{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-144368", "citation": "Res. 00098-2012 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IV", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Nulidad parcial de avalúo municipal de bienes inmuebles por uso de área catastral en lugar de área registral", "title_en": "Partial nullity of municipal property appraisal for using cadastral area instead of registered area", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección IV, conoció de una demanda contra la Municipalidad de San Pablo de Heredia interpuesta por Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A. La actora impugnó el avalúo municipal de su finca, alegando errores técnicos, omisión de factores como la topografía y el carácter enclavado del terreno, y que se le impuso la carga de la prueba para desvirtuarlo. El Tribunal analizó el marco legal del impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles y las funciones del Órgano de Normalización Técnica, concluyendo que el avalúo fue practicado conforme a los parámetros técnicos aplicables y que la carga de la prueba correspondía al contribuyente, según el artículo 33 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles. Sin embargo, detectó un vicio: el avalúo se basó en el área del plano catastrado y no en la inscrita en el Registro Público, como exige el artículo 17 del Reglamento. Por ello, declaró la nulidad parcial del avalúo exclusivamente en cuanto al uso del área catastral y ordenó a la Municipalidad realizar el ajuste conforme a la ley.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Litigation Court, Section IV, heard a lawsuit against the Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia filed by Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A. The plaintiff challenged the municipal appraisal of its property, alleging technical errors, omission of factors such as topography and the landlocked nature of the parcel, and that the burden of proof was improperly placed on it. The Court analyzed the legal framework for property tax and the role of the Technical Standardization Body, concluding that the appraisal was carried out in accordance with applicable technical parameters and that the burden of proof fell on the taxpayer under Article 33 of the Property Tax Law Regulations. However, it found a defect: the appraisal was based on the cadastral plan area rather than the area registered in the Public Registry, as required by Article 17 of the Regulations. Accordingly, the Court declared the partial nullity of the appraisal solely regarding the use of the cadastral area and ordered the Municipality to make the necessary adjustment.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IV", "date": "2012", "year": "2012", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "avalúo", "nulidad parcial", "carga de la prueba", "Órgano de Normalización Técnica", "zona homogénea", "plano catastrado", "área registral" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 12", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 10", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 17", "law": "Ley 7509" }, { "article": "Art. 33", "law": "Decreto 27601" }, { "article": "Art. 13", "law": "Decreto 27601" } ], "keywords_es": [ "avalúo municipal", "nulidad parcial", "carga de la prueba", "impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles", "Órgano de Normalización Técnica", "zona homogénea", "área registral", "plano catastrado" ], "keywords_en": [ "municipal appraisal", "partial nullity", "burden of proof", "property tax", "Technical Standardization Body", "homogeneous zone", "registered area", "cadastral plan" ], "excerpt_es": "De la revisión del avalúo Municipal, se desprende que el mismo se realizó con fundamento en la medida del área registrada en el plano castrado h- 470483-82, lo que efectivamente como bien lo apunta el representante del actor contraviene lo dispuesto en la norma anteriormente transcrita, lo que evidencia que ese elemento influyó en el resultado final del avalúo, y constituye en consecuencia un vicio en el acto administrativo de valoración. No obstante, del análisis realizado supra, el avalúo en los restantes elementos técnicos fue practicado conforme lo establece la ley, el reglamento y las normas del órgano Técnico, lo cual no pude ser desvirtuado por la empresa actora, por lo que en criterio de este órgano colegiado resulta innecesario e inconveniente, que por el vicio de un solo elemento técnico, el acto administrativo sea anulado en su totalidad, en razón de lo anterior, por ser un dato técnico que debe ser utilizado y analizado conforme lo establece el numeral 17 en su párrafo segundo, se declara la nulidad parcial del acto valorativo, sólo en cuanto a que tomo como base el plano catastrado y no lo dispuesto por el numeral 17 de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles, por lo que se remite a la Municipal demanda a fin de que realice el ajuste necesario conforme lo establece la ley.", "excerpt_en": "Upon review of the Municipal appraisal, it is evident that it was based on the area measurement recorded in cadastral plan h-470483-82, which, as rightly pointed out by the plaintiff's representative, contravenes the provision transcribed above. This shows that this element influenced the final appraisal result and thus constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis conducted above, the appraisal regarding the remaining technical elements was performed in accordance with the law, the regulation, and the norms of the Technical Body, which could not be refuted by the plaintiff company. Therefore, in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient to annul the administrative act in its entirety due to the defect of a single technical element. Consequently, given that it is a technical datum that must be used and analyzed as established in the second paragraph of Article 17, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it was based on the cadastral plan rather than on the provision of Article 17 of the Property Tax Law. The matter is remitted to the defendant Municipality to make the necessary adjustment as established by law.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Partially granted", "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar", "summary_en": "The Court partially upheld the claim, declaring the partial nullity of the municipal appraisal only insofar as it used the cadastral area instead of the registered area, and ordered the Municipality to make the necessary adjustment.", "summary_es": "Se declara la nulidad parcial del avalúo municipal únicamente en cuanto al uso del área catastral en lugar del área registral, ordenando a la Municipalidad realizar el ajuste conforme a la ley." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer disagrees with the appraisal or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence supporting their claim.", "quote_es": "La norma es clara al establecer que si el contribuyente no se encuentra de acuerdo con el avalúo o alguno de sus factores o ajustes, deberá aportar la prueba en que fundamente su reclamo." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "Upon review of the Municipal appraisal, it is evident that it was based on the measurement of the area recorded in the cadastral plan... which contravenes the provision... and thus constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act.", "quote_es": "De la revisión del avalúo Municipal, se desprende que el mismo se realizó con fundamento en la medida del área registrada en el plano castrado... lo que contraviene lo dispuesto en la norma... y constituye en consecuencia un vicio en el acto administrativo de valoración." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it was based on the cadastral plan rather than on the provision of Article 17 of the Property Tax Law.", "quote_es": "Se declara la nulidad parcial del acto valorativo, sólo en cuanto a que tomo como base el plano catastrado y no lo dispuesto por el numeral 17 de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-26598", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7509 Art. 12" }, { "target_id": "norm-44362", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto 27601 Art. 33" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-144368", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-26598", "norm_num": "7509", "norm_name": "Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "09/05/1995" }, { "doc_id": "norm-28326", "norm_num": "7729", "norm_name": "Reforma de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "15/12/1997" }, { "doc_id": "norm-44362", "norm_num": "27601", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "12/01/1999" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“III-\r\nSobre el Objeto del Proceso: Indica el\r\nactor que mediante resolución administrativa BI-006-2010 de las 15:00 horas del\r\n18 de marzo de 2010, el Departamento de Bienes inmuebles y Valoración de la Municipalidad de San\r\nPablo de Heredia, modificó el avalúo 1067-2009 del 10 de febrero de 2010, sobre\r\nla finca 158482-000, dándole un valor de C 46.513.200. Alega el actor que para\r\ntal valoración el ente Municipal tomó criterios técnicos erróneos, impropios,\r\ninadecuados, y no aplicó otros necesarios tales como la topografía del terreno,\r\nsu extensión, anegamiento, antigüedad de las construcciones, fundo enclavado\r\nasí como las limitaciones legales que pesan sobre el inmueble, conforme el plan\r\nregulador cantonal, por lo que ataca el acto administrativo por exagerado,\r\ndesproporcionado y fuera de la realidad, lo cual constituye un enriquecimiento\r\nilícito para la corporación municipal. Se aplicaron criterios\r\ntécnicos por metro cuadrado, siendo lo correcto su valoración por hectárea o\r\nmanzana de terreno. Y le impone el ente municipal la carga de la prueba\r\nal administrado con el agravante de los costos económicos que ello implica. La\r\nparte accionada rechaza la demanda, argumenta que el avalúo 1067-2009 del 10 de\r\nfebrero de 2010, se realizó contando con todos los elementos que exige la ley\r\n7509 y sus reformas, y que los criterios técnicos mediante los cuales se\r\nrealizó el avalúo, fueron emitidos y establecidos por las directrices y\r\nherramientas dictadas por el Órgano de Normalización Técnica del Ministerio de\r\nHacienda, por lo que la valoración no es exagerada ni desproporcionada y al\r\ntomar el Municipio los parámetros establecidos por el ente regulador conforme la Ley 7609, y sus reformas en el\r\nartículo 12, por lo que el acto no es ilícito como lo indica el accionante, y\r\nque en materia de valoraciones solo puede tomar en cuenta los criterios\r\nestablecidos por el órgano de Normalización Técnica del Ministerio de Hacienda.\n\r\n\r\n\nIII-\r\nAspectos jurídicos:\n\r\n\r\n\nEl\r\nimpuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, fue dispuesto por Ley No. 7509 en favor de las\r\nMunicipales, cuyo objeto son los terrenos, las instalaciones o las\r\nconstrucciones fijas y permanentes que allí existan. Respecto a su naturaleza, la Sala Constitucional\r\nha dicho “tributo de orden municipal en razón de su destino –únicamente–, pero\r\nno lo es en virtud de su procedimiento de origen o promulgación, dado que no\r\nnació de la iniciativa de los gobiernos locales, sino del ejercicio de la\r\npotestad tributaria otorgada a la Asamblea Legislativa,\r\nen virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política,\r\nes decir, que es producto de la propia labor legislativa ordinaria. Cabe\r\nreiterar que la\r\n Asamblea Legislativa es soberana, en cuanto al uso del\r\npoder tributario, para establecer los impuestos que se requieran, sean estos\r\nnacionales o municipales.” (Voto 5669-2009). Si bien\r\nemana del ejercicio\r\nde la potestad normativa y tributaria del Estado, la competencia sobre la\r\nrecaudación la tienen las Municipalidades, tomando en cuenta la ubicación del inmueble dentro del\r\nterritorio municipal como\r\npunto de conexión. Asimismo, la potestad administrativa de gestión del impuesto\r\ntambién la tienen los municipios, sin que ello obste para que exista una\r\ncoordinación con la Administración Tributaria Estatal, misma que,\r\ncomo se explicará, a la fecha se manifiesta en la existencia del Órgano de\r\nNormalización Técnica introducido por el artículo 2, inciso c) de la Ley 7729. La base imponible\r\npara el cálculo del impuesto será el valor del inmueble registrado en la Administración Tributaria,\r\nal 1 de enero del año que curse, lo que significa que todo inmueble debe\r\nser valorado, lo que le corresponde a cada Municipio. Como ya fuera indicado, para la gestión de este impuesto, la ley le otorga a las municipalidades el\r\ncarácter de Administración Tributaria, por lo que son los responsables retener\r\ny percibir el impuesto. Le atribuye también la ley prerrogativas y deberes a\r\nfin de poder cumplir con la gestión de este tributo,\r\nentre ellas “(…) realizar valoraciones de bienes inmuebles, facturar, recaudar\r\ny tramitar el cobro judicial y de administrar, en sus respectivos territorios,\r\nlos tributos que genera la presente Ley. (…).” (Artículo 3). \r\nEn lo referente al Órgano de Normalización Técnica, tiene su fundamento en el\r\nordinal 12 de la citada Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, creándolo como\r\nun órgano de desconcentración mínima adscrito al Ministerio de Hacienda,\r\ndenominado Órgano de Normalización Técnica. Este órgano es de\r\ncarácter técnico especializado y asesor de las municipalidades. Tiene\r\npor objeto garantizar mayor precisión y homogeneidad al determinar los valores\r\nde los bienes inmuebles en todo el territorio nacional; además, optimizar la\r\nadministración del impuesto, debe establecer las disposiciones generales de\r\nvaloración para el uso común de las municipalidades y suministrarles los\r\nmétodos de depreciación, las tasas de vida útil totales y estimadas, los\r\nvalores de las edificaciones según los tipos, los métodos para valorar terrenos,\r\nfactores técnicos y económicos por considerar en cuanto a topografía,\r\nubicación, descripción, equipamiento urbano y servicios públicos del terreno.\r\nSuministra a las Municipalidades lo insumos necesarios para la valoración de\r\nbienes inmuebles, entre las que pueden mencionarse, el Programa de Valoración,\r\nel Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva y la Plataforma de Valores\r\nde Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas, conforme lo impone el artículo 19 inciso a)\r\ndel Reglamento a la Ley No\r\n7509, Decreto Ejecutivo No.27601-H, son utilizados para elaborar un programa de\r\nvaloración específico para cada una de las fincas dentro de un determinado\r\ncantón, y constituyen parámetros o lineamientos de valoración, elaborados de\r\nacuerdo a un estudio técnico, y que obligatoriamente deberán ser utilizados por\r\nlos gobiernos locales al realizar los avalúos – a través de los valuadores\r\ncompetentes de conformidad con la\r\n Ley – para poder determinar el valor de un bien inmueble\r\nubicado en una determinada zona. El numeral 10 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre bienes\r\nInmuebles, refiere respecto a la valoración de los bienes inmuebles, “…Para efectos tributarios, todo inmueble debe ser\r\nvalorado. Los inmuebles se valorarán al acordarse una\r\nvaluación general y al producirse alguna de las causas que determinen la\r\nmodificación de los valores registrados, de acuerdo con esta Ley. La\r\nvaloración general será la que abarque, por lo menos, todos los inmuebles de un\r\ndistrito del cantón respectivo, de acuerdo con lo previsto en los artículos\r\nsiguientes y cuando ocurra la circunstancia mencionada en el artículo 15 de la\r\npresente Ley. La valoración general o individual se realizará una vez cada\r\ncinco años. Solo podrán efectuarse nuevas valoraciones cuando haya expirado este plazo. (Así reformado este párrafo final por el\r\nartículo 1º, inciso d), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”, el 10\r\nbis, impone que \"...Para los efectos de esta Ley, se define como avalúo el\r\nconjunto de cálculos, razonamientos y operaciones, que sirven para determinar el\r\nvalor de un bien inmueble de naturaleza urbana o rural, tomando en cuenta su\r\nuso. Este avalúo deberá ser elaborado por un profesional incorporado al Colegio\r\nde Ingenieros Agrónomos o al Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, con\r\namplia experiencia en la materia, referido en la moneda oficial del país y\r\nemitido en una fecha determinada. Se entenderá por valoración toda modificación\r\nde la base imponible de los inmuebles realizada por las municipalidades\r\nsiguiendo los criterios técnicos del Órgano de Normalización\r\nTécnica. (Así adicionado por el artículo 2º, inciso b), de la\r\nley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”. Resulta esencial\r\nindicar que la citada Plataforma de Valores, tiene su fundamento en el numeral\r\n17 de la citada Ley No. 7509 que, informa “…Cuando no exista declaración de\r\nbienes por parte del titular del inmueble, conforme al artículo anterior, la Administración Tributaria\r\nestará facultada para efectuar, de oficio, la valoración de los bienes\r\ninmuebles sin declarar. En este caso, la Administración Tributaria\r\nno podrá efectuar nuevas valoraciones sino hasta que haya expirado el plazo de\r\ncinco años contemplado en la presente Ley. La valoración general se hará\r\nconsiderando los componentes terreno y construcción, si ambos estuvieren\r\npresentes en la propiedad, o únicamente el terreno, y podrá realizarse con base\r\nen el área del inmueble inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad y en el valor\r\nde la zona homogénea donde se ubica el inmueble dentro del respectivo distrito.\r\nPara tales efectos, se entenderá por zona\r\nhomogénea el conjunto de bienes inmuebles con características similares en\r\ncuanto a su desarrollo y uso específico…” Las anteriores citas nos\r\npermite concluir que esta plataforma se obtiene mediante un estudio de campo\r\ndonde se recopilan los datos básicos del cantón o distrito, se muestra la zona a través de mapas y planos y se toman\r\nmuestras de los valores de los bienes inmuebles, logrando así determinar cuáles\r\nson las zonas homogéneas por similitud de desarrollo y uso; y los lotes tipos o\r\nfincas modales que serán aplicados a ese programa de valoración. Debe indicarse que se tendrá por lote o finca tipo, aquella cuya\r\ncaracterísticas son más frecuentes en una zona homogénea. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV- En el caso concreto.\n\r\n\r\n\nLa\r\n Municipalidad de San\r\nPablo de Heredia, en sustento al Acuerdo\r\nMunicipal 09-08-E del\r\n28 de mayo de 2008, procedió a realizar las valoraciones en el citado\r\ncantón. En este proceso quedó demostrado que\r\nefectivamente la empresa actora Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., como\r\nsu mismo representante lo reconoce en la etapa de conclusiones, no había\r\ncumplido con su deber formal de realizar la declaración sobre sus bienes, lo\r\nanterior a fin de que el Municipio procediera al cobro de los impuestos. La\r\noficina de valoraciones - Avaluó de inmuebles, procedió el 10 de febrero de 2010, a realizar el avalúo\r\n1067-2009 en la finca número 158482 propiedad de la empresa actora,\r\nestableciéndose mediante inspección previa, que la finca se encuentra ubicada\r\nen la zona homogénea Z01-U14, presentando un área según plano catastrado H-\r\n470483-84 de 3198\r\n metros cuadrados, un frente de 11,80 metros, con una\r\nregularidad de 080, contaba con servicios públicos de agua, electricidad,\r\nalumbrado y teléfono, sin acera, cordón y caño, con una pendiente de un 15%, su\r\nuso, tipo de vía, elementos éstos que fueron analizados para el avaluó\r\nrealizado a la propiedad, además de las construcciones existentes en la\r\npropiedad, a saber un galerón, con un área de 112 m2, con una edad\r\naproximada de 20 años, vida útil de 40 años, con un grado de depreciación 6,\r\nmisma a la cual se le otorgó un valor de c 44.100 por metro cuadrado,\r\npara un valoración total de la construcción de c 4.939,200. Respecto al\r\nterreno como tal fue valorado en la suma de c 13.000 por metro cuadrado, para\r\nun total de c 41.574.000, para un total en\r\nterreno y construcción de c 46.513.200, avalúo que fue puesto en conocimiento a\r\nla actora, quien opuso en sede administrativa recurso de revocatoria, mismo que\r\nle fue rechazado mediante acto administrativo a las quince horas del 18 de\r\nmarzo de 2010. Los argumentos del actor en la demanda, son en concreto, primero\r\nque el ente Municipal utilizó criterios técnicos erróneos, impropios,\r\ninadecuados, y que fue omiso respecto a otros criterios técnicos, como la\r\ntopografía del terreno, su extensión, anegamiento, antigüedad de las\r\nconstrucciones, fundo enclavado, y que la Administración le\r\nimpuso la carga de la prueba. Sobre éste último aspecto, el numeral 33 del\r\nReglamento a la Ley\r\nde Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, establece: \" Artículo 33.—Recursos contra\r\nlas valoraciones generales o individuales. Cuando la Administración Tributaria\r\npractique una valoración general o individual, el contribuyente que se\r\nconsidere afectado por el valor establecido, tendrá derecho de interponer recurso\r\nde revocatoria ante la Oficina\r\nde Valoraciones de la respectiva Municipalidad, dentro de los quince días\r\nhábiles siguientes, contados a partir del día siguiente a su respectiva\r\nnotificación. Si el recurso fuere declarado sin lugar, el contribuyente podrá\r\npresentar formal recurso de apelación para ante el Concejo Municipal, dentro de\r\nlos quince días hábiles siguientes a la notificación de la oficina de\r\nValoraciones.\n\r\nEn ambos recursos, el contribuyente debe señalar el factor o factores de ajuste\r\naplicados a las características físicas del\r\nterreno o la construcción, con los cuales no está conforme, debiendo aportar\r\nforzosamente, las pruebas que fundamentan su reclamo.\" Norma que pone fin a cualquier duda o discusión sobre a quien le\r\ncorresponde la carga de la prueba. La norma es clara\r\nal establecer que si el contribuyente no se encuentra de acuerdo con el avalúo\r\no alguno de sus factores o ajustes, deberá aportar la prueba en que fundamente\r\nsu reclamo. Lo anterior tiene su génesis, en que lo que cuestiona el interesado\r\nes una prueba técnica realizada en fundamento a elementos y parámetros ya\r\nestablecidos por un órgano técnico especializado, y el\r\nestudio de las zonas del\r\ncantón. El actor argumenta que la falencia de algunos elementos que no\r\nfueron tomados en cuenta; que el fundo era enclavado y no se consideró en el\r\navaluó, argumento que es desvirtuado en el mismo juicio, pues el mismo\r\nfuncionario Municipal Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez, mencionó que efectivamente\r\ncuando se realiza la valoración, se considera su\r\nubicación y acceso, el que fue mediante servidumbre de paso, encontrando tal\r\ncondición sustento dentro del mismo avaluó. Nótese que el mismo se realiza\r\nconforme al plano H-470483-82, visible a folio 17 del expediente\r\nadministrativo, documento que tenía en su poder la Municipalidad y del\r\nmismo se observa claramente la demarcación de la propiedad y su acceso mediante\r\nservidumbre de paso, aún cuando registralmente ésta no se encuentra declarado.\r\nEl actor menciona que la servidumbre es de hecho, porque no se encuentra\r\ninscrita, sin embargo al ser un elemento evidente dentro de la inspección y el\r\nplano de la Municipal,\r\nfue tomada en cuenta para el avalúo por la misma condición que reclama el actor\r\nde fundo enclavado, lo cual de forma evidente es un condición que debe ser\r\nvalorada por los funcionarios Municipales, como así se hizo. Nótese que desde\r\nel inicio el lote, es ubicado en la zona homogénea la cual corresponde, misma\r\nen la cual a un lote tipo, se le da un valor de c\r\n65.000 el metros cuadrado, como\r\nasí se desprende folios 83. Situación de igual forma que es\r\napreciada por el perito judicial nombrado en autos. Respecto a las\r\nconstrucciones, indica que no fueron\r\nconsideradas apropiadamente dándoles un valor mayor por parte de los\r\nfuncionarios Municipales. Sobre este tema en\r\nparticular el señor Carlos Guillén Ruiz Perito judicial, indica en el juicio\r\noral y público, que no asignó valor alguno a las construcciones por considerar\r\nque pueden removibles, por el contrario el avalúo municipal contempla la\r\nexistencia de las mismas sin que les proporcione tal característica. No debe\r\ndar a confusión tales afirmación, que en criterio de esta cámara no son\r\ncontradictorios, si bien el perito judicial indica que las construcciones\r\npuede ser removibles por su condición, no se traduce en que no existen, \r\npues aun cuando así lo fuera, no aportó la actora como es su obligación mayor\r\nprueba que demuestra el tipo de construcciones, sus dimensiones, su edad, las\r\ncondiciones precisas de las mismas, por ser el factor técnico por él cuestionado,\r\nno se cuenta en el proceso con prueba mínima como fotografías que muestren a\r\nesta cámara las citadas construcciones, si bien en el peritaje judicial se\r\naportaron algunas, no permiten apreciar las construcciones. No pierde de\r\nvista este Tribunal que bajo los mismo argumentos se atacó el avalúo en sede\r\nadministrativa, y la\r\n Administración le advierte claramente sobre este tema de las\r\nconstrucciones que es su obligación aportar la prueba para combatir el avalúo,\r\nsituación que se remite en este proceso, pues nótese que el actor no aporta\r\nprueba que combata o demuestre técnicamente lo contrario, de igual forma carece\r\nde sustento probatorio su argumento de que la topografía del terreno no se\r\nconsideró, pues lo contrario se desprende el avalúo como de las manifestaciones\r\nen el juicio oral, del funcionario municipal, que en la inspección apreciaron\r\nla condición del terreno y su conclusión se reflejó en el avalúo. Si bien se practicó prueba pericial autos, la misma carece de la\r\nfuerza probatoria necesaria para desvirtuar el avalúo realizado por la Administración Municipal.\r\nEn el juicio, al perito se le preguntó en varias ocasiones cual era el método\r\nque había utilizado para la valoración, a lo que respondió; primero que\r\ntomo en cuenta que la valoración era para aspectos fiscales sin poder\r\nexplicar cuales son las diferencias entre un avalúo para esa finalidad, uno\r\ncomercial o bien sea para la compra o venta de la propiedad y más importante su\r\nsegunda respuesta, al indicar que el método que había utilizado para la\r\nvaloración, lo había aprendido fuera del país, y él lo adapto a una tabla de\r\nexcel en la que se incluye la información y ésta le arroja el resultado, pero\r\nque si tomó en cuenta los c65.000 en que se encuentra valorado el metro\r\ncuadrado en la zona ubicada la propiedad, al respecto, de la prueba documental\r\npresentada por el ente Municipal visible a folios 33 a 48, Manual de Valores\r\nBase Unitario por Tipología Constructiva, mismo emitido por el órgano de\r\nNormalización Técnica del Ministerio de Hacienda para realizar los avalúos de\r\nlos terrenos, en donde se describen los métodos de valoración a utilizar,\r\nentre estos el método comparativo, lo anterior conforme a la determinación del\r\nlote tipo en la zona homogénea establecida, normas que no consideró el perito\r\njudicial al realizar su examen, conclusión y valoración del terreno. Pues el\r\navalúo municipal se realizó mediante la ejecución del método de\r\nvaloración comparativo y se le aplicaron los factores de corrección para el\r\nterreno. Para las construcciones fijas y permanentes e instalaciones se aplicó\r\nel manual de valores base unitarios por tipología constructiva, así como\r\nlas tablas de depreciación. El representante del actor de forma insistente,\r\nreitera que la\r\n Municipalidad atribuye la carga de la prueba al contribuyente,\r\ny que es ésta, la que debe realizar previo al avaluó las mediciones\r\ncorrespondientes para determinar que se valora, el área correcta, argumento que\r\ntampoco es de recibo. El Reglamento a la\r\n Ley de Impuesto de Bienes\r\nInmuebles, establece al efecto en su numeral \" Artículo 13.—De la\r\nvaluación individual. La Administración Tributaria podrá efectuar\r\nvaluaciones individuales, de oficio o a petición de parte, cuando lo estime\r\nconveniente previa verificación de la omisión en la presentación de la declaración\r\nde bienes inmuebles, que de carácter voluntario está obligado a presentar el\r\ncontribuyente o que haya cumplido el plazo de cinco años del término de\r\nprescripción y no existiendo una valoración general\", por su parte el\r\n\"Artículo 14.—De la modificación de la base imponible. Toda modificación\r\nde valor que afecte la base imponible, será considerada para efecto del cálculo\r\ndel impuesto, hasta que esté en firme en vía administrativa una vez concluido\r\nel proceso de notificación que señala el artículo 32 de este Reglamento, y\r\nentrará a regir a partir del uno de enero del año siguiente al que fue\r\nnotificada. Exceptuando las modificaciones automáticas señaladas en el artículo\r\n21 de este Reglamento, que rigen a partir del uno de enero del\r\naño siguiente al que se registran en la administración tributaria.\" Las\r\nanteriores citas reflejan que si bien la Municipalidad ante el\r\nincumplimiento del contribuyente de su deber formal de declarar su propiedad,\r\ndeberá realizar las valoraciones correspondientes, lo que no implica, como lo\r\ninterpreta el actor que el Municipio debe realizar previamente un\r\nlevantamiento topográfico a fin de determinar el área a valorar, \r\npor el contrario el propietario de la finca es a quien le corresponde primero\r\nla obligación de declarar su propiedad en los términos establecidos en el\r\nnumeral 26 del Reglamento, y si éste, no cumple tal obligación la Municipalidad\r\npracticará el avalúo a fin de determinar el valor de la propiedad y la base\r\nimponible para el cálculo del impuesto. Y más aún, si hubiera declarado la Municipalidad se\r\nencuentra facultada mediante la realización del avalúo, a\r\nfin de dar revisisión al valor declarado. El actor argumenta que existe una\r\ndiferencia en el área reportada en el plano catastrado y la indicada en\r\nel Registro Público, y que tal circunstancia le impedí realizar su declaración\r\nde bienes, ésto, por no saber que área consignar, argumento en criterio de éste\r\nTribunal totalmente falaz. La finca es de su propiedad, debe conocer su área, y\r\nsi considera que existen diferencias como las señaladas respecto al área de la\r\npropiedad, tiene mecanismos técnicos para determinar el área real, y\r\nrealizar mediante los instrumentos legales existentes las correcciones,\r\nmodificaciones de la cabida del inmueble, pero tales actuaciones son exclusivas\r\ndel actor no del ente Municipal. Finalmente en sus conclusiones el\r\nrepresentante del actor argumenta que el\r\navalúo es nulo porque se realizó con base en la área \r\nindicada en el plano\r\ncatastrado aún cuando esto le beneficie, pues la normativa legal establece que\r\ndebe ser conforme el área registral. El numeral 17 del Reglamento ya citado\r\nimpone en lo que interesa: \"(...) La valoración general se hará\r\nconsiderando los componentes terreno y construcción, si ambos estuvieren\r\npresentes en la propiedad, o únicamente el terreno, y podrá realizarse con base\r\nen el área del inmueble inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad y en el\r\nvalor de la zona homogénea donde se ubica el inmueble dentro del respectivo\r\ndistrito. Para tales efectos, se entenderá por\r\nzona homogénea el conjunto de bienes inmuebles con características similares en\r\ncuanto a su desarrollo y uso específico. \" De la revisión del avalúo Municipal, se\r\ndesprende que el mismo se realizó con fundamento en la medida del área\r\nregistrada en el plano castrado h- 470483-82, lo que efectivamente como bien lo\r\napunta el representante del actor contraviene lo dispuesto en la norma\r\nanteriormente transcrita, lo que evidencia que ese elemento influyó en el\r\nresultado final del avalúo, y constituye en consecuencia un vicio en el acto\r\nadministrativo de valoración. No obstante, del análisis realizado supra, el\r\navalúo en los restantes elementos técnicos fue practicado conforme lo establece\r\nla ley, el reglamento y las normas del órgano Técnico, lo cual no pude ser\r\ndesvirtuado por la empresa actora, por lo que en criterio de este órgano\r\ncolegiado resulta innecesario e inconveniente, que por el vicio de un solo\r\nelemento técnico, el acto administrativo sea anulado en su totalidad, en razón\r\nde lo anterior, por ser un dato técnico que debe ser utilizado y analizado\r\nconforme lo establece el numeral 17 en su párrafo segundo, se declara la\r\nnulidad parcial del acto valorativo, sólo en cuanto a que tomo como base el\r\nplano catastrado y no lo dispuesto por el numeral 17 de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes\r\nInmuebles, por lo que se remite a la Municipal demanda a fin de que realice el ajuste\r\nnecesario conforme lo establece la ley.\n\r\n\r\n\nV-\r\nSobre los presupuestos de fondo:\n\r\n\r\n\nNo\r\nhabiéndose opuesto excepción alguna por la parte demandada, procede de oficio\r\nde las los presupuestos de fondo el derecho , la legitimación y el\r\ninterés. Tesis que se sustenta en la reiterada jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de\r\nJusticia (entre otros el Voto 48 de las 14:00 horas del ocho de julio de 1994,\r\nasí como el fallo de la antigua Sala de Casación número 34 de las 10:20 horas\r\ndel 22 de marzo de 1961, que impone el revisar de oficio los presupuestos de\r\nuna sentencia estimatoria, como lo son el interés, la legitimación y el\r\nderecho. De este modo, realizado de oficio el análisis indicado, y a la luz del estudio de fondo efectuado, se determina que no le asiste parcialmente el derecho , aún cuando mantiene el interés en su\r\npretensión, como\r\nse acogió parcialmente. Acorde a ello, existe\r\nuna clara legitimación tanto activa como pasiva en razón de\r\nla relación jurídica material aquí discutida, que versa sobre actuaciones\r\nmunicipales de la demandada respecto a la actora en su condición de\r\nContribuyente.”", "body_en_text": "III-\nRegarding the Object of the Proceeding: The plaintiff indicates that through administrative resolution BI-006-2010 at 3:00 p.m. on March 18, 2010, the Department of Real Estate and Valuation of the Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia modified appraisal 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, for farm 158482-000, giving it a value of C 46,513,200. The plaintiff alleges that for this valuation, the Municipal entity took erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and did not apply other necessary ones such as the land's topography, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), as well as the legal limitations weighing on the property, according to the cantonal regulatory plan, and therefore attacks the administrative act as exaggerated, disproportionate, and outside reality, which constitutes illicit enrichment for the municipal corporation. Technical criteria per square meter were applied, when the correct method would be its valuation per hectare or manzana of land. And the municipal entity imposes the burden of proof on the administered party, with the aggravating factor of the economic costs that this entails. The defendant rejects the claim, arguing that appraisal 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, was carried out with all the elements required by Law 7509 and its amendments, and that the technical criteria by which the appraisal was performed were issued and established by the directives and tools dictated by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance, therefore the valuation is not exaggerated or disproportionate, and since the Municipality took the parameters established by the regulatory entity in accordance with Law 7609 and its amendments in Article 12, the act is not illicit as indicated by the plaintiff, and that in matters of valuations, it can only take into account the criteria established by the Technical Standardization Body of the Ministry of Finance.\n\nIII-\nLegal Aspects:\n\nThe real estate tax (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) was established by Law No. 7509 in favor of the Municipalities, whose object is the land, installations, or fixed and permanent constructions that exist there. Regarding its nature, the Constitutional Chamber has stated: \"a municipal tax by reason of its destination –only–, but it is not so by virtue of its origin or promulgation procedure, given that it was not born from the initiative of local governments, but from the exercise of the taxing power granted to the Legislative Assembly, by virtue of the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, that is, it is a product of ordinary legislative work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Legislative Assembly is sovereign, regarding the use of the taxing power, to establish the taxes that are required, be they national or municipal.\" (Voto 5669-2009). Although it emanates from the exercise of the State's normative and taxing power, the Municipalities have the competence over collection, taking into account the location of the property within the municipal territory as a point of connection. Likewise, the municipalities also have the administrative power to manage the tax, without this preventing coordination with the State Tax Administration, which, as will be explained, is currently manifested in the existence of the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) introduced by Article 2, subsection c) of Law 7729. The tax base for calculating the tax shall be the value of the property registered with the Tax Administration, as of January 1 of the current year, which means that every property must be valued, a task that corresponds to each Municipality. As already indicated, for the management of this tax, the law grants the municipalities the character of Tax Administration, therefore they are responsible for withholding and collecting the tax. The law also attributes prerogatives and duties to them in order to fulfill the management of this tax, among them: \"(...) carry out valuations of real estate, bill, collect, and process judicial collection and administer, in their respective territories, the taxes generated by this Law. (...).\" (Article 3). Regarding the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica), its foundation is in section 12 of the cited Real Estate Tax Law, creating it as a body of minimum deconcentration (órgano de desconcentración mínima) attached to the Ministry of Finance, called the Technical Standardization Body. This body is of a specialized technical nature and an advisor to the municipalities. Its purpose is to guarantee greater precision and homogeneity when determining the values of real estate throughout the national territory; in addition, to optimize the administration of the tax, it must establish the general provisions of valuation for the common use of the municipalities and supply them with depreciation methods, total and estimated useful life rates, building values according to types, methods for valuing land, technical and economic factors to be considered regarding topography, location, description, urban equipment, and public services of the land. It supplies the Municipalities with the necessary inputs for the valuation of real estate, among which can be mentioned, the Valuation Program (Programa de Valoración), the Unit Base Value Manual by Constructive Typology (Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva), and the Platform of Land Values by Homogeneous Zones (Plataforma de Valores de Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas), as imposed by Article 19, subsection a) of the Regulation to Law No. 7509, Executive Decree No. 27601-H. These are used to prepare a specific valuation program for each of the farms within a specific canton, and they constitute valuation parameters or guidelines, prepared according to a technical study, and which must obligatorily be used by local governments when carrying out appraisals (avalúos) – through competent appraisers in accordance with the Law – to be able to determine the value of a property located in a specific zone. Section 10 of the Real Estate Tax Law states regarding the valuation of real estate: \"…For tax purposes, every property must be valued. Properties shall be valued upon agreeing to a general valuation and upon the occurrence of any of the causes that determine the modification of registered values, in accordance with this Law. The general valuation shall be that which covers, at least, all properties of a district in the respective canton, in accordance with the provisions of the following articles and when the circumstance mentioned in Article 15 of this Law occurs. The general or individual valuation shall be carried out once every five years. New valuations may only be carried out when this period has expired. (Thus amended this final paragraph by Article 1, subsection d), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)\". Section 10 bis imposes that \"...For the purposes of this Law, an appraisal (avalúo) is defined as the set of calculations, reasoning, and operations, which serve to determine the value of a property of an urban or rural nature, taking into account its use. This appraisal must be prepared by a professional incorporated into the College of Agronomists (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos) or the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), with extensive experience in the matter, referred to in the official currency of the country and issued on a specific date. Valuation (valoración) shall be understood as any modification of the tax base of properties carried out by the municipalities following the technical criteria of the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). (Thus added by Article 2, subsection b), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)\". It is essential to indicate that the cited Platform of Values (Plataforma de Valores) has its foundation in section 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: \"…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the preceding article, the Tax Administration shall be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of undeclared properties. In this case, the Tax Administration may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period contemplated in this Law has expired. The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of properties with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…\" The foregoing citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district are compiled, the zone is shown through maps and plans, and samples of property values are taken, thus determining which are the homogeneous zones by similarity of development and use; and the type lots or modal farms (fincas modales) that will be applied to that valuation program. It must be indicated that a type lot or farm shall be considered that whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone.\n\nIV- In the specific case.\n\nThe Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the cited canton. In this proceeding, it was demonstrated that the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledges in the conclusions stage, had not fulfilled its formal duty to make the declaration of its assets, prior to the Municipality proceeding with the tax collection. The valuations office - Property Appraisal, proceeded on February 10, 2010, to perform appraisal 1067-2009 on farm number 158482, property of the plaintiff company, establishing through prior inspection, that the farm is located in homogeneous zone Z01-U14, presenting an area according to cadastral plan H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, had public services of water, electricity, lighting, and telephone, without sidewalk, curb and gutter (cordón y caño), with a slope of 15%, its use, type of road, elements which were analyzed for the appraisal carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed, with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation degree of 6, to which a value of c 44,100 per square meter was granted, for a total construction valuation of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed in administrative proceedings a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was denied through an administrative act at three p.m. on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the claim are, specifically, first that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the land's topography, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration imposed the burden of proof on it. Regarding this last aspect, section 33 of the Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes: \"Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration performs a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers themselves affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) before the Valuations Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following its respective notification. If the motion is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following the notification from the Valuations office.\nIn both resources, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or the construction, with which they do not agree, and must compulsorily provide the evidence supporting their claim.\" A rule that puts an end to any doubt or discussion about who bears the burden of proof. The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which their claim is based. The foregoing has its genesis in that what the interested party questions is a technical test carried out based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (fundo enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal, an argument that is disproved in the same trial, since the Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez himself mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was via an easement (servidumbre de paso), finding such condition supported within the same appraisal. Note that it is carried out according to plan H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality had in its possession and from which the demarcation of the property and its access via an easement is clearly observed, even though it is not registered as such. The plaintiff mentions that the easement is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plan, it was taken into account for the appraisal due to the same condition claimed by the plaintiff of a landlocked property (fundo enclavado), which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by the Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning, the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone, in which a type lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as can be deduced from folio 83. A situation which is similarly appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the case file. Regarding the constructions, it indicates that they were not appropriately considered, being given a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this particular topic, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, stated in the oral and public trial that he assigned no value to the constructions because he considered them removable, in contrast the municipal appraisal contemplates their existence without providing them with such characteristic. Such statements should not lead to confusion, which in the opinion of this chamber are not contradictory; while the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not translate into them not existing, since even if that were the case, the plaintiff did not provide, as is its obligation, greater evidence demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, the precise conditions thereof, as it is the technical factor questioned by him. The proceeding lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this chamber the cited constructions; although some were provided in the judicial expert report, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that under the same arguments, the appraisal was attacked in the administrative proceedings, and the Administration clearly warned it about this topic of the constructions, that it is its obligation to provide the evidence to challenge the appraisal, a situation that is repeated in this proceeding, since note that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that challenges or technically demonstrates the contrary. Likewise, its argument that the land's topography was not considered lacks evidentiary support, as the contrary can be deduced from the appraisal as well as from the statements in the oral trial of the municipal official, that in the inspection they appreciated the condition of the land and its conclusion was reflected in the appraisal. Although expert evidence was produced in the case file, it lacks the necessary evidentiary force to invalidate the appraisal carried out by the Municipal Administration. In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method he had used for the valuation, to which he responded; first that he took into account that the valuation was for fiscal aspects without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal for that purpose, a commercial one, or for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly his second response, when indicating that the method he had used for the valuation he had learned outside the country, and he adapted it to an Excel table into which the information is entered and it yields the result, but that he did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located. In this regard, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible on folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unit Base Values by Constructive Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance to carry out land appraisals, which describes the valuation methods to be used, among these the comparative method, the foregoing in accordance with the determination of the type lot in the established homogeneous zone, rules that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out his examination, conclusion, and valuation of the land. The municipal appraisal was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unit base values by constructive typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality attributes the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and that it is the latter that must, prior to the appraisal, carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also not admissible. The Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes to this effect in its section \"Article 13.—On individual valuation. The Tax Administration may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient after verifying the omission in the presentation of the real estate declaration, which the taxpayer is voluntarily obliged to submit, or that the five-year statute of limitations period has expired and there being no general valuation\", for its part \"Article 14.—On the modification of the tax base. Any modification of value that affects the tax base shall be considered for the purpose of calculating the tax, only once it is final in administrative proceedings after the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation has concluded, and shall take effect as of January first of the year following that in which it was notified. Except for the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect as of January first of the year following that in which they are registered in the tax administration.\" The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, upon the taxpayer's failure to comply with its formal duty to declare its property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets it, that the Municipality must previously conduct a topographical survey in order to determine the area to be valued. On the contrary, the owner of the farm is the one to whom the obligation first corresponds to declare their property in the terms established in section 26 of the Regulation, and if they do not fulfill this obligation, the Municipality shall carry out the appraisal in order to determine the value of the property and the tax base for the tax calculation. And even more so, if they had declared, the Municipality is empowered, through the performance of the appraisal, to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported in the cadastral plan and that indicated in the Public Registry, and that such circumstance prevented it from making its asset declaration, this, for not knowing which area to record, an argument that in the opinion of this Court is totally fallacious. The farm is its property, it must know its area, and if it considers that there are differences as indicated regarding the property area, it has technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to carry out, through existing legal instruments, the corrections, modifications of the property's size (cabida), but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not the Municipal entity. Finally, in its conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated in the cadastral plan, even though this benefits him, since the legal regulations establish that it must be according to the registry area. Section 17 of the already cited Regulation imposes in what is relevant: \"(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property inscribed in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of property with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use.\" From the review of the Municipal appraisal, it is deduced that it was carried out based on the area measurement registered in cadastral plan H-470483-82, which indeed, as the plaintiff's representative rightly points out, contravenes the provision of the previously transcribed norm, which shows that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal, and consequently constitutes a defect (vicio) in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out supra, the appraisal in the remaining technical elements was performed in accordance with what is established by the law, the regulation, and the rules of the Technical Body, which could not be invalidated by the plaintiff company. Therefore, in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient that, due to the defect of a single technical element, the administrative act be annulled in its entirety. For the foregoing reason, as it is a technical datum that must be used and analyzed in accordance with the provisions of section 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral plan as a basis and not what is provided for in section 17 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles). Therefore, it is remitted to the defendant Municipality so that it makes the necessary adjustment as established by law.\n\nV-\nRegarding the substantive requirements:\n\nNo exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive requirements of right, standing, and interest, proceed to be reviewed ex officio. This thesis is supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (among others, Voto 48 of 2:00 p.m. on July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Court of Cassation number 34 of 10:20 a.m. on March 22, 1961, which requires the ex officio review of the requirements for an estimatory judgment, such as interest, standing, and right. In this way, having performed the indicated analysis ex officio, and in light of the substantive study carried out, it is determined that the right partially does not assist the plaintiff, even though they maintain the interest in their claim, as it was partially granted.\n\nIn accordance with this, there is clear legal standing (legitimación), both active and passive, by reason of the substantive legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions by the defendant regarding the plaintiff in her capacity as a Taxpayer.\"\n\n**III— Regarding the Object of the Proceeding:** The plaintiff indicates that through administrative resolution BI-006-2010 of 15:00 hours on March 18, 2010, the Department of Real Estate and Valuation of the Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, modified appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, regarding property 158482-000, giving it a value of C 46,513,200. The plaintiff alleges that for such valuation, the Municipal entity took erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and did not apply other necessary ones such as the topography of the land, its extension, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), as well as the legal limitations that weigh on the property, according to the cantonal regulatory plan (plan regulador cantonal), for which reason he attacks the administrative act as exaggerated, disproportionate and out of touch with reality, which constitutes illicit enrichment (enriquecimiento ilícito) for the municipal corporation. Technical criteria were applied per square meter, when the correct approach would be its valuation per hectare or block (manzana) of land. And the municipal entity imposes the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) on the administered party, with the aggravating factor of the economic costs that this entails. The defendant party rejects the claim, arguing that appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 of February 10, 2010, was carried out with all the elements required by Law 7509 and its amendments, and that the technical criteria through which the appraisal (avalúo) was performed were issued and established by the directives and tools dictated by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance, so the valuation is not exaggerated or disproportionate and, by the Municipality taking the parameters established by the regulatory body pursuant to Law 7609, and its amendments in Article 12, the act is not illicit as the plaintiff indicates, and that in valuation matters, it can only take into account the criteria established by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance.\n\n**III— Legal Aspects:**\n\nThe tax on real estate (impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles) was ordered by Law No. 7509 in favor of the Municipalities, whose object is the land, the installations or the fixed and permanent constructions that exist there. Regarding its nature, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has stated: \"a municipal tax by reason of its destination –only–, but it is not so by virtue of its procedure of origin or enactment, given that it did not arise from the initiative of local governments, but from the exercise of the taxing power granted to the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa), by virtue of the provisions of Article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), that is, it is the product of ordinary legislative work itself. It is worth reiterating that the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) is sovereign, regarding the use of the taxing power, to establish the taxes that are required, whether these are national or municipal.\" (Voto 5669-2009). Although it emanates from the exercise of the State's normative and taxing power, the competence for collection lies with the Municipalities, taking into account the location of the property within the municipal territory as the connection point. Likewise, the administrative power of tax management also lies with the municipalities, without this preventing coordination with the State Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), which, as will be explained, is currently manifested in the existence of the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) introduced by Article 2, subsection c) of Law 7729. The taxable base (base imponible) for the calculation of the tax will be the value of the property registered with the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as of January 1 of the current year, which means that every property must be valued, which corresponds to each Municipality. As already indicated, for the management of this tax, the law grants the municipalities the character of Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), so they are responsible for withholding and collecting the tax. The law also attributes prerogatives and duties to them in order to comply with the management of this tax, among them \"(…) carry out valuations of real estate, bill, collect and process judicial collection and administer, in their respective territories, the taxes generated by this Law. (…).\" (Article 3). Regarding the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica), its basis is found in article 12 of the cited Real Estate Tax Law, creating it as a body of minimum deconcentration (órgano de desconcentración mínima) attached to the Ministry of Finance, called the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). This body is of a specialized technical nature and an advisor to the municipalities. Its purpose is to guarantee greater precision and homogeneity when determining the values of real estate throughout the national territory; in addition, to optimize the administration of the tax, it must establish the general valuation provisions for the common use of the municipalities and supply them with depreciation methods, total and estimated useful life rates, building values according to types, methods for valuing land, technical and economic factors to be considered regarding topography, location, description, urban equipment and public services of the land. It supplies the Municipalities with the necessary inputs for the valuation of real estate, among which may be mentioned, the Valuation Program (Programa de Valoración), the Manual of Unitary Base by Constructive Typology (Manual de Base Unitaria por Tipología Constructiva) and the Platform of Land Values by Homogeneous Zones (Plataforma de Valores de Terreno por Zonas Homogéneas), as imposed by Article 19, subsection a) of the Regulation to Law No. 7509, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 27601-H, are used to prepare a specific valuation program for each of the properties within a given canton, and constitute valuation parameters or guidelines, prepared according to a technical study, and which must obligatorily be used by local governments when carrying out appraisals (avalúos) – through competent appraisers in accordance with the Law – to be able to determine the value of a real estate located in a specific zone. Article 10 of the Real Estate Tax Law refers regarding the valuation of real estate: \"…For tax purposes, every property must be valued. Properties will be valued upon agreeing a general valuation and upon the occurrence of any of the causes that determine the modification of the registered values, in accordance with this Law. The general valuation will be that which covers, at least, all the properties of a district of the respective canton, in accordance with the provisions of the following articles and when the circumstance mentioned in Article 15 of this Law occurs. The general or individual valuation will be carried out once every five years. New valuations may only be carried out when this period has expired. (Thus amended this final paragraph by Article 1, subsection d), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)\", Article 10 bis imposes that \"...For the purposes of this Law, an appraisal (avalúo) is defined as the set of calculations, reasoning and operations, which serve to determine the value of an urban or rural real estate, taking into account its use. This appraisal (avalúo) must be prepared by a professional incorporated into the College of Agronomists (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos) or the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), with extensive experience in the matter, referred to in the official currency of the country and issued on a specific date. Valuation (valoración) shall be understood as any modification of the taxable base (base imponible) of the properties carried out by the municipalities following the technical criteria of the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica). (Thus added by Article 2, subsection b), of Law No. 7729 of December 15, 1997)\". It is essential to indicate that the cited Platform of Values has its basis in article 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: \"…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the previous article, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) will be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of the undeclared real estate. In this case, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period contemplated in this Law has expired. The general valuation will be carried out considering the land and construction components, if both are present in the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and on the value of the homogeneous zone where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of real estate with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…\" The preceding citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district is compiled, the zone is shown through maps and plans, and samples of the values of the real estate are taken, thus achieving the determination of which are the homogeneous zones by similarity of development and use; and the type lots or modal properties that will be applied to that valuation program. It must be indicated that a type lot or property shall be considered that whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone.\n\n**IV- In the specific case.**\n\nThe Municipality of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the cited canton. In this process, it was demonstrated that indeed the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledges in the conclusions stage, had not fulfilled its formal duty to make the declaration of its assets, the foregoing so that the Municipality could proceed with the tax collection. The valuation office - Property Appraisal, proceeded on February 10, 2010, to carry out appraisal (avalúo) 1067-2009 on property number 158482 owned by the plaintiff company, establishing through prior inspection that the property is located in homogeneous zone Z01-U14, presenting an area according to cadastral plan H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, it had public services of water, electricity, lighting and telephone, without sidewalk, curb and gutter (cordón y caño), with a slope of 15%, its use, type of road, elements which were analyzed for the appraisal (avaluó) carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed (galerón), with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation degree of 6, same to which a value of c 44,100 per square meter was given, for a total valuation of the construction of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal (avalúo) that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed it in administrative headquarters with a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was rejected through an administrative act at fifteen hundred hours on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the claim are, specifically, first that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the topography of the land, its extension, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration imposed the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) on it. Regarding this last aspect, article 33 of the Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law establishes: \" Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) carries out a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers himself affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) before the Valuation Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following its respective notification. If the appeal is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal for reconsideration (recurso de apelación) before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following the notification of the Valuation Office.\nIn both appeals, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or construction, with which he does not agree, being forced to provide the evidence that supports his claim.\" A rule that puts an end to any doubt or discussion about who bears the burden of proof (carga de la prueba). The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal (avalúo) or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which they base their claim. The foregoing has its genesis in that what the interested party questions is a technical proof carried out based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal (avaluó), an argument that is refuted in the same trial, since the Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez himself mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was by way of an easement (servidumbre) of passage, finding such condition support within the appraisal (avaluó) itself. Note that it is carried out according to plan H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality had in its possession and from which the demarcation of the property and its access by way of an easement (servidumbre) of passage is clearly observed, even if registrally this is not declared. The plaintiff mentions that the easement (servidumbre) is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plan, it was taken into account for the appraisal (avalúo) for the very condition of landlocked property (fundo enclavado) claimed by the plaintiff, which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by the Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone, in which a type lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as is evident from folio 83. A situation that is likewise appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the case file. Regarding the constructions, he indicates that they were not appropriately considered, giving them a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this topic in particular, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, indicates in the oral and public trial that he did not assign any value to the constructions because he considers them removable, on the contrary, the municipal appraisal (avalúo) contemplates their existence without providing them with such characteristic. These statements should not lead to confusion, which in this Chamber's opinion are not contradictory, although the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not mean they do not exist, because even if that were the case, the plaintiff did not provide, as is its obligation, greater evidence demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, their precise conditions, as it is the technical factor questioned by him, the process lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this Chamber the cited constructions, although some were provided in the judicial expert opinion, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that the appraisal (avalúo) was attacked under the same arguments in administrative headquarters, and the Administration clearly warns it about this issue of the constructions that it is its obligation to provide the evidence to combat the appraisal (avalúo), a situation that is repeated in this process, since it is noted that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that combats or technically demonstrates the contrary, likewise its argument that the topography of the land was not considered lacks evidentiary support, since the contrary is evident from the appraisal (avalúo) as well as from the statements in the oral trial, of the municipal official, that in the inspection they appreciated the condition of the land and its conclusion was reflected in the appraisal (avalúo). Although expert evidence was produced in the case file, it lacks the necessary probative force to invalidate the appraisal (avalúo) carried out by the Municipal Administration. In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method he had used for the valuation, to which he responded; first that he took into account that the valuation was for fiscal purposes without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal (avalúo) for that purpose, a commercial one or one for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly his second response, when indicating that the method he had used for the valuation he had learned outside the country, and he adapted it to an Excel spreadsheet in which the information is included and it yields the result, but that he did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located, regarding this, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible on folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unitary Base Values by Constructive Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica) of the Ministry of Finance to carry out the appraisals (avalúos) of the land, which describes the valuation methods to use, among these the comparative method, the foregoing in accordance with the determination of the type lot in the established homogeneous zone, standards that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out his examination, conclusion and valuation of the land. Since the municipal appraisal (avalúo) was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unitary base values by constructive typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality attributes the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) to the taxpayer, and that it is the Municipality itself that must, prior to the appraisal (avaluó), carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also not admissible. The Regulation to the Real Estate Tax Law establishes in this regard in its article \" Article 13.—Of the individual valuation.\n\nThe Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient after verifying the omission in the filing of the real estate declaration, which the taxpayer is obligated to file voluntarily, or that the five-year period of the statute of limitations (prescripción) has elapsed and no general valuation exists,\" for its part, \"Article 14.—Modification of the taxable base (base imponible). Any modification of value that affects the taxable base (base imponible) will be considered for the purpose of calculating the tax, once it is final in the administrative channel after the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation is concluded, and it will take effect from January first of the year following the one in which it was notified. Except for the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect from January first of the year following the one in which they are registered with the tax administration (administración tributaria).\" The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, upon the taxpayer's failure to comply with its formal duty to declare its property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets, that the Municipality must first perform a topographical survey to determine the area to be valued; on the contrary, the owner of the property is the one who first has the obligation to declare its property under the terms established in numeral 26 of the Regulation, and if it fails to comply with this obligation, the Municipality will conduct the appraisal (avalúo) to determine the value of the property and the taxable base (base imponible) for calculating the tax. Moreover, even if it had been declared, the Municipality is empowered, by conducting the appraisal (avalúo), to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) and the one indicated in the Public Registry, and that this circumstance prevented him from filing his property declaration, because he did not know which area to record, an argument that, in the opinion of this Tribunal, is completely fallacious. The property is his, he must know its area, and if he considers that there are differences such as those noted regarding the area of the property, he has technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to make corrections or modifications to the size (cabida) of the property through existing legal instruments, but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not to the Municipal entity. Finally, in his conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal (avalúo) is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated in the cadastral map (plano catastrado), even though this benefits him, since the legal regulations establish that it must be according to the registered area. Numeral 17 of the already cited Regulation imposes, in what is relevant: \"(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone where the property is located within the respective district. For such purposes, a homogeneous zone shall be understood as the set of real estate with similar characteristics in terms of its development and specific use.\" From the review of the Municipal appraisal (avalúo), it is clear that it was carried out based on the measurement of the area registered in the cadastral map (plano catastrado) H-470483-82, which indeed, as the plaintiff's representative correctly points out, contravenes the provisions of the aforementioned regulation, evidence that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal (avalúo), and consequently constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out above, the appraisal (avalúo) in the remaining technical elements was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law, the regulation, and the rules of the Technical Body, which could not be disproved by the plaintiff company, so in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient for the administrative act to be annulled in its entirety due to the defect of a single technical element. Therefore, because it is a technical fact that must be used and analyzed in accordance with the provisions of numeral 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral map (plano catastrado) as a basis and not what is provided by numeral 17 of the Law on Real Estate Tax, for which it is remanded to the defendant Municipality so that it may make the necessary adjustment in accordance with the provisions of the law.\n\nV- On the Substantive Prerequisites:\n\nNo exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive prerequisites of right, standing (legitimación), and interest are examined ex officio. This thesis is supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) (among others, Voto 48 of 14:00 hours of July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Chamber of Cassation number 34 of 10:20 hours of March 22, 1961, which requires the ex officio review of the prerequisites of a favorable judgment, such as interest, standing (legitimación), and right. In this way, having carried out ex officio the indicated analysis, and in light of the substantive study conducted, it is determined that the right does not partially assist the plaintiff, even though it maintains an interest in its claim, as it was partially granted. Accordingly, there is clear active and passive standing (legitimación) by reason of the material legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions by the defendant regarding the plaintiff in its capacity as Taxpayer.\"\n\n(Así adicionado por el artículo 2º, inciso b), de la ley No.7729 de 15 de diciembre de 1997)”.   It is essential to note that the aforementioned Value Platform is based on numeral 17 of the cited Law No. 7509, which states: “…When there is no declaration of assets by the property owner, in accordance with the preceding article, the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) shall be empowered to carry out, ex officio, the valuation of undeclared real estate assets. In this case, the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) may not carry out new valuations until the five-year period established in this Law has expired. The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For these purposes, a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) shall be understood as the set of real estate assets with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use…” The foregoing citations allow us to conclude that this platform is obtained through a field study where the basic data of the canton or district are gathered, the zone is shown through maps and plats, and samples of the real estate asset values are taken, thus determining which are the homogeneous zones (zonas homogéneas) by similarity of development and use; and the standard lots or modal properties (fincas modales) that will be applied to that valuation program. It should be noted that the standard lot or property type (lote o finca tipo) shall be understood as the one whose characteristics are most frequent in a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea).\n\n**IV- In the present case.**\n\nThe Municipality (La Municipalidad) of San Pablo de Heredia, in support of Municipal Agreement 09-08-E of May 28, 2008, proceeded to carry out the valuations in the said canton. In this process, it was demonstrated that, indeed, the plaintiff company Latinoamericana de Comercio y Bienes S.A., as its own representative acknowledged during the conclusions stage, had not complied with its formal duty to file a declaration of its assets, prior to the Municipality proceeding with tax collection. The valuation office - Property Appraisal (Avaluó de inmuebles), proceeded on February 10, 2010, to perform appraisal 1067-2009 on property number 158482 owned by the plaintiff company, establishing through a prior inspection that the property is located in homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) Z01-U14, having an area according to cadastral plat H-470483-84 of 3198 square meters, a frontage of 11.80 meters, with a regularity of 080, had public utilities of water, electricity, street lighting, and telephone, without sidewalk, curb, and gutter, with a slope of 15%, its use, road type, these elements having been analyzed for the appraisal carried out on the property, in addition to the existing constructions on the property, namely a shed, with an area of 112 m2, with an approximate age of 20 years, useful life of 40 years, with a depreciation grade of 6, which was assigned a value of c 44,100 per square meter, for a total construction valuation of c 4,939,200. Regarding the land as such, it was valued at the sum of c 13,000 per square meter, for a total of c 41,574,000, for a total in land and construction of c 46,513,200, an appraisal that was made known to the plaintiff, who opposed in the administrative venue a motion for reconsideration, which was rejected by administrative act at three o'clock in the afternoon on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff's arguments in the lawsuit are, specifically, first, that the Municipal entity used erroneous, improper, and inadequate technical criteria, and that it was negligent regarding other technical criteria, such as the topography of the land, its size, flooding, age of the constructions, landlocked property (fundo enclavado), and that the Administration (la Administración) imposed the burden of proof upon it. Regarding this last aspect, numeral 33 of the Regulation to the Law of Real Estate Tax (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes: \"Article 33.—Appeals against general or individual valuations. When the Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) performs a general or individual valuation, the taxpayer who considers themselves affected by the established value shall have the right to file a motion for reconsideration before the Valuation Office of the respective Municipality, within the following fifteen business days, counted from the day following their respective notification. If the appeal is declared without merit, the taxpayer may file a formal appeal for hearing before the Municipal Council, within the fifteen business days following notification by the Valuation office.
In both appeals, the taxpayer must indicate the adjustment factor or factors applied to the physical characteristics of the land or construction with which they disagree, and must necessarily provide the evidence supporting their claim.\" A rule that ends any doubt or discussion regarding who bears the burden of proof. The rule is clear in establishing that if the taxpayer does not agree with the appraisal or any of its factors or adjustments, they must provide the evidence on which their claim is based. The genesis of the foregoing lies in the fact that what the interested party questions is a technical test performed based on elements and parameters already established by a specialized technical body, and the study of the zones of the canton. The plaintiff argues the deficiency of some elements that were not taken into account; that the property was landlocked (fundo enclavado) and was not considered in the appraisal, an argument that is disproven in the trial itself, since the same Municipal official Marcial Alpizar Gutiérrez, mentioned that indeed when the valuation is carried out, its location and access are considered, which was via an easement (servidumbre de paso), finding such condition support within the appraisal itself. Note that it is carried out in accordance with plat H-470483-82, visible on folio 17 of the administrative file, a document that the Municipality (la Municipalidad) had in its possession, and from it, the demarcation of the property and its access via an easement (servidumbre de paso) are clearly observed, even though this is not recorded in the registry. The plaintiff mentions that the easement is de facto, because it is not registered, however, being an evident element within the inspection and the Municipality's plat, it was taken into account for the appraisal due to the very condition the plaintiff claims of a landlocked property (fundo enclavado), which is evidently a condition that must be assessed by Municipal officials, as was done. Note that from the beginning, the lot is located in the corresponding homogeneous zone (zona homogénea), in which a standard lot is given a value of c 65,000 per square meter, as derived from folios 83. A situation likewise appreciated by the judicial expert appointed in the proceedings. Regarding the constructions, it indicates that they were not considered appropriately, being given a higher value by the Municipal officials. On this particular topic, Mr. Carlos Guillén Ruiz, Judicial Expert, indicates in the oral and public trial that he assigned no value to the constructions for considering them removable; on the contrary, the municipal appraisal contemplates their existence without attributing such characteristic to them. Such affirmations, which in this Chamber's opinion are not contradictory, should not lead to confusion; although the judicial expert indicates that the constructions may be removable due to their condition, this does not mean they do not exist, because even if that were the case, the plaintiff, as is their obligation, did not provide greater proof demonstrating the type of constructions, their dimensions, their age, their precise conditions, as it is the technical factor questioned by them; the process lacks minimal evidence such as photographs showing this Chamber the cited constructions, although some were provided in the judicial expert report, they do not allow the constructions to be appreciated. This Court does not lose sight that under the same arguments the appraisal was challenged in the administrative venue, and the Administration (la Administración) clearly warned them about this topic of the constructions, that it is their obligation to provide evidence to challenge the appraisal, a situation that is repeated in this process, as note that the plaintiff does not provide evidence that rebuts or technically demonstrates the contrary, likewise their argument that the topography of the land was not considered lacks evidentiary support, since the contrary is derived from the appraisal as well as from the statements in the oral trial of the municipal official, that in the inspection they assessed the condition of the land and their conclusion was reflected in the appraisal. Although expert evidence was taken in the proceedings, it lacks the necessary evidentiary force to disprove the appraisal carried out by the Municipal Administration (la Administración Municipal). In the trial, the expert was asked on several occasions what method they had used for the valuation, to which they responded; first, that they took into account that the valuation was for fiscal purposes without being able to explain what the differences are between an appraisal for that purpose, a commercial one, or one for the purchase or sale of the property, and more importantly, their second response, indicating that the method they had used for the valuation, they had learned outside the country, and they adapted it to an Excel spreadsheet in which the information is included and it yields the result, but that they did take into account the c65,000 at which the square meter is valued in the zone where the property is located; regarding this, from the documentary evidence presented by the Municipal entity visible at folios 33 to 48, Manual of Unit Base Values by Construction Typology (Manual de Valores Base Unitario por Tipología Constructiva), issued by the Technical Standardization Body of the Ministry of Finance for carrying out land appraisals, which describes the valuation methods to be used, among them the comparative method, in accordance with the determination of the standard lot in the established homogeneous zone (zona homogénea), rules that the judicial expert did not consider when carrying out their examination, conclusion, and valuation of the land. For the municipal appraisal was carried out through the execution of the comparative valuation method and the correction factors for the land were applied. For fixed and permanent constructions and installations, the manual of unit base values by construction typology was applied, as well as the depreciation tables. The plaintiff's representative insistently reiterates that the Municipality (la Municipalidad) attributes the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and that it is the latter that must, prior to the appraisal, carry out the corresponding measurements to determine what is being valued, the correct area, an argument that is also without merit. The Regulation to the Law of Real Estate Tax (Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles) establishes to such effect in its numeral \"Article 13.—On individual valuation. The Tax Administration (la Administración Tributaria) may carry out individual valuations, ex officio or at the request of a party, when it deems it convenient, after verifying the omission in the filing of the real estate asset declaration, which the taxpayer is voluntarily obligated to file, or when the five-year statute of limitations period has expired and a general valuation does not exist.\"; for its part, \"Article 14.—On the modification of the taxable base. Any modification of value that affects the taxable base shall be considered for the purpose of tax calculation only once it is firm in the administrative venue, upon conclusion of the notification process indicated in Article 32 of this Regulation, and shall take effect from January first of the year following the one in which it was notified. Excepting the automatic modifications indicated in Article 21 of this Regulation, which take effect from January first of the year following the one in which they are registered with the Tax Administration.\" The foregoing citations reflect that although the Municipality, given the taxpayer's non-compliance with their formal duty to declare their property, must carry out the corresponding valuations, this does not imply, as the plaintiff interprets, that the Municipality must previously conduct a topographical survey in order to determine the area to be valued; on the contrary, it is the property owner who first has the obligation to declare their property in the terms established in numeral 26 of the Regulation, and if they fail to comply with this obligation, the Municipality (la Municipalidad) will perform the appraisal to determine the property's value and the taxable base for the tax calculation. And even more, if the Municipality had been declared to, it is empowered, through the completion of the appraisal, to review the declared value. The plaintiff argues that there is a difference in the area reported on the cadastral plat and the one indicated in the Public Registry, and that such circumstance prevented them from filing their asset declaration, this, because of not knowing which area to record, an argument that in this Court's opinion is completely fallacious. The property is theirs, they must know its area, and if they consider that there are differences as indicated regarding the property's area, they have technical mechanisms to determine the real area, and to carry out, through existing legal instruments, the corrections and modifications of the property's boundaries (cabida del inmueble), but such actions are exclusive to the plaintiff, not to the Municipal entity. Finally, in their conclusions, the plaintiff's representative argues that the appraisal is null because it was carried out based on the area indicated on the cadastral plat, even though this benefits them, since the legal regulations establish that it must be in accordance with the registered area. The previously cited numeral 17 of the Regulation imposes, in what is of interest: \"(...) The general valuation shall be made considering the land and construction components, if both are present on the property, or only the land, and may be carried out based on the area of the property registered in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad) and the value of the homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) where the property is located within the respective district. For these purposes, a homogeneous zone (zona homogénea) shall be understood as the set of real estate assets with similar characteristics in terms of their development and specific use. \" From the review of the Municipal appraisal, it is evident that it was carried out based on the area measurement registered in cadastral plat H-470483-82, which, as the plaintiff's representative correctly points out, contravenes the provision of the previously transcribed rule, which shows that this element influenced the final result of the appraisal, and consequently constitutes a defect in the administrative valuation act. However, from the analysis carried out above, the appraisal in the remaining technical elements was performed in accordance with what is established by law, the regulation, and the norms of the Technical body, which could not be disproven by the plaintiff company; therefore, in the opinion of this collegiate body, it is unnecessary and inconvenient for the administrative act to be annulled in its entirety due to the defect of a single technical element. By reason of the foregoing, given that it is a technical piece of data that must be used and analyzed as established by numeral 17 in its second paragraph, the partial nullity of the valuation act is declared, only insofar as it took the cadastral plat as a basis and not what is provided for by numeral 17 of the Law of Tax on Real Estate (Ley del Impuesto Sobre Bienes Inmuebles), for which reason the defendant Municipality is referred so that it may make the necessary adjustment as established by law.\n\n**V- On the substantive requirements:**\n\nNo exception having been raised by the defendant, the substantive requirements of right, standing (legitimación), and interest are examined ex officio. A thesis supported by the reiterated jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) (among others, Voto 48 at 14:00 hours on July 8, 1994, as well as the ruling of the former Chamber of Cassation number 34 at 10:20 hours on March 22, 1961), which requires the ex officio review of the requirements for an estimatory judgment, such as interest, standing (legitimación), and right. In this way, having carried out the indicated analysis ex officio, and in light of the substantive study conducted, it is determined that right does not partially assist it, even though it maintains the interest in its claim, as it was partially granted. In accordance with this, there is a clear active as well as passive standing (legitimación) by reason of the material legal relationship discussed here, which concerns municipal actions of the defendant regarding the plaintiff in their condition as Taxpayer.”" }