as a block of legality, provides, which third parties have done with the concurrence of the defendant Institute. This Court could not accept the thesis that, under the protection of unequal treatment before the law, such as that alleged, because on one occasion the Institute did not observe its own regulations, it is admissible or legitimate to dispense with the duty of observance placed upon the Public Administration to adjust its conduct to said legal system for all cases, even in the future (principle of legality), nor a dispensation from the exercise of control and oversight that, at the urban level, is jointly exercised with the defendant Institute by other public institutions, including the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo itself as well as the Municipality with territorial competence for this. In relation to this latter municipal administrative authority, let it be added that according to information gathered by the authorities of the defendant Institute, its regulatory plan does not admit the legal constitution of an easement (servidumbre) such as the one proposed by the plaintiff in administrative proceedings, which is, furthermore, described in plans not stamped and/or authorized for this purpose. Thus, even if the same circumstances were present in both cases, the fact that individualized services such as those sought have been irregularly installed in no way implies that it is also legitimate to violate the principle of the singular inderogability of the rule for the case of the party bringing the action. In any case, as this judicial authority has affirmed above, these are rules of statutory and infra-statutory rank, which, among other things, are directed not only at guaranteeing the provision of a specific public service under suitable conditions from a technical point of view but also at guaranteeing other values such as public health and the environment, from the perspective of orderly urban development, issues linked to rights equally guaranteed by the political constitution, which would not allow an exception to be made or superimposing the service for the sake of the service itself, over urban order, safety, and public health, within the framework of the rights of the interested parties and their neighbors in the surroundings to a healthy environment. In accordance with the foregoing, the reproach is not acceptable and compels declaring the inadmissibility of what was petitioned.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">5.- Regarding other arguments that were formulated in support of the action by the plaintiff. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">In her claim, the plaintiff has formulated arguments related to effects, which she reproaches have been identified as damages caused by third parties, which cause, through leaks or inadequate measurements recorded by the water meter (hidrómetro), high, disproportionate, and unjustified billings for the service, which affect her economically and restrict her right to service and the right to health. Thus, the plaintiff has indicated that the fact that the water meter (hidrómetro) corresponding to her service, as well as those placed in relation to other co-owners of the property where they have all built dwellings, are located in public areas and not on her private property, is what allows them to suffer constant damage caused by third persons. Associated with the claim that her right to health is affected, she alleged that there are persons on the property—whom she does not identify at any level—who are being deprived of the potable water supply service in violation of their rights. This Court considers, given the logical core of this action, specifically understood as the petitionary extremes of the claim, that these arguments are sterile and unconducive to determining the admissibility or not of what is petitioned. It must be recalled that, at its core, the claim is directed exclusively at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the placement of a main pipe, and individualized water meters (hidrómetros) for each of the dwellings, owned in principle by third persons other than the plaintiff who cohabit on the same property, being co-owners thereof. As explained by this judicial authority above, the object of the proceeding is reduced to ordering the related conduct, which is legally regulated under the terms that have been set forth in this document. Taking note that it is also not explained whether it is irregular that the existing water meters (hidrómetros) are located in public areas, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold\">when this is proper according to the legal system as related above</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt\">, nothing in the claims and what has been analyzed to this point supposes that improper billings and/or the existence of circumstances that entail damages to the water meters (hidrómetros) placed in public areas, or the pipelines on private property of third interested parties and the plaintiff herself, have constituted a presupposition from which the plaintiff herself considers her claim admissible.

Instead, those circumstances only explain or account for the reasons that mediated for Mrs. Nombre40366's will at the time to have been to petition the Institute as she did, the individualization of, among other services, that of which she is the sole holder and which, by her own liberality (it could not be understood otherwise than as sustained by a spirit of collaboration with her neighbors), she allows to supply potable water to those third persons, who, moreover, she does not fully identify. Based on the foregoing, these aspects are not elaborated upon, considering what has been said at this point in the judgment sufficient to settle the matter.- **6.- On aspects related to active standing in the specific case.** Only for further abundance of reasons, the plaintiff must be reminded that standing (legitimación) constitutes one of the essential prerequisites of the process, whose verification must be carried out ex officio by the judge, since together with the right and the interest, they constitute the essential pillars for a claim to be declared with merit. This is informed since the plaintiff's claim actually seeks to impact a situation in relation to which she herself has placed herself in the circumstances in which she finds herself. We affirm this because, according to what she claims and informs in support of her claim, being the holder of a potable water supply service that she shares with third persons, she seeks for the Institute to be ordered to individualize the service that it would have to provide to third parties. That is, even though she indirectly seeks to solve a problem that afflicts her, linked to high consumption and therefore billing, which, as a separate point, she accuses have been due to eventual malfunctions of the hydrometer caused by damages caused by third parties or, where appropriate, the existence of leaks, the truth is that it occurs within the framework of the shared use that allows third persons to make use of the service of which she is the subscriber. Thus, and on the other hand, directly seeking to order the individualization of services through the placement of hydrometers in front of her neighbors' homes is nothing other than asking for others and not for herself. Therefore, and for the case that concerns us, it must be kept in mind that standing (legitimación) is a substantive prerequisite of every jurisdictional process and as such, its analysis is mandatory for the Judges, even ex officio, if the respective exception (of lack of active and/or passive standing [legitimación activa y/o pasiva]) is not raised. This aspect concerns the "... *specific material legal situation in which a subject, or plurality of subjects, finds themselves, in relation to what constitutes the litigious object of a specific process; standing [legitimación], in short, will indicate to us in each case who are the true holders of the material relationship that is sought to be elucidated in the scope of the process; who are the subjects whose procedural participation is necessary for the Judgment to be "effective".*" (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Derecho Procesal Administrativo Costarricense. Editorial Juricentro. San José, Costa Rica. p.162.). It is the aptitude of the intervening subjects to be a party in a process, which is derived or originates from the relationship existing between the sphere of their interests and rights, in direct relation to the challenged administrative conduct. Thus, "... *a subject becomes standing [legitimado] in a procedure or in a specific process by virtue of the prior affectation suffered in their qualified interests or rights*" (Jiménez Meza, Nombre25610. El Nuevo Proceso Contencioso Administrativo. Collective Work. Poder Judicial. Judicial School. San José. Costa Rica. p. 79.) If the intervening parties lack standing (legitimación), it can be concluded that the development of the entire process will not serve to solve the specific intersubjective conflict raised, because that lack will determine the non-existence of the legal relationship between them. Before the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, the "*legal situations of every person*" are protectable, in relation to their subjective rights and/or legitimate interests (intereses legítimos) according to subsection 1) of the first numeral, in relation to article 10, subsection 1), paragraph a), both of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo and this, in relation to the diverse manifestations of administrative conduct, any of them, so that to obtain effective and substantive judicial protection in a contentious process, it is required to be the holder of a subjective right or at least "a legitimate interest (interés legítimo). (See also article 49 of the Political Constitution). It is clear that said subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) must be derived or originated from some sort of administrative legal relationship. It is with respect to these, then, that one can request the declaration of non-conformity with the legal system, annulment, modification, or adaptation of the administrative conduct, the restoration, recognition, or declaration of a legal situation, the setting of limits and rules imposed by the legal system for the exercise of administrative powers, the order to perform a specific conduct, the order to abstain from a conduct, and the award of damages (article 42 of the cited Código Procesal). This prerequisite must be understood in a double dimension, namely, **active standing (legitimación activa)**, relating to who or who figure as plaintiffs, fully referred to the supposed ownership of the subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) alleged as infringed, which is conceived as the suitability to carry out acts of exercise of the power of action that empowers them to demand the satisfaction of a specific provision or object; and for its part, **passive standing (legitimación pasiva)**, in relation to the defendant party, which manifests as the aptitude to bear the exercise of said power. It is also important to refer to the key concepts to determine whether or not the substantive prerequisite is met, linked to the mediation of that subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo). The former has been defined in national doctrine as "... *that power to act validly within certain limits, and/or to be a beneficiary of public conduct, demanding from the Public Power (and specifically from the Administration), by coercive means, if necessary, the concrete and specific corresponding conduct, granted by the Legal System to that or those subjects for the satisfaction of their ends and interests*." (González Camacho, Óscar Eduardo. La Justicia Administrativa. Volume II. El Control Judicial de la Inactividad Administrativa. Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas Sociedad Anónima. San José. Costa Rica. p.178.) For its part, the latter is substantial, not procedural, as it forms part of the material legal sphere of the administered subject, which "*must entail a benefit as a consequence of the elimination of the administrative action, or a detriment derived from its maintenance, a benefit or detriment that may be both material or legal, as well as of a moral, religious, scientific, or economic nature (257 LGAP)*", (the highlight is not from the original). (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José and González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Op. Cit. p. 185). It is required that the interest be legitimate, that is, it is essential **that it be protected, even if indirectly, by the legal system**. This has been the sense in which the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has ruled in its jurisprudence, stating "...*It is consequently necessary to reiterate the concept of standing (legitimación) which rests, according to reiterated jurisprudence of this Chamber, on the* ***necessary correspondence that must exist between the plaintiff and the holder of the right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo) sought*** *. It constitutes, as is known, an essential prerequisite of the procedural legal relationship, indispensable for an estimatory judgment. It is held, generally, by that person (natural, legal, public or private), who suffers an injury as a consequence of administrative conduct (active or omissive), against which they protest before the Judge, requesting the protection of their legal situation or that which belongs to the collective they form. It derives, as can be seen, from the link or relationship maintained with the formulated procedural claim.*" (Judgment number 11-F-S1-2012, at nine twenty-five on January twelfth, two thousand twelve). Having reached this point, it is worth considering that active standing (legitimación activa) comprises two widely differentiable or separable legal aspects: the first corresponds to a merely formal-procedural aspect, which in doctrine and jurisprudence has been called “***legitimatio ad procesum***”. This particular topic has to do with the *procedural capacity* of whoever brings the action, in accordance with civil legislation; and by virtue thereof, it refers *to the generic capacity to sue or to deduce a specific claim against a third party*. *“Ad processum”* standing (legitimación) has also been called merely adduced or alleged standing (legitimación). (JIMÉNEZ MEZA, Nombre25610, La legitimación administrativa, Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas, 3rd ed., San José, 2000.). The analysis of the mediation of this splitting of standing (legitimación) can present various nuances, because since it refers to the ownership "that the party filing the process claims to have," we could find ourselves in the presence of the defense of interests that could ascend from individualized individuals to collective interests residing in a differentiable or determinable group of persons united by common interests (corporate ones are included) and diffuse interests, which are not differentiated from those that concern a specific group of persons from the totality of society. In each case, standing (legitimación) would present various nuances. The second area is what has been called in national doctrine and jurisprudence as “***legitimatio ad causam***”, and which relates to the substantive right, that is, to the ownership or not of the better right within the framework of an administrative legal relationship, which refers to standing (legitimación) as a requirement for the exercise of the power of action and that affects the effectiveness of the process, that is, the success of the matter or not if it is heard on the merits. Unlike *ad processum* standing (legitimación), this is not a validity requirement, so it should not be confused with it. It is valid to conclude once all of the above has been said, that cause standing (legitimación a la causa) is the aptitude to be a specific party, but as a derivation of the possession or ownership of a right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo), which when it refers to the capacity to sue, is a matter of active standing (legitimación activa). This must be duly justified, through the evidence that accompanies the filing brief of any claim, as well as through that which is successfully introduced into the process. In the case of process standing (legitimación al proceso), if the claim is not filed in one's own name, accreditation must be provided for the representation adduced by whoever exercises the right of action, in cases where the legal system so requires, without prejudice to what is indicated regarding the defense of supra-individual interests, especially when dealing with groups not organized under a formal associative form with legal personality. In the absence of this last condition, the Judge could declare the claim inadmissible and archive the file even ex officio, since whoever brings the action in such circumstances does not have a right to effective judicial protection from the jurisdictional sphere. Based on what has been said, it is evident that the concept of standing (legitimación) –to the process or to the cause– belongs to the general theory of the process, as it refers to the character of the effect it has in relation to the power of action, that is, it operates as a requirement for the effectiveness of the jurisdictional ruling required for the resolution of the conflict raised. At a more pragmatic level, when it comes to process standing (legitimación al proceso), the judge must verify the presence of the qualities in the person who claims to bring the action, which condition the valid appearance of that person in the process to represent another. This implies that the Judge should verify the process standing (legitimación al proceso) adduced in the first instance as a prerequisite for the admissibility of the claim, when not at that moment the substantial cause standing (legitimación sustancial a la causa) -which must be declared in the final judgment- at the time of admitting the process or claim and proceeding with it. This is as mandated by article 58, subsection 1) paragraph a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. For this reason, there can be no judicial protection or claim before the Judge without a right to action, exercised through a jurisdictional process. This links the right and the legitimate interest (interés legítimo) to the claim, granting them the role of legitimizing element (*legitimatio ad procesum*) and of material prerequisite essential for its final estimation in judgment (*legitimatio ad causam*), where the existence of a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) would suffice as a legitimizing element (*legitimatio ad procesum*), which in this case translates into the due connection between the acting subject and the claim outlined in their claim. Obviously, the analysis of this important substantive prerequisite of the claim must be left for judgment, as it is only at that moment that it can be verified whether the alleged ownership –of the subjective right or legitimate interest (interés legítimo)– adduced in the filing of the action exists. Well then, the plaintiff also lacks cause standing (legitimación en la causa), if she intends, as is the case in this specific instance, without adducing to represent any third party, for the ruling to have an effect in material reality on others (whom she furthermore does not identify) and not on her, on whom the effect and scope of the judgment she hopes will be declared with merit and in favor of the object of the process would fall. Note that she seeks in this cause for the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to be ordered to proceed with *“the placement of the main pipe and their respective meters in each of our rights.”* The claim refers to the rest of the co-owners of the property, on which each one of them –as deduced from the evidence on file– has materially erected an autonomous and individual building that they use with their own as a dwelling. This circumstance is reinforced by the testimonial evidence of the plaintiff herself, particularly the statement of Mr. Nombre40371, in the oral and public hearing held on the fourteenth of January, two thousand fourteen, who was clear in indicating that being a neighbor of the plaintiff and one of the original residents of the property in question, together with other co-owners as he also is, they have independently and individually filed requests before the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados for a potable water supply service with the respective hydrometer to be placed for them in front of each of the homes they claim is their property, all within a private property. In this way, one cannot say otherwise than that what is sought aims to directly impact the interests of third parties, and only indirectly those of Mrs. Nombre40366, not to mention the claim beyond the individualization of the services she shares by her own will with third parties, that a new service be placed for them. Moreover, the fact that the plaintiff shares the water service supplied to her is not a circumstance that even the plaintiff herself attributes as a consequence of any conduct by the defendant Institute. In conclusion, since Mrs. Nombre40366 does not claim to represent anyone and brings action in a personal capacity, she lacks the substantive right to claim the placement of services for others, who are not part of the procedural legal relationship before us, nor have they appeared in this litigation, not even as coadjuvants and/or interested parties with their own claims. It cannot be lost sight of that, according to the regulations governing the matter (see Considerando VII of this ruling), it is whoever proves to be the owner of an individualized real property or, consequently, those who make up the entirety of those who prove to be the holders of a real property jointly by virtue of their ownership being shared without their rights having been located, who can be subscribers of a potable water service, among other things, because only in this way can the ownership of the property be encumbered due to the legal mortgage that is presumed to privilege the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados in case of default in payment for the services it provides, as an automatic effect of a person or group of them becoming subscribers of said institute. (See regarding the participation of third parties in the process, article 13 and 15 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). In this way, there is no cause standing (legitimación en la causa) for the plaintiff, which speaks to the substantive right to access what she petitions, and therefore, through this avenue as well, her claim is without merit in all its aspects.- **XI.- Corollary.** In conclusion of everything stated up to this point, it is the criterion of this Court that the plaintiff has not proven the merit of her claim based on any of the reproaches she formulated in support thereof, while she does not demonstrate she holds the right she claimed assists her to compel the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados to proceed to engage with third parties who are not parties in the present procedural legal relationship. Therefore, as the claim is aimed at ordering the defendant Institute to proceed with the placement of the main pipe and their respective meters for each of the remaining co-owners of the property she inhabits, the main and core of the action, it becomes without merit in all its aspects, as is hereby ordered.- **XII.- On costs (costas).** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the fact of being so. The losing party in this litigation is Mrs. Nombre40366, without this Court finding any intervening circumstance or assumption that justifies exempting her from said condemnation under subsections a) and b) of the related numeral, as well as under article 194 of the same legal body. Consequently, Mrs. Nombre40366 is condemned to pay both costs (costas) generated as a consequence of the processing of this litigation, in favor of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. The determination of the amount corresponding to costs (costas) shall be set by the competent judge in the sentence execution phase at the request of the winning party.-

POR TANTO

The claim filed by Mrs. Nombre40366 against the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is declared without merit in all its aspects.- Ms. Nombre40366 is ordered to pay to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados the costs of both parties arising from this action.- Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Rodrigo Huertas Durán

ASUNTO: PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR: Nombre40366 DEMANDADOS: INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS Nº 4-2014-I TRIBUNAL PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN PRIMERA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, ANEXO A, Goicoechea, a las dieciséis horas del veintiocho de enero del dos mil catorce.- Proceso de conocimiento incoado por Nombre40366 , quien es mayor de edad, comerciante, vecina de San Jerónimo de Moravia, Platanares, de la panadería de Dirección4958 , cédula de identidad número CED32057 (folios 16 y 17, en relación con el 20), contra el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, representado por su apoderada general judicial, Adilia Campos Vargas, quien es mayor de edad, soltera, Abogada, vecina de Tibás, cédula de identidad número CED32058 (folios del 23 al 34). Comparece, en su condición de apoderada especial judicial del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, la Licenciada Floribeth González Amador, quien es mayor de edad, divorciada, abogada, vecina de Zapote, cédula de identidad número CED32059 (folio 35) y exclusivamente como director procesal de la parte actora, el Licenciado Juan Carlos Gutiérrez Morales, abogado con carné del Colegio de Abogados de la República de Costa Rica número siete mil ochocientos siete. (Folios 17 y 20 vuelto, así como los folios del 42 al 45 y el registro digital de la audiencia preliminar que al efecto resguarda este despacho).-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Que por escrito de demanda presentado ante el Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, el día seis de agosto del dos mil doce (folios del 06 y 17) en relación con lo dispuesto por la Jueza Tramitadora durante la audiencia preliminar celebrada el día veintisiete de junio del dos mil trece (folios del 42 al 45) accionó la señora Nombre40366 en contra del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, exclusivamente para que en sentencia se declare como sigue: “1- … con lugar la presente demanda. / 2- Que en razón de ello se proceda a ordenar a Acueductos y Alcantarilladlo (sic) la colocación del tubo madre y sus respectivos medidores en cada uno de nuestros derechos. / 3- Que se condene a la demandada al pago de ambas costas de la presente acción (…)”. (Folios 16, 17 y 20, en relación los que van del 42 al 45 y lo resuelto en la audiencia preliminar celebrada el día veintisiete de junio del dos mil trece).- 2.- Que en los términos de la resolución dictada por el Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, al ser las diez horas diecisiete minutos del trece de noviembre del dos mil doce, se estimó que el presente asunto corresponde con un proceso de conocimiento regulado por el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, de modo que ordenó su remisión para conocimiento de este Despacho Judicial. (Folio 18) .- 3.- Que conferido el traslado de ley a la representación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, se pronunció ésta en oposición a la demanda, en los términos del escrito presentado a estrados judiciales el día seis de marzo del dos mil trece. En su defensa no fueron opuestas defensas previas ni excepciones de fondo. Fue peticionado por otro lado, que se declare sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos y se condene en costas a la actora. (Folios del 23 al 34).- 4.- Que la audiencia preliminar fue celebrada en fecha veintisiete de junio del dos mi trece, con la participación de ambas las partes involucradas en la relación jurídica procesal. En la misma no resultó necesario adoptar ninguna medida correspondiente al saneamiento del proceso, no fueron opuestas defensas previas, fueron determinados los hechos controvertidos y con trascendencia para el proceso, y se dictó pronunciamiento sobre la admisibilidad de la totalidad de la aprueba propuesta por las partes. (Folios del 24 al 45, en relación con el registro digital de la audiencia preliminar celebrada el día veintisiete de junio del dos mil trece que resguarda este despacho).- Redacta el Juzgador Felipe Córdoba Ramírez y se resuelve por unanimidad, con el voto afirmativo de la Juzgadora Claudia Bolaños Salazar y el Juzgador Rodrigo Huertas Durán.-

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Hechos probados. De relevancia para la resolución del presente proceso, se tienen los siguientes: 1) Que la señora Nombre40366 es cotitular registral del dominio sobre el inmueble inscrito en el Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, matrícula de folio real Placa7409 , derecho identificado con el número cero cero cinco, situado en el Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, desde el día dieciocho de abril del dos mil ocho, inmueble en el que se edificó una vivienda a la que da uso como casa de habitación. (Folio 15 del expediente judicial, y el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce, diligencia de la que se resguarda registro digital en audio y video); 2) Que además de la señora Nombre40366 , son copropietarios del inmueble relacionado en derechos, terceras personas, que conformando al menos once familias autónomas, han levantado en el sitio edificaciones igualmente autónomas a las que dan uso como casa de habitación, teniendo como exclusivo acceso material a calle pùblica dichas viviendas en su totalidad, un callejón sin salida. (Las manifestaciones de la parte actora en su escrito de demanda, visible a folios 16 y 17, en relación con el 20, así como lo apreciado en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce); 3) Que la edificación a la que en el sitio de interés da uso la señora Nombre40366 como casa de habitación, cuenta con el servicio de suministro de agua potable que brinda Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados identificado como el “NIS: 340-1813” a nombre de la relacionada señora Nombre40366 , “localización de envío: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. (Las manifestaciones de la parte actora en su escrito de demanda, visible a folios 16 y 17, en relación con el 20, así como lo apreciado en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce y la copia de la facturación del servicio relacionado visible a folio 9 del expediente principal); 4) Que la señora Nombre40366 , comparte con terceras personas, también copropietarias del inmueble y residentes en algunas de las viviendas edificadas en el sitio, el servicio de suministro de agua potable “NIS: 340-1813”, “localización de envío: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. (Las manifestaciones de la parte actora en su escrito de demanda, visible a folios 16 y 17, en relación con el 20, así como lo apreciado en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce, diligencia de la que se resguarda registro digital en audio y video); 5) Que el día quince de marzo del dos mil once, personal del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, habría efectuado una inspección para la revisión domiciliaria y/o abastecimiento, en el inmueble a que refiere el hecho probado anterior y en relación con el servicio de suministro de agua potable que se presta en el sitio a nombre de la señora Nombre40366 , derivada de la cual, fue levantada la orden de servicio número 17279793, en la que se consignó a título de comentarios efectuados por el funcionario responsable y en lo que resulta relevante que: “Existe fuga interna en un trayecto de 200 en zona verde. Se recomienda cortar x (sic) secciones para localizar la misma …”. (Folio 43 del expediente administrativo) ; 6) Que el día diecisiete de marzo del dos mil once, un grupo de cinco personas que se identificaron como “Nombre40367 , (ilegible), Nombre40368 , Nombre40369 y Nombre40370 ”, presentaron ante las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, un documento en el que no obstante reza en su encabezado, que es dirigido a dichas autoridades, exclusivamente por parte de la señora Nombre40366 no se encuentra suscrito por ésta, en el que se indicó lo siguiente y en lo que resulta relevante: “Yo Nombre40366 , Céd 1 10055 836 no estoy de acuerdo con dicha reinspección que se me hizo en día 15 de marzo del 2011, por motivo (sic) que la persona que la realizó expuso que tengo una fuga en un área de 200 metros en frente de mi casa en una zona verde; (sic) / Cuando en realidad es paso de servidumbre pública, donde pasa un ramal de tubos (sic) / De todos los vecinos, donde jamás se podría revisar o escarbar como dijo cuyo (sic) inspector, por evitar problemas con los vecinos, por este motivo solicitamos su comprensión. / Agradeceríamos para que nos tomen en cuenta para poder financiar el tubo madre y traslado de medidores debido a que existe paso de servidumbre pública en cual contamos con servicio de alumbrado público y medidores de electricidad casa por casa (sic) Atentamente (sic) Vecinos muy afectados por altos consumos de agua y esperando una pronta respuesta”. (Folio 44 del expediente administrativo); 7) Que en atención a la solicitud a que refiere el hecho probado anterior, en fecha veintidós de marzo del dos mil once fue expedido por parte de la oficina de Estudios Técnicos Zona IV del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, un oficio mediante el que se le informó a la gestionante, que la razón de las fluctuaciones que se daban en la facturación del servicio se debían a la existencia de fugas localizadas al interior del el inmueble de interés (visibles y no visibles) indicándosele que conforme el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, artículos 12 y 13, es responsabilidad del usuario mantener en buen estado las instalaciones que destinadas al suministro de agua potable, se encuentran emplazadas a lo interno de la propiedad privada, al tiempo, que para la solución del problema que se presentaba asociado con la existencia de fugas, en su momento se le habrían comunicado a título de recomendaciones, las acciones (mejoras) a adoptar, por lo que una vez efectuadas las mismas habrían de solicitar una nueva inspección para verificar lo pertinente. (Folios del 41 al 43 del expediente administrativo); 8) Que en fecha ocho de noviembre del dos mil once, exclusivamente la señora Nombre40366 , formuló ante las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en lo que resulta de interés, una solicitud para que sean trasladados los servicios de suministro de agua potable que identificó con los números NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, y se instalen los que identificó como servicios nuevos, a quienes identificó como: “Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366 , Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefrry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”. (Folio 55 del expediente administrativo) ; 9) Que en fecha nueve de noviembre del dos mil once, la oficina del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identificada como “Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe” , expidió el memorando identificado con el número UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, conforme el cual se le informó a la señora Nombre40366 en lo que resulta relevante, lo siguiente: “En respuesta a su consulta, respecto a ceder la servidumbre a favor del AyA, así como el traslado de hidrómetros y solicitud de nuevos servicios, le indico lo siguiente: De acuerdo a la consulta hecha al Departamento de Urbanizaciones, se debe presentar formal solicitud de que están dispuestos a ceder dicha servidumbre a favor del AyA. Esta debe ser dirigida a la Ing. Katty Borges (aportar copia de plano catastro), dirección Dirección4959 . / En cuanto a lo que corresponde a traslado de hidrómetros y nuevos servicios, al ser varios derechos, cada co-propietario debe cumplir con los requisitos estipulados en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente”. (Folio 86 del expediente administrativo); 10) Que el día veintiocho de noviembre del dos mil once, exclusivamente la señora Nombre40366 , presentó ante las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, una nota mediante la cual indicó que los gestionantes de la solicitud para individualizar el servicio de suministro de agua potable en el inmueble de interés, se encontraban de acuerdo en ceder una servidumbre de paso a favor del Instituto accionado, a efecto de lo cual, indicaron aportar los planos catastrados de los derechos y se agregó en la nota además: “se adjuntan planos sin catastrar”. (Folio 09 del expediente administrativo) ; 11) Que el día cinco de diciembre del dos mil once, el Ingeniero Isidro Solís Blanco, de la oficina identificada como “UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”, emitió el memorando identificado con el número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, remitido a la “Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C” el día siete de diciembre del mismo año -ambas oficinas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados-, conforme en cual y en lo que resulta de interés, se indicó como sigue en relación con el caso que nos ocupa: “Esta UEN no aprueba la construcción de servidumbre en la finca plano catastrado SJ-26464-1976 por las siguientes razones técnicas: 1- En la Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, la prestación de servicios individualizados, no se hace dentro de servidumbres de paso, para propiedades internas. / 2- El ancho de la servidumbre a proponer es muy reducido, comparado con la longitud de la misma. Lo que dificultaría el ingreso y los trabajos de mantenimiento en una red a instalar. / 3- Contraviene las regulaciones del INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Capítulo II) en cuanto a la conformación de servidumbres (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbres). / 4- Los lotes internos no tienen plano catastrado aprobado, y por ende tampoco registro individual de propiedad, por lo que no se puede dar el servicio de agua a estos”. (Folio 76 del expediente administrativo); 12) Que en fecha veinticuatro de enero del dos mil doce, la oficina identificada como “Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”, dirigió el memorando identificado con el número SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, a la oficina de la Dirección Zona IV-GAM, mediante el que además de informar sobre el contenido del memorando emitido por el Ingeniero Isidro Solís número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, agregó en lo conducente que: “Por su parte el departamento de topografía realizó una visita a la propiedad el día 19 de enero del presente año. El objetivo de la visita fue inspeccionar la servidumbre que da acceso a las casas de habitación interiores y que se pretende constituir a favor de AyA, con el fin de determinar si es posible aprobar o no los planos de servidumbre. El ancho de la servidumbre varía aproximadamente entre 3.89 y 4,15 m, por su parte el acceso a las construcciones supera los 250 m de largo. Ante esta situación el ancho de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el decreto ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3ero establece (…). / Dado que este cantón cuenta con Plan Regulador y atendiendo la recomendación hecha por la Lic. Melissa Chaves, siendo la Municipalidad de Moravia el ente rector en materia de administración de su territorio, se consultó ante la Arq. Dilana Vargas (funcionaria de la Institución) la factibilidad de constitución de la servidumbre en cuanto a dimensiones mínimas y máximas establecidas por este ente. De igual modo se informó que la servidumbre a construir no se apega a lo establecido en el Plan Regulador. / De acuerdo al plano de servidumbre presentado ante el departamento de urbanizaciones el pasado 19 de diciembre del 2011, los vecinos solicitan se constituya la servidumbre de paso de tubería con un ancho de 4,00 m y 337,51 m de longitud, según lo ya mencionado el documento aportado no se apega a los diferentes reglamentos y estatutos que la ley establece. Por lo cual no podrán ser aprobados dichos planos, hasta tanto cumplan con el ancho mínimo y longitud máxima permitidas o un ente superior determine lo contrario”. (Folios del 78 al 80 del expediente administrativo); 11) Que por medio del memorando identificado con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, de fecha dieciséis de abril del dos mil doce, dictado por la Dirección Zona IV-GAM del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, le fue comunicado a la señora Nombre40366 el rechazo de su solicitud para la aprobación de una servidumbre de paso para la prestación del servicio individualizado del suministro de agua potable sobre el inmueble del que es propietaria de un derecho y en favor de dicho Instituto, a fin de que fuese instalado un tubo madre en la misma, sobre la servidumbre de paso privada, ya existente y que da acceso a los inmuebles edificados al interior del mismo, en razón de que, PRIMERO: conforme el criterio emitido por la Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorando SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), la prestación de servicios individualizados no se hacen dentro de servidumbre de paso para propiedades internas; que el ancho de la servidumbre propuesta a ser constituida conforme la gestión administrativa efectuada, comprende un ancho muy reducido en relación con su longitud, que dificulta el ingreso de personal y los trabajos de mantenimiento de una eventual red de distribución a instalar; que las dimensiones no se ajustan a lo dispuesto en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, aprobado por la Junta Directiva de dicha institución en su sesión número 3391, del 13 de diciembre de 1982, publicado en el Alcance número 18 del Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 57 del veintitrés de marzo de mil novecientos ochenta y tres, en su Capítulo Segundo (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbre); que los lotes interiores no cuentan con plano catastrado aprobado, ni con registro individual de cada propiedad; SEGUNDO: Que conforme el criterio del Departamento de Topografía (memorando SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) habiéndose efectuado una visita al sitio de interés, se determinó que “el ancho observado varía de entre los 3,89 y los 4,15 metros y que la longitud de la misma supera los 250 metros. Ante esta situación, el ancho indicado de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3°, establece: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros…” / Este decreto aplica únicamente para distritos dentro del Área de Control Urbanístico, del cual es parte el Distrito de San Jerónimo, Cantón de Moravia. Respecto a la longitud de la servidumbre anota que, en concordancia con lo mencionado por parte del Ing. Isidro Solís, excede el mínimo establecido en el Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, tal como se cita en el punto ii.2.1.1 “… La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros.”; TERCERO: que encontrándose esta materia además contemplada en la normativa que comprende el plan regulador de la Municipalidad de Moravia, consultada una funcionaria municipal identificada como la Ingeniera Diana Vargas, indicó esta, que las dimensiones de la servidumbre propuesta no se apegan a lo establecido en dicho Plan Regulador, todo lo anterior por lo que: “… siendo la solicitud de los vecinos de acuerdo con el plano catastrado ya indicado, se (sic) constituya la servidumbre de paso con un ancho de 4,00 metros y una longitud de 337,51 metros, para que luego se instale una tubería, de acuerdo con lo anteriormente indicado, esta solicitud no se apega a las condiciones técnicas ni a los (sic) establecido en los Reglamentos y Estatutos que (sic) la Ley indicada, por lo que no se puede aprobar dicha solicitud, hasta tanto no cumplan con el ancho mínimo y la longitud máxima permitidas, o que un ente superior determine lo contrario”. (Folios 04 y 05 del expediente judicial).- II.- Hechos no probados: De relevancia para la resolución del presente proceso se tienen los siguientes: 1) Que a la señora Nombre40366 no le hayan sido atendidas por parte de las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en su totalidad, las gestiones que realizó ante dicha entidad. (Folios 5 y 5 del expediente judicial y del 41 al 48 y del 51 al 53 del expediente administrativo); 2) Que las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, hayan otorgado a otros usuarios diversos a la señora Nombre40366 , aprobaciones para el emplazamiento de las instalaciones necesarias para el suministro de agua potable en propiedad privada, sin que se requiera de la constitución de una servidumbre a favor de dicho instituto que cumpla con las dimensiones, requisitos técnicos y urbanísticos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico a esos efectos y/o, en su caso, que dicho Instituto haya construido en favor de otros usuarios en sitios diversos al de interés, sistemas de suministro de agua potable al interior de propiedades privadas, en las mismas condiciones que presenta inmueble del que es propietaria en parte, la relacionada señora Nombre40366 . (Los autos); 3) Que las edificaciones levantadas individual y autónomamente en la propiedad cuenten con una servidumbre de paso registralmente inscrita en el registro público respectivo en cumplimiento con los requisitos que impone el ordenamiento jurídico. (Los autos, particularmente la prueba visible a folios del 01 al 09, del 13 al 22, del 24 al 27, 29, 30, del 55 al 67, 70, 71, 74, del 81 al 83 todos del expediente administrativo y el folio 15 del expediente principal); 4) Que la señora Nombre40366 haya demandado en la presente causa en nombre o representación de ninguno de los otros copropietarios del inmueble inscrito en el Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, matrícula de folio real Placa7409 . (Los autos).- III.- Sobre los reproches formulados por la parte accionante. Expresó la parte actora en soporte argumentativo de su acción -en síntesis conforme su escrito de demanda-, que siendo propietaria del dominio de un derecho sobre la finca inscrita -agrega este Tribunal, en el Registro Nacional, Sección de Bienes Inmuebles- del partido de San José, matrícula de folio real número Placa7409 , es usuaria de los servicios de suministro de agua potable que brinda el Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, tanto ella como “aproximadamente once derechos más” , -se clara lo que sigue por este Tribunal, pues habría de entenderse así-, todos usuarios del mismo servicio y copropietarios del inmueble en cuestión. Que los medidores colocados por la entidad demandada con ocasión y a los efectos de la prestación del servicio mencionado y el registro del consumo de su parte, se encuentran instalados en la calle, por lo que son objeto de daños ocasionados por vehículos y personas mal intencionadas, que los “rompen o dañan”, causando con ello que los recibos den cuenta de altos consumos, inapropiados y altos, causados por fugas y el arreglo de esos medidores. Que el medidor -habría que entender nuevamente-, que corresponde al consumo de la accionante, se encuentra destruido desde hace un año. Que producto de lo anterior aproximadamente tres vecinos no cuentan con el servicio mencionado, lo que atenta en contra de su derecho a la salud y una vida digna. Que se ha visto lesionada en sus recursos económicos con causa en altos cobros por concepto de la prestación del servicio y que perjudica a todos de forma desproporcionada, con la única justificación por parte de la autoridad pública demandada, de que deben -los usuarios afectados habría que entender- de realizar solicitudes para independizar el servicio. Que fue en razón de ello, que en fecha dieciséis de marzo del dos mil once, procedió a formular en conjunto con los vecinos afectados, una solicitud para que les fueran ubicados medidores casa por casa y en frente a cada una de sus propiedades a fin de solventar el problema, frente a lo que las autoridades del Instituto demandado les indicaron que debían de dar cumplimiento a una serie de requisitos reglamentarios, esto último a lo que dieron cumplimiento. Agrega que consecuentemente con lo anterior, en fecha nueve de noviembre del dos mil once, la Licenciada Flor de María Zúñiga -habrá que entenderse, funcionaria del Instituto demandado les indicaron que debían -los usuarios del servicio afectados- de declarar encontrarse dispuestos a ceder a favor del Instituto una servidumbre, así como aportar el respectivo plano catastrado de la propiedad, ambas cosas que proporcionaron a la autoridad demandada el día once de enero del dos mil doce. Afirma que a la fecha de la presentación de la demanda han transcurrido dos meses sin que se les haya dado respuesta afirmativa a su gestión en violación a su derecho de petición y de igualdad ante la ley, ya que en su criterio: “…en condiciones iguales la demandada me trata diferente y lesiona mis intereses económicos, pues me cobra tarifas que no le corresponden con las que se cobran las demás, me exige a pagar multas que tampoco me atañen, y que corresponde de forma exclusiva al mal servicio y eficacia ofrecidos por ellos, pues si existieran medidores individuales, sabría de donde proviene mi consumo, y mis posibles excesos, no como se encuentra hora en donde los (sic) que existe es un solo servicio que dificulta con ello la determinación del consumo real de cada usuario, lo cual como cité no (sic) violenta el principio de igualdad, pues debemos de pagar las inoperancias de la institución en claro perjuicio de nuestros derechos constitucionales y fundamentales”. Agregó que ante su gestión -habrá que entender- el Instituto accionado le comunicó por medio del memorando que identifica con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, el rechazo de su solicitud y las razones por las cuales no procedía la misma, esto con ocasión de aspectos vinculados exclusivamente con el largo y ancho de la servidumbre requerida al efecto de emplazamiento de las instalaciones necesarias para la prestación del servicio conforme las regulaciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo entre otras. Estima que pese a la respuesta negativa a su gestión, en el mismo cantón en que se encuentra emplazado el servicio de interés, y un “sinfín” de lugares en el país “existen servidumbres más estrechas y largas y hasta en terrenos en precario, en donde existe (sic) dichos servicios en forma individual, lo cual en clara y obvia razón atenta contra mis derechos de carácter constitucional”. Finalmente informa, que en la propiedad existen otros servicios públicos como el de alumbrado público, internet y cable, entre otros. En fundamento de su acción se limitó la parte accionante a citar los artículos 1 y siguientes, así como el 41, ambos de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 y 140 inciso 3) de la Constitución Política, 1 y siguientes del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, así como el primero y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública sin esbozar estructura argumentativa alguna en dicho apartado del escrito de demanda. Frente a lo anterior y en lo que resulta de interés, la Jueza Tramitadora a cargo del presente asunto, dispuso ordenar a la parte actora por resolución dictada a las once horas treinta y nueve minutos del siete de diciembre del dos mil doce, al estimar que la demanda carecía completo de fundamentación, que expresare lo pertinente. En atención a lo anterior, por escrito presentado a estrados judiciales el día catorce de diciembre del dos mi doce (folio 20) la parte accionante indicó como sigue: “A- Me fundamento en el artículo 27, 41 de la Constitución Política, normas que amparan mi derecho de petición ante la Administración Pública por obtener un servicio que me beneficia en cuanto a mi salud, y en el campo económico. Fundamentación que amparo y sustento con los artículos 11, 112, 275, siguientes y concordantes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en el tanto que mi demanda se dirige a una institución pública como es el A y A, en razón de la naturaleza del servicio. Dado que pasaron más de dos meses sin que tuviera respuesta afirmativa a nuestra petición, y derecho de contar con un servicio de agua con su respectivo medidor, omisión que atenta contra el derecho de petición, los principios de igualdad constitucional, ya que en condiciones iguales la demandada me trata diferente y lesiona mis intereses económicos. / B- Fundamento mi demanda en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la cual me sustenta todo lo anteriormente dicho, y me facultad (sic) según el amparo presentado a acudir a la presente instancia. / C- En la Ley General de Salud, en su artículo primero, siguientes y concordantes, en razón de que el servicio que se está solicitando va dirigido a mejorar mi nivel socio económico y mi bienestar, y dado que el A y A no contesta en tiempo, y cada vez que lo hace pide más requisitos, a pesar de ser omisión (sic) y complaciente con respecto a otros usuarios que en las mismas condiciones cuenta (sic) con el servicio plateado (sic), considero que los fundamentos esgrimidos son los suficientes para proceder con la presente demanda. / D- De igual forma basado en el principio de igualdad consagrado en la Constitución Política. / E- En el artículo 261 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en razón de que mi petición fue resuelta en un plazo posterior a la solicitado, lo cual me da legitimación para hacer valer mi derechos (sic) en jurisdiccional (sic) a la que estoy acudiendo”. Así, se peticionó que en sentencia se declare como sigue exclusivamente: “1- Que se declare con lugar la presente demanda. / 2- Que en razón de ello se proceda a ordenar a Acueductos y Alcantarilladlo (sic) la colocación del tubo madre y sus respectivos medidores en cada uno de nuestros derechos. / 3- Que se condene a la demandada al pago de ambas costas de la presente acción (…)”.- IV.- Sobre los alegatos de defensa formulados por parte del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Por parte de la representación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados se indicó al momento de dar contestación a la demanda y en síntesis, que efectivamente la accionante es propietaria de un derecho sobre el inmueble que menciona y que por parte del Instituto se le factura el servicio identificado con el número Placa7410 , situado en Moravia, setecientos metros al este y cincuenta al norte del “Taller Hermanos Solís”, contando al efecto con un medidor o hidrómetro que se encuentra instalado en la vía pública, lo que es así, por tratarse de un activo institucional al que deben tener acceso los funcionarios públicos encargados de hacer las lecturas periódicas que registre el mismo respecto del consumo efectuado, así como para proceder a la eventual suspensión del servicio en los casos en que ello proceda. Aclara que el consumo registrado por la accionante y respecto del que le han sido efectuadas las facturaciones respectivas, corresponde con el promedio reflejado por ésta, que incluso ha resultado ser inferior al consumo real, al haber sido determinado éste a partir de no haberse podido hacer lectura del registro del medidor y conforme lo dispuesto en el artículo 86 del “reglamento vigente” (no identifica el cuerpo reglamentario al que refiere) por lo que no resulta cierta la afirmación de la accionante de que se le están efectuado cobros altos o injustificados con causa en daños que se hayan producido en el hidrómetro. Indicó que ello se refleja en el Informe rendido en su oportunidad por la Jefatura de la Oficina Regional de Guadalupe, que identifica con el número UEN-SC-ZIV-ET-2013-122 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil trece. Que no le consta que existan usuarios del servicio en el sitio que se encuentren siendo privados del suministro de agua potable con causa en el problema que acusa presentar la actora, como tampoco que ésta se encuentre siendo víctima de las afectaciones económicas que acusa. Agregó que es cierto que la actora presentó una gestión el día dieciséis de mayo del dos mil once, misma que se entregó a la Jefatura Comercial Zona IV GAM al día siguiente de su presentación, tanto como que para proceder con dicha solicitud, se le indicó a la señora Nombre40366 que debía de cumplir con una serie de requisitos dispuestos reglamentariamente. En este orden de ideas, se indica que la encargada de la tramitación de nuevos servicios en la zona, instruyó a la señora Nombre40366 conforme el oficio número UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153 de fecha nueve de noviembre del dos mil once, en el sentido de que su trámite debía de dirigirse al que identificó como el Departamento de Urbanizaciones, frente al que debían los interesados de expresar encontrarse dispuestos a ceder a favor del Instituto accionado, una servidumbre, debiendo a efecto de la colocación de un hidrómetro para cada usuario, cumplir cada uno de estos con los requisitos estipulados en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Luego, adicionó que en conocimiento de la gestión de interés, la UEN de Optimización de Sistemas (que es oficina del Instituto accionado) en la persona del Ingeniero Isidro Solís Blanco emitió el memorando número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, conforme el cual se dispuso lo siguiente: “Esta UEN no aprueba la construcción de servidumbre en la finca plano catastrado SJ-26464-1976 por las siguientes razones técnicas: 1- En la Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, la prestación de servicios individualizados, no se hace dentro de servidumbres de paso, para propiedades internas. / 2- El ancho de la servidumbre a proponer es muy reducido, comparado con la longitud de la misma. Lo que dificultaría el ingreso y los trabajos de mantenimiento en una red a instalar. / 3- Contraviene las regulaciones del INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Capítulo II) en cuanto a la conformación de servidumbres (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbres). / 4- Los lotes internos no tienen plano catastrado aprobado, y por ende tampoco registro individual de propiedad, por lo que no se puede dar el servicio de agua a estos”. Se suma a lo anterior el contenido del artículo 3 del Decreto Ejecutivo 25902, en lo que regula el mínimo de ancho que debe medir la servidumbre que se destine para agua potable en urbanizaciones y el punto II.2.1.1 del Reglamento para el control de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, en lo que regla la longitud de las servidumbres de acceso a lotes interiores en propiedades como la que nos ocupa. Se afirmó en el informe que, la servidumbre que habría de servir a los efectos que pretende la accionante, alcanza en promedio tres metros setenta y cinco centímetros de ancho, pese a que se solicitó se constituya una de cuatro metros de ancho y trescientos treinta y siete metros cincuenta y siete centímetros de longitud, lo cual se encuentra en desajuste con los requerimientos técnicos apuntados. Así, indicó que todas las gestiones formuladas por la actora fueron contestadas, siendo otra cosa, que la respuesta haya resultado negativa con causa en las razones técnicas dichas. Finalmente, informó que en el Área de Topografía del Instituto demandado no se cuenta con registro de planos de constitución de servidumbre de paso y tubería aprobados por las autoridades del instituto demandado, que en el Cantón de Moravia comprendan dimensiones menores a las indicadas en los reglamentos de cita. En síntesis, alegó la representación del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, que lo actuado en rechazo de la solicitud formulada por la actora y en las distintas instancias administrativas en que así lo fue, se encuentra ajustado a derecho en tanto respondió a normativa de índole técnica comprendida en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, el pronunciamiento de la Sala Constitucional identificado como la sentencia número 2004-12185, la Ley Constitutiva del Instituto demandado y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE.- V.- Sobre la regulación en lo conducente, de corte urbanístico, vinculada con el asunto que nos ocupa. El emplazamiento y operación de infraestructura destinada a la prestación del servicio público de suministro de agua potable, supone el despliegue de una actividad de naturaleza urbanística que comprende intereses que se desdoblan en este ámbito, de lo nacional a lo local, incluyendo aspectos relacionados con la materia de salubridad y medio ambiente, que en su conjunto informan las actividades vinculadas con el desarrollo urbano. Siendo así, lo primero que debe señalarse lo es que siendo regulación urbana la que rige en torno al tema, cuando se trata del emplazamiento de la infraestructura necesaria para la dotación del servicio de interés, a las edificaciones que levantan las personas en el ejercicio del “ius aedificandi”, tradicionalmente se ha reconocido en los gobiernos municipales una competencia, en más que menos de los casos excluyente, sin perjuicio de lo que se dirá, cuando se trata de la planificación urbana nacional. Sólo a título de ejemplo, en doctrina se ha dicho que "(...) la competencia urbanística ha sido una competencia municipal genuina, quizá la primera entre todas" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre28 y PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, España, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.). En la misma línea descrita, sólo en la medida en que algún aspecto urbanístico vaya abarcando la ordenación urbana en términos generales de todo el territorio nacional, concurren las competencias de otras Administraciones Públicas de corte no local o municipal, tales como el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -ente descentralizado-, y los Ministerios de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (órgano desconcentrado) el Ministerio de Planificación Nacional el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes y en lo que resulte competente también y la Dirección General de Aviación Civil. En lo concerniente a la planificación urbana local, la Ley de Construcciones en su artículo 1, Decreto Ley número 833, del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve, promulgada por el Gobierno de Facto de la Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, estableció que serían las Municipalidades las encargadas de velar en materia urbana por las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza en las vías públicas y los edificios y construcciones que se levanten en cada cantón, sin perjuicio de las facultades que otras leyes concedan a otros órganos administrativos. Conforme el artículo 74 de dicho cuerpo legal, ninguna edificación podría erigirse en contraposición a lo que mande el ordenamiento jurídico aplicable en lo urbanístico. Esto importa el reconocimiento de legítimas limitaciones al ejercicio por parte del particular, de los marginales atributos del dominio que emergen como resultado del derecho de propiedad consagrado en el artículo 5 constitucional y que detalla en el Código Civil, en lo que en su numeral 264, particularmente en su inciso 3) reconoce el derecho de transformación. Siendo que de entrada, lo anterior supone la concurrencia de competencias municipales vinculadas con otras autoridades de corte no local, ha sido la Sala Constitucional la que a nivel de la aplicación del Derecho de la Constitución, se ha encargado de delinear algunos criterios para lograr escindir la materia que se puede considerar en este ámbito local, de la nacional, dado que la Carta Magna es parca en establecer reglas expresas en este tanto. (Ver las sentencias de la Sala Constitucional número 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, y 2003-3656). Así y en la línea apuntada atrás, el alto Tribunal mencionado ha ratificado que a partir de lo dispuesto en el artículo 169 y primer párrafo del artículo 170, ambos de la Constitución, la competencia primaria en materia de planificación urbana local corresponde a las municipalidades con exclusión de cualquier otro ente público. De hecho, el propio Código Municipal otrora vigente al tenor de la Ley 4574 del cuatro de mayo de mil novecientos setenta, derogado a partir del año de mil novecientos noventa y ocho, una vez puesta en vigencia la Ley número 7794, del treinta de abril de ese año, reconoció expresamente la competencia municipal en materia del control y fiscalización del desarrollo urbano, en los términos de su artículo 4. En consonancia con la anterior disposición y como un derivado de las normas constitucionales mencionadas atrás, devinieron los artículos 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana número 4240 del quince de noviembre de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho, en tanto disponen textualmente como sigue: "Artículo 15.- Conforme al precepto del artículo 169 de la Constitución Política, reconócese la competencia y autoridad de los gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano, dentro de los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional. Consecuentemente, cada uno de ellos dispondrá lo que proceda para implantar un plan regulador, y los reglamentos de desarrollo urbano conexos, en las áreas donde deba regir, sin perjuicio de extender todos o algunos de sus efectos a otros sectores, en que priven razones calificadas para establecer un determinado régimen contralor." (El resaltado no es del original.). "Artículo 19.- Cada Municipalidad emitirá y promulgará las reglas procesales necesarias para el debido acatamiento del plan regulador y para la protección de los intereses de la salud, seguridad, comodidad y bienestar de la comunidad.". Con arreglo en lo anterior, se desprende a partir de este postulado legal, que tanto la actividad regulatoria como la verificación del cumplimiento o no, con la normativa urbanística en lo local, es competencia municipal, lo que involucra por parte de los gobiernos locales, la necesidad de que cuenten y ejerzan a fin de garantizar un desarrollo urbano ordenado y ajustado al orden jurídico, con potestades típicas de lo que se conoce como poder de policía. En lo que nos interesa, esos poderes de control y fiscalización en el plano urbano adquieren enorme relevancia frente a los procesos de urbanización desde la óptica relacionada con la actividad constructiva y fraccionamiento de inmuebles. Así, además de los poderes de policía relacionados, conforme la Ley de Construcciones en su artículo 74, se establece lo siguiente: “Licencias. Toda obra relacionada con la construcción, que se ejecute en las poblaciones de la República, sea de carácter permanente o provisional, deberá ejecutarse con licencia de la Municipalidad correspondiente” . Por su parte, el numeral 87 del mismo cuerpo legal reza. “La municipalidad ejercerá vigilancia sobre las obras que se ejecuten en su jurisdicción, así como sobre el uso que se les dé. Además, tendrá la misión de vigilar la observancia de los preceptos de esta Ley…”. Este poder de policía es la competencia que se le reconoce a la Administración, para que con fundamento en lo que dicte el orden jurídico, asegure en la práctica su observancia a fin de promover el orden urbano, y consecuentemente la protección de la salud, la tranquilidad, la seguridad de las personas y la protección del medio ambiente. La regulación urbana, debe reconocerse con claridad entonces, supone restricciones a los atributos del dominio sobre un bien inmueble comprendidos en el artículo 264 del Código Civil, particularmente el de transformación y por supuesto, al derecho de propiedad privada conforme el artículo 45 constitucional, resultando razonable lo anterior en la medida que este derecho fundamental, residenciado en un particular, se ve limitado por el derecho de los demás sujetos en atención al deber de coexistir en sociedad, en respeto y consideración al resto de los ciudadanos, lo que no es otra cosa, que atendiendo al interés general. (Ver además las sentencias de la Sala Constitucional número 401-91 de las catorce horas del veinte de febrero, 619-91, de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintidós de marzo, ambas de mil novecientos noventa y uno y 2003-2864, de las quince horas veinte minutos del nueve de abril del dos mil tres).- VI.- Sobre las actividades de fraccionamiento y urbanización. En lo específico ambos conceptos, fraccionamiento y urbanización, resultan de relevancia a los efectos del presente fallo por lo que se pasa a exponer. El fraccionamiento supone la división de un predio con la finalidad de introducirlo al comercio de los hombres, lo que implica, tal y como lo debe constatar cada gobierno local al otorgar el visado correspondiente (de los planos), que el fraccionamiento se ajuste en cuanto a tamaño y características a las disposiciones urbanísticas vigentes, en especial, al Plan Regulador del suelo local -si lo hubiere- así como a la normativa comprendida en leyes especiales de orden público y sus reglamentos. El fraccionamiento se conoce como “simple”, cuando se produce en áreas previamente urbanizadas y ello es así, porque en función del principio finalista de interpretación de las normas, el legislador ha partido del supuesto de que en estos casos, los fundos a fraccionar cuentan previamente con los accesos apropiados (entre otras cosas, para la provisión de servicios públicos) y de áreas verdes producto ambos aspectos, de un desarrollo urbanístico anterior ordenado y apegado al ordenamiento jurídico sobre el que el ejercicio del control y fiscalización, ya ha sido ejercido de forma anterior por parte de las autoridades públicas competentes. Así, el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana dispone que: “(…) se exceptúa de la obligación de ceder áreas para parques y facilidades comunales a los simples fraccionamientos de parcelas en áreas previamente urbanizadas…”. Cuando una determinada área se encuentra previamente urbanizada, los adquirentes de las parcelas fraccionadas cuentan como presupuesto, como se ha señalado, con acceso a los fundos, parques y facilidades comunales en cumplimiento con la normativa de rigor, con lo que se supone protegido su derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y claro está, su derecho de ser receptores de todos los servicios públicos esenciales, (artículo 50 constitucional). Por este motivo -se reitera-, el legislador no ha estimado necesario exigir en el caso del fraccionamiento “simple”, de mayores dotaciones de tierra por motivos de interés social, en pro de una adecuada convivencia social. De otro lado, cuando el proceso urbanizador a partir de fraccionamientos conlleva una habilitación material de fundos autónomos por vez primera para fines urbanos, debe hacerse verificación previa de que cada fundo cuenta con accesos, como calles, además de áreas verdes y parques, así como de los servicios necesarios para el uso y disfrute de las personas vinculadas con los inmuebles y su uso, entre los que se encuentra la provisión del servicio de suministro de agua potable. Al respecto puede observarse lo dispuesto en el artículo 308 de la Ley General de Salud, -si se recuerda que existe normativa de proyección no local que debe ser respetada, aún por los Gobiernos Locales- que refiere a requisitos previos con que se debe contar para que los planos de un proyecto constructivo sean aprobados en lo que a al Ministerio de Salud compete: “Artículo 308.- En la formación de nuevas ciudades o poblaciones y apertura de nuevas calles, no se podrán trazar ni orientar éstas sin la aprobación del Ministerio. / No se podrán tampoco construir edificios en las nuevas calles si no se han hecho previamente los trabajos necesarios de saneamiento, como la construcción desagües, alcantarillados, instalación de cañerías de agua potable y los rellenos o nivelación de los terrenos para evitar los estancamientos de agua y cualquier clase. / Sin perjuicio de las facultades de otras autoridades o entidades competentes en la materia, toda persona que se ocupe de la urbanización de terrenos y de la construcción de edificios para la vivienda, deberá cumplir las disposiciones de las normas sanitarias que sobre la materia dicte el Ministerio en resguardo de la salud de las personas”. (El resaltado no es del original). Además, el artículo 313 del mismo cuerpo legal dispone: “Toda vivienda individual, familiar o multifamiliar, deberá cumplir con los siguientes requisitos sanitarios: (…) / 8. Medios de saneamiento básico: a) Abastecimiento continuo de agua potable, en cantidad y presión suficientes, accesibles a todos los ocupantes”. No está demás mencionar que en la Ley Constitutiva del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en su artículo 21, se dispuso que: “Todo proyecto de construcción, ampliación o modificación de sistemas de abastecimiento de agua potable y disposición de aguas servidas y pluviales, público o privado, deberá ser aprobado previamente por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, el que podrá realizar la inspección que estime conveniente para comprobar que las obras se realizan de acuerdo con los planes aprobados. Dicha aprobación previa será obligatoria en todos los casos de construcción de fraccionamientos, urbanizaciones o lotificaciones en cualquier parte del país y ningún otro organismo estatal otorgará permisos o aprobaciones de construcción sin tal aprobación por parte del Instituto. La infracción de este mandato ocasionará la nulidad de cualquier permiso de construcción otorgado en contravención de esta prohibición teniéndose por legalmente inexistente la parcelación o el proyecto en su caso, con las consecuencias, en cuanto a terceros, que prevé el artículo 35 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, N° 4240 de 15 de noviembre de 1968”. La norma a que refiere este numeral por remisión a la Ley de Planificación Urbana, indica a los efectos así: “Artículo 34.- El Registro Público suspenderá la inscripción de documentos, sobre fraccionamiento de fincas comprendidas en distritos urbanos, sin la constancia que indica el artículo anterior. / El visado municipal de planos o croquis, los cuales no es necesario que hayan sido catastrados, lo extenderá el ingeniero o ejecutivo municipales, o la persona en quien ellos delegaren tales funciones, dentro de los quince días siguientes a su presentación y en forma gratuita, sin estar sujeto al pago de timbres o cualquier otro tributo, ni al pago de impuestos, contribuciones o servicios que debieren las partes. De no aceptarse lo anterior, valdrá, como visado municipal, una constancia notarial en el plano sobre esa circunstancia. Queda a salvo la negativa fundada, de la municipalidad respectiva o de los funcionarios indicados, hecha por escrito dentro del citado plazo”. Finalmente, el artículo anterior a éste, del mismo cuerpo legal reza: “Artículo 33.- Para todo fraccionamiento de terrenos o inmuebles situados en distritos urbanos y demás áreas sujetas a control urbanístico, será indispensable haber visado antes, en la oficina municipal autorizada, el plano que indique la situación y cabida de las porciones resultantes y que, además, el notario o funcionario público autorizante, dé fe en el acto de extensión u otorgamiento del documento respectivo, de que la división coincide con la que exprese dicho plano. / Los fraccionamientos que se hagan por documento privado, al igual que en los documentos públicos, se reputarán ineficaces si carecen de razón notarial o municipal sobre la preexistencia del plano visado”. (El resaltado no es del original). En el supuesto del fraccionamiento y urbanización por primera vez entonces, estamos ante un proceso complejo que introduce limitaciones y condiciones a la propiedad privada por razones urbanísticas (artículo 22 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana) las que La Sala Constitucional ha señalado, son totalmente conformes con el Derecho de la Constitución y no violentan derechos fundamentales (voto N° 5097-93 de las diez horas veinticuatro minutos del quince de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y tres). El concepto de proyecto residencial o fraccionamiento, que llamaremos a partir de lo anterior, “complejo”, se encuentra previsto en el ya relacionado arriba numeral 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana que en lo conducente, dispone: “ Todo fraccionador de terrenos (…) y todo urbanizador cederá gratuitamente al uso público tanto las áreas destinadas a vías como las correspondientes a parques y facilidades comunales; lo que fijará por los dos conceptos últimos se determinará en el respectivo reglamento, mediante la fijación de porcentajes, del área total a fraccionar o urbanizar, que podrá fluctuar entre un cinco por ciento a un veinte por ciento, según el tamaño promedio de los lotes, el uso que se pretenda dar al terreno y las normas al respecto. No obstante lo anterior, la suma de los terrenos que deben cederse para vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales no excederá de un cuarenta y cinco por ciento de la superficie total del terreno a fraccionar o urbanizar...”. (El resaltado no es del original) . La obligación de quien fracciona o urbaniza de dotar a cada inmueble emergente de los accesos indicados, en el tanto que así lo imponga el ordenamiento jurídico, así como de zonas verdes, parques y la provisión de la infraestructura conforme las disposiciones urbanas que establecen estándares mínimos en cuanto a espacio, calidad, cantidad y demás requisitos exigidos por ley y los reglamentos, es condición insalvable para el ejercicio del derecho de edificar, que tiene entre otros, la finalidad de garantizar una adecuada y ordenada provisión de los servicios públicos esenciales. Respecto de esta actividad en consecuencia, el gobierno local tiene que ejercer oportunamente el poder de policía con que cuenta como Administración Pública que es, garantizando a los vecinos del cantón que las obras a levantarse se realizarán en respeto a las normas urbanísticas y con las condiciones técnicas que aquellas disponen. Basta que un parcelamiento requiera obras para habilitar el ingreso y brindar servicios diversos a algunos de esos fundos, para sostener que no existe en esos casos específicos un “simple fraccionamiento”, sino un proyecto residencial que debe, en consecuencia, cumplir con todos los requisitos señalados. Los proyectos residenciales urbanos sólo pueden habilitar el ingreso a los fundos a través de vías públicas que deben tener las dimensiones y exigencias de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamintos y Urbanizaciones. A falta, -en este último caso-, de disposiciones concretas en las normas locales, aplican las normas generales que rigen el ordenamiento urbano en la nación. Al tenor de lo anterior, reviste de especial interés el control que corresponde verificar al gobierno local, en este caso, tratándose de la aprobación de permisos de construcción, ya que debe corroborar que se dé cumplimiento a cabalidad con los requerimientos de ley, particularmente de aquellos de los que deben haber filtro otras Administraciones Públicas no locales, a saber y entre otros, los relacionados con la dotación de vías públicas, áreas verdes y comunales y en especial -de relevancia para resolución de este asunto- de la habilitación e implementación a cargo del urbanizador, de los elementos necesarios para la idónea prestación de servicios públicos tales como el de la luz, telefonía, agua potable y alcantarillado. La no adecuación de los proyectos urbanísticos a los requerimientos establecidos en el ordenamiento urbano obligan -per ser-, al rechazo de las gestiones incoadas para su levantamiento en aplicación del principio de legalidad. Resulta de relevancia recordar que el bloque de legalidad está conformado no sólo por las fuentes escritas partiendo de la Constitución Política y demás normativa infra constitucional, sino y además, por los valores y principios que de ella dimanan, los tratados internacionales -con especial significación los relativos a derechos fundamentales relacionados con la salud y el medio ambiente-, así como las leyes y disposiciones reglamentarias, según lo ordena el numeral 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En adición, aplican las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, en tanto se constituyen además, en un parámetro delimitador de la discrecionalidad administrativa conforme al artículo 16 del citado cuerpo legal, en tanto obliga a la Administración a que su actuación esté debidamente motivada en el conocimiento teórico adquirido de las distintas metodologías y disciplinas de la ciencia y la técnica cuando ello lo amerite. De esta manera, la voluntad de las instituciones públicas que ejercen algún tipo de control en esta materia, no depende de su libre arbitrio, como sí de las valoraciones objetivas obtenidas conforme a las reglas técnicas aplicables al caso concreto y por su puesto, de la ley. En este sentido se destaca la objetividad de los criterios técnicos, por cuanto "... si una técnica es científica y por lo tanto, por definición, cierta, objetiva y universal, sujeta a reglas uniformes que no dependen de la apreciación personal de un sujeto individual, es obvio que no pueda en este aspecto hablarse de «completa discrecionalidad, sino que corresponde, por el contrario, hablar poco menos que de 'regulación' (sujeción a normas, en el caso de la técnica)»" (MARTÍN GONZÁLEZ, M., en su obra El grado de determinación legal de los conceptos jurídicos. RAP, número 54, 1967, p.239), citado por DESDENTADO DAROCA, Eva. Los problemas del control judicial de la discrecionalidad técnica. (Un estudio crítico de la jurisprudencia. Editorial Civitas, S. A. Madrid. España. 1997. p. 43.). En forma concordante con lo anterior, se expresó por parte de Nombre28 en la Comisión Legislativa que discutió el proyecto de ley de la Ley General de Administración Pública, que para incluir como parámetro de la discrecionalidad administrativa las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, era necesario considerar "... los casos en que la Administración actúe en materias técnicas que tengan un significado claro y preciso en el caso, las reglas técnicas van a ser, en este caso, como leyes, la violación de los aspectos técnicos de un acto administrativo de un servicio público, naturalmente va a ser una ilegalidad exactamente como si se estuviera violando un precepto legal." (QUIRÓS CORONADO, Roberto. Ley General de Administración Pública, Concordada y Anotada con el Debate Legislativo y la Jurisprudencia Constitucional. Editorial Aselex, S. A. San José, Costa Rica. 1996. p. 99.). Teniendo claro entonces lo anterior, el ajuste con las reglas, al menos formalmente consideradas unívocas, de la ciencia y la técnica son, condición indispensable que se incorpora a los parámetros de la actividad administrativa en el marco de su accionar discrecional.- VII.- Sobre el servicio de suministro de agua potable en el plano urbano. Observando lo expresado líneas atrás, se tiene que el aspecto relacionado con la disponibilidad y espacio físico, tanto como el acceso material a la infraestructura necesaria para la dotación del servicio de agua potable, es requisito indispensable y previo a fin de fraccionar y/o urbanizar un inmueble, comprendido ahí el proceso constructivo de edificación en ejercicio del derecho de transformación, derivado en este caso del “ius aedificandi”. De este modo, a propósito del proyecto constructivo de que se trate, se debe acreditar de previo a la expedición de la licencia de construcción mediante la información que comprenda el plano correspondiente y aquella que haya de ser suministrada por quien administre el servicio de dotación de agua potable, que se ha transitado por la aprobación, control y fiscalización por parte de las autoridades públicas que conforme leyes especiales resulten competentes, por la constancia de que la edificación contará con un sistema apropiado, jurídica y legalmente, para entre otros aspectos, abastecer de agua potable al inmueble y en ese tanto, a sus ocupantes. En esta dirección apunta el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, número 3391 del trece de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, en su Capítulo Segundo, que en cuanto a los fraccionamientos, dispone que los planos de un proyecto, requieren la aprobación del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, dado que la mayoría de los servicios públicos cuyos sistemas o infraestructura, resultan indispensable ser emplazados en el suelo, o subsuelo que comprende los accesos o vías públicas a las edificaciones, requieren de condiciones urbanísticas y técnicas indispensables mínimas para que las Municipalidades permitan fraccionamientos. Entre estos requisitos se destacan los siguientes: “II.1 Requisitos. (…) / II.1.3 Los lotes deberán contar con los servicios mínimos existentes en la zona”; “II.2 Accesos: II.2.1 Lotes frente a servidumbre: Todas las parcelas resultantes de un fraccionamiento tendrán acceso directo a vía pública. En casos calificados, el INVU y las Municipalidades podrán admitir la subdivisión de lotes mediante servidumbres de paso, siempre que se cumpla con las siguientes normas: La servidumbre se aceptará en terrenos especiales en que por su ubicación o dimensión se demuestre que es imposible fraccionar con acceso adecuado a vías públicas existentes, utilizándose preferentemente para casos en que ya existan viviendas en el lote. / II.2.1.1 En subdivisiones hasta dé tres (3) lotes para vivienda unifamiliar, se tendrá una servidumbre de tres metros (3,00 m.) de ancho. De éstos, noventa centímetros (0,90 m.) corresponderán a la acera. La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros. / II.2.1.2 Por cada lote adicional para vivienda unifamiliar se requiere un metro (1,00 m.) adicional en el ancho de la servidumbre, hasta completar seis metros (6,00 m.) de ancho. / II.2.1.3 Frente a servidumbres solamente se podrá segregar un máximo de seis (6) lotes . / II.2.1.4 Todos los lotes resultantes de las subdivisiones, deberán tener las medidas reglamentarias. El área de la servidumbre no será computable para efectos de cálculo del área mínima de lote y sobre ella no podrán hacerse construcciones, salvo las de tapias. / Artículo II.2.1.5. La segregación autorizada frente a servidumbre, en los términos de los artículos anteriores, implica que la entrada a los lotes será considerada servidumbre de paso común y en todo momento para cualquier autoridad o funcionarios de las entidades encargadas a prestar servicios públicos, de cualquier índole, así como de aquél a las que corresponde el control urbanístico, municipal, de seguridad pública, salud, bomberos y cualquier otro similar. / No obstante lo indicado en el párrafo anterior, en cuanto a servidumbres, ni la municipalidad, ni ninguna institución pública tienen obligación de darles mantenimiento, ni de prestar servicios en los lotes interiores .". (El resaltado no es del original). De otro lado se encuentra el Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano, Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo número 25902 del doce, de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y siete, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta número 66 del siete de abril de mil novecientos noventa y siete, que dispone en torno a las que ha identificado como áreas especiales de no construcción, según su artículo 3, que: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros pudiendo ser mayor si así lo estableciera el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, además: 3.1 Tales áreas no podrán edificarse pero si podrán dedicarse a parques y juegos infantiles. (…). 3.2 Igualmente podrán dedicarse a la construcción de calles y alamedas con las especificaciones que fije el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 Los planos constructivos de urbanizaciones con servidumbres deberán ir acompañados de la nota de aprobación del anteproyecto por parte de Nombre5630. 3.4 Sobre las áreas de servidumbre de Nombre5630 no podrán realizarse ningún tipo de edificación. 3.5 Dichas servidumbres no podrán considerarse vías públicas para efectos de segregación de propiedades enfrentando a ellas, salvo que queden establecidas previamente como calles en los proyectos de Urbanización. (…)”. (El resaltado no es del original). Se puede agregar en consonancia con lo hasta este punto indicado, que en cuanto a los planos que para efectos constructivos deben encontrarse aprobados y/o visados como condición previa al otorgamiento de una licencia de construcción municipal, debe también observarse el Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo número 27967, del primero de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, que estableció la necesidad de que esos planos constructivos, se encuentren levantados con ajuste lo indicado atrás, en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (artículo 8), así como el Reglamento de Construcciones y sus reformas (artículo 4), sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, cuando aplique. El Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción con claridad sujetó el visado de esos instrumentos técnicos para urbanizaciones, condominios de fincas filiales primarias individualizadas (condominios de lotes) y conjuntos residenciales, al control interinstitucional en cada área de su especialidad, por lo que participan del procedimiento entidades como el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo a través de su Dirección de Urbanismo, el Ministerio de Salud, por medio de sus Oficinas Regionales de Salud y el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados como mínimo. Este reglamento fue derogado por el Decreto Ejecutivo 36550 del veintiocho de abril del dos mil once, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 117, del diecisiete de junio del dos mil once, que en su artículo 2 reiteró la necesidad de la intervención interinstitucional antes mencionada, y vinculó con el procedimiento además, al Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, al Cuerpo Nacional de Bomberos, al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones y al Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Particularmente para el caso de los inmuebles que se pretendan afectar al régimen de propiedad horizontal y urbanizaciones (artículo 8) resulta que los planos respectivos deben encontrarse con ajuste entonces al Reglamento a la Ley Reguladora de Propiedad en Condominio, Decreto Ejecutivo número 32303, del dos de marzo del dos mil cinco, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 74 del diecinueve de abril del dos mil cinco y sus reformas; el relacionado Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, y sus reformas, aprobado en la sesión de la Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo número 3391 del trece de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos; la Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos del Instituto Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados y sus reformas, aprobado en sesión de su Junta Directiva número 2006-730 del veintidós de febrero del dos mil siete, publicado en el Alcance número 8 del Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 55 del diecinueve de marzo del dos mil siete; el también ya citado Reglamento de Construcciones, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 56, Alcance Nº 17 del veintidós de marzo de mil novecientos ochenta y tres y sus reformas; el Manual de Disposiciones Técnicas Generales al Reglamento sobre Seguridad Humana y Protección Contra Incendios (versión 2007 y sus reformas, Memorándum Resolutivo 2007-2320 del primero de agosto del dos mil siete); la “Guía de Trámites para el Registro de la Responsabilidad Profesional” del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 93 del quince de mayo del dos mil ocho y el plan regulador municipal respectivo. Ahora bien, también existe un cuerpo normativo que comprende en el plano técnico, aspectos que debe respetar todo sistema de dotación de agua, entre otros, de agua potable, cual es el Reglamento número 2006-730, publicado en el Alcance número 8, del Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 55 del diecinueve de marzo del dos mil siete, denominado “Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos”. Luego, el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados cuenta adicionalmente con una normativa que regula en parte, la relación jurídica que sostiene con sus abonados, que es una relación además, típica de servicio público. Se trata del Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado número 96, del veinticuatro de junio de mil novecientos noventa y seis. Este reglamento y el anterior, deben relacionarse con el artículo 39 de la Ley de Planificación urbana que dice así: “No se dará permiso para urbanizar terrenos: a) Cuando el proyecto no satisfaga las normas mínimas reglamentarias, o los interesados no hayan cumplido los trámites pertinentes, entre los que está la aprobación indispensable de los planos por la Dirección de Urbanismo y el Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;…”. (El resaltado no es del original). No encontrándose en ningún nivel la normativa reglamentaria indicada, en disconformidad con lo dispuesto en la legislación aplicable en la materia, en el artículo 7 del último reglamento citado, se recuerda de forma sistemática, lo que ya adelanta el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, al indicar que es el propietario de un inmueble en el que exista una edificación, a quien le corresponde requerir al Instituto el suministro de agua potable a través de la conexión debida a la infraestructura que se encuentra emplazada en las vías públicas, cuando éstas se encuentren ubicadas frente a redes de servicio operadas y administradas por el mismo, no obstante lo cual, esto lo es cuando técnicamente resulte procedente según lo dispone su artículo 16, (lo que remite a la Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, entre otras fuentes aplicables). Esta disposición referente a la legitimación para requerir los servicios de suministro de agua potable, obedece y responde armónicamente con lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 de la Ley General de Agua Potable, número 1634, pues en caso de mora, con causa en una deuda insoluta generada por la prestación del servicio de suministro de agua potable, media hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble en el que el servicio se presta con cargo en el abonado, lo que impone decir, que únicamente quien ostente capacidad para disponer de ese patrimonio (el inmueble), podría comprometerlo de este modo. (Ver artículo 32 de este reglamento para el caso de nuevos servicios). Es así, como el artículo 11 del Reglamento relacionado, indica lo siguiente: “Artículo 11.- La deuda proveniente del servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado sanitario que brinda AyA, impone hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble que los recibe, siendo la propiedad la que por ley responde a las obligaciones del cliente ante éste (Ley No 1634, Ley General de Agua Potable), lo anterior sin perjuicio de que Nombre5630 pueda indistintamente utilizar el juicio hipotecario, prendario o simple como medios compulsivos de pago. Las responsabilidades contraídas son transferidas de propietario a propietario sin posibilidad de renuncia”. La norma relacionada resulta lógica y necesaria, en la medida que pretende resguardar la continuidad de un servicio esencial, que en adición, resulta elemento integrante del derecho fundamental a la salud, por lo que la sostenibilidad del mismo es de interés público por excelencia. La necesidad de que sea quien edifica, a quien corresponda, en tanto se trate del emplazamiento de la infraestructura necesaria para la dotación del servicio en propiedad privada, la actividad de provisión de la que devenga en necesaria para el abastecimiento de agua potable, se encuentra reconocida además, en el numeral 12 del mismo reglamento indicado, que reza así: “Los servicios de agua potable y de alcantarillado sanitario los suministra AyA, hasta el límite de propiedad. / Los sistemas e instalaciones internos necesarios para el disfrute de los mismos, son responsabilidad del propietario y permanecen bajo su propiedad exclusiva”. (el resaltado no es del original. Ver además el artículo 18). De este modo y en consonancia con lo dicho, resulta una obligación exclusiva del propietario del inmueble el dar mantenimiento a las instalaciones de que se haya proveído él mismo dentro de la propiedad privada (artículo 13) siendo en consecuencia, el único responsable por cualquier inadecuado funcionamiento del servicio, si lo es con causa en alguna circunstancia que se presente con afectación al sistema con que cuente en su propiedad. Es por eso que no debe confundirse la atribución que tiene el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, ante reclamo por parte de un particular por una facturación que estima desajustada al consumo real, lo que procede a simple requerimiento del usuario, para que se realicen inspecciones dentro de la propiedad privada a fin de detectar cualquier circunstancia que permita justificar el consumo que registra un servicio determinado (tal cual así lo dispone el artículo 26 del reglamento de cita), con el deber de instalar infraestructura y darle mantenimiento, que dentro de la propiedad privada, se insiste, corresponde exclusivamente al propietario del inmueble, como parte del proceso constructivo y posterior uso y disfrute del servicio (artículo 28).- VIII.- Sobre solicitudes para la conexión de un servicio nuevo de suministro de agua potable y/o, la prestación independiente o individualizada de varios servicios para un mismo usuario. En el caso de requerimientos para la conexión de servicios nuevos que formule el propietario del bien, el solicitante debe acreditar al Instituto, que la edificación a la que se pretende proveer del líquido fue levantada contando con planos aprobados y/o visados de los que se haga reflejar, que se tiene acceso directo por vía pública o servidumbre constituida a favor del instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, y que en el inmueble exista una red (infraestructura) para del servicio de interés es requisito insalvable, todo en cumplimiento con las dimensiones que demanda el orden jurídico. La servidumbre constituida jurídicamente a favor del Instituto en estos casos, es la vía que habilita al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, para proceder a la colocación o emplazamiento de infraestructura, haciendo mano de sus recursos (con cargo de los respectivos costos de la obra eso sí, en el propietario del inmueble) y la conexión del servicio dentro de la propiedad privada, garantizándose con ello el libre acceso al inmueble para efectos del ejercicio de las tareas de control, fiscalización, y buena administración del servicio, asociadas éstas últimas a la lectura del registro de los hidrómetros para efectos de la facturación y cobro por el consumo correspondientes, dado que en ningún supuesto el servicio resulta gratuito. Las condiciones técnicas para que ello resulte procedente además, habrían de ser las incorporadas en el reglamento respectivo y que resultan particulares al tipo de servicio de que se trata, lo que implica que no deben corresponder necesariamente con servicios de otro tipo, como lo pueden ser, sólo a título de ejemplo, el de telecomunicaciones y/o electricidad. El artículo 32 arriba citado, replica la necesidad de que sea el propietario del inmueble quien requiera la conexión de un nuevo servicio, si cuenta con el cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos formales y técnicos al respecto. Siempre conforme el reglamento de interés, puede el usuario del servicio requerir al Instituto entre otras cosas, la independización del servicio, lo que implica el emplazamiento de un hidrómetro que registre el consumo en un inmueble de forma independiente y la existencia de varias edificaciones independientes en una misma propiedad (artículo 37). En estos casos, conforme el artículo 38 del mismo cuerpo reglamentario, estas independizaciones sólo proceden en los casos en que el interesado haya además, independizado las instalaciones respectivas y cuando sea técnicamente posible. Para todos los efectos, en el caso de condominios horizontales, la Junta Administradora debe constituir e inscribir una servidumbre de paso a nombre de instituto referido, de lo contrario, las instalaciones deben llegar al límite de la propiedad, frente a vía pública. En todos los casos, es el propietario de cada inmueble o edificación el legitimado para requerir y tornarse en abonado de la entidad prestataria del servicio como requerimiento indispensable, dada la responsabilidad civil que involucran las obligaciones propias de quien recibe el suministro de este bien (hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble) frente a quien presta su suministro a título de un servicio público, que no es gratuito. Así, conforme el artículo 40 ibídem, en los casos en que una propiedad que cuenta con los servicios relacionados es segregada, el propietario del lote donde están localizadas las conexiones, está en la obligación de comunicar dicho fraccionamiento y de solicitar la independización de su conexión, previo el pago de cualquier saldo en la cuenta respectiva. Dicho numeral indica que “… Para todos los efectos las propiedades segregadas responden en parte proporcional a las obligaciones adquiridas por la finca original. Los dueños de los lotes segregados podrán solicitar a Nombre5630 nuevas conexiones conforme a los requerimientos establecidos en este Reglamento…”. (El resaltado no es del original). Finalmente, el artículo 42 dispone que: “Si por algún motivo el propietario requiere que sus conexiones sean trasladadas a otro sitio dentro de su propiedad, que también tenga acceso al sistema público, podrá así solicitarlo. Nombre5630 estudiará el caso y si el traslado es técnicamente posible y han realizado las obras necesarias dentro de los sistemas internos para la nueva localización, se procederá a hacerlo efectivo previo pago de los costos correspondientes”. (El resaltado no es del original). De lo anterior, otro requisito lo es que el inmueble respecto del que habrá de individualizarse el servicio, se encuentre desde el punto de vista registral, segregado como unidad autónoma, pues sólo ésta habría de responder por cualquier obligación no honrada de corte civil por el suministro del bien.- IX.- Sobre el objeto y fundamento de la acción. La demanda que se conoce en los términos del presente instrumento comprende en lo medular una única pretensión, conforme la que se espera, que la autoridad judicial condene a la Administración accionada al despliegue de una actividad específica -condena de hacer- constituida por la orden para que se proceda a la “colocación del tubo madre y sus respectivos medidores en cada uno de nuestros derechos” según así se ha determinado fruto de la demanda interpuesta que nos ocupa y lo dispuesto durante la fase de tramitación de este proceso judicial. Sin temor a equívocos, la acción pretende revertir el acto administrativo negativo, comprendido en el memorando identificado con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, de fecha dieciséis de abril del dos mil doce, dictado por la Dirección Zona IV-GAM del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, según el cual la solicitud de la accionante -y otros, se presume-, para que fuesen individualizados servicios de suministro de agua potable en la propiedad de la que son co-dueños, con la oferta de constituir legalmente una servidumbre de acueducto en el sitio, afectando así la propiedad de los gestionantes a favor del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados como condición exigida por éste, fue rechazada. Tomándose nota, de que la demanda no incorporó extremo petitorio alguno dirigido a la anulación de este acto administrativo negativo formal, la acción no obstante ello, pretende revertir tal decisión administrativa. El fundamento de la acción por otro lado, no cuestiona en ningún nivel argumentativo el motivo del acto así dictado, como sí aspectos ajenos a éste. La actora indicó en lo medular, que con causa en el registro de facturaciones que estima elevadas, así como los daños que terceras personas provocan en la infraestructura e hidrómetros colocados en la entrada de la propiedad, en zona pública, algunos de sus vecinos se ven privados de este servicio, por lo que se interesó en que el que le es suministrado materialmente a ella, y que comparte con otros copropietarios del inmueble -habría que entenderse, como una liberalidad suya ante la necesidad de estos vecinos suyos con los que contribuye o colabora de esa forma- fuese individualizado, a través del emplazamiento de un tubo madre que alimente a la totalidad de las viviendas dentro de la propiedad privada que comprende el inmueble, así como de hidrómetros para cada unidad habitacional levantada en el lugar, de forma que se facture un servicio para cada uno de los propietarios de las viviendas conforme su consumo y de manera autónoma. Lo anterior constituyó la causa o razón que motivó a la accionante a requerir la intervención del Instituto accionado. De la forma indicada, la demanda no comprende discusión alguna o cuestionamiento que proponga analizar si las facturaciones que le han sido efectuadas por el consumo del líquido, han sido correctamente determinadas o no por la Administración, como sí, y exclusivamente, si procede ordenarle la individualización de los servicios (nuevos y existentes) en los términos dichos. La procedencia del eje lógico de la demanda entonces, gira en torno a la afirmación de que la condena de hacer en este caso, resulta en criterio de la accionante procedente, por cuanto primero, dieron según así lo afirma, cumplimiento con los requisitos que en su oportunidad les fueron requeridos, entre otras cosas, declarando que se encontraba en conjunto con sus vecinos copropietarios del bien, dispuestos a ceder en favor del Instituto accionado un derecho de servidumbre y aportaron los planos requeridos a ese propósito; segundo, que transcurrieron dos meses sin que la administración les hubiere dado una respuesta afirmativa a su gestión en violación a su derecho de petición. Paradójicamente y en contradicción con lo anterior, la misma accionante informa ser conocedora de que su solicitud fue expresamente rechazada, y esto con causa en las dimensiones de la servidumbre propuesta a ser constituida sobre el inmueble a favor de la institución demandada conforme las regulaciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo entre otras no cumplió con los mínimos exigidos; tercero, que en su caso el Instituto les da un trato desigual ante la ley, con vista en que en “un sinfín” de casos dentro del mismo cantón, a terceros que se encuentran en su misma situación -y circunstancias habría que entender- sí se les ha dado lo que a ellos se les niega; y, cuarto, que en el inmueble, otras instituciones brindan servicios públicos como el de alumbrado, internet y cable, entre otros, sin ningún problema. En lo estrictamente jurídico, fundamentó su acción sin esbozar estructura argumentativa alguna en dicho apartado del escrito de demanda, limitándose a hacer cita de los artículos 1 y siguientes, así como el 41, ambos de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el 11, 27, 28, 33, 48, 50 y 140 inciso 3) de la Constitución Política, 1 y siguientes del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, así como el primero y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Además y a requerimiento de la Jueza Tramitadora entonces a cargo del presente asunto, (ver resolución dictada a las once horas treinta y nueve minutos del siete de diciembre del dos mil doce), se indicó por escrito presentado a estrados judiciales el día catorce de diciembre del dos mi doce (folio 20) como sigue: “A- Me fundamento en el artículo 27, 41 de la Constitución Política, normas que amparan mi derecho de petición ante la Administración Pública por obtener un servicio que me beneficia en cuanto a mi salud, y en el campo económico. Fundamentación que amparo y sustento con los artículos 11, 112, 275, siguientes y concordantes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en el tanto que mi demanda se dirige a una institución pública como es el A y A, en razón de la naturaleza del servicio. Dado que pasaron más de dos meses sin que tuviera respuesta afirmativa a nuestra petición, y derecho de contar con un servicio de agua con su respectivo medidor, omisión que atenta contra el derecho de petición, los principios de igualdad constitucional, ya que en condiciones iguales la demandada me trata diferente y lesiona mis intereses económicos. / B- Fundamento mi demanda en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la cual me sustenta todo lo anteriormente dicho, y me facultad (sic) según el amparo presentado a acudir a la presente instancia. / C- En la Ley General de Salud, en su artículo primero, siguientes y concordantes, en razón de que el servicio que se está solicitando va dirigido a mejorar mi nivel socio económico y mi bienestar, y dado que el A y A no contesta en tiempo, y cada vez que lo hace pide más requisitos, a pesar de ser omisión (sic) y complaciente con respecto a otros usuarios que en las mismas condiciones cuenta (sic) con el servicio plateado (sic), considero que los fundamentos esgrimidos son los suficientes para proceder con la presente demanda. / D- De igual forma basado en el principio de igualdad consagrado en la Constitución Política. / E- En el artículo 261 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en razón de que mi petición fue resuelta en un plazo posterior a la solicitado, lo cual me da legitimación para hacer valer mi derechos (sic) en jurisdiccional (sic) a la que estoy acudiendo”. De este modo, de forma que se debe indicar no deja de resultar algo confusa, adicionó en lo que lleva mayor relevancia, que la procedencia de lo pretendido habría de obedecer a que su solicitud no fue atendida dentro del plazo de ley, con lo que parece insinuar en criterio de este Tribunal -sin expresarlo así- que habría de haber mediado una suerte de silencio positivo ante su gestión. Dicho lo anterior, procede esta Cámara de juzgadores a realizar el análisis que se dirá.- X.- Sobre la improcedencia de la demanda en todos sus extremos. Estima este Tribunal que el presente asunto habrá de ser resuelto, imponiéndose declarar la improcedencia de la demanda en todos sus extremos, por las razones que se dirán.- 1.- Sobre los hechos que se han tenido como probados en la presente causa. Por resultar fiel reflejo de la prueba que obra en autos, este Tribunal ha tenido por probado que la señora Nombre40366 , es copropietaria registral del dominio sobre el inmueble inscrito en el Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, matrícula de folio real número Placa7409 , derecho identificado con el número cero cero cinco, situado en el Distrito Segundo, San Jerónimo, Cantón décimo catorce, Moravia, desde el día dieciocho de abril del dos mil ocho (certificación registral visible a folio 15 del expediente judicial). Además de no haber resultado un hecho controvertido, se constató también con la práctica por parte de este Tribunal del reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce en el sitio de interés, que en el inmueble que se encuentra registralmente configurado como una franja de tierra, con un solo acceso material a vía pública, han sido levantadas un sinnúmero de viviendas, cada una de las cuales se encuentra habitada, presuntamente según así se afirmó por la parte actora, por el resto de los copropietarios en derechos del bien en cuestión. Esas edificaciones son autónomas e independientes, aunque colindantes una con la otra, y conforme así lo indicó la accionante, se encuentran residiendo en esos inmuebles, al menos once familias. Las edificaciones levantadas no tienen frente a calle pública, pero cuentan con frente a un callejón que les da acceso a aquella. (Las manifestaciones de la parte actora en su escrito de demanda, visible a folios 16 y 17, en relación con el 20 en aplicación del artículo 341 del Código Procesal Civil, así como lo apreciado en el reconocimiento judicial efectuado el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce). Según se hizo constar por un profesional en ingeniería de la oficina del Instituto demandado y consta en el expediente administrativo levantado al efecto, identificada como la UEN de Optimización de Sistemas según el memorando número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, el callejón de acceso a las viviendas construidas internamente cuenta en promedio con un ancho de tres metros setenta y cinco centímetros metros de ancho. (El informe se encuentra visible a folio 76 del expediente administrativo). En el expediente administrativo y con ocasión de los documentos registrales y catastrales presentados en su oportunidad por los interesados, así como otros documentos que son copia del testimonio de las escrituras públicas mediante las que adquirieron la copropiedad del inmueble y otros documentos de traslado del dominio o la simple posesión en iguales términos (la prueba está visible a folios del 01 al 09, del 13 al 22, del 24 al 27, 29, 30, del 55 al 67, 70, 71, 74, del 81 al 83 todos del expediente administrativo) las edificaciones internas que no tienen frente a calle pública y no cuentan con un acceso que se encuentre constituido como servidumbre de paso registralmente inscrita en el registro público respectivo en cumplimiento con los requisitos que impone el ordenamiento jurídico, por lo que materialmente habrá de insistirse, se trata desde el punto de vista material, de un callejón de acceso que aunque existente en la realidad, no lo es desde el punto de vista jurídico y registral. (Ver además el folio 15 del expediente principal). La finca por otra parte, se encuentra en copropiedad y cada uno de sus ocupantes se ha afirmado, habita una vivienda que ha sido edificada autónomamente con un único acceso constituido por ese callejón, no obstante, ninguno de estos derechos se encuentra formal y registralmente localizado. De esta manera, no existe más que una sola propiedad, en la que han sido levantadas viviendas en un tanto de al menos once, sin que el bien haya sido formalmente fraccionado o urbanizado. Desde el punto de vista estrictamente jurídico entonces, las propiedades que se ha acusado, son titularidad de cada propietario, no existen como unidad frente a terceros al no tener existencia registral. Pues bien, como la misma accionante así lo narra en su acción, para el caso de la vivienda que habita, la misma cuenta con el servicio de suministro de agua potable que brinda Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, identificado como el “NIS: 340-1813” justamente a nombre de la relacionada señora Nombre40366 , con “localización de envío: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”, como se desprende de la copia de la facturación del servicio relacionado visible a folio 9 del expediente principal. La accionante narró también, y esto se pudo constatar con la práctica del reconocimiento judicial llevado a cabo el día trece de enero del presente año, que comparte con terceras personas, también copropietarias del inmueble y residentes en algunas de las viviendas edificadas en el sitio, el servicio de suministro de agua potable del que es abonada, sea el identificado con el “NIS: 340-1813”, “localización de envío: 1-014-001-005-00600-20000-004”. No siendo posible determinar si lo fue de oficio o a ruego de la accionante, o en su caso, a ruego de alguno de los copropietarios del inmueble con causa en los montos que se estaban facturando por la prestación del servicio, el día quince de marzo del dos mil once, personal del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, habría efectuado una inspección para la revisión domiciliaria y/o abastecimiento, en el inmueble a que refiere el hecho probado anterior y en relación con el servicio de suministro de agua potable que se presta en el sitio a nombre de la señora Nombre40366 . Como resultado, fue levantada la orden de servicio número 17279793, en la que se consignó a título de comentarios efectuados por el funcionario responsable y en lo que resulta relevante que: “Existe fuga interna en un trayecto de 200 en zona verde. Se recomienda cortar x (sic) secciones para localizar la misma…”. (El acta consta visible a folio 43 del expediente administrativo). Como se observa a folio 44 del expediente administrativo y como reacción a estos hallazgos, el día diecisiete de marzo del dos mil once, un grupo de cinco personas que se identificaron como Nombre40367 ; Nombre40368 (sic); Nombre40369 y Nombre40370 , presentaron ante las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, un documento en el que no obstante reza en su encabezado, que es dirigido a dichas autoridades exclusivamente por parte de la señora Nombre40366 , no se encuentra suscrito por ésta, en el que se indicó lo siguiente y en lo que resulta relevante: “Yo Nombre40366 , Céd 1 10055 836 no estoy de acuerdo con dicha reinspección que se me hizo en día 15 de marzo del 2011, por motivo (sic) que la persona que la realizó expuso que tengo una fuga en un área de 200 metros en frente de mi casa en una zona verde; (sic) / Cuando en realidad es paso de servidumbre pública, donde pasa un ramal de tubos (sic) / De todos los vecinos, donde jamás se podría revisar o escarbar como dijo cuyo (sic) inspector, por evitar problemas con los vecinos, por este motivo solicitamos su comprensión. / Agradeceríamos para que nos tomen en cuenta para poder financiar el tubo madre y traslado de medidores debido a que existe paso de servidumbre pública en cual contamos con servicio de alumbrado público y medidores de electricidad casa por casa (sic) Atentamente (sic) Vecinos muy afectados por altos consumos de agua y esperando una pronta respuesta”. (Folio 44 del expediente administrativo). En atención a la solicitud dicha, el día veintidós de marzo del dos mil once, la oficina de Estudios Técnicos Zona IV del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, se dirigió por escrito a la señora Nombre40366 , informándole que la razón de las fluctuaciones que se daban en la facturación del servicio, se debían a la existencia de fugas localizadas al interior del inmueble de interés (visibles y no visibles) indicándosele que conforme el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios a los Clientes, artículos 12 y 13, es responsabilidad del usuario mantener en buen estado las instalaciones que estando destinadas al suministro de agua potable, se encuentran emplazadas a lo interno de la propiedad privada, al tiempo, que para la solución del problema que se presentaba asociado con la existencia de fugas, en su momento se le habrían comunicado a título de recomendaciones, las acciones (mejoras) a adoptar, por lo que una vez efectuadas las mismas habrían de solicitar una nueva inspección para verificar lo pertinente en relación con el hidrómetro y su funcionamiento. (Folios del 41 al 43 del expediente administrativo). También consta una posterior gestión a folio 55 del expediente administrativo, exclusivamente efectuada por la señora Nombre40366 , en esta oportunidad, el día ocho de noviembre del dos mil once, conforme la que solicitó el trasladado de los servicios de suministro de agua potable que identificó con los números NIS 531-1678, 251-8619, 340-3715, 340-1813, 340-3040, 256-7983, 521-4288, 535-5407, (sólo uno de ellos corresponde a la actora) así como que se instalen otros servicios, que identificó como nuevos, a quienes identificó como: “Ángel Enrique Artavia Blanco, Anabelle Rodríguez Mora, Nuria Jeanette Gamboa Rodríguez, Mauricio Alejandro Ibarra Cedeño, José Manuel Alvarado Villalobos, Reynaldo Molina Chaves, Nombre40366 , Álvaro F (sic) Brenes Huertas, Javier García Giraldo, Jefry Francisco Molina Durán, Dagoberto Vergs (sic) Nombre8703”. Apenas un día con posterioridad a la formulación de la solicitud anterior, sea, el día nueve de noviembre del dos mil once, la oficina de “Nuevos Servicios Zona IV, Guadalupe” , expidió el memorando identificado con el número UENSC-ZIV-OCG-2011-153, conforme el cual se le informó a la señora Nombre40366 en lo que resulta relevante, lo siguiente: “En respuesta a su consulta, respecto a ceder la servidumbre a favor del AyA, así como el traslado de hidrómetros y solicitud de nuevos servicios, le indico lo siguiente: De acuerdo a la consulta hecha al Departamento de Urbanizaciones, se debe presentar formal solicitud de que están dispuestos a ceder dicha servidumbre a favor del AyA. Esta debe ser dirigida a la Ing. Katty Borges (aportar copia de plano catastro), dirección Dirección4959 . / En cuanto a lo que corresponde a traslado de hidrómetros y nuevos servicios, al ser varios derechos, cada co-propietario debe cumplir con los requisitos estipulados en el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Cliente”. (Ver folio 86 del expediente administrativo). El día veintiocho de noviembre del dos mil once, exclusivamente la señora Nombre40366 , presentó, otra nota mediante la cual indicó que los gestionantes de la solicitud para individualizar el servicio de suministro de agua potable en el inmueble de interés, se encontraban de acuerdo en ceder una servidumbre de paso a favor del Instituto accionado, a efecto de lo cual, indicaron aportar los planos catastrados de los derechos y se agregó en la nota además: “se adjuntan planos sin catastrar”. (Ver folio 09 del expediente administrativo). Así, el día cinco de diciembre del dos mil once, el Ingeniero Isidro Solís Blanco, de la oficina identificada como “UEN-Optimización de Sistemas GAM”, emitió el memorando identificado con el número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, remitido a la “Oficina de Urbanizaciones UEN P y C” el día siete de diciembre del mismo año -ambas oficinas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados-, conforme en cual y en lo que resulta de interés, se indicó como sigue en relación con el caso que nos ocupa: “Esta UEN no aprueba la construcción de servidumbre en la finca plano catastrado SJ-26464-1976 por las siguientes razones técnicas: 1- En la Sub Gerencia de Gestión de Sistemas GAM, la prestación de servicios individualizados, no se hace dentro de servidumbres de paso, para propiedades internas. / 2- El ancho de la servidumbre a proponer es muy reducido, comparado con la longitud de la misma. Lo que dificultaría el ingreso y los trabajos de mantenimiento en una red a instalar. / 3- Contraviene las regulaciones del INVU, (Reglamento para el control nacional de fraccionamientos y urbanizaciones, Capítulo II) en cuanto a la conformación de servidumbres (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbres). / 4- Los lotes internos no tienen plano catastrado aprobado, y por ende tampoco registro individual de propiedad, por lo que no se puede dar el servicio de agua a estos”. (Ver folio 76 del expediente administrativo). En fecha veinticuatro de enero del dos mil doce, la oficina identificada como “Urbanizaciones UEN P y C”, dirigió el memorando identificado con el número SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14, a la oficina de la Dirección Zona IV-GAM, mediante el que además de informar sobre el contenido del memorando emitido por el Ingeniero Isidro Solís número SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256, agregó en lo conducente que: “Por su parte el departamento de topografía realizó una visita a la propiedad el día 19 de enero del presente año. El objetivo de la visita fue inspeccionar la servidumbre que da acceso a las casas de habitación interiores y que se pretende constituir a favor de AyA, con el fin de determinar si es posible aprobar o no los planos de servidumbre. El ancho de la servidumbre varía aproximadamente entre 3.89 y 4,15 m, por su parte el acceso a las construcciones supera los 250 m de largo. Ante esta situación el ancho de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el decreto ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3ero establece (…). / Dado que este cantón cuenta con Plan Regulador y atendiendo la recomendación hecha por la Lic. Melissa Chaves, siendo la Municipalidad de Moravia el ente rector en materia de administración de su territorio, se consultó ante la Arq. Dilana Vargas (funcionaria de la Institución) la factibilidad de constitución de la servidumbre en cuanto a dimensiones mínimas y máximas establecidas por este ente. De igual modo se informó que la servidumbre a construir no se apega a lo establecido en el Plan Regulador. / De acuerdo al plano de servidumbre presentado ante el departamento de urbanizaciones el pasado 19 de diciembre del 2011, los vecinos solicitan se constituya la servidumbre de paso de tubería con un ancho de 4,00 m y 337,51 m de longitud, según lo ya mencionado el documento aportado no se apega a los diferentes reglamentos y estatutos que la ley establece. Por lo cual no podrán ser aprobados dichos planos, hasta tanto cumplan con el ancho mínimo y longitud máxima permitidas o un ente superior determine lo contrario”. (Ver los folios del 78 al 80 del expediente administrativo). Finalmente, a la solicitud realizada por la aquí accionante, se le dio respuesta por medio del memorando identificado con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, de fecha dieciséis de abril del dos mil doce, dictado por la Dirección Zona IV-GAM del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, con el que le fue comunicado a la señora Nombre40366 el rechazo de su solicitud para la aprobación de una servidumbre de paso para la prestación del servicio individualizado del suministro de agua potable sobre el inmueble del que es propietaria de un derecho y en favor de dicho Instituto, a fin de que fuese instalado un tubo madre en la misma, sobre la servidumbre de paso privada, ya existente y que da acceso a los inmuebles edificados al interior del mismo y en ese tanto, a la individualización de servicios (nuevos y los existentes), en razón de que: PRIMERO: conforme el criterio emitido por la Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorando SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), la prestación de servicios individualizados no se hacen dentro de servidumbre de paso para propiedades internas; que el ancho de la servidumbre propuesta a ser constituida conforme la gestión administrativa efectuada, comprende un ancho muy reducido en relación con su longitud, que dificulta el ingreso de personal y los trabajos de mantenimiento de una eventual red de distribución a instalar; que las dimensiones no se ajustan a lo dispuesto en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, aprobado por la Junta Directiva de dicha institución en su sesión número 3391 de trece de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, publicado en el Alcance número 18 del Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 57 del veintitrés de marzo de mil novecientos ochenta y tres, en su Capítulo Segundo (ancho, largo, área y cantidad de fraccionamientos internos frente a servidumbre); que los lotes interiores no cuentan con plano catastrado aprobado, ni con registro individual de cada propiedad; SEGUNDO: Que conforme el criterio del Departamento de Topografía (memorando SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) habiéndose efectuado una visita al sitio de interés, se determinó que “el ancho observado varía de entre los 3,89 y los 4,15 metros y que la longitud de la misma supera los 250 metros. Ante esta situación, el ancho indicado de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3°, establece: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros…” / Este decreto aplica únicamente para distritos dentro del Área de Control Urbanístico, del cual es parte el Distrito de San Jerónimo, Cantón de Moravia. Respecto a la longitud de la servidumbre anota que, en concordancia con lo mencionado por parte del Ing. Isidro Solís, excede el mínimo establecido en el Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, tal como se cita en el punto ii.2.1.1 “… La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros.”; TERCERO : que encontrándose esta materia además contemplada en la normativa que comprende el plan regulador de la Municipalidad de Moravia, consultada una funcionaria municipal identificada como la Ingeniera Diana Vargas, indicó esta que las dimensiones de la servidumbre propuesta no se apegan a lo establecido en dicho Plan Regulador, todo lo anterior por lo que: “… siendo la solicitud de los vecinos de acuerdo con el plano catastrado ya indicado, se (sic) constituya la servidumbre de paso con un ancho de 4,00 metros y una longitud de 337,51 metros, para que luego se instale una tubería, de acuerdo con lo anteriormente indicado, esta solicitud no se apega a las condiciones técnicas ni a los (sic) establecido en los Reglamentos y Estatutos que (sic) la Ley indicada, por lo que no se puede aprobar dicha solicitud, hasta tanto no cumplan con el ancho mínimo y la longitud máxima permitidas, o que un ente superior determine lo contrario”. (Folios 04 y 05 del expediente judicial). Baste con indicar que la gestionante no cuestiona en la presente causa la realidad de las apreciaciones técnicas tanto como jurídicas con las que se dio sustento al rechazo de su solicitud, conformando el motivo de tal acto. Además, en criterio de este Tribunal, a simple vista lo observado por la autoridad accionada y la decisión tomada, se habría ajustado con la regulación legal y reglamentaria aplicable en la material, tal y como ha sido expuesto en el presente fallo, por lo que siquiera haciendo una revisión oficiosa podría decirse, que medien circunstancias que permitan dictar la nulidad del acto formal negativo dictado en contra de los intereses de la accionante. En lo que sí formuló alegatos en soporte de su demanda, que sin importar la anulación del acto, se pretende revieran los efectos del mismo, se pasa a decir lo que sigue.- 2.- Sobre la alegada inobservancia del derecho de petición y/o en su caso, la operación del instituto del silencio positivo. Estima este Tribunal que no lleva razón la accionante en sus reproches. Sobre el particular, baste con indicar en un primer nivel, que como bien lo hace ver la representación del Instituto demandado, la accionante parece confundir la violación el derecho referido, con el hecho de que sus gestiones no hayan tenido el éxito esperado por virtud del rechazo expreso que se hizo a lo en su oportunidad requerido administrativamente. Nótese que como se señaló líneas atrás, a la solicitud realizada, se le dio respuesta por medio del memorando identificado con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, de fecha dieciséis de abril del dos mil doce, dictado por la Dirección Zona IV-GAM del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, con el que le fue comunicado a la señora Nombre40366 el rechazo de su solicitud Tal acto se justificó en diversas razones, entre otras, unas de corte técnico, ninguna de las cuales cuestiona por estimarlas incorrectamente apreciadas, lo que habría hablado de un vicio en el motivo del acto negativo dictado en contra de sus intereses, que habría además de provocar su anulación, que por lo demás, no se encuentra siendo extremo que se haya peticionado en la presente acción. De este modo, de entrada su alegato de que ante una solicitud como la que formuló no se le dio respuesta, no se ajusta a la realidad de los hechos, por lo que habiéndose acreditado lo correspondiente con vista en la prueba que consta en el expediente administrativo, hace que se imponga el rechazo de lo peticionado en esta línea de ideas, aún y pasando por alto, que no se pretende la anulación del acto formal negativo enunciado, lo cual sin duda es supuesto necesario que habiendo sido omitido en la acción, impide igualmente y de entrada, acceder a la condena de hacer que pretende en contra, se dicte en contra del Instituto accionado. Tampoco es correcto por la misma circunstancia, que haya operado el instituto del silencio positivo en el caso concreto. Obsérvese sobre el particular que la norma que prevé este supuesto se encuentra comprendida en el artículo 330 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública en los siguientes términos: “1. El silencio de la Administración se entenderá positivo cuando así se establezca expresamente o cuando se trate de autorizaciones o aprobaciones que deban acordarse en el ejercicio de funciones de fiscalización y tutela. / 2. También se entenderá positivo el silencio cuando se trate de solicitudes de permisos, licencias y autorizaciones”. Presupuesto para que se estime operado el instituto, lo es que la Administración guarde silencio frente a una gestión de estilo, sea, que no se pronuncie en torno a ella dentro del plazo previsto por el ordenamiento jurídico para que ello opere, aunque sea para rechazar la gestión. Se insiste en el sentido de que con independencia de si en casos como el que nos ocupa -visto lo que se requirió a la Administración- es susceptible de operar la figura que provoca la emergencia de un acto positivo presunto por silencio positivo (lo que hace suponer que de haber sido ello así, la parte estaría peticionando la ejecución forzosa del dicho acto, cosa que tampoco es objeto de la presente causa) es lo cierto que su solicitud sí fue atendida en rechazo de la misma con ocasión del dictado de un acto formal y expreso, circunstancia que habiendo sido probada, es suficiente para afirmar que no lleva razón quien acciona en su alegato, por lo que tampoco por esta razón resulta procedente su demanda en aplicación de la norma legal relacionada. Punto aparte, el alegato de que la actora y resto de gestionantes, hayan dado cumplimiento a la totalidad de los requisitos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico, legal o infra legal, a fin de que resultase procedente la individualización de los servicios de interés en propiedad privada, lo que se pasa a analizar seguidamente.- 3.- Sobre el incumplimiento con los requisitos legal y reglamentariamente exigidos a fin de que resulte procedente la individualización de servicios de agua potable e instalación de hidrómetros en propiedad privada. No puede pasarse por alto, que como hecho que se ha estimado probado en este asunto y se reitera, tal cual la propia accionante acreditó con la prueba aportada de su parte visible a folios 04 y 05 del expediente judicial, por medio del memorando identificado con el número PD-GAM-ZIV-2012-05, de fecha dieciséis de abril del dos mil doce, dictado por la Dirección Zona IV-GAM del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, le fue comunicado a la señora Nombre40366 el rechazo de su solicitud para la aprobación de una servidumbre de paso para la prestación del servicio individualizado del suministro de agua potable sobre el inmueble del que es propietaria de un derecho y en favor de dicho Instituto, a fin de que fuese instalado un tubo madre en la misma, sobre la servidumbre de paso privada, ya existente y que da acceso a los inmuebles edificados al interior del mismo. El acto en cuestión expresó el motivo en que se sustentó el mismo, siendo elemento material objetivo de dicha conducta, que no es cuestionado por quien demanda en ningún nivel. Así, una cosa lo es que la accionante y otros interesados, hayan proporcionado a requerimiento de la Administración la documentación e información que la ésta requirió administrativamente y otra, que el contenido de esa documentación, dé cuenta del cumplimiento con los requerimientos que exige el ordenamiento jurídico, entendido como bloque de legalidad, a fin de hacer procedente sus aspiraciones. De este modo, obsérvese que el rechazo de la gestión fue motivado en diversos aspectos, que en síntesis se resumen en que en criterio de la Dirección de la UEN de Optimización de sistemas de la GAM (memorando SUB-G-SGAM-UEN-OS-2011-256), la prestación de servicios individualizados no se hacen dentro de servidumbre de paso para propiedades internas; que el ancho de la servidumbre propuesta a ser constituida conforme la gestión administrativa efectuada, comprende un ancho muy reducido en relación con su longitud, que dificulta el ingreso de personal y los trabajos de mantenimiento de una eventual red de distribución a instalar, a lo que se suma, que las dimensiones no se ajustan a lo dispuesto en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo. A este se acto se sumó, que el Departamento de Topografía (memorando SUB-G-AID-UEN-PyC-URB-M-2012-14) habiendo efectuado una visita al sitio de interés, determinó que “el ancho observado varía de entre los 3,89 y los 4,15 metros y que la longitud de la misma supera los 250 metros. Ante esta situación, el ancho indicado de la servidumbre contraviene lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 25902-MIVAH-MP-MINAE en donde el artículo 3°, establece: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros…” / Este decreto aplica únicamente para distritos dentro del Área de Control Urbanístico, del cual es parte el Distrito de San Jerónimo, Cantón de Moravia. Respecto a la longitud de la servidumbre anota que, en concordancia con lo mencionado por parte del Ing. Isidro Solís, excede el mínimo establecido en el Reglamento para el Control de Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, tal como se cita en el punto ii.2.1.1 “… La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros.”; que los lotes interiores no cuentan con plano catastrado aprobado, ni con registro individual de cada propiedad en cabeza de cada copropietario -se agrega por este Tribunal -. Además, se indicó que la constitución de una servidumbre en los términos propuestos, se encuentra impedida por la normativa comprendida en el plan regulador municipal, lo que fue sustentado en una consulta efectuada al personal de la Municipalidad respectiva (Ingeniera Diana Vargas) según así se afirma en el acto comunicado en su oportunidad a la actora. Así, se le indicó a la accionante que: “… siendo la solicitud de los vecinos de acuerdo con el plano catastrado ya indicado, se (sic) constituya la servidumbre de paso con un ancho de 4,00 metros y una longitud de 337,51 metros, para que luego se instale una tubería, de acuerdo con lo anteriormente indicado, esta solicitud no se apega a las condiciones técnicas ni a los (sic) establecido en los Reglamentos y Estatutos que (sic) la Ley indicada, por lo que no se puede aprobar dicha solicitud, hasta tanto no cumplan con el ancho mínimo y la longitud máxima permitidas, o que un ente superior determine lo contrario”. Este Tribunal considera, que aún y pasando por alto, la circunstancia de si la construcción de las viviendas en el sitio de interés por parte de los copropietarios de la finca inscrita en el Registro Nacional, Partido de San José, matrícula de folio real Placa7409 , se ajustó o no históricamente a las condiciones que impone el bloque de legalidad en tanto regulada se encuentra esa actividad por las reglas que informan derecho urbanístico y el ejercicio de “ius aedificandi”, (fraccionamiento y/o urbanización en inmuebles, así como la regulación par el otorgamiento de licencias constructivas municipales) es claro al no constituir un hecho controvertido, que efectivamente las dimensiones de la servidumbre que pretendían constituir los interesados a favor del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, resulta jurídicamente inviable, al no comprender los requerimientos que el orden jurídico de corte urbanístico dispone como condición insalvable, así como los requerimientos técnicos correspondientes. Ver el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, número 3391 del trece de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, en su Capítulo Segundo, que en cuanto a los fraccionamientos, dispone que los planos de un proyecto, requieren la aprobación del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, dado que la mayoría de los servicios públicos cuyos sistemas o infraestructura, resultan indispensable ser emplazados en el suelo, o subsuelo que comprende los accesos o vías públicas a las edificaciones, requieren de condiciones urbanísticas y técnicas indispensables mínimas para que las Municipalidades permitan fraccionamientos, específicamente su numeral 2.1.1, dispone que: “En subdivisiones hasta dé tres (3) lotes para vivienda unifamiliar, se tendrá una servidumbre de tres metros (3,00 m.) de ancho. De éstos, noventa centímetros (0,90 m.) corresponderán a la acera. La longitud de una servidumbre de acceso a lotes interiores no excederá de 60 metros. / II.2.1.2 Por cada lote adicional para vivienda unifamiliar se requiere un metro (1,00 m.) adicional en el ancho de la servidumbre, hasta completar seis metros (6,00 m.) de ancho. / II.2.1.3 Frente a servidumbres solamente se podrá segregar un máximo de seis (6) lotes . / II.2.1.4 Todos los lotes resultantes de las subdivisiones, deberán tener las medidas reglamentarias. El área de la servidumbre no será computable para efectos de cálculo del área mínima de lote y sobre ella no podrán hacerse construcciones, salvo las de tapias. / Artículo II.2.1.5. La segregación autorizada frente a servidumbre, en los términos de los artículos anteriores, implica que la entrada a los lotes será considerada servidumbre de paso común y en todo momento para cualquier autoridad o funcionarios de las entidades encargadas a prestar servicios públicos, de cualquier índole, así como de aquél a las que corresponde el control urbanístico, municipal, de seguridad pública, salud, bomberos y cualquier otro similar. / No obstante lo indicado en el párrafo anterior, en cuanto a servidumbres, ni la municipalidad, ni ninguna institución pública tienen obligación de darles mantenimiento, ni de prestar servicios en los lotes interiores .". (El resaltado no es del original). De otro lado se encuentra el Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, Decreto Ejecutivo número 25902 del doce de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y siete, publicado en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta número 66 del siete de abril de mil novecientos noventa y siete, que dispone en torno a las que ha identificado como áreas especiales de no construcción según su artículo 3, que: “El área necesaria para el establecimiento de servidumbre de agua potable, pluvial y de alcantarillados tendrá como mínimo un ancho de seis metros pudiendo ser mayor si así lo estableciera el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, además: 3.1 Tales áreas no podrán edificarse pero si podrán dedicarse a parques y juegos infantiles. (…). 3.2 Igualmente podrán dedicarse a la construcción de calles y alamedas con las especificaciones que fije el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. 3.3 Los planos constructivos de urbanizaciones con servidumbres deberán ir acompañados de la nota de aprobación del anteproyecto por parte de Nombre5630. 3.4 Sobre las áreas de servidumbre de Nombre5630 no podrán realizarse ningún tipo de edificación. 3.5 Dichas servidumbres no podrán considerarse vías públicas para efectos de segregación de propiedades enfrentando a ellas, salvo que queden establecidas previamente como calles en los proyectos de Urbanización. (…)”. (El resaltado no es del original) . Se puede agregar en consonancia con lo hasta lo a este punto indicado, que en cuanto a los planos que para efectos constructivos deben encontrarse aprobados y/o visados como condición previa al otorgamiento de una licencia de construcción municipal, el Reglamento para el Trámite de Visado de Planos para la Construcción, Decreto Ejecutivo número 27967, del primero de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, estableció la necesidad de que esos planos constructivos, se encuentren levantados con ajuste al indicado atrás, y en el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones (artículo 8), así como el Reglamento de Construcciones y sus reformas (artículo 4), sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Plan Regional Desarrollo Urbano Gran Área Metropolitana, cuando aplique. Por otra parte, y sin perjuicio con lo dispuesto en el Reglamento número 2006-730, publicado en el Alcance número 8, del Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 55 del diecinueve de marzo del dos mil siete, denominado “Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos” el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados cuenta con un reglamento adicional que regula en parte, la relación jurídica que sostiene con sus abonados, en una relación además, típica de servicio público. Se trata del Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios al Abonado número 96, del veinticuatro de junio de mil novecientos noventa y seis. Este reglamento debe relacionarse con el artículo 39 de la Ley de Planificación urbana que dice así: “No se dará permiso para urbanizar terrenos: a) Cuando el proyecto no satisfaga las normas mínimas reglamentarias, o los interesados no hayan cumplido los trámites pertinentes, entre los que está la aprobación indispensable de los planos por la Dirección de Urbanismo y el Servicio Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillado;…”. No encontrándose en ningún nivel la normativa reglamenta indicada, en disconformidad con lo dispuesto en la legislación aplicable en la materia, en su artículo 7, recuerda que es el propietario de un inmueble en el que exista una edificación, a quien le corresponde requerir al Instituto el suministro de agua potable a través de la conexión debida a la infraestructura que se encuentra emplazada en las vías públicas, cuando éstas se encuentren ubicadas frente a redes de servicio, operadas y administradas el mismo, no obstante lo cual, esto lo es, cuando técnicamente resulte procedente según dispone su artículo 16, (lo que remite a la Reglamentación Técnica para Diseño y Construcción de Urbanizaciones, Condominios y Fraccionamientos, entre otras fuentes aplicables). Esta disposición referente a la legitimación para requerir los servicios de suministro de agua potable, obedece y responde armónicamente con lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 de la Ley General de Agua Potable, número 1634, pues en caso de mora, con causa en una deuda insoluta generada por la prestación del servicio de suministro de agua potable, media hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble en el que el servicio se presta con cargo en el abonado, lo que impone decir, que únicamente quien ostente capacidad para disponer de ese patrimonio (inmueble), podría comprometerlo de este modo. (Ver artículo 32 de este reglamento para el caso de nuevos servicios). Es así como el artículo 11 del reglamento relacionado indica lo siguiente: “Artículo 11.- La deuda proveniente del servicio de agua potable y alcantarillado sanitario que brinda AyA, impone hipoteca legal sobre el inmueble que los recibe, siendo la propiedad la que por ley responde a las obligaciones del cliente ante éste (Ley No 1634, Ley General de Agua Potable), lo anterior sin perjuicio de que Nombre5630 pueda indistintamente utilizar el juicio hipotecario, prendario o simple como medios compulsivos de pago. Las responsabilidades contraídas son transferidas de propietario a propietario sin posibilidad de renuncia”. La norma relacionada resulta lógica y necesaria, en la medida que pretende resguardar la continuidad de un servicio esencial que en adición, resulta elemento integrante del derecho fundamental a la salud, por lo que la sostenibilidad del mismo es de interés público por excelencia. Ninguno de los copropietarios de la finca de interés ha localizado registralmente su derecho, ni cuenta con planos debidamente visados o aprobados, menos con la formal inscripción de una servidumbre de paso que les dé acceso a la vía pública, que además de cumplir con los requerimientos técnicos que demanda la normativa en materia del suministro de agua potable e importa que la servidumbre además se constituya par acueducto en favor dl Instituto, cumpla con la normativa general urbanística. Siendo así, no queda más que decir que el reproche de que se ha dado cumplimiento con los requisitos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico, dista de ser correcto, por lo que siendo lo contrario con claridad, hace que el reproche de la accionante no resulte de recibo y por ende, impone la improcedencia de lo peticionado en la presente causa en ese tanto.- 4.- Sobre el alegato relacionado con un trato desigual ante la ley. Alegó la parte actora en soporte argumentativo de su acción, que lo que a ella se le niega por parte del Instituto accionado, éste, se lo ha concedido a otros usuarios del servicio dentro del mismo cantón, en un “sinfín” de casos. En un primer nivel de análisis, la única prueba que obra al respecto, que da cuenta de un único caso en torno al que la actora, habría de estimar que se ha producido este supuesto, no resulta concluyente. Se trata de la práctica del reconocimiento judicial llevado a cabo el día trece de enero del dos mil catorce, luego de haberse observado la finca de la que actora es copropietaria, a una distancia de aproximadamente quinientos metros del sitio en que se encuentra ésta. Es criterio de este Tribunal que la prueba no resulta suficiente como para soportar el alegato relacionado, por lo que no es de recibo el acusado trato desigual ante la ley. En este sentido, sin que haya mediado prueba alguna que hable sobre la situación legal y registral de este inmueble, pese a que en apariencia y a simple vista, se trata de un terreno que también tiene la conformación de una franja (similar a la propiedad de la accionante y otros) sobre la que han sido edificadas varias viviendas que poseyendo servicios individualizados como el de interés, tienen acceso frente a calle pública, o a una servidumbre que da acceso a ésta, o en su caso, un camino o callejón que cumple con esa función, sin poseer tampoco las dimensiones que manda el ordenamiento jurídico, deben mediar para poder legalmente constituir una servidumbre de acueducto a favor del Instituto demandado, nada se ha traído al proceso que suponga que se trata de un inmueble que posee idénticas circunstancias a las que concurren en la propiedad de la actora. En esta línea de ideas, no se ha acreditado por mediar total ausencia de prueba en este sentido, que las autoridades del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, hayan otorgado a esos usuarios del servicio diversos a la señora Nombre40366 , aprobaciones para el emplazamiento de las instalaciones necesarias para el suministro de agua potable en propiedad privada, sin que se requiera de la constitución de una servidumbre a favor de dicho instituto que cumpla con las dimensiones, requisitos técnicos y urbanísticos exigidos por el ordenamiento jurídico a esos efectos y/o, en su caso, que dicho Instituto haya construido en favor de otros usuarios en sitios diversos al de interés, sistemas de suministro de agua potable al interior de propiedades privadas, en las mismas condiciones que presenta inmueble del que es propietaria en parte, la relacionada señora Nombre40366 . Se insiste en que no se acreditó la situación registral del inmueble, ni la data de la existencia del acceso a calle pública que posee, como tampoco la naturaleza jurídica del acceso con que cuenta. Debe indicarse que habría de haberse probado con claridad, que no se trata de un callejón en las mismas condiciones jurídicas y registrales que posee la propiedad de interés. Por lo demás, si de igualdad de condiciones entre estos dos inmuebles se tratase, lo cierto es que ello sólo hablaría del emplazamiento de obra destinada al suministro de agua en una propiedad privada en contravención con lo que dispone el ordenamiento jurídico, entendido como bloque de legalidad, que han hecho terceros con la concurrencia del Instituto demandado. No podría acoger este Tribunal, la tesis de que al amparo de un trato desigual ante la ley, como el que se acusa, dado que en una oportunidad el Instituto no haya observado sus propios reglamentos, resulte procedente o legítimo la dispensa del deber de observancia que recae sobre la Administración Pública, de ajustar su conducta a dicho orden jurídico para todos los casos, aún a futuro (principio de legalidad), como tampoco, una dispensa del ejercicio de control y fiscalización que en el plano urbano, que ejercen conjuntamente con el Instituto accionado, otras instituciones públicas, incluyendo a la propia al Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo como a la misma Municipalidad con competencia territorial para ello. En relación con ésta última autoridad administrativa municipal, agréguese que según información recabada por las autoridades del Instituto accionado, su plan regulador no admite la constitución legal de una servidumbre como la que propuso la actora en sede administrativa, por lo demás, descrita en planos no visados y/o autorizados al efecto. De esta manera, aún y tratándose de iguales circunstancias las que medien en ambos casos, el hecho de que irregularmente se hayan instalado servicios individualizados como los que se pretenden, en nada impone decir, que resulte legítimo además, quebrantar el principio de inderogabilidad singular de la norma para el caso de quien acciona. En todo caso, como se ha afirmado arriba por esta autoridad judicial, se trata de normas de orden legal e infra legal, que entre otra cosas, se encuentran más allá de dirigidas a garantizar la prestación de un servicio público específico en condiciones idóneas desde el punto de vista técnico, a garantizar también otros valores como lo son la salubridad y el medio ambiente, desde la óptica de un ordenado desarrollo urbano, temas vinculados con derechos igualmente garantizados por la constitución política, que no permitirían excepcionar o superponer el servicio por el servicio mismo, frente al orden urbano, la seguridad y la salubridad, en el marco del derecho de los interesados y sus vecinos en el entorno a un ambiente sano. Conforme lo anterior, el reproche no resulta de recibo e impone declarar la improcedencia de lo peticionado.- 5.- Sobre otros alegatos que fueron formulados en soporte de la acción por la accionante. En su demanda, la parte actora ha formulado argumentaciones vinculadas con afectaciones, que reprocha han sido identificadas como daños causados por terceros, que provocan con causa en fugas o inadecuadas mediciones que registra el hidrómetro, elevada, desproporcionadas e injustificadas facturaciones por el servicio, que le afectan en lo económico, y restringen su derecho al servicio y el derecho a la salud. Así, ha indicado quien demanda, que el hecho de que el hidrómetro que corresponde con su servicio, tanto como los emplazados en relación con otros copropietarios del inmueble en donde todos han edificado viviendas, se encuentren en áreas públicas y no en su propiedad privada, es lo que permite que sufran constantes daños ocasionados por terceras personas. Asociado a que se le afecta en su derecho a la salud, acusó que existen personas en el inmueble -a quienes no identifica en ningún nivel- que se encuentran siendo privadas del servicio de suministro de agua potable en violación de sus derechos. Este Tribunal considera, visto el eje lógico de la presente acción, específicamente entendido como los extremos petitorios de la demanda, que esos alegatos resultan estériles e inconducentes a fin de determinar la procedencia o no de lo que se peticiona. Debe retomarse que en lo medular, la demanda se dirige exclusivamente a que se ordene al Instituto demandado proceder a la colocación de un tubo madre, e hidrómetros individualizados para cada una de las viviendas, propiedad en principio, de terceras personas diversas a la actora que conviven en el mismo inmueble siendo copropietarios del mismo. Tal y como se explicó por esta autoridad judicial atrás, el objeto del proceso se reduce a ordenar la conducta relacionada, la que se encuentra regulada jurídicamente en los términos que así han sido expuestos en el presente instrumento. Tomando nota de que tampoco se explica si resulta irregular que los hidrómetros existentes se encuentren en áreas públicas, cuando es lo propio según el ordenamiento jurídico según se ha relacionado arriba , nada en las pretensiones y lo analizado a este punto, supone que indebidas facturaciones y/o la existencia de circunstancias que importen daños a los hidrómetros colocados en áreas públicas, o las tuberías en terreno propiedad privada de terceros interesados y la propia actora, hayan constituido presupuesto a partir del cual, la propia actora considere procedente su demanda. En su lugar, esas circunstancias únicamente explican o dan cuenta de las razones que mediaron para que la voluntad de la señora Nombre40366 en su momento, lo haya sido peticionar al Instituto como lo hizo, la individualización de entre otros servicios, aquel del que ella es única titular y que por una liberalidad suya (no podría entenderse de otra forma, que sustentada en un ánimo de colaboración con sus vecinos) permite que suministre agua potable a esas terceras personas, que por demás, no identifica plenamente. En razón de lo anterior, no se abunda sobre estos aspectos, considerándose suficiente lo dicho a este punto de la sentencia para dirimir el asunto.- 6.- Sobre aspectos vinculados con la legitimación activa en el caso específico. Sólo a mayor abundamiento de razones, debe recordarse a la accionante que la legitimación constituye uno de los presupuestos esenciales del proceso, cuya comprobación debe hacerse en forma oficiosa por parte del juzgador, pues junto con el derecho y el interés, constituyen los pilares esenciales para que pueda ser declarada con lugar una demanda. Esto se informa toda vez que la pretensión de la actora en realidad, pretende impactar sobre una situación en relación con la cual es ella misma quien se ha colocado en las circunstancias en que se encuentra. Esto lo afirmamos, por lo que conforme lo que pretende e informa en sustento de su demanda, siendo titular de un servicio de suministro de agua potable que comparte con terceras personas, pretende se le ordene al Instituto individualizar el servicio que habría de prestar a terceros. Sea, que pese a que indirectamente pretende solucionar un problema que la aqueja, vinculado con altos consumos y por tanto facturaciones, que punto aparte, acusa se han debido a eventuales malos funcionamientos del hidrómetro por daños ocasionados por terceros o en su caso la existencia de fugas, es lo cierto que se da en el marco del uso compartido que permite que terceras personas hagan del servicio del que es ella la abonada. Así, y por otro lado, de forma directa pretender que se ordene individualizar servicios mediante la colocación de hidrómetros frente a las viviendas de sus vecinos, no es otra cosa que pedir para otros y no para sí misma. Por eso y para el caso que nos interesa, debe tenerse presente que la legitimación es un presupuesto de fondo de todo proceso jurisdiccional y como tal, su análisis resulta obligado para los Juzgadores, incluso de oficio, si no se opone la respectiva excepción (de falta de legitimación activa y/o pasiva). Este aspecto atiende a la "... específica situación jurídica material en la que se encuentra un sujeto, o pluralidad de sujetos, en relación con lo que se constituye el objeto litigioso de un determinado proceso; la legitimación, en definitiva, nos va a indicar en cada caso quiénes son los verdaderos titulares de la relación material que se intenta dilucidar en el ámbito del proceso; quiénes los sujetos cuya participación procesal es necesaria para que la Sentencia resulte "eficaz"." (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José y González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Derecho Procesal Administrativo Costarricense . Editorial Juricentro. San José, Costa Rica. p.162.). Se trata de la aptitud de los sujetos intervinientes para ser parte en un proceso, la que se deriva u origina de la relación existente entre la esfera de intereses y derechos de los mismos, en relación directa con la conducta administrativa impugnada. Así, "... un sujeto queda legitimado en un procedimiento o en un determinado proceso por virtud de la afectación previa sufrida en sus intereses o derechos cualificados" (Jiménez Meza, Nombre25610. El Nuevo Proceso Contencioso Administrativo. Obra Colectiva. Poder Judicial. Escuela Judicial. San José. Costa Rica. p. 79.) Si las partes intervinientes carecen de legitimación, se puede concluir que el desarrollo de todo el proceso no servirá para solucionar el conflicto intersubjetivo en concreto planteado, porque esa falta determinará la inexistencia de la relación jurídica entre éstas. Ante la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, son tulelables las "situaciones jurídicas de toda persona", en relación con sus derechos subjetivos y/o intereses legítimos conforme el inciso 1) del numeral primero, en relación con el artículo 10, inciso 1), apartado a), ambos del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y esto, en relación con las diversas manifestaciones de la conducta administrativa, cualquiera de ellas, de manera que para obtener una tutela judicial efectiva y de fondo en un proceso contencioso, se requiere ser titular de un derecho subjetivo o de al menos "un interés legítimo. (Ver además el artículo 49 de la Constitución Política). Claro está que dicho derecho subjetivo o interés legítimo habría de encontrarse derivado u originado en alguna suerte de relación jurídica administrativa. Es respecto de éstos entonces, que se puede pedir la declaratoria de disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico, anulación, modificación o adpatación de la conducta administrativa, el restablecimiento, reconocimiento o declaración de una situación jurídica, la fijación de límites y reglas impuestos por el ordenamiento jurídico para el ejercicio de potestades administrativas, la condena de hacer alguna conducta determinada, la condena de abstención de una conducta y la condena de daños y perjuicios (artículo 42 del citado Código Procesal). Este presupuesto debe ser entendido en una doble dimensión, a saber, la legitimación activa, relativa a quien o quienes figuran como actores, referida cabalmente a la supuesta titularidad del derecho subjetivo o interés legítimo alegado como infringido, que se concibe como la idoneidad para realizar actos de ejercicio del poder de acción que le faculta exigir la satisfacción de una determinada prestación u objeto; y por su parte, la legitimación pasiva, en relación a la parte demandada, que se manifiesta como la aptitud para soportar el ejercicio de dicho poder. Cobra importancia también hacer referencia a los conceptos claves para determinar si se cumple o no el presupuesto de fondo, vinculado con la mediación de ese derecho subjetivo o interés legítimo. El primero, ha sido definido en la doctrina nacional como "... aquel poder de obrar válidamente dentro de ciertos límites, y/o de ser beneficiario de la conducta pública, exigiendo del Poder Público (y en concreto de la Administración), por un medio coactivo, si es preciso, la conducta concreta y específica correspondiente, otorgada por el Ordenamiento Jurídico a ese o esos sujetos para la satisfacción de sus fines e intereses." (González Camacho, Óscar Eduardo. La Justicia Administrativa. Tomo II. El Control Judicial de la Inactividad Administrativa. Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas Sociedad Anónima. San José. Costa Rica. p.178.) Por su parte, el segundo, es sustancial, no procesal, en tanto forma parte de la esfera jurídica material del administrado, que "debe llevar aparejado un beneficio como consecuencia de la eliminación de la actuación administrativa, o un perjuicio derivado de su mantenimiento, beneficio o perjuicio que pueden ser, tanto materiales o jurídicos, como de índole moral, religioso, científico o económico (257 LGAP)", (el resaltado no es del original). (Gimeno Sendra, Vicente; Saborìo Valverde, Rodolfo; Garberí Llobregat, José y González-Cuellar Serrano, Nombre9069. Op. Cit. p. 185). Se requiere que el interés sea legítimo, esto es, que resulta imprescindible que esté amparado, aunque sea de manera indirecta en el ordenamiento jurídico. Éste ha sido el sentido en el que se ha pronunciado la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en su jurisprudencia, al señalar "...Se hace necesario en consecuencia reiterar el concepto de legitimación que descansa, según reiterada jurisprudencia de esta Sala, en la necesaria correspondencia que ha de existir entre el actor demandante y el titular del derecho o interés legítimo pretendido. Constituye como se sabe, un presupuesto esencial de la relación jurídico procesal, imprescindible para una sentencia estimatoria. La ostenta, por lo general, aquella persona (física, jurídica, pública o privada), que sufre una lesión a consecuencia de una conducta administrativa (activa u omisiva), contra la que protesta ante el Juez, en requerimiento de la protección de su situación jurídica o de aquella que pertenece al colectivo que integra. Deriva, como se puede ver, del vínculo o relación que se mantiene con la pretensión procesal formulada." (Sentencia número 11-F-S1-2012, de las nueve horas veinticinco minutos del doce de enero del dos mil doce). Llegados a este punto, cabe considerar que la legitimación activa comprende dos aspectos jurídicos ampliamente diferenciables o separables: el primero se corresponde con un aspecto meramente formal-procesal, que en doctrina y jurisprudencia se ha dado en llamar “legitimatio ad procesum”. Este tópico particular tiene que ver con la capacidad procesal de quien acciona, con arreglo a la legislación civil; y en tal virtud, se refiere a la capacidad genérica de demandar o bien de deducir una determinada pretensión frente a un tercero. La legitimación “ad processum” se ha denominado también como legitimación meramente aducida o alegada. (JIMÉNEZ MEZA, Nombre25610, La legitimación administrativa , Editorial Investigaciones Jurídicas, 3era. ed., San José, 2000.). Diversos matices puede presentar el análisis sobre la mediación de este desdoble de la legitimación, pues siendo que refiere a la titularidad “que aduce tener la parte” que interpone el proceso, podríamos encontrarnos en la presencia de la defensa de intereses que podrían ascender de los particulares individualizados, a los colectivos residenciados en un grupo diferenciable o determinable de personas unidas por intereses comunes (se incluyen los corporativos) y los difusos, que no son diferenciados de los que conciernen a un grupo específico de personas del total de la sociedad. En cada caso, la legitimación habría de presentar diversos matices. El segundo ámbito, es el que se ha denominado en la doctrina y jurisprudencia nacional como “legitimatio ad causam”, y que atinente al derecho de fondo, esto es, a la titularidad o no del mejor derecho en el marco de una relación jurídica administrativa, que refiere a la legitimación como requisito del ejercicio del poder de acción y que afecta la eficacia del proceso, sea, el éxito del asunto o no si es conocido por el fondo. A diferencia de la legitimación ad processum, este no es un requisito de validez, por lo que no debe confundirse con ella. Es válido concluir una vez dicho todo lo anterior, que la legitimación a la causa, es la aptitud de ser parte uno concreto, pero como derivación de la posesión o titularidad de un derecho o interés legítimo, que cuando se refiere a la capacidad de demandar, se trata de la legitimación activa. Ésta debe estar debidamente justificada, a través de la prueba que acompaña al escrito de interposición de cualquier demanda, así como por la que se logre introducir al proceso. En el caso de la legitimación al proceso, si la demanda no es interpuesta en nombre propio, debe mediar acreditación de la representación aducida por quien ejerce el derecho acción, en los casos en que así lo imponga el ordenamiento jurídico, quedando a salvo lo indicado respecto de la defensa de intereses supra individuales, especialmente cuando se trata de agrupaciones no organizadas bajo una forma asociativa formal con personería jurídica. En caso de no existir ésta última condición, el Juzgador podría declarar inadmisible el reclamo y archivar el expediente incluso de manera oficiosa, por cuanto quien acciona en tales circunstancias, no tiene un derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva de parte del ámbito jurisdiccional. En razón de lo dicho, resulta evidente que el instituto de la legitimación –al proceso o a la causa- pertenecen a la teoría general del proceso, en tanto refiere al carácter de efecto que tiene en relación con el poder de acción, es decir, opera como requisito de eficacia del fallo jurisdiccional que se requiere para la resolución del conflicto planteado. A un nivel más pragmático, cuando se trata de la legitimación al proceso, el juzgador ha de verificar la presencia de las cualidades en quien dice accionar, que condicionan la válida comparecencia de esa persona en el proceso para representar a otro. Esto implica que el Juez debería de verificar la legitimación al proceso aducida en primera instancia como presupuesto de admisibilidad de la demanda, cuando no en ese momento la legitimación sustancial a la causa -que habrá de declararse en la sentencia de fondo- a la hora de admitir el proceso o reclamo y darle curso. Esto según lo manda el artículo 58, inciso 1) apartado a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. En razón de lo anterior, no puede haber tutela ni pretensión alguna ante el Juez, sin un derecho a la acción, ejercido a través de un proceso jurisdiccional. Con esto se vincula el derecho y el interés legítimo a la pretensión, otorgándoles el rol de elemento legitimador (legitimatio ad procesum) y de presupuesto material imprescindible para su estimación definitiva en sentencia (legitimatio ad causam), donde bastaría como elemento legitimador (legitimatio ad procesum), la existencia de un interés legítimo, que en este caso se traduce en la vinculación debida entre el sujeto accionante y la pretensión esbozada en su demanda. Obviamente el análisis de este importante presupuesto de fondo de la demanda debe dejarse para sentencia, en tanto es hasta ese momento que se puede comprobar si se da la supuesta titularidad -del derecho subjetivo o interés legítimo- aducida en la interposición de la acción. Pues bien, la accionante carece además de legitimación en la causa, si es que pretende como así lo es en el caso concreto, sin aducir representar a tercero alguno, que sea en otros (que además no identifica) y no en ella, en quienes repercuta en la realidad material el efecto y alcances del fallo que espera se declare procedente y a favor del objeto del proceso. Nótese que pretende en esta causa que se ordene al Instituto Costarricense de acueductos y Alcantarillados que proceda a “la colocación del tubo madre y sus respectivos medidores en cada uno de nuestros derechos”. La pretensión refiere al resto de los copropietarios del inmueble, sobre el que cada uno de ellos -según así se deduce de la prueba que obra- ha materialmente levantado una edificación autónoma e individual a la que da uso con los suyos, como casa de habitación. Esta circunstancia se refuerza con la prueba testimonial de la propia accionante, particularmente la declaración del señor Nombre40371 , en la audiencia de juicio oral y pública celebrada el día catorce de enero del dos mil catorce, quien fue claro en indicar que siendo vecino de la actora y uno de los residentes originarios del inmueble de interés, en conjunto con otros de los copropietarios como lo es él también, han incoado de forma independiente e individual ante el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, solicitudes para que les sea colocado un servicio de suministro de agua potable con el hidrómetro respectivo, frente a cada una de las viviendas que aducen es de su propiedad, todo, dentro de un bien privado. De esta forma no puede decirse otra cosa, que lo pretendido persigue impactar directamente en los intereses de terceros, y sólo de forma indirecta en los de la señora Nombre40366 , ni qué decir la pretensión más allá de la individualización de los servicios que coparte por su propia voluntad con terceros, de que les sea colocado a éstos, un servicio nuevo. Por lo demás, el hecho de que la actora compara el servicio de agua que se le suministra, no es circunstancia que siquiera la propia accionante atribuya como consecuencia a alguna conducta del Instituto demandado. En conclusión, siendo que la señora Nombre40366 no acusa representar a nadie, y que acciona a título personal, carece del derecho de fondo a reclamar la colocación de servicios a otros, que no forman parte de la relación jurídico procesal que nos ocupa, ni han comparecido en la presente causa, siquiera como coadyuvantes y/o interesados con pretensiones propias. No puede perderse de vista, que conforme la normativa que rige la materia (ver el considerando VII del presente fallo) es quien demuestre ser propietario de un bien inmueble individualizado o en consecuencia con lo anterior, quienes conformen la totalidad de aquellos que demuestren ser los titulares de un bien inmueble de forma conjunta virtud de encontrarse compartida la titularidad del mismo sin que se hayan localizado sus derechos, los que pueden ser abonados de un servicio de agua potable, entre otras cosas, porque sólo de esta forma se puede comprometer la titularidad del bien con causa en la hipoteca legal que supone privilegia al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados en caso de mora en el pago de los servicios que presta, como efecto automático de constituirse una persona o grupo de éstas, en abonados de dicho instituto. (Ver en cuanto a la participación de terceros en el proceso, el artículo 13 y 15 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). De este modo no media legitimación en la causa de la actora, lo que habla del derecho de fondo para acceder a lo que peticiona, por lo que también por esta vía, resulta improcedente su demanda en todos sus extremos.- XI.- Corolario. En conclusión de todo lo hasta este punto expuesto, es criterio de este Tribunal que la accionante no ha acreditado la procedencia de su demanda en razón de ninguno de los reproches que formuló en sustento de la misma, al tiempo que no demuestra ostentar el derecho que acusó le asiste para obligar al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados proceder a vincularse con terceros que no son parte en la presente relación jurídico procesal, por lo que siendo la pretensión dirigida a que se ordene al Instituto accionado proceder a la colocación del tubo madre y sus respectivos medidores en cada uno de los restantes copropietarios del inmueble que habita, la principal y medular de la acción, deviene ésta en improcedente en todos sus extremos, como en efecto se dispone.- XII.- Sobre las costas. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La parte vencida en la presente causa lo ha sido la señora Nombre40366 , sin que en criterio de este Tribunal haya mediando circunstancia o presupuesto alguno que justifique exonerarle de dicha condenatoria al amparo de sus incisos a) y b), del numeral relacionado, tanto como al amparo del artículo 194 del mismo cuerpo legal. En consecuencia, se condena a la señora Nombre40366 al pago de ambas costas generadas como consecuencia de la tramitación de la presente causa, en favor del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. La determinación de lo correspondiente a las costas en cuanto a su importe se habrá de finar por el juez competente en la fase de ejecución de sentencia a ruego de la parte vencedora.-

POR TANTO

Se declara improcedente en todos sus extremos la demanda incoada por la señora Nombre40366 en contra del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Se condena a la señora Nombre40366 al pago en favor del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, de ambas costas derivadas de la presente acción.- Felipe Córdoba Ramírez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Rodrigo Huertas Durán