Appeal denied in mortgage enforcement involving trust agreement for environmental and construction permitsApelación rechazada en ejecución hipotecaria que involucra fideicomiso de custodia de permisos ambientales y de construcción

** FILE 17-001037-1207-CJ - 2 ** **PROCEEDING:** APPEAL PROCEEDINGS **PLAINTIFF:** INVERSIONES SPEITH LTDA **DEFENDANT:** PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL S.A.

**JUDICIAL POWER** **PUNTARENAS COURT OF APPEALS** **DECISION NUMBER 002-C-2019** **PUNTARENAS CIVIL AND LABOR COURT OF APPEALS.** Puntarenas, at nine fifty-eight in the morning on January twenty-second, two thousand nineteen.

**MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING** brought by INVERSIONES SPEITH LIMITADA, legal identification number CED1 -, represented by [Name1], in his capacity as manager with powers of general unlimited attorney without limit of amount, against PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number CED2, represented by [Name2], in his capacity as president with powers of general unlimited attorney without limit of amount.

Having reviewed the appeal filed by the special judicial attorney of the defendant company against the order issued at three nine in the afternoon on December twentieth, two thousand seventeen, it is resolved:

Drafted by Judge Mejías Cordero; and **CONSIDERING:** **FIRST: SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES:** In the specific case, the appellant argues that the instrument forming the basis of the execution lacks enforceability because it is contractually integrated into a custody trust (fideicomiso de custodia) agreement. Based on this, it is maintained that the mortgage loan has been distorted by the creditor and the debtor. Subsequently, it is maintained that the trust agreement has a leonine clause as it limits the right of defense of the defendant company. Secondly, it is considered that due to the integration of the mortgage loan into the trust agreement, the judicial collection court lacks jurisdiction to hear the collection claim. This, as argued, is because the parties established that any dispute arising must be heard by arbitration tribunals. Based on the execution of the trust agreement, it is maintained that notification of the collection process to the trustee (fiduciario) was required since it is the entity responsible for administering the two guarantees granted to the plaintiff. One of them, as stated, constitutes an express foreclosure clause (pacto comisorio expreso) insofar as, depending on the outcome of the mortgage foreclosure, the creditor would privately award itself the guarantees concerning state permits. This, from the appellant's perspective, was concealed from the judge in order to obtain an unlawful and harmful benefit against the estate, and based on this, the illegality of the mortgage's consideration (causa) is alleged. Furthermore, the auction (remate) held is deemed null because at the time the complaint was filed, the mortgaged property had a notation for case 16-000100-0181-CI. This notation, it is noted, had been made prior to the notation of the present mortgage complaint. In addition to this, it is argued that the point was addressed in the first instance but with an evident error regarding the dates, as it was claimed that the mortgage now being foreclosed was filed with the registry on June 10, 2016, and not on May 13 of that same year. Consequently, when the mortgage was filed, the attachment (embargo) of Bloques Pedregal S.A. had already been noted. Therefore, it is considered that the auction should have been conducted subject to the aforementioned notation, and thus, the cancellation of the loan held by the debtor here, Puntarenas Ocean Mall S.A., with Bloques Pedregal S.A. should have been produced. It is insisted that because the auction of the property was not conducted subject to the aforementioned notation, due process has been violated. Next, it is indicated that the notice of auction (edicto) drafted in this specific case also shows a defect as it does not state the notations to which the mortgaged property was subject. Based on this, a violation of the provisions of Article 21.5 of the repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial is considered, as the plaintiff prevented the party with the notation from exercising its right to be paid in this mortgage proceeding, thus maintaining a debt of one million dollars of the United States of America. Therefore, it is requested to annul the auction and order the publication of a new notice of auction stating that the property to be auctioned is sold subject to the payment order proceeding (proceso monitorio) brought by Bloques Pedregal S.A. Additionally, the appeal formulates grievances called "procedural nullities affecting the approval of the auction." At this point, the issue of integrating the mortgage loan into a trust agreement is taken up again with a slightly different approach. Lack of enforceability is invoked because the plaintiff company authorized the defendant company to default. This, as argued, should have been proven through testimonial evidence. Furthermore, the alleged integration of the mortgage loan into the trust agreement, in which the means contemplated in the Ley de Cobro Judicial were waived, is invoked again. This is so because, in exercising contractual freedom, the parties agreed that any dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

**SECOND: ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL:** In the specific case, we must bear in mind that the order approving the auction was issued at three nine in the afternoon on December twentieth, two thousand seventeen. On the other hand, the appeal with concomitant nullity filed by the defendant company was filed on January eight, two thousand eighteen. That said, we must bear in mind that at the time this decision is rendered, the new Código Procesal Civil has come into force. In this understanding, we must bear in mind that procedural rules are applicable, as a matter of principle, immediately to cases that are in progress. In this vein, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in decision number 1992-108 of 3:00 p.m. on July 10, 1992, explains: "III.- According to doctrine and jurisprudence, procedural law is of immediate application, unless expressly provided otherwise. If the procedural law does not provide otherwise, regarding its effects over time, it is necessary to distinguish three situations, depending on whether at the time the new law comes into force the proceeding is completely finished, or the substantive legal relationship has not been submitted to a proceeding, or, while it is pending, the modification occurs. In the first case, if the proceeding is completely finished, the new law is not applicable, as the authority of res judicata (cosa juzgada) prevents it, whereby the past escapes the legislator's action. In the second case, if the substantive relationship has not been submitted to a proceeding, when it is, the proceeding must be processed under the law in force at the time of its commencement and not under the law that governed when that substantive relationship was established, with the exception of proof of the legal act, which is intimately linked to the act itself, and appeals, which are governed by the law in force at the date the challenged decision was issued. In the third case, if during the pendency of the proceeding a new procedural law is enacted, one must distinguish between procedural acts prior and subsequent to the date it comes into force. The prior ones remain unchanged; the new law cannot have retroactive effect to destroy definitively completed or executed procedural acts. The subsequent ones must comply with the new law and, consequently, the corresponding adaptation of procedures must be made to the extent legally possible, taking into account that no party should be left defenseless (indefensión)." In the case under study, there is a transitional rule that provides that decisions rendered under the repealed regulations will continue to be processed in the challenge proceeding under said regulations. In this sense, Transitional Provision II of the new Código Procesal Civil provides: "Against the decisions that were rendered upon this Code entering into force, the appeals authorized by the procedural provisions in force at the time they were rendered shall apply." In this understanding, we must bear in mind that Article 31 of the already repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial provided that the appeal was admissible against the order approving the auction. Therefore, the appeal filed is admissible.

**THIRD: ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PRECLUSION (PRECLUSIÓN) AND REITERATION OF ARGUMENTS ALREADY MADE:** Doctrinally, it has been expressed that "preclusion is one of the characteristics of modern procedure because through it, the following is achieved: a) That the proceeding develops in a specific order, which is only achieved by preventing the parties from exercising their procedural faculties whenever they feel like it, without being subject to any temporal principle, b) That the proceeding is constituted by various sections or periods, each dedicated to the development of specific activities. Once each period is concluded, it is not possible to go back to a previous one... In other words, preclusion generates what modern proceduralists call 'phases of the proceeding'; c) That the parties exercise their procedural rights and duties in a legal manner, that is, not only within the term set by law for that purpose, but also with the proper formalities and requirements..." (PALLARES, Eduardo. Diccionario de Derecho Procesal Civil, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Mexico, p. 606). In the case at hand, without any doubt, the defendant reiterates in the appeal the substantive and procedural issues developed in the brief filed on September twenty-fifth, two thousand seventeen (see from image 75 of the electronic file). Through that writing, the defendant company raised an incident of defective procedural activity (actividad procesal defectuosa), nullity of the decision ordering the auction for the first time, nullity of the published notice of auction, lack of enforceability due to non-maturity of the obligation, and an incident of nullity for lack of notification of the trustee company. First, the defendant alleged that the auction had been ordered free of notations and liens (gravámenes). This was considered defective because the plaintiff company had concealed the notation of proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI, which was recorded in the Public Registry prior to the registration of the mortgage (an issue reiterated in the appeal now addressed). Second, it was alleged that the mortgage loan had been integrated into a trust as part of the guarantee and contains an express foreclosure clause insofar as it transfers assets that are part of the mortgage loan to the trustee. Based on this, the existence of a procedural defect is alleged because the trustee was not notified of the mortgage foreclosure (an argument repeated in the appeal that is the subject of this decision). Third, the defendant company alleges the unenforceability of the mortgage loan because it is integrated into the trust agreement, which governs the relations between the parties. Based on this, it is argued that the trust extended the repayment term to 360 months, that is, thirty years. Furthermore, based on the execution of the custody trust agreement, lack of subject matter jurisdiction is alleged because any dispute arising from the trust agreement must be resolved through arbitration (this issue is developed again in the appeal filed against the order approving the auction). That said, it is appropriate to note that all the issues developed by the defendant company to support the defective procedural activity and the unenforceability of the mortgage instrument were resolved in the order issued at three forty in the afternoon on September twenty-ninth, two thousand seventeen. Ultimately, it can be stated with absolute certainty that those issues are entirely precluded since the incidence of defective procedural activity was summarily rejected and the opposition was deemed unfounded.

**FOURTH:** Despite the criterion developed above, it is deemed necessary, in order to be absolutely explicit, to set out some considerations that make it possible to determine the inadmissibility of the arguments formulated in the appeal now under review. Regarding the issue of defective procedural activity, this tribunal, based on the regulations in force at the time (1989 Código Procesal Civil and Ley de Cobro Judicial), had indicated that opposition in this type of enforcement proceeding had to be exercised prior to the holding of the auction ordered in the initial order. That said, it is also necessary to note that the existence of different procedural moments to allege defective procedural activities does not constitute new opportunities to oppose the collection being effected. In reality, regarding procedural nullities, it is necessary to transcribe the provisions of Articles 194 and 197 of the repealed Código Procesal Civil. The first of these provisions established: "When the law prescribes a specific form under penalty of nullity, the declaration thereof may only be requested by the aggrieved party. Nevertheless, this nullity is declarable even ex officio, when lack of defense has been produced or fundamental rules guaranteeing the normal course of the proceeding have been violated." The second article cited prescribed: "When absolute nullities exist due to an essential defect for the course or progress of the proceeding, the judge shall order, even ex officio, that the necessary steps be taken for it to follow its normal course. Nullity shall only be decreed when its pronouncement is absolutely essential to avoid lack of defense or to guide the normal course of the proceeding. Nor shall it prosper if it is possible to restore the procedural step or correct the action, without prejudice to the other procedural acts." As a matter of principle, these two rules established the regime of absolute nullity in civil procedural matters, which, incidentally, occurs when an essential defect for the progress of the proceeding has been generated or lack of defense is produced. That general regulation had to be harmonized with the design of the collection proceeding developed in the Ley de Cobro Judicial. In that regard, it could be affirmed that in the mortgage foreclosure proceeding there was an initiation stage, a development stage, and a termination stage. The initiation stage consisted of the complaint and the order issuing the auction writ. If defects causing nullity occurred during that phase of the mortgage foreclosure proceeding, the defect must be claimed by filing the corresponding appeal. Ultimately, this was generally provided for in Article 199, second paragraph, of the Código Procesal Civil, which states: "Nullity shall be claimed by incidental means./ That of decisions shall be alleged when filing the applicable appeal against them." Without a doubt, that provision needed to be harmonized with Article 31, subsection d), of the Ley de Cobro Judicial, as it declared the order issuing the auction writ appealable. Therefore, once the defendant was notified of the initial order, it had three days to file the appeal and claim the defects incurred by that decision (claims regarding the content of the complaint, objection to the auction base price set, raising of procedural defenses (excepciones procesales), and invocation of defects causing nullity). In the development stage, the acts related to the judicial sale and the auction itself were generated. Ultimately, at this stage, the way to allege the existence of procedural defects causing nullity was by challenging the order approving the auction. Article 29, initial part, of the Ley de Cobro Judicial stated: "The auction and the defective procedural activity that may have occurred before or during its holding may only be challenged through the appeals available against the decision approving it..." Finally, this same legal provision foresees a last procedural stage in which the occurrence of procedural defects can be alleged, namely: "...Nullity may be alleged after the decision approving it, through the incidental procedure, only when it is based on one of the grounds for which a review (revisión) is admissible. Said incident shall be inadmissible if filed after three months from when the party became aware of the ground, from the moment the aggrieved party should have known about it, or could have asserted it." As can be seen, the various phases for alleging aspects producing nullity did not constitute new stages to formulate opposition to the collection.

**FIFTH:** In addition to what was stated in the preceding considering, it is important to address, even if briefly, the arguments formulated by the appellant. In this regard, it is important to highlight that it is absolutely inadmissible to allege that the mortgage loan is unenforceable. In reality, the mortgage origination contract and the contract forming a custody trust are two linked transactions that maintain absolute autonomy from one another. In this sense, doctrine, referring to this type of contracts, indicates: "Presupposing the existence of several contracts, it may occur that they are: 1st United only apparently or externally, as if they were entered into on the same occasion or are contained in the same document, etc. Such a union is devoid of special consequences, affecting neither the individuality of each contract nor the legal regime applicable to each one nor the possibility that one can subsist without the other. 2nd United in such a way that, although being distinct, they form a whole globally desired as a unit. In this case, although the regulation of each one is different and independent of the other, they are linked in their vicissitudes; a link that manifests itself in different ways: mainly as subordination of one to the other (so that the nullity of the latter entails the disappearance of the former, but not vice versa), as reciprocal dependence, and as an alternative union (both are desired alternatively, depending on whether or not a certain circumstance occurs)." (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil II, Derecho de Obligaciones, Volume One, Ninth Edition, José [Name3] Bosch Editor, 1994. p. 396). In the specific case, we would be in the presence of contracts united in the second way. Ultimately, the trust agreement, in developing its purposes, clearly establishes what the link with the mortgage loan is. Let us see: "OF THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST: The purposes of this Trust are: i) That the TRUSTEE receives in custody the Economic, Intellectual, and Use Rights arising from the PERMITS described in Annex One; ii) That in the event that the SETTLOR pays in full the principal, interest, costs, taxes, and any other expenses that are guaranteed by the aforementioned MORTGAGE LIEN [the loan collected in this proceeding], the TRUSTEE shall transfer back the aforementioned RIGHTS to the SETTLOR or to the natural or legal person it designates, iii) That in the event of a possible change in the registered owner of the referred property, the cause of which is the foreclosure of the mortgage guarantee mentioned in antecedent A) above, THE TRUSTEE shall, solely upon instruction of the BENEFICIARY, transfer in absolute ownership the RIGHTS that are placed in trust through this contract, in favor of said beneficiary or the natural or legal person that becomes the new registered owner of the property..." (Sic. Boldface has been added). Now then, it is the trust agreement itself that establishes which assets are placed in trust, stipulating: "OF THE TRUST PATRIMONY: The patrimony of this Trust shall consist of the Economic, Intellectual, and Use Rights arising from the PERMITS described in Annex One, namely: i) Construction Permit, number Thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one, over the PROPERTY of the district of PUNTARENAS, real property registration number [Placa1], granted by the Municipality of Puntarenas, in favor of the company PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA; ii) Environmental Viability (Viabilidad Ambiental) as recorded in resolution number NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE- TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN - SETENA, issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, Setena) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, under Administrative File number D one - Nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight - two thousand thirteen - Setena, for the project called OCEAN MALL; iii) Architectural Plans, numbered from sheet A-One to sheet A-Twenty-four, ... iv) Electrical Plans, numbered from sheet E - one to E- Twenty-eight... v) Structural Plans, numbered from sheet ES - One to sheet ES - thirty-three..., vi) Mechanical Plans, numbered from sheet M - One to sheet M - twenty-three...." As can be seen, the property mortgaged and auctioned in this proceeding does not constitute one of the assets placed in trust; nor does the mortgage loan, which is why there is no absorption whatsoever of the mortgage origination contract by the trust agreement. This finding leads to the following conclusions: a) The mortgage loan maintains absolute autonomy with respect to the trust agreement; for this reason, the clauses regarding the maturity of the loan are those contemplated in the transaction creating the real right of guarantee. b) Once the mortgage was registered in the respective registry and the timely payment of current interest was not made by the defendant company, the enforceability of the loan was produced. c) The arbitration clause (cláusula compromisoria) established in the trust agreement has no type of effect with respect to the mortgage loan being executed here. d) The legal entity appointed as trustee in the respective trust agreement did not have to be brought into this proceeding, and therefore, did not have to be notified of the initial order.

**SIXTH:** Finally, it is important to note that in the specific case, no procedural defect has occurred with respect to the party with the notation, Bloques Pedregal S.A., because it was duly notified of this mortgage foreclosure proceeding. In the specific case, a simple review of the digital file allows determining that the argument formulated by the defendant completely lacks factual basis. In the case under study, the record of notarial notification, made by notary public Eugenio Hernández Rodríguez, can be seen at image 58 of the file. The notarial record states that the judicial communication was made at the real and social domicile of the company Bloques Pedregal S.A. Indeed, it is important to highlight that image 63 of the digital file records the appearance of [Name4], in his capacity as representative of the aforementioned company. Therefore, it is manifestly evident that the defect alleged by the appellant does not exist. Lastly, it is important to highlight that the grievance according to which the notice of auction drafted in this proceeding suffers from a defect for not listing the notations to which the property to be judicially sold was subject must be dismissed. This is so because the notation that the appellant misses corresponded to a payment order proceeding in which Bloques Pedregal S.A. appeared as an unsecured creditor (acreedor quirografario). Therefore, it is evident that once the auction was conducted based on a first-degree mortgage, said notation had to be canceled at the time the approval of the auction was made. This is so because the mortgage being foreclosed in this proceeding was filed with the National Registry on May twenty-third, two thousand sixteen, whereas the attachment made for the personal loan of Bloques Pedregal S.A. was noted on June second, two thousand sixteen. In this sense, Article 27 of the repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial provided: "Once the auction has been held and all legal requirements have been met, the court shall approve it. In the decision approving it, the cancellation shall be ordered of the registrations or notations relating to the matured higher-ranking loan being executed and those ranking lower, as well as those listed in the certificate serving as the basis for the auction and those noted afterwards. Likewise, the court shall authorize the pertinent notarial protocolization and order the delivery of the property." Consequently, it is evident that the notation of the aforementioned attachment did not have to be borne by the mortgaged property after the auction was conducted. As a corollary to the foregoing, the appeal filed is rejected and the appealed order is confirmed.

**THEREFORE** The appeal filed by the defendant company is rejected and the appealed order is confirmed. Judges of the Court.

*4UD9XOMW1E461* JUAN [Name5] - PROCESSING JUDGE *SERABHTZ1KE61* [Name6] [Name7] - DECIDING JUDGE *VOKIGDQ47UNS61* GUSTAVO [Name8] - DECIDING JUDGE Court of Justice of Puntarenas, [Address1] Telephones: 2630-03-59 and 0630-04-00. Fax: 2661-27-14.

DOCUMENT PJEDITOR *170010371207CJ* | EXPEDIENTE: | 17-001037-1207-CJ - 2 | | PROCESO: | TRÁMITE DE APELACIÓN | | ACTOR/A: | INVERSIONES SPEITH LTDA | | DEMANDADO/A: | PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL S.A | **PODER JUDICIAL** **TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN DE PUNTARENAS** **VOTO NÚMERO 002-C-2019** **TRIBUNAL DE APELACION CIVIL Y TRABAJO PUNTARENAS.** Puntarenas, at nine hours and fifty-eight minutes of January twenty-second, two thousand nineteen.

**MORTGAGE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING** established by **INVERSIONES SPEITH LIMITADA,** legal identification number CED1 -, represented by [Nombre1] , in his capacity as manager with powers of generalísimo attorney-in-fact without limit of sum, against **PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA,** legal identification number CED2, represented by [Nombre2] , in his capacity as president with powers of generalísimo attorney-in-fact without limit of sum.

Having reviewed the appeal filed by the special judicial attorney-in-fact of the defendant company against the order issued at fifteen hours and nine minutes of December twentieth, two thousand seventeen, the following is resolved:

Judge **Mejías Cordero** writes; and **CONSIDERANDO:** **FIRST: SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES:** In the specific case, the appellant argues that the enforcement instrument lacks enforceability because it is contractually integrated into a custody fiduciary agreement (convenio de fideicomiso de custodia). Based on this, it is maintained that the mortgage credit has been distorted by the creditor and the debtor. Next, it is argued that the fiduciary agreement contains an unconscionable clause in that it limits the right of defense of the defendant company. Secondly, it is considered that by reason of the integration of the mortgage credit into the fiduciary agreement, the judicial collection court lacks jurisdiction to hear the collection claim. This, as argued, is because the parties established that any dispute arising must be heard by arbitral tribunals. Based on the execution of the fiduciary agreement, it is asserted that notification of the collection proceeding to the fiduciary was required because it is the entity charged with administering the two guarantees granted to the plaintiff. One of them, it is claimed, constitutes an express pactum commissorium in that, depending on the outcome of the mortgage enforcement, the creditor would privately appropriate the guarantees concerning state permits. This, from the appellant's perspective, was concealed from the judge in order to obtain an unlawful and harmful benefit against the estate, and based on this, the illegality of the cause of the mortgage is alleged. On the other hand, the judicial sale (remate) carried out is deemed null because at the time of filing the complaint, the mortgaged property had recorded on it proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI. This recording, it is noted, had been made prior to the recording of this mortgage complaint. In addition, it is argued that the point was addressed in the first instance but with an evident error regarding the dates, since it was assured that the mortgage now being enforced was presented to the registry on June 10, 2016, and not on May 13 of that same year. Consequently, when the constitution of the mortgage was presented, the embargo of Bloques Pedregal S.A. was already recorded. Therefore, it is considered that the judicial sale should have been conducted subject to the cited recording, and thus, the cancellation of the credit maintained by the debtor here, Puntarenas Ocean Mall S.A., with Bloques Pedregal S.A., should have occurred. It is insisted that, by not having conducted the judicial sale of the property subject to the cited recording, due process has been violated. Next, it is indicated that the edict (edicto) prepared in the specific case also shows a defect insofar as it does not state the recordings subject to which the mortgaged property was held. Based on this, a violation of the provisions of Article 21.5 of the repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial is considered, because the plaintiff prevented the person who recorded the interest from exercising their right to be paid in this mortgage proceeding, thereby maintaining a debt of one million dollars of the United States of America. For this reason, it is requested that the judicial sale be annulled and the publication of a new edict be ordered in which it is stated that the property to be sold at judicial sale is being sold subject to a payment order proceeding (proceso monitorio) filed by Bloques Pedregal S.A. Furthermore, the appeal formulates grievances called "*procedural nullities affecting the approval of the judicial sale*." At this point, the issue of the integration of the mortgage credit into a fiduciary agreement is taken up again, with a somewhat different focus. The lack of enforceability is invoked because the plaintiff company authorized the defendant company to cease payments. This, it is argued, should have been demonstrated through testimonial evidence. On the other hand, the supposed integration of the mortgage credit into the fiduciary agreement, in which the avenues contemplated in the Ley de Cobro Judicial were waived, is invoked again. This is so because, in the exercise of contractual freedom, the parties agreed that any dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

**SECOND: ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL:** In the specific case, we must bear in mind that the order approving the judicial sale was issued at fifteen hours and nine minutes of December twentieth, two thousand seventeen. On the other hand, the appeal with concomitant nullity filed by the defendant company was lodged on January eighth, two thousand eighteen. That said, we must bear in mind that at the time this resolution is issued, the new Código Procesal Civil has come into effect. In this understanding, we must bear in mind that procedural rules are applicable, as a general principle, immediately to proceedings that are in progress. In this vein, the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia), in Voto 1992-108 issued at 15:00 hours of July 10, 1992, explains: "*III.- According to doctrine and jurisprudence, procedural law is of immediate application, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. If the procedural law does not provide otherwise, regarding its effects over time, it is necessary to distinguish three situations, depending on whether at the moment the new law comes into effect the proceeding is completely finished, or the material legal relationship has not been submitted to proceedings, or, if a modification occurs while it is pending. In the first case, if the proceeding is completely finished, the new law is not applicable to it, because the authority of res judicata prevents it, whereby the past escapes the action of the legislator. In the second scenario, if the material relationship has not been submitted to proceedings, when it is, the proceeding must be processed according to the law in effect at the time of its initiation and not according to the law that governed when that material relationship was constituted, with the exception of the proof of the legal act, which is intimately linked to the act itself, and of the appeals, which are governed by the law in effect at the date the challenged resolution was issued. In the third case, if a new procedural law is enacted while a proceeding is pending, a distinction must be made between procedural acts prior to and subsequent to the date it comes into effect. The prior ones remain unaltered; the new law cannot have retroactive effect to destroy procedural acts definitively completed or executed. The subsequent ones must conform to the new law and consequently, the corresponding adaptation of procedures must be made to the extent legally possible, taking into account that a lack of defense (indefensión) is not caused to any of the parties.*" In the case under study, there is a transitional rule that provides that resolutions issued under the purview of the repealed regulations shall continue to be processed in the challenge proceeding under those cited regulations. In that sense, Transitional Provision II of the new Código Procesal Civil provides: "*Against the resolutions that are issued when this Código comes into effect, the appeals authorized by the procedural provisions in effect at the time they were issued shall be available.*" In this understanding, we must bear in mind that Article 31 of the now-repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial provided that an appeal was admissible against the order approving the judicial sale. Therefore, the appeal lodged is admissible.

THIRD: REGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF PRECLUSION AND REITERATION OF ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE: Doctrinally, it has been expressed that "preclusion is one of the characteristics of the modern process because through it, the following is achieved: a) That the process develops in a determined order, which is only achieved by preventing the parties from exercising their procedural powers whenever they please, without subjection to any temporal principle, b) That the process is constituted by various sections or periods, each dedicated to the development of specific activities. Once each period is concluded, it is not possible to go back to a previous one... In other words, preclusion engenders what modern proceduralists call 'phases of the process'; c) That the parties exercise their procedural rights and burdens in a legal manner, that is, not only within the term set by law for that purpose, but also with the proper formalities and requirements..." (PALLARES, Eduardo. Diccionario de Derecho Procesal Civil, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Mexico, p. 606). In the case at hand, without a doubt, the defendant party reiterates in the appeal the substantive and procedural matters developed in the brief filed on September twenty-fifth, two thousand seventeen (see from image 75 of the electronic case file). Through that writing, the defendant corporation raised an incident of defective procedural activity (actividad procesal defectuosa), nullity of the resolution in which the auction was first ordered, nullity of the published edict, lack of enforceability due to non-maturity of the obligation, and an incident of nullity for lack of notification to the trust company. In the first instance, the defendant party alleged that the auction had been ordered free of annotations and encumbrances. This was considered defective because the plaintiff corporation had concealed the annotation of proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI, which was recorded in the Public Registry prior to the registration of the mortgage constitution (an issue reiterated in the appeal now being addressed). In the second instance, it was alleged that the mortgage credit had been integrated into a trust as part of the guarantee and contemplates an express commissory pact insofar as it transfers assets forming part of the mortgage credit to the trustee. Based on this, the existence of a procedural defect is asserted because the trustee was not notified of the mortgage foreclosure (an allegation repeated in the appeal that is the subject of the decision in this resolution). In the third instance, the defendant corporation alleges the unenforceability of the mortgage credit because it is integrated into the trust agreement which governs the relations between the parties. Based on this, it is asserted that the trust extended the performance period to 360 months; that is, thirty years. Furthermore, based on the execution of the escrow trust agreement, material incompetence is asserted because any controversy arising from the trust agreement must be resolved through arbitration (this matter is again developed in the appeal filed against the order approving the auction). Having said the foregoing, it is appropriate to point out that all the matters developed by the defendant corporation to support the defective procedural activity and the unenforceability of the mortgage title were resolved in the order issued at fifteen hours forty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand seventeen. Ultimately, it can be stated with absolute certainty that said matters are completely precluded, as the incident of defective procedural activity was dismissed outright and the opposition was deemed unfounded.

FOURTH: Despite the criterion previously developed, it is deemed necessary, for the sake of absolute explicitness, to set forth some considerations that allow for determining the inadmissibility of the arguments made in the appeal now being heard. Regarding the issue of defective procedural activity, this tribunal, based on the legislation in force at the time (Civil Procedure Code of 1989 and Judicial Collection Law), had indicated that the opposition in this type of enforcement proceeding had to be exercised prior to the holding of the auction ordered in the initial order. That said, it is also necessary to note that the existence of different procedural moments to allege defective procedural activities does not constitute new possibilities for opposition to the collection being carried out. In reality, regarding procedural nullities, it is necessary to transcribe the provisions of articles 194 and 197 of the repealed Civil Procedure Code. The first of these provisions established: "When the law prescribes a certain form under penalty of nullity, the declaration of nullity may only be requested by the aggrieved party. Nevertheless, this nullity may be declared even ex officio, when a lack of defense (indefensión) has been produced or fundamental norms guaranteeing the normal course of the proceeding have been violated." The second cited article prescribed: "In the case of absolute nullities due to the existence of an essential defect (vicio esencial) for the ritual or progress of the proceeding, the judge shall order, even ex officio, that the necessary steps be taken so that it may follow its normal course. Nullity shall only be decreed when its pronouncement is absolutely indispensable to avoid a lack of defense or to guide the normal course of the proceeding. Nor shall it prosper if it is possible to reinstate the procedural step or correct the action, without prejudice to the other procedural acts." In principle, these two norms established the regime of absolute nullity in civil procedural matters, which, incidentally, occurs when an essential defect for the progress of the proceeding has been generated or a lack of defense is produced. This general regulation had to be harmonized with the design of the collection proceeding developed in the Judicial Collection Law. In that order of things, it could be affirmed that in the mortgage foreclosure proceeding, there was an initiation stage, a development stage, and a concluding stage. The initiation stage consisted of the complaint and the order ordering the auction. If during that phase of the mortgage foreclosure proceeding, defects causing nullity were produced, the defect must be claimed through the filing of the corresponding appeal. Ultimately, this was provided for generally by article 199, second paragraph, of the Civil Procedure Code insofar as it provides: "Nullity shall be claimed via an incidental proceeding./ That of resolutions must be alleged when filing the corresponding appeal against them." Undoubtedly, that provision required harmonization with article 31, subsection d), of the Judicial Collection Law, as it declared appealable the order ordering the auction. Therefore, once notified of the initial order, the defendant party had three days to file the appeal and claim the defects incurred by that resolution (claims regarding the content of the complaint, protest regarding the auction base set, raising of procedural defenses, and invocation of defects producing nullity). In the development stage, the acts linked to the judicial sale and the auction itself were generated. Ultimately, in this stage, the way to allege the existence of procedural defects producing nullity was through the challenge of the order approving the auction. Article 29, initial part, of the Judicial Collection Law indicated: "The auction and the defective procedural activity that may have occurred before or during its celebration, shall only be challengeable through the applicable appeals against the resolution approving it...". Finally, this same legal provision foresees a last procedural state in which the occurrence of procedural defects can be alleged, namely: "...Nullity may be alleged subsequent to the resolution approving it, via an incidental proceeding, solely when it is based on one of the grounds for which review is admissible. Said incident shall be inadmissible if filed after three months following knowledge of the ground, from the moment the aggrieved party should have known about it or could have asserted it." As can be observed, the various phases for alleging aspects producing nullity did not constitute new stages for formulating opposition to the collection.

FIFTH: In addition to what was stated in the preceding considerando, it is important to address, even if briefly, the arguments formulated by the appellant. In that order of ideas, it is important to emphasize that it is absolutely inadmissible to allege that the mortgage credit is unenforceable. In reality, the mortgage constitution agreement and the agreement constituting an escrow trust are two linked transactions that maintain absolute autonomy from one another. In that sense, doctrine, referring to this type of contracts, indicates: "Presupposing the existence of several contracts, it may occur that they are: 1º United only apparently or externally, as if they were executed on the same occasion or are contained in the same document, etc. Such a union is devoid of special consequences, affecting neither the individual nature of each contract, nor the legal regime applicable to each, nor the possibility that one may subsist without the other. 2º United in such a way that, even though distinct, they form a set desired globally as a whole. In this case, even though the regulation of each is different and independent from the other, they are linked in their vicissitudes; a linkage that manifests in different ways: principally as subordination of one to the other (such that the nullity of the latter entails the disappearance of the former, but not vice versa), as reciprocal dependence, and as an alternative union (both are desired alternatively, depending on whether a certain circumstance occurs or not)." (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil II, Derecho de Obligaciones, Volumen Primero, Novena Edición, José [Nombre3] Bosch Editor, 1994. p. 396). In the specific case, we would be in the presence of contracts united of the second type. Ultimately, the trust agreement, in developing its purposes, clearly establishes what the link with the mortgage credit is. Let us see: "OF THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST: The purposes of this Trust are: i) That the TRUSTEE receive in escrow the Patrimonial, Intellectual, and Use Rights (Derechos Patrimoniales, intelectuales y de Uso) deriving from the PERMITS described in Annex One; ii) That in the event that the TRUSTOR pays in full the principal, interests, costs, taxes, and any other expense guaranteed by the MORTGAGE LIEN [the credit collected in this proceeding] previously indicated, the TRUSTEE shall transfer back the aforementioned RIGHTS to the TRUSTOR or to the individual or legal entity designated by the latter; iii) That in the event of a potential change of the registered owner of the referred property, the cause of which is the foreclosure of the mortgage guarantee mentioned in background A) above, THE TRUSTEE, solely upon instruction from the TRUST BENEFICIARY, shall transfer in absolute ownership the RIGHTS that through this contract are placed in trust, in favor of said trust beneficiary or the individual or legal entity resulting as the new registered owner of the property..." (Sic. The boldface has been supplied). Now, it is the trust agreement itself that establishes which are the assets placed in trust, stipulating: "OF THE TRUST PATRIMONY: The patrimony of this Trust shall consist of the Patrimonial, Intellectual, and Use Rights deriving from the PERMITS described in Annex One, namely: i) Construction Permit, number Thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one, over the PROPERTY of the district of PUNTARENAS, real estate folio registration number [Placa1], granted by the Municipality of Puntarenas, in favor of the corporation PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA; ii) Environmental Viability as stated in resolution number NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE - TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN - SETENA, issued by the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, Setena) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, under Administrative File number D one - Nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight - two thousand thirteen - Setena, for the project called OCEAN MALL; iii) Architectural Plans, numbered from sheet A-One to sheet A-Twenty-four, ... iv) Electrical Plans, numbered from sheet E-one to sheet E-Twenty-eight... v) Structural Plans numbered from sheet ES-One to sheet ES-thirty-three..., vi) Mechanical Plans, numbered from sheet M-One to sheet M-twenty-three....". As can be observed, the property mortgaged and auctioned in this proceeding does not constitute one of the assets placed in trust; nor does the mortgage credit constitute such an asset, which is why there is no absorption whatsoever of the mortgage constitution agreement by the trust agreement. This finding leads to the following conclusions: a) The mortgage credit maintains absolute autonomy with respect to the trust agreement; therefore, the clauses regarding the maturity of the credit are those contemplated in the transaction constituting the security interest in rem. b) Having registered the mortgage in the respective registry and the timely payment of current interest not having been made by the defendant corporation, the enforceability of the credit occurred. c) The arbitration clause (cláusula compromisoria) established in the trust agreement has no type of effectiveness with respect to the mortgage credit being executed here. d) The legal entity named as trustee in the respective trust agreement did not need to be brought into this proceeding, and therefore, did not need to be notified of the initial order.

SIXTH: Finally, it becomes important to note that in the specific case, no procedural defect has been produced with respect to the annotation holder Bloques Pedregal S.A., as it was duly notified of this mortgage foreclosure proceeding. In the specific case, a simple review of the digital case file allows for determining that the allegation formulated by the defendant party completely lacks any factual basis. In the case under study, the notarial notification record, executed by the notary public Eugenio Hernández Rodríguez, can be verified in image 58 of the case file. The notarial record certifies that the judicial communication was carried out at the actual corporate domicile (domicilio real y social) of the company Bloques Pedregal S.A. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that in image 63 of the digital case file, the appearance of [Nombre4], in his capacity as representative of the cited corporation, is recorded. Therefore, it is manifestly evident that the defect alleged by the appellant is non-existent. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the grievance according to which the edict prepared in this proceeding suffers from a defect for failing to record the annotations that the property to be judicially sold should bear must be dismissed. This is so because the annotation missed by the appellant corresponded to a payment order proceeding (proceso monitorio) in which Bloques Pedregal S.A. appeared as an unsecured creditor (acreedor quirografario). Therefore, it is evident that the auction having been conducted based on a first-degree mortgage, said annotation had to be canceled at the moment the auction approval was carried out. This is so because the mortgage being executed in this proceeding was submitted to the National Registry on May twenty-third, two thousand sixteen; meanwhile, the attachment (embargo) levied for the personal credit of Bloques Pedregal S.A. was annotated on June second, two thousand sixteen. In that sense, article 27 of the repealed Judicial Collection Law provided: "Once the auction has been held and all legal requirements have been met, the court shall approve it. In the resolution approving it, it shall order the cancellation of the registrations or annotations relating to the superior, matured credit being executed and those inferior to it, as well as those appearing on the certification serving as the basis for the auction and those annotated thereafter. Likewise, the court shall authorize the pertinent protocolization and order the delivery of the property." Consequently, it is evident that the annotation of the cited attachment did not have to be borne by the mortgaged real property after the auction was held. As a corollary of the foregoing, the appeal filed is dismissed and the appealed order is confirmed.

POR TANTO

The appeal filed by the defendant corporation is dismissed and the appealed order is confirmed.

</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Judges of the Court.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" style=\"width:100%; border-collapse:collapse\"><tr><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt\"><img src=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"65\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">*4UD9XOMW1E461*</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">4UD9XOMW1E461</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">JUAN [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">- CASE MANAGER JUDGE</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt\"><img src=\" In this understanding, we must bear in mind that procedural rules are applicable, as a matter of principle, immediately to proceedings that are already in progress. In that vein, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in Voto 1992-108 of 15:00 hours on July 10, 1992, explains: "</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">III.- According to doctrine and jurisprudence, procedural law is of immediate application, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. If the procedural law does not provide otherwise, regarding its temporal effects it is necessary to distinguish three situations, depending on whether at the time the new law enters into force the proceeding is completely concluded, or the substantive legal relationship has not been submitted to proceedings, or the modification occurs while the proceeding is pending. In the first case, if the proceeding is completely concluded, the new law does not apply to it, because the authority of res judicata (cosa juzgada) prevents it, whereby the past escapes the legislator’s action. In the second scenario, if the substantive relationship has not been submitted to proceedings, when it is, the proceeding must be conducted under the law in force at the time of its commencement and not according to the law that governed when that substantive relationship was formed, except for the proof of the legal act, which is</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">intimately linked to the act itself, and for appeals (recursos), which are governed by the law in force on the date the contested resolution was issued. In the third case, if a new procedural law is enacted while the proceeding is pending, a distinction must be drawn between procedural acts prior and subsequent to the date it enters into force. Those prior remain unaltered; the new law cannot have retroactive effect to destroy procedural acts definitively completed or executed. Those subsequent must conform to the new law, and consequently the corresponding adjustment of procedures must be made to the extent legally possible, taking into account that no defenselessness (indefensión) is caused to any of the parties.\". </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">In the case under study, there is a transitory provision that stipulates that resolutions issued under the authority of the repealed regulations will continue to be processed in the challenge proceeding (proceso de impugnación) under said regulations. In that regard, Transitory Provision II of the new Civil Procedure Code provides: \"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Against resolutions that had been issued when this</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Code enters into force, the appeals (recursos) authorized by the procedural provisions in force</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">at the time they were issued shall be available.</span><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">\". </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">In that understanding, we must bear in mind that Article 31 of the now-repealed Judicial Collection Law provided that the appeal (recurso de apelación) was admissible against the order (auto) approving the auction (remate). Therefore, the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed is admissible.\"</span> **THIRD: ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PRECLUSION (PRECLUSIÓN) AND THE REITERATION OF ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE:** It has been doctrinaly expressed that \"*preclusion (preclusión) is one of the characteristics of the modern process because through it, the following is achieved: a) That the process develops in a specific order, which is only achieved by preventing the parties from exercising their procedural powers whenever they please, without being subject to any temporal principle; b) That the process is comprised of various sections or periods, each one dedicated to the development of certain activities. Once each period is concluded, it is not possible to return to a previous one... In other words, preclusion engenders what modern proceduralists call \"phases of the process\"; c) That the parties exercise their procedural rights and burdens in a legal manner, that is, not only within the term set by law, but also with the proper formalities and requirements...\"* (PALLARES, Eduardo. Dictionary of Civil Procedure Law, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Mexico, p. 606). In the instant case, without any doubt, the defendant party reiterates in the appeal (recurso de apelación) the substantive and procedural issues developed in the brief filed on September twenty-fifth, two thousand seventeen (see from image 75 of the electronic file).<span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> </span> Through that written submission, the defendant company raised an incident of defective procedural activity (incidente de actividad procesal defectuosa), nullity of the resolution in which the auction (remate) was first ordered, nullity of the published edict, lack of enforceability (exigibilidad) due to non-maturity of the obligation, incident of nullity for lack of notification of the trust company. First, the defendant party alleged that the auction (remate) had been ordered to be carried out free of annotations and encumbrances. This was considered defective because the plaintiff company had concealed the annotation of proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI, which appeared in the Public Registry prior to the registration of the mortgage's constitution (an issue reiterated in the appeal now addressed). Second, it was alleged that the mortgage credit had been integrated into a trust (fideicomiso) as part of the guarantee and contains an express commissory pact (pacto comisorio) insofar as it transfers assets that form part of the mortgage credit to the trustee. Based on this, the existence of a procedural defect is asserted because the trustee was not notified of the mortgage execution (ejecución hipotecaria)<span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> </span> (an allegation repeated in the appeal that is the subject of decision in this resolution). Third, the defendant company alleges the unenforceability of the mortgage credit because it is integrated into the trust contract (contrato de fideicomiso), which governs the relations between the parties. Based on this, it is asserted that the trust extended the performance period to 360 months, that is, thirty years. Furthermore, based on the signing of the custody trust contract, material incompetence is asserted because any controversy arising as a result of the trust contract must be settled in an arbitration forum (a theme developed again in the appeal filed against the order approving the auction).<span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> </span> Having said the above, it is opportune to point out that all the issues developed by the defendant company to underpin the defective procedural activity and the unenforceability of the mortgage title were resolved in the order (auto) of fifteen hours forty minutes on September twenty-ninth, two thousand seventeen. Ultimately, it can be affirmed with absolute certainty that said issues are completely precluded (precluidos), insofar as the incidence of defective procedural activity was rejected outright and the opposition was deemed unfounded.\" Puntarenas, at nine hours and fifty-eight minutes on the twenty-second of January of two thousand nineteen.

**MORTGAGE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING** established by **INVERSIONES SPEITH LIMITADA,** legal identification number CED1 -, represented by [Nombre1] , in his capacity as manager with powers of unrestricted general attorney-in-fact without limit of sum, against **PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA,** legal identification number CED2, represented by [Nombre2] , in his capacity as president with powers of unrestricted general attorney-in-fact without limit of sum.

Having reviewed the appeal filed by the special judicial attorney-in-fact of the defendant corporation against the order of fifteen hours nine minutes of the twentieth of December of two thousand seventeen, it is resolved:

Judge *Mejías Cordero* drafts; and **CONSIDERANDO:** **FIRST: SUMMARY OF APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES:** In the specific case, the appellant argues that the instrument serving as the basis for the enforcement lacks enforceability because it is contractually integrated into a custody trust (fideicomiso de custodia) agreement. Based on this, it is maintained that the mortgage credit has been distorted by the creditor and the debtor. Next, it is argued that the trust agreement contains a leonine clause insofar as it limits the right of defense of the defendant corporation. Secondly, it is considered that due to the integration of the mortgage credit into the trust agreement, the judicial collection court lacks jurisdiction to hear the collection claim. This, as argued, is because the parties established that any dispute arising must be heard by arbitral tribunals. Based on the signing of the trust agreement, it is argued that notification of the collection proceeding to the trustee was required because it is the entity responsible for administering the two guarantees granted to the plaintiff. One of these, it is stated, constitutes an express acceleration clause (pacto comisorio) insofar as, depending on the outcome of the mortgage enforcement, the creditor would privately appropriate the guarantees concerning state permits. This, from the appellant's perspective, was concealed from the judge to obtain an unlawful and harmful benefit against the estate, and based on this, the illegality of the consideration (causa) of the mortgage is alleged. Furthermore, the auction held is deemed null because at the time of filing the complaint, the mortgaged property had recorded on it proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI. This recording, it is noted, had been made prior to the recording of the present mortgage claim. In addition, it is argued that the point was addressed in the first instance but with an evident error regarding the dates, because it was asserted that the mortgage now being enforced was submitted to the registry on June 10, 2016, and not May 13 of that same year. Consequently, when the constitution of the mortgage was submitted, the seizure (embargo) of Bloques Pedregal S.A. was already recorded. Therefore, it is considered that the auction should have been conducted subject to the aforementioned recording, and thus, the cancellation of the debt owed by the debtor herein, Puntarenas Ocean Mall S.A., to Bloques Pedregal S.A., should have occurred. It is insisted that because the auction of the property was not conducted subject to the cited recording, due process has been violated. Next, it is indicated that the edict (edicto) prepared in this specific case also shows a defect insofar as it does not record the entries (anotaciones) that the mortgaged property was subject to. Based on this, it is considered that the provisions of Article 21.5 of the repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial were violated because the plaintiff prevented the party with the recorded interest from exercising its right to be paid in this mortgage proceeding, thus maintaining a debt of one million United States dollars. Therefore, it is requested to annul the auction and order the publication of a new edict stating that the property to be auctioned is subject to a payment order proceeding (proceso monitorio) filed by Bloques Pedregal S.A. Furthermore, in the appeal, grievances are formulated called "*procedural nullities affecting the approval of the auction*." At this point, the issue of the integration of the mortgage credit into a trust agreement is taken up again, with a slightly different focus. The lack of enforceability is invoked because the plaintiff company authorized the defendant corporation to default on payment. This, it is argued, had to be proven through testimonial evidence. On the other hand, the supposed integration of the mortgage credit into the trust agreement, in which the avenues contemplated in the Ley de Cobro Judicial were waived, is invoked again. This is because, in exercise of contractual freedom, the parties agreed that any dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

**SECOND: ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL:** In the specific case, we must bear in mind that the order approving the auction was issued at fifteen hours and nine minutes on the twentieth of December of two thousand seventeen. On the other hand, the appeal with concomitant nullity filed by the defendant corporation was filed on the eighth of January of two thousand eighteen. That said, we must bear in mind that at the time this decision was issued, the new Código Procesal Civil had entered into force. In that sense, we must bear in mind that procedural rules are applicable, as a matter of principle, immediately to proceedings that are pending. In that vein, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in Voto number 1992-108 of 15:00 hours on July 10, 1992, explains: "*III.- According to doctrine and jurisprudence, procedural law is of immediate application, unless expressly provided otherwise. If the procedural law does not provide otherwise, regarding its effects over time, it is necessary to distinguish three situations, depending on whether at the time the new law enters into force the proceeding is completely finished, or the material legal relationship has not been submitted to a proceeding, or, while it is pending, the modification occurs. In the first case, if the proceeding is completely finished, the new law is not applicable, because the authority of res judicata prevents it, meaning the past escapes the action of the legislator. In the second case, if the material relationship has not been submitted to a proceeding, when it is, the proceeding must be processed under the law in force at the time of its initiation and not according to the law that governed when that material relationship was constituted, with the exception of the proof of the legal act, which is intimately linked to the act itself, and of the appeals, which are governed by the law in force on the date the challenged resolution was issued. In the third case, if a new procedural law is enacted while the proceeding is pending, a distinction must be made between the procedural acts before and after the date it enters into force. The prior ones remain unchanged; the new law cannot have retroactive effect to destroy procedural acts definitively completed or executed. The subsequent ones must conform to the new law, and consequently, the corresponding adaptation of procedures must be made to the extent legally possible, taking into account that no defenselessness (indefensión) is caused to any of the parties.*" In the case under study, there is a transitional provision that provides that resolutions issued under the authority of the repealed regulations will continue to be processed in the challenge proceeding under the cited regulations. In this sense, Transitory Provision II of the new Código Procesal Civil provides: "*Against the resolutions that were already issued upon the entry into force of this Code, the appeals authorized by the procedural provisions in force at the time they were issued shall be available*." In that sense, we must bear in mind that Article 31 of the already repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial provided that the appeal was admissible against the order approving the auction. Therefore, the appeal filed is admissible.

**THIRD: ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PRECLUSION AND REITERATION OF ALLEGATIONS ALREADY MADE:** Doctrinally, it has been stated that "*preclusion (preclusión) is one of the characteristics of the modern process because through it the following is achieved: a) That the process develops in a determined order, which is only achieved by preventing the parties from exercising their procedural faculties whenever they please, without subjection to any temporal principle, b) That the process is constituted by diverse sections or periods, each dedicated to the development of specific activities. Once each period is concluded, it is not possible to return to a previous one... In other words, preclusion generates what modern proceduralists call 'phases of the process'; c) That the parties exercise their procedural rights and burdens in a legal manner, that is, not only within the term that the law sets for it, but also with the proper formalities and requirements...*" (PALLARES, Eduardo. Diccionario de Derecho Procesal Civil, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Mexico, p. 606). In the case at hand, without a doubt, the defendant party reiterates in the appeal the substantive and procedural issues developed in the brief filed on the twenty-fifth day of September of two thousand seventeen (see from image 75 of the electronic file). Through that filing, the defendant corporation raised an incident of defective procedural activity, nullity of the resolution in which the auction was first ordered, nullity of the published edict, lack of enforceability due to non-maturity of the obligation, and an incident of nullity for lack of notification of the trustee corporation. In the first place, the defendant party alleged that the auction had been ordered to be conducted free of entries (anotaciones) and encumbrances. This was considered defective because the plaintiff corporation had concealed the recording of proceeding 16-000100-0181-CI, which was recorded in the Public Registry prior to the registration of the constitution of the mortgage (an issue reiterated in the appeal now being addressed). In the second place, it was alleged that the mortgage credit had been integrated into a trust as part of the guarantee and contemplates an express acceleration clause insofar as it transfers assets that form part of the mortgage credit to the trustee. Based on this, the existence of a procedural defect is maintained because the trustee was not notified of the mortgage enforcement (an allegation repeated in the appeal that is the subject of the decision in this resolution). In the third place, the defendant corporation alleges the lack of enforceability of the mortgage credit because it is integrated into the trust agreement, which governs the relations between the parties. Based on this, it is maintained that the trust extended the compliance period to 360 months; that is, thirty years. Furthermore, based on the signing of the custody trust agreement, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is maintained because any controversy arising as a result of the trust agreement must be resolved in an arbitration forum (this issue is developed again in the appeal filed against the order approving the auction). That stated, it is appropriate to point out that all the issues developed by the defendant corporation to substantiate the defective procedural activity and the lack of enforceability of the mortgage instrument were resolved in the order of fifteen hours forty minutes of the twenty-ninth of September of two thousand seventeen. Ultimately, it can be affirmed with absolute certainty that said issues are entirely precluded insofar as the incident of defective procedural activity was rejected outright and the opposition was deemed unfounded.

**FOURTH:** Despite the reasoning previously developed, it is considered necessary, for the sake of being absolutely explicit, to set out some considerations that allow the impropriety of the arguments formulated in the appeal now being heard to be determined. Regarding the issue of defective procedural activity, this tribunal, based on the regulations in force at the time (Código Procesal Civil of 1989 and Ley de Cobro Judicial), had indicated that the opposition in this type of expedited proceeding (proceso de apremio) had to be exercised before the holding of the auction ordered in the initial order. That said, it is also necessary to note that the existence of different procedural moments to allege defective procedural activities does not constitute new opportunities for opposition to the collection being carried out. In reality, with respect to procedural nullities, it is necessary to transcribe the provisions of Articles 194 and 197 of the repealed Código Procesal Civil. The first of these provisions stated: "*When the law prescribes a specific form under penalty of nullity, its declaration may only be requested by the injured party. However, this nullity may be declared even ex officio, when defenselessness has been produced or fundamental rules guaranteeing the normal course of the proceeding have been violated*". The second cited article prescribed: "*In the case of absolute nullities due to an essential defect in the rite or course of the proceeding, the judge shall order, even ex officio, that the necessary steps be taken so that it follows its normal course. Nullity shall only be decreed when its pronouncement is absolutely indispensable to avoid defenselessness or to guide the normal course of the proceeding. Neither shall it prosper if it is possible to reinstate the proceeding or correct the action, without prejudice to the other procedural acts*." As a matter of principle, those two norms established the regime of absolute nullity in civil procedural matters, which, incidentally, occurs when an essential defect for the course of the proceeding has arisen or defenselessness is generated. This general regulation had to be harmonized with the design of the collection proceeding developed in the Ley de Cobro Judicial. In that vein, it could be affirmed that in the mortgage enforcement proceeding there was an initiation stage, a development stage, and a finalization stage. The initiation stage consisted of the complaint and the order in which the auction was ordered. If during that phase of the mortgage enforcement proceeding nullity-causing defects have occurred, the defect must be claimed by filing the respective appeal. Ultimately, this was generally provided for in Article 199, second paragraph, of the Código Procesal Civil insofar as it states: "*Nullity shall be claimed by way of an incident./ That of resolutions shall be alleged when the appeal applicable against them is filed*." Without a doubt, that provision needed to be harmonized with Article 31, subsection d), of the Ley de Cobro Judicial insofar as it declared the order ordering the auction appealable. Therefore, once the initial order was notified to the defendant party, it had three days to file the appeal and claim the defects incurred by that resolution (claims regarding the content of the complaint, objection regarding the auction base established, raising of procedural defenses (excepciones procesales), and invocation of defects causing nullity). In the development stage, the acts linked to the judicial sale and the auction, properly speaking, were generated. Ultimately, at this stage, the way to allege the existence of procedural defects causing nullity was through the challenge of the order approving the auction. Article 29, initial part, of the Ley de Cobro Judicial stated: "*The auction and the defective procedural activity that may have occurred before or during its holding may only be challenged through the appeals available against the resolution that approves it*...". Finally, this same legal provision foresees a last procedural state in which the occurrence of procedural defects can be alleged, namely: "*...Nullity may be alleged subsequent to the resolution that approves it, by way of an incident, only when it is based on one of the grounds on which review is admissible. Said incident shall be inadmissible if filed after three months from the knowledge of the ground, from the moment the injured party should have known of it or could have asserted it.*" As can be observed, the various phases for alleging aspects producing nullity did not constitute new stages for formulating opposition to the collection.

**FIFTH:** In addition to what was stated in the previous Considerando, it is important to address, even if superficially, the arguments made by the appellant. In that vein, it is important to highlight that it is absolutely improper to allege that the mortgage credit is unenforceable. In reality, the mortgage constitution contract and the custody trust constitution contract are two linked negotiations that maintain absolute autonomy from one another.

In that regard, the doctrine referring to this type of contracts states: "Presupposing the existence of several contracts, it may occur that they are: 1st United only apparently or externally, as if they have been executed on the same occasion or are contained in the same document, etc. Such union is devoid of special consequences, affecting neither the individuality of each contract nor the legal regime applicable to each one nor the possibility that one may subsist without the other. 2nd United in such a way that, even though they are distinct, they form a whole desired globally as a unit. In this case, although the regulation of each one is different and independent from the other, they are linked in their vicissitudes; a linkage that manifests itself in different ways: principally as subordination of one to the other (so that the nullity of the latter drags the disappearance of the former, but not the reverse), as reciprocal dependence, and as alternative union (both are desired alternatively, depending on whether or not a certain circumstance occurs)." (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil II, Derecho de Obligaciones, Volumen Primero, Novena Edición, José [Nombre3] Bosch Editor, 1994. p. 396). In the specific case at hand, we would be in the presence of united contracts of the second type. Ultimately, the trust contract, in developing its purposes, clearly establishes what the link with the mortgage loan is. Let us see: "OF THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST: The purposes of this Trust are: i) That the TRUSTEE receives in custody the Patrimonial, Intellectual, and Use Rights deriving from the PERMITS described in Appendix One; ii) That in the event that the TRUSTOR pays in full the principal, interest, costs, taxes and any other expense that is guaranteed by the MORTGAGE LIEN [the loan claimed in this proceeding] previously indicated, the TRUSTEE shall transfer back the aforementioned RIGHTS to the TRUSTOR or to the natural or legal person designated by the latter; iii) That in the event of a potential change of the registered owner of the referred property whose cause is the enforcement (ejecución) of the mortgage guarantee mentioned in the foregoing background A), THE TRUSTEE, only upon instruction of the BENEFICIARY, shall transfer in absolute ownership the RIGHTS that are held in trust by means of this contract in favor of said beneficiary or the natural or legal person who results as the new registered owner of the property..." (Sic. The boldface has been supplied). Now then, it is the trust contract itself that establishes which are the trust assets upon stipulating: "OF THE TRUST PATRIMONY: The following shall constitute the patrimony of this Trust: The Patrimonial, Intellectual, and Use Rights deriving from the PERMITS described in Appendix One, namely: i) Construction Permit, number Thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy-one, over the PROPERTY of the PUNTARENAS district, registered real folio number [Placa1], granted by the Municipality of Puntarenas, in favor of the company PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA; ii) Environmental Feasibility as stated in resolution number NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE - TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN - SETENA, issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, under Administrative File number D one - Nine thousand eight hundred twenty-eight - two thousand thirteen - SETENA, for the project called OCEAN MALL; iii) Architectural Plans, numbered from sheet A-One to sheet A-Twenty-four, ... iv) Electrical Plans, numbered from sheet E - one to E - Twenty-eight... v) Structural Plans numbered from sheet ES - One to sheet ES - thirty-three..., vi) Mechanical Plans, numbered from sheet M - One to sheet M - twenty-three....". As can be observed, the mortgaged property sold at judicial auction in this proceeding does not constitute one of the trust assets; nor does the mortgage loan constitute one, which is why there is no absorption whatsoever of the mortgage creation contract by the trust contract. That finding leads to the following conclusions: a) The mortgage loan maintains absolute autonomy with respect to the trust contract; which is why the clauses regarding the maturity of the loan are those contemplated in the business creating the real right of guarantee. b) Since the mortgage was registered in the respective registry and the timely payment of the current interest was not made by the defendant company, the enforceability of the loan occurred. c) The arbitration clause established in the trust contract has no type of effectiveness with respect to the mortgage loan being executed here. d) The legal person named as trustee (fiduciaria) in the respective trust contract did not have to be brought into this proceeding, and therefore, did not have to be notified of the initial order.

**SIXTH:** Finally, it is important to note that in the specific case, no procedural defect has occurred with respect to the annotation holder Bloques Pedregal S.A., given that it was duly notified of this mortgage enforcement (ejecución hipotecaria) proceeding. In the specific case, a simple review of the digital file allows one to determine that the allegation made by the defendant party completely lacks a factual basis. In the case under study, the notarial notification certificate, executed by the notary public Eugenio Hernández Rodríguez, can be seen in image 58 of the file. The notarial certificate records that the judicial communication was made at the actual and corporate domicile of the company Bloques Pedregal S.A. Even more, it is important to highlight that in image 63 of the digital file, the appearance of [Nombre4] is recorded, in their capacity as representatives of the cited company. Therefore, it is manifestly evident that the defect alleged by the appellant is non-existent. Lastly, it is important to emphasize that the grievance according to which the edict prepared in this proceeding suffers from a defect by not including the annotations that the property to be judicially sold should bear must be dismissed. This is so because the annotation missed by the appellant corresponded to an order for payment (proceso monitorio) in which Bloques Pedregal S.A. appeared as an unsecured creditor. Therefore, it is evident that once the auction was conducted based on a first-degree mortgage, said annotation had to be cancelled at the moment of the approval of the auction. This is so because the mortgage being enforced in this proceeding was filed with the National Registry on May twenty-third, two thousand sixteen; whereas the attachment (embargo) levied by personal credit of Bloques Pedregal S.A. was annotated on June second, two thousand sixteen. In that sense, Article 27 of the repealed Ley de Cobro Judicial provided: "Once the auction has been held and all legal requirements have been met, the court shall approve it. In the resolution approving it, it shall order the cancellation of the registrations or annotations relating to the overdue senior credit being executed and those junior to it, as well as those appearing on the certification forming the basis of the auction and those that have been annotated afterwards. Likewise, the court shall authorize the pertinent notarial incorporation and shall order the delivery of the property." Consequently, it is evident that the annotation of the cited attachment did not have to be borne by the mortgaged real property after the auction was conducted. As a corollary of the foregoing, the appeal filed is rejected and the appealed order is confirmed.

**POR TANTO** The appeal filed by the defendant company is rejected and the appealed order is confirmed.

<span style="line-height:150%; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Judges of the Court.</span> <span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span> <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span> | <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span> | <img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">*4UD9XOMW1E461*</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">4UD9XOMW1E461</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">JUAN [Nombre5]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">- PROCESSING JUDGE</span> | <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span> | | <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span> | <img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">*SERABHTZ1KE61*</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">[Nombre6]</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">[Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">- DECIDING JUDGE</span> | <span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">&#xa0;</span> | <img src="

Documento PJEDITOR *170010371207CJ* TRÁMITE DE APELACIÓN ACTOR/A:

INVERSIONES SPEITH LTDA DEMANDADO/A:

PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL S.A PODER JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN DE PUNTARENAS VOTO NÚMERO 002-C-2019 TRIBUNAL DE APELACION CIVIL Y TRABAJO PUNTARENAS. Puntarenas, a las nueve horas y cincuenta y ocho minutos del veintidós de enero de dos mil diecinueve.

PROCESO DE EJECUCIÓN HIPOTECARIA establecido por INVERSIONES SPEITH LIMITADA, cédula jurídica CED1 -, representada por [Nombre1] , en su condición de gerente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, en contra de PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica CED2, representada por [Nombre2] , en su condición de presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma.

Visto el recurso de apelación presentado por el apoderado especial judicial de la sociedad demandada en contra del auto de las quince horas nueve minutos del veinte de diciembre de dos mil diecisiete se resuelve:

Redacta el juez Mejías Cordero; y

CONSIDERANDO:

PRIMERO: RESUMEN DE AGRAVIOS DEL RECURRENTE: En el supuesto concreto, el apelante aduce que el título base de la ejecución carece de ejecutividad por cuanto se encuentra contractualmente integrado a un convenio de fideicomiso de custodia. Con base en ello, se sostiene que el crédito hipotecario ha sido desnaturalizado por parte del acreedor y el deudor. Luego, se sostiene que el contrato de fideicomiso tiene una cláusula leonina en tanto limita el derecho de defensa de la sociedad demandada. En segundo término, se estima que en razón de la integración del crédito hipotecario al contrato de fideicomiso el juzgado de cobro judicial carece de competencia para conocer de la pretensión cobratoria. Ello, según se argumenta, obedece a que las partes establecieron que toda controversia surgida debía ser conocida por los tribunales arbitrales. Con base en la suscripción del contrato de fideicomiso se sostiene que era requerida la notificación del proceso cobratorio al fiduciario por cuanto es el ente encargado de administrar las dos garantías concedidas al actor. Uno de ellos, según se afirma, constitutivo de un pacto comisorio expreso en tanto dependiendo de las resulta de la ejecución hipotecaria el acreedor se adjudicaba privadamente las garantías concernientes a permisos estatales. Ello, desde el enfoque del apelante, fue ocultado al juzgador con el fin de obtener un beneficio antijurídico y lesivo en contra del patrimonio, y con base en ello, se acusa la ilegalidad de la causa de la hipoteca. Por otra parte, se estima nulo el remate llevado a cabo por cuanto para el momento de presentación de la demanda el bien hipotecado tenía anotado el proceso 16-000100-0181-CI. Esa anotación, se acota, se había efectuado con antelación a la anotación de la presente demanda hipotecaria. Aunado a ello, se sostiene que el punto fue abordado en primera instancia pero con evidente error en cuanto a las fechas pues se aseguró que la hipoteca ahora ejecutada se presentó al registro en fecha 10 de junio de 2016 y no el 13 de mayo de ese mismo año. En consecuencia, cuando se presentó la constitución de la hipoteca estaba anotado el embargo de Bloques Pedregal S.A. Por lo tanto, se estima que el remate debió efectuarse soportando la citada anotación, y de ese modo, producirse la cancelación del crédito mantenido por la aquí deudora, Puntarenas Ocean Mall S.A., con Bloques Pedregal S.A. Se insiste que al no haberse efectuado el remate del inmueble soportando la citada anotación se ha violentado el debido proceso. Luego, se indica que el edicto elaborado en el caso concreto también evidencia un defecto en tanto no hace constar las anotaciones que soportaba el bien hipotecado. Con fundamento en ello, se estima vulnerado lo dispuesto en el artículo 21.5 de la derogada Ley de Cobro Judicial pues el accionante evitó que el anotante ejerciera su derecho a ser pagado en el este proceso hipotecario manteniéndose, entonces, una deuda de un millón de dólares de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. Por ello, se pide anular el remate y ordenar la publicación de un nuevo edicto en el cual se haga constar que el inmueble a rematar sale soportando proceso monitorio planteado por Bloques Pedregal S.A. Además, en el recurso de apelación se formulan agravios denominado "nulidades procesales que afectan la aprobación del remate". En este punto, se retoma, con enfoque un poco diverso, el tema de la integración del crédito hipotecario en un contrato de fideicomiso. Se invoca la falta de exigibilidad por cuanto la empresa actora autorizó que la sociedad demandada incurriera en cesación de pago. Ello, según se sostiene, debía ser demostrado mediante prueba testimonial. Por otra parte, se invoca de nuevo la supuesta integración del crédito hipotecario al contrato de fideicomiso en el cual se renunció a las vías contempladas en la Ley de Cobro Judicial. Ello así, por cuanto en uso de la libertad contractual las partes acordaron que cualquier disputa sería dilucidada por la vía arbitral.

SEGUNDO: ADMISIBILIDAD DEL RECURSO: En el supuesto concreto, hemos de tener presente que el auto mediante el cual se aprueba el remate fue dictado a las quince horas y nueve minutos del veinte de diciembre de dos mil diecisiete. Por otra parte, el recurso de apelación con nulidad concomitante presentado por la sociedad demandada fue interpuesto en fecha ocho de enero de dos mil dieciocho. Dicho esto, hemos de tener presente que al momento de dictado de esta resolución ha entrado en vigencia el nuevo Código Procesal Civil. En esa inteligencia, hemos de tener presente que las normas de carácter procesal son aplicables, en tesis de principio, en forma inmediata a los procesos que se encuentren en tramitación. En ese orden de cosas la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el voto número 1992-108 de las 15:00 horas del 10 de julio de 1992, explica: "III.- Conforme a la doctrina y jurisprudencia, la ley procesal es de aplicación inmediata, salvo disposición expresa en contrario. Si la ley procesal no dispone otra cosa, respecto a sus efectos en el tiempo es necesario distinguir tres situaciones, según que al momento de entrar en vigencia la nueva ley el proceso se halle totalmente terminado, o que la relación jurídica material no haya sido sometida a proceso, o que, pendiente éste sobrevenga la modificación. En el primer caso, si el proceso se halla totalmente terminado la nueva ley no le es aplicable, pues lo impide la autoridad de la cosa juzgada, con lo que el pasado escapa a la acción del legislador. En el segundo supuesto, si la relación material no ha sido sometida a proceso, cuando lo sea, el proceso se debe tramitar por la ley vigente al momento de su iniciación y no según la ley que regía cuando esa relación material se constituyó, excepción hecha de la prueba del acto jurídico, que está íntimamente vinculada al acto mismo y de los recursos, que se rigen por la ley vigente a la fecha en que se dictó la resolución impugnada. En el tercer caso, si pendiente el proceso se promulga una nueva ley procesal, hay que distinguir los actos procesales anteriores y los posteriores a la fecha en que entra en vigencia. Los anteriores permanecen inalterados; la nueva ley no puede tener efecto retroactivo para destruir actos procesales definitivamente cumplidos o ejecutados. Los posteriores deben ajustarse a la nueva ley y en consecuencia debe hacerse la correspondiente adecuación de procedimientos en la medida de lo legalmente posible, teniendo en cuenta que no se cause indefensión a ninguna de las partes.". En el caso de estudio, existe una norma transitoria que dispone que las resoluciones dictadas bajo el imperio de la normativa derogada seguirán siendo tramitados en el proceso de impugnación por la citada normativa. En ese sentido, el Transitorio II del nuevo Código Procesal Civil dispone: "Contra las resoluciones que estuvieran dictadas al entrar en vigencia este Código cabrán los recursos autorizados por las disposiciones procesales vigentes al momento en que se dictaron.". En esa inteligencia, debemos tener presente que el artículo 31 de la Ley de Cobro Judicial ya derogada disponía que el recurso de apelación era admisible en contra del auto en el cual se aprobaba el remate. Por lo tanto, el recurso de apelación interpuesto resulta admisible.

TERCERO: SOBRE EL PRINCIPIO DE PRECLUSIÓN Y REITERACIÓN DE ALEGATOS YA EFECTUADOS: Doctrinariamente se ha expresado que la "preclusión es una de las características del proceso moderno porque mediante ella se obtiene: a) Que el proceso se desarrolle en un orden determinado, lo que sólo se consigue impidiendo mediante ella que las partes ejerciten sus facultades procesales cuando les venga en gana, sin sujeción a principio temporal alguno, b) Que el proceso esté constituido por diversas secciones o períodos, dedicados cada uno de ellos al desenvolvimiento de determinadas actividades. Concluido cada período, no es posible retroceder a otro anterior... En otras palabras, la preclusión engendra lo que los procesalistas modernos llaman "fases del proceso"; c) Que las partes ejerciten en forma legal sus derechos y cargas procesales, es decir, no sólo dentro del término que para ello fije la ley, sino también con las debidas formalidades y requisitos..." (PALLARES, Eduardo. Diccionario de Derecho Procesal Civil, Editorial Porrúa S.A., Mexico, p. 606). En el caso de marras, sin duda alguna, la parte demandada reitera en el recurso de apelación los temas de fondo y procesales desarrollados en el memorial presentado el día veinticinco de setiembre de dos mil diecisiete (ver a partir de la imagen 75 del expediente electrónico). Mediante ese escrito, la sociedad demandada planteó incidente de actividad procesal defectuosa, nulidad de la resolución en la cual se ordenaba por primera vez el remate, nulidad del edicto publicado, falta de exigibilidad por no vencimiento de la obligación, incidente de nulidad por falta de notificación de la sociedad fiduciaria. En primer término, la parte demandada alegó que se había ordenado llevar a cabo el remate libre de anotaciones y gravámenes. Ello se estimaba defectuoso por cuanto se había ocultado, por parte de la sociedad accionante, la anotación del proceso 16-000100-0181-CI la cual constaba en el Registro Público con antelación a la inscripción de la constitución de la hipoteca (tema que se reitera en el recurso de apelación ahora abordado). En segundo término, se alegó que el crédito hipotecario había sido integrado en un fideicomiso como parte de la garantía y contempla un pacto comisorio expreso en tanto traspasa bienes que forman parte del crédito hipotecario al fiduciario. Con base en ello, se sostiene la existencia de un defecto procesal por cuanto no se notificó a la fiduciaria de la ejecución hipotecaria (alegato que se repite en el recurso de apelación que es objeto de decisión en esta resolución). En tercer término, la sociedad demandada alega la inexigibilidad del crédito hipotecario por cuanto se encuentra integrado al contrato de fideicomiso el cual rige las relaciones entre las partes. Con base en ello, se sostiene que el fideicomiso amplió el plazo de cumplimiento a 360 meses; o sea treinta años. Además, con base en la suscripción del contrato de fideicomiso de custodia se sostiene la incompetencia de material por cuanto toda controversia surgida como consecuencia del contrato de fideicomiso debe ser dilucidada en sede de arbitraje (este tema se desarrolla nuevamente en el recurso planteado en contra del auto que aprueba el remate). Dicho lo anterior, resulta oportuno señalar que todos los temas desarrollados por la sociedad demandada para fundamentar la actividad procesal defectuosa y la inexigibilidad del título hipotecario fueron resueltos en el auto de las quince horas cuarenta minutos del veintinueve de setiembre de dos mil diecisiete. A la postre, se puede afirmar con absoluta certeza que dichos temas se encuentran totalmente precluidos en tanto se rechazó de plano la incidencia de actividad procesal defectuosa y se calificó de infundada la oposición.

CUARTO: Pese al criterio precedentemente desarrollado se estima necesario, a efectos de ser absolutamente explícitos, exponer algunas consideraciones que permiten determinar la improcedencia de los alegatos formulados en el recurso de apelación ahora conocido. En cuanto al tema de la actividad procesal defectuosa, este tribunal con fundamento en la normativa vigente en su momento (Código Procesal Civil de 1989 y Ley de Cobro Judicial) había indicado que la oposición en este tipo de proceso de apremio debía ser ejercida con antelación a la celebración del remate ordenado en el auto inicial. Dicho esto, resulta también necesario advertir que la existencia de diferentes momentos procesales para alegar actividades procesales defectuosas no constituyen nuevas posibilidad de oposición al cobro efectuado. En realidad, con respecto a las nulidades procesales es necesario transcribir lo dispuesto en los artículos 194 y 197 del Código Procesal Civil derogado. La primera de esas disposiciones establecía: "Cuando la ley prescribiere determinada forma bajo pena de nulidad, la declaración de ésta no podrá ser requerida sino por la parte perjudicada. No obstante, esta nulidad es declarable aún de oficio, cuando se hubiere producido indefensión o se hubieren violado normas fundamentales que garanticen el curso normal del procedimiento". El segundo artículo citado preceptuaba: "Cuando se trate de nulidades absolutas por existir un vicio esencial para la ritualidad o marcha del procedimiento, el juez ordenará, aún de oficio, que se practiquen las diligencias necesarias para que aquél siga su curso normal. La nulidad solo se decretará cuando sea absolutamente indispensable su pronunciamiento para evitar indefensión o para orientar el curso normal del procedimiento. Tampoco deberá prosperar si es posible reponer el trámite o corregir la actuación, sin perjuicio de los demás actos procesales". En tesis de principio, esas dos normas establecían el régimen de la nulidad absoluta en materia procesal civil la cual, dicho de paso, se produce cuando se ha generado un vicio esencial para la marcha del procedimiento o se genera indefensión. Esa regulación general debía ser armonizada con el diseño del proceso cobratorio desarrollado en la Ley de Cobro Judicial. En ese orden de cosas, podía afirmarse que en el proceso de ejecución hipotecaria existía una etapa de iniciación, otra de desarrollo y una de finalización. La etapa de iniciación estaba conformada por la demanda y el auto en el cual se ordenaba el remate. Si durante esa fase del proceso de ejecución hipotecaria se han producido defectos causantes de nulidad deberá reclamarse el vicio mediante la interposición del respectivo recurso de apelación. A la postre, ello estaba previsto en forma general por el artículo 199, párrafo segundo, del Código Procesal Civil en tanto dispone: "La nulidad se reclamará en vía incidental./ La de resoluciones deberá alegarse al interponerse el recurso que quepa contra ellas". Sin duda esa disposición requería ser armonizada con el artículo 31, inciso d), de la Ley de Cobro Judicial en tanto declaraba apelable el auto que ordena el remate. Por lo tanto, notificada la parte demandada del auto inicial contaba con tres días para plantear el recurso de apelación y reclamar los defectos en que incurre esa resolución (reclamos en cuanto al contenido de la demanda, protesta en cuanto a la base del remate dispuesta, planteamiento de las excepciones procesales e invocación de los vicios productores de nulidad). En la etapa de desarrollo se generaban los actos vinculados con la venta judicial y el remate, propiamente dicho. A la postre, en esta etapa la forma de alegar la existencia de vicios procesales productores de nulidad era mediante la impugnación del auto que aprueba el remate. El artículo 29, parte inicial, de la ley de Cobro Judicial indicaba: "El remate y la actividad procesal defectuosa que se haya producido antes o durante la celebración, solo serán impugnables mediante los recursos que quepan contra la resolución que lo aprueba...". Por último, esta misma disposición legal prevé un último estado procesal en el que se puede alegar la producción de defectos procesales, a saber: "...La nulidad podrá alegarse con posterioridad a la resolución que lo aprueba, por la vía incidental, únicamente cuando se sustente en una de las causales por las cuales es admisible la revisión. Dicho incidente será inadmisible, si se plantea después de tres meses posteriores al conocimiento de la causal, del momento en que el perjudicado debió conocerla o pudo hacerla valer.". Como puede observarse, las diversas fases para alegar los aspectos productores de nulidad no constituían nuevas etapas para formular oposición al cobro.

QUINTO: Aunado a lo dicho en el considerando anterior, resulta importante abordar, aunque sea someramente, los alegatos formulados por el apelante. En ese orden de ideas, resulta importante destacar que resulta absolutamente improcedente alegar que el crédito hipotecario resulta inexigible. En realidad, el contrato de constitución de la hipoteca y el contrato de constitución de un fideicomiso de custodia son dos negociaciones vinculadas que mantienen absoluta autonomía una de la otra. En ese sentido, la doctrina refiriéndose a este tipo de contratos indica: "Presupuesta la existencia de varios contratos, puede ocurrir que se hallen: 1º Unidos sólo aparentemente o externamente, como si se han celebrado en la mismo ocasión o constan en el mismo documento, etc. Tal unión está desprovista de consecuencias especiales, no afectando ni a la propia individualidad de cada contrato ni al régimen jurídico aplicable a cada uno ni a la posibilidad de que pueda subsistir uno sin el otro. 2º Unidos de tal manera que, aun siendo distintos, formen un conjunto querido globalmente como un todo. En este caso, si bien es diferente e independiente del otro la regulación de cada uno, se encuentran ligados en sus vicisitudes; ligazón que se manifiesta de diferentes modos: principalmente como subordinación del uno al otro (de forma que la nulidad de éste arrastra la desaparición de aquél, pero no a la inversa), como dependencia recíproca, y como unión alternativa (son queridos ambos alternativamente, según se dé o no cierta circunstancia)." (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil II, Derecho de Obligaciones, Volumen Primero, Novena Edición, José [Nombre3] Bosch Editor, 1994. p. 396). En el supuesto concreto, estaríamos en presencia de contratos unidos del segundo tipo. A la postre, el contrato de fideicomiso al desarrollar sus fines establece claramente cual es la vinculación con el crédito hipotecario. Veamos: "DE LOS FINES DEL FIDEICOMISO: Los fines de este Fideicomiso son: i) Que el FIDUCIARIO reciba en custodia los Derechos Patrimoniales, intelectuales y de Uso provenientes de los PERMISOS descritos en el Anexo Uno; ii) Que en caso dde que el FIDEICOMITENTE pague en su totalidad el capital, intereses, costas, impuestos y cualquier otro gasto que se encuentra garantizado por el GRAVAMEN HIPOTECARIO [el crédito cobrado en este proceso] anteriormente indicado, el FIDUCIARIO traspase en devolución los DERECHOS mencionados al FIDEICOMITENTE o a la persona física o jurídica que éste designe, iii) Que en el caso de un eventual cambio de propietario registral del inmueble referido cuya causal sea la ejecución de la garantía hipotecaria mencionada en el antecedente A) anterior, EL FIDUCIARIO solamente a instrucción del FIDEICOMISARIO traspasará en propiedad absoluta los DERECHOS que por medio de este contrato se fideicometen a favor de dicho fideicomisario o la personas física o jurídica que resulte como nuevo propietario registral del inmueble..." (Sic. La negrilla ha sido suplida). Ahora bien, es el mismo contrato de fideicomiso el que establece cuales son los bienes fideicometidos al estipularse: "DEL PATRIMONIO FIDEICOMETIDO: Constituirá el patrimonio de este Fideicomiso Los DERECHOS Patrimoniales, intelectuales y de Uso provenientes de los PERMISOS descritos en el Anexo Uno, a saber: i) Permiso de Construcción, número Trece mil ochocientos setenta y uno, sobre la FINCA del partido de PUNTARENAS, matrícula de folio real número [Placa1] , otorgado por la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, a favor de la sociedad PUNTARENAS OCEAN MALL SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA; ii) Viabilidad Ambiental según consta en la resolución número NOVECIENTOS VEINTITRÉS- DOS MIL CATORCE - SETENA, emitida por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (Setena) del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, bajo el número de Expediente Administrativo D uno - Nueve mil ochocientos veinticoho - dos mil trece - Setena, para el proyecto denominado OCEAN MALL; iii) Planos Arquitectónicos, numerado de la lámina A-Uno a la lámina A-Veinticuatro, ... iv) Planos Eléctricos, numerados de la lámina E - uno a la E- Veintiocho... v) Planos Estructurales numerados de la lámina ES - Uno a la lámina ES - treinta y tres..., vi) Planos Mecánicos, numerados de la lámina M - Uno a la lámina M - veintitrés....". Como puede observarse, el bien hipotecado y rematado en este proceso no constituye uno de los bienes fideicometidos; tampoco lo constituye el crédito hipotecario motivo por el cual no existe absorción alguna del contrato de constitución de hipoteca por parte del contrato de fideicomiso. Esa constatación conduce a las siguientes conclusiones: a) El crédito hipotecario mantiene absoluta autonomía con respecto al contrato de fideicomiso; motivo por el cual, las cláusulas sobre el vencimiento del crédito son los contemplados en el negocio constitutivo del derecho real de garantía. b) Inscrita la hipoteca en el respectivo registro y no habiéndose efectuado el pago oportuno de los intereses corrientes por parte de la sociedad demandada se produjo la exigibilidad del crédito. c) La cláusula compromisoria establecida en el contrato de fideicomiso no tiene ningún tipo de eficacia con respecto al crédito hipotecario que aquí se ejecuta. d) La persona jurídica nombrada como fiduciaria en el respectivo contrato de fideicomiso no debía ser traída a este proceso, y por tanto, no debía ser notificada del auto inicial.

SEXTO: Por último, se torna importante acotar que en el supuesto concreto ningún vicio procesal se ha producido con respecto al anotante Bloques Pedregal S.A. por cuanto fue debidamente notificado de este proceso de ejecución hipotecaria. En el supuesto concreto, la simple revisión del expediente digital permite determinar que el alegato formulado por la parte demandada carece por completo de asidero fáctico. En el caso de estudio, puede constarse en la imagen 58 del expediente el acta de notificación notarial, efectuada por el notario público Eugenio Hernández Rodríguez. En el acta notarial se hace constar que la comunicación judicial se efectuó en el domicilio real y social de la empresa Bloques Pedregal S.A. Incluso, resulta importante destacar que en la imagen 63 del expediente digital consta el apersonamiento de [Nombre4] , en su condición de representantes de la citada sociedad. Por lo tanto, resulta manifiestamente evidente que el vicio alegado por el apelante es inexistente. Por último, resulta importante destacar que debe ser desestimado el agravio según el cual el edicto elaborado en este proceso adolece de un defecto al no consignar las anotaciones que debía soportar el bien a vender judicialmente. Ello es así, por cuanto la anotación que se echa de menos por el apelante correspondía a un proceso monitorio en que Bloques Pedregal S.A. figuraba como acreedor quirografario. Por lo tanto, resulta evidente que efectuado el remate con base en hipoteca de primer grado dicha anotación debía ser cancelada al momento de efectuarse la aprobación del remate. Ello, así por cuanto la hipoteca que se ejecuta en este proceso fue presentada al Registro Nacional en fecha veintitrés de mayo de dos mil dieciséis; en tanto, el embargo practicado por crédito personal de Bloques Pedregal S.A. fue anotado en fecha dos de junio de dos mil dieciséis. En ese sentido, el artículo 27 de la derogada Ley de Cobro Judicial disponía: "Celebrado el remate y habiéndose cumplido todos los requerimientos legales, el tribunal lo aprobará. En la resolución que lo apruebe, se ordenará cancelar las inscripciones o anotaciones relativas al crédito de grado superior vencido que se ejecuta y las inferiores de este, así como las que consten en la certificación base de la subasta y las que se hayan anotado después. Asimismo, el tribunal autorizará la protocolización pertinente y ordenará la entrega del bien.". En consecuencia, resulta evidente que la anotación del citado embargo no debía ser soportada por el bien inmueble hipotecado luego de efectuado el remate. Como corolario de lo expuesto, se rechaza el recurso de apelación interpuesto y se confirma el auto apelado.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza el recurso de apelación interpuesto por la sociedad demandada y se confirma el autor apelado. Jueces del Tribunal.

*4UD9XOMW1E461* JUAN [Nombre5] - JUEZ/A TRAMITADOR/A *SERABHTZ1KE61* [Nombre6] [Nombre7] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *VOKIGDQ47UNS61* GUSTAVO [Nombre8] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Tribunal de Justicia de Puntarenas, [Dirección1] Teléfonos: 2630-03-59 y 0630-04-00. Fax: 2661-27-14. Correo electrónico: [...]