{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-152345",
  "citation": "Res. 00048-2013 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Arrendamiento municipal para polideportivo: Asociación no puede reclamar valor de obras construidas con fondos públicos",
  "title_en": "Municipal lease for sports complex: Association cannot claim value of works built with public funds",
  "summary_es": "La Sección VIII del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resuelve la demanda de una asociación de desarrollo específico que reclamaba a la Municipalidad de Grecia el pago del valor de la infraestructura de un polideportivo construido en terreno municipal, así como daños y perjuicios, tras la decisión municipal de no renovar el arrendamiento y recuperar el inmueble. El Tribunal analiza la naturaleza de los fondos utilizados para la construcción y mantenimiento del complejo deportivo, concluyendo que provinieron de partidas específicas del presupuesto nacional y del porcentaje del impuesto sobre la renta asignado por ley a las asociaciones de desarrollo comunal, constituyendo fondos públicos. Determina que la asociación actuó como administradora de esos recursos públicos y no como propietaria de las edificaciones, ya que el inmueble estaba afectado a un fin de utilidad pública y los aportes de los asociados, de haberse probado, tenían como finalidad contribuir al desarrollo comunal. En consecuencia, rechaza la pretensión de pago del valor de las obras y la indemnización por daños y perjuicios, al no haber demostrado la actora la existencia de fondos privados ni de los perjuicios reclamados.",
  "summary_en": "The Contencioso Administrative Tribunal, Section VIII, decides the lawsuit filed by a specific development association against the Municipality of Grecia. The association sought payment for the value of a sports complex built on municipal land, plus damages, after the municipality decided not to renew the lease and reclaimed the property. The Tribunal analyzed the source of the funds used for construction and maintenance, concluding they came from specific national budget allocations and from the percentage of income tax legally assigned to community development associations, thus constituting public funds. It determined the association acted as administrator of those public resources, not as owner of the buildings, because the property was devoted to a public utility purpose and any contributions from members would have been intended to promote community development. Consequently, the claim for the value of the works and for damages was rejected, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of private funds or the alleged harm.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII",
  "date": "11/06/2013",
  "year": "2013",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "partidas específicas",
    "bien de uso público",
    "asociación de desarrollo específico",
    "DINADECO",
    "Ley 3859",
    "Ley 218",
    "impuesto sobre la renta",
    "Hacienda Pública"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Ley de Asociaciones",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-32764",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 218",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-32764",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Reglamento del artículo 19 de la Ley N° 3859 sobre Desarrollo de la Comunidad y sus Reformas",
      "article": "10",
      "doc_id": "norm-55449",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 32595",
      "article": "10",
      "doc_id": "norm-55449",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO)",
      "article": "23",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 3859",
      "article": "23",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO)",
      "article": "24",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 3859",
      "article": "24",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "article": "8",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7428",
      "article": "8",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "Asociación de Desarrollo Específico",
    "Polideportivo Municipal",
    "Fondos Públicos",
    "Bien de Uso Público",
    "Arrendamiento Municipal",
    "DINADECO",
    "Ley de Desarrollo de la Comunidad",
    "Carga de la Prueba",
    "Grecia"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "Specific Development Association",
    "Municipal Sports Complex",
    "Public Funds",
    "Public Use Property",
    "Municipal Lease",
    "DINADECO",
    "Community Development Law",
    "Burden of Proof",
    "Grecia"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "La denegatoria en el pago, se fundamenta precisamente, en el hecho de que los fondos usados eran públicos, por eso la Asociación no podía reclamar su titularidad como dueña, cuando solo era su administradora, cargo que tampoco significaba debía prestar a perpetuidad, lo anterior nos lleva a un planteamiento esencial que no hay que olvidar, el Polideportivo tenía un fin público que cumplir, independientemente de quien lo administrara, y por eso a Municipalidad, como titular del inmueble ejerció sus competencias, al disponer del mismo y darlo en arrendamiento, pero concomitantemente debía de ejercer control, sobre los actos de utilización, y por ello podía verificar, que efectivamente se destinara al fin para el cual fue arrendado, y que las instalaciones se mantuvieran en las mejores condiciones, para que los ciudadanos pudieran practicar de forma segura deportes y actividades recreativas...",
  "excerpt_en": "The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, therefore the Association could not claim ownership as owner when it was merely its administrator, a role that did not mean it had to be performed in perpetuity. This leads to an essential point that must not be forgotten: the Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipality, as owner of the property, exercised its powers by disposing of it and granting it in lease, but simultaneously had to exercise control over the acts of use, and for that reason could verify that it was effectively used for the purpose for which it was leased and that the facilities were kept in the best conditions so that citizens could safely practice sports and recreational activities...",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Tribunal denied the association's claim, holding it has no right to payment for the works or to compensation, as they were executed with public funds on municipal land devoted to a public purpose, and the plaintiff failed to prove private contributions or damages.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal rechazó la demanda de la asociación, declarando que no tiene derecho al pago del valor de las obras ni a indemnización, pues fueron ejecutadas con fondos públicos en un inmueble municipal destinado a un fin público, y la actora no probó aportes privados ni daños."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "V.- Sobre la valoración de la prueba y conclusiones a las que llega el Tribunal",
      "quote_en": "The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, therefore the Association could not claim ownership as owner when it was merely its administrator...",
      "quote_es": "La denegatoria en el pago, se fundamenta precisamente, en el hecho de que los fondos usados eran públicos, por eso la Asociación no podía reclamar su titularidad como dueña, cuando solo era su administradora..."
    },
    {
      "context": "V.- Sobre la valoración de la prueba y conclusiones a las que llega el Tribunal",
      "quote_en": "The Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipality, as owner of the property, exercised its powers...",
      "quote_es": "El Polideportivo tenía un fin público que cumplir, independientemente de quien lo administrara, y por eso a Municipalidad, como titular del inmueble ejerció sus competencias..."
    },
    {
      "context": "V.- Sobre la valoración de la prueba y conclusiones a las que llega el Tribunal",
      "quote_en": "...even if it had been proven that there were contributions from members, these could not be returned, not only because of the nature of the association... but because... they were intended to contribute to the achievement of the community development and well-being sought.",
      "quote_es": "...aún y cuando se hubiere probado que hubo aportes de los socios, estos no podían ser devueltos, no solo por la naturaleza de la asociación... sino porque... los mismos tenían una finalidad coadyuvar en la consecución del desarrollo y bienestar comunal que se perseguía."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-38715",
      "citation": "Ley 3859",
      "title_en": "Community Development Law",
      "title_es": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/04/1967",
      "year": "1967"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32764",
      "citation": "",
      "title_en": "Associations Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Asociaciones",
      "doc_type": null,
      "date": "06/05/2025",
      "year": "2025"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-32764",
      "citation": "",
      "title_en": "Associations Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Asociaciones",
      "doc_type": null,
      "date": "06/05/2025",
      "year": "2025"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-38715",
      "citation": "Ley 3859",
      "title_en": "Community Development Law",
      "title_es": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/04/1967",
      "year": "1967"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-38715",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO)"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-21629",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-34702",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 218  Art. 1"
      }
    ],
    "external": [
      {
        "ref_id": "norm-32764",
        "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=32764&strTipM=FN",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley de Asociaciones",
        "norm_id": "32764"
      },
      {
        "ref_id": "norm-55449",
        "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=55449&strTipM=FN",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Reglamento del artículo 19 de la Ley N° 3859 sobre Desarrollo de la Comunidad y sus Reformas",
        "norm_id": "55449"
      }
    ]
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-152345",
  "tier": 2,
  "is_environmental": false,
  "_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": [
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "149649",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-32764",
      "norm_fecha": "08 Ago 1939",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Asociaciones",
      "norm_num": "218",
      "norm_ver": "83259",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "10",
      "art_scij": "11",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-55449",
      "norm_fecha": "04 Ago 2005",
      "norm_name": "Reglamento del artículo 19 de la Ley N° 3859 sobre Desarrollo de la Comunidad y sus Reformas",
      "norm_num": "32595",
      "norm_ver": "60759",
      "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "23",
      "art_scij": "172461",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "norm_fecha": "07 Abr 1967",
      "norm_name": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO)",
      "norm_num": "3859",
      "norm_ver": "83263",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "24",
      "art_scij": "172462",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "norm_fecha": "07 Abr 1967",
      "norm_name": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad (DINADECO)",
      "norm_num": "3859",
      "norm_ver": "83263",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "8",
      "art_scij": "112621",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_fecha": "07 Sep 1994",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_ver": "80928",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    }
  ],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-32764",
      "norm_num": "",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Asociaciones",
      "tipo_norma": "",
      "norm_fecha": "06/05/2025"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-38715",
      "norm_num": "3859",
      "norm_name": "Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "07/04/1967"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Construcción de polideportivo en terreno municipal por asociación arrendataria con fondos públicos"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Inexistencia de obligación de devolver el valor de la infraestructura deportiva construida"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "Bienes municipales"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Construcción de polideportivo en terreno municipal por asociación arrendataria con fondos públicos"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Inexistencia de obligación de devolver el valor de la infraestructura deportiva construida"
        }
      ],
      "id": 2,
      "nombre": "Municipalidad"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“IV.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO \n\r\n\r\n\nLa actora acusó que el 22 de marzo\r\nde 1990, el Consejo Municipal de Grecia, en la Sesión numero veinte artículo\r\nIII, inciso 9 tomó el acuerdo firme y aprobado por unanimidad, de arrendar por\r\nel precio simbólico de cien colones, el inmueble de su propiedad, ubicado detrás\r\nde la Escuela Eulogia\r\nRuiz, a la Unión\r\n Cantonal de Asociaciones, por espacio de 10 años\r\nprorrogables. Por lo anterior la Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones convocó a sus\r\ndiferentes asociaciones afiliadas, y constituyeron el 19 de mayo de 1990, la Asociación de\r\nDesarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego\r\nde Grecia, cédula jurídica 3-002-114673, la cual tenía según sus estatutos el\r\nobjetivo de promover el desarrollo y construcción del Polideportivo en su obra\r\ntotal, darle mantenimiento a toda la infraestructura del complejo deportivo, la\r\ncual estaría al servicio del pueblo de Grecia, así como de los aspectos\r\nadministrativos, para ello contaría con recursos provenientes de las cuotas\r\nvoluntarias de sus asociados donaciones y contribuciones de sus socios\r\nhonorarios o de organismos internacionales, donaciones y contribuciones y\r\ncualquier clase de aporte que acordaran a su favor las instituciones del\r\nEstado, las municipalidades o cualquier entidad pública, privada, cívica o\r\nprofesional, el porcentaje del impuesto sobre la renta acordado por ley.\r\nDurante el plazo del arrendamiento se construyó una infraestructura que\r\ncomprendió una piscina grande y otra pequeña, restaurante, gimnasio, baños y\r\nvestidores, cancha de básquetbal, casa de máquinas, rancho de meta, pozo,\r\nbodega, zona verde, zona de playa. La construcción se logró levantar gracias a\r\npartidas específicas asignadas a la asociación, siendo los fondos usados públicos,\r\nno municipales. Razón por la cual sostiene la actora, si la Municipalidad desea\r\ndesalojarlos, debe pagar a la\r\n Asociación de Desarrollo Especifico Pro-Construcción y\r\nMantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia, el valor de lo levantado, así\r\ncomo los daños y perjuicios causados al intentar recuperar el bien. La teoría\r\ndel caso de la\r\n Municipalidad, sostiene que como las obras fueron construidas\r\ncon fondos públicos, la asociación no puede reclamar a título de dueña, el\r\nvalor de lo edificado, pero además no aportó libros contables, facturas o\r\ndocumentos, por medio de los cuales pudiera demostrar, que se recibieron\r\naportes privados, ni ello consta en el libro de la Asociación, razón por\r\nla cual no podía cobrar suma alguna por ese concepto, además acota, recibieron\r\nmúltiples quejas de los vecinos de la comunidad en donde se acusaba que la\r\ninfraestructura se hallaba en estado de abandono, razón por la cual el Consejo\r\nen Sesión extraordinaria del 26 de febrero de 2010, que consta en el acta Nº\r\n322 decidió comunicar a la\r\n Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia, que no iba a\r\nprorrogar más el contrato o convenio otorgado para la construcción y\r\nmantenimiento del Polideportivo, concediéndose un plazo de 30 días para que\r\ndesalojaran el inmueble, pues a partir de esa fecha la Municipalidad asumiría\r\nsu administración, como en efecto lo hizo. \n\r\n\r\n\nV.-\n\r\n\r\n\nSOBRE LA VALORACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA Y CONCLUSIONES A\r\nLAS QUE LLEGA EL TRIBUNAL \n\r\n\r\n\nEl punto medular que fundamenta la teoría\r\ndel caso de la actora, para reclamar el pago del valor de la edificación que se\r\nconstruyó, es la afirmación que aunque el Polideportivo se edificó sobre un\r\nterreno municipal, los fondos eran públicos, y no municipales. De previo a\r\nabocarnos al análisis del reclamo conviene señalar que no existe controversia,\r\nrespecto a que el bien dado en arriendo, era una propiedad sin construcción\r\ninscrito en el Registro Público bajo la matrícula 196628-000, cuyo titular era\r\nla municipalidad de Grecia. Por una afectación singular, a este bien\r\npatrimonial se le destinó a cumplir una función de utilidad pública, al\r\nautorizarse la construcción de un Polideportivo, fin que evidentemente estaba\r\nconectado al servicio de la comunidad, ya que se convertiría en un lugar , donde todos los habitantes de esa circunscripción\r\nterritorial, pudieran practicar sanamente actividades deportivas, que\r\ncontribuyeran a la salud y el esparcimiento. El contrato de arrendamiento para\r\nque se llevaran a cabo las obras citadas, se suscribió el 22 de marzo de 1990,\r\nentre el ente municipal y la\r\n Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, por un alquiler\r\nsimbólico de cien colones por mes, y con una duración de diez años\r\nprorrogables. Lo anterior nos lleva a separar dos realidades, el inmueble sobre\r\nel cual se construyó el Polideportivo, que indudablemente se convirtió en un\r\nbien de uso público, cuya titularidad no se reclama, ya que al ser propiedad de\r\nla administración escapa a la lógica general que se aplica a los bienes\r\nprivados, cuya finalidad normal es ser objeto de apropiación, mientras que los\r\npúblicos como ya se apuntó salen del comercio del los hombres, y son\r\ninalienables e imprescriptibles Para ello es necesario precisar que aunque el\r\ncontrato de arrendamiento se firmó con la Unión Cantonal de\r\nAsociaciones de Desarrollo, la construcción se asignó a una asociación\r\ndiferente, que se constituyó el 19 de mayo de 1990, bajo la supervisión de\r\nDINADECO, con el nombre Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y\r\nMantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, inscrita en el Registro de Personas\r\nbajo la cédula jurídica 3-002-114673 y en Registro Nacional de Asociaciones al\r\ntomo11. folio 478, asiento 18497, la cual tendría\r\nentre sus objetivos, la construcción total del Polideportivo y el mantenimiento\r\nde la infraestructura. Esa asociación se conformó bajo égida de la Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº3859, la\r\ncual regula la constitución de asociaciones que deseen dedicarse al desarrollo\r\nde la comunidad, tal como lo preceptúa el artículo 15 de la Ley citada “Las comunidades\r\ndel país que deseen organizarse para realizar actividades de desarrollo\r\nintegral o específico en su propio beneficio y en beneficio del país, pueden\r\nhacerlo en forma de asociaciones distritales, cantonales, regionales, provinciales\r\no nacionales, las cuales se regirán por las disposiciones de la presente ley.”,\r\nPara su constitución “... será necesario que se reúnan por lo menos cien\r\npersonas, y no más de mil quinientas, mayores de quince e interesadas en\r\npromover, mediante el esfuerzo conjunto y organizado, el desarrollo económico y\r\nel progreso social y cultural de un área determinada del país. El área\r\njurisdiccional de una asociación de desarrollo corresponderá a aquel territorio\r\nque constituye un fundamento natural de agrupación comunitaria. En casos\r\nexcepcionales, la Dirección\r\npodrá autorizar la existencia de asociaciones de desarrollo integradas por un número\r\ninferior o superior al indicado anteriormente. En ningún caso se podrán crear\r\nasociaciones con un número de personas inferior a veinticinco.” (art. 16 ejúsdem\r\n), esas asociaciones se regirán por un estatuto, que deberá contener entre\r\notros, la determinación del fin especial o general que persigue y los recursos\r\ncon que contará, además deberán coordinar con la Municipalidad del\r\ncantón respectivo, sus actividades, a fin de que éstas tengan buen suceso. Es\r\ntan relevante el cumplimiento del fin para la cual fue creada, que su\r\nexistencia y funcionamiento se subordina a él, prohibiéndosele “ a) utilizar la\r\nasociación para fines distintos a los indicados en el estatuto…b) realizar\r\nactividades con fines de lucro a favor de los miembros directivos o cualquiera\r\nde sus asociados….” ( art. 24 Ley Nº 3859 ), sin\r\nembargo para su funcionamiento pueden adquirir toda clase de bienes, celebrar\r\ncontratos de cualquier tipo, y realizar toda clase de operaciones lícitas\r\ndirigidas a la consecución de sus fines.(art. 23 ley citada). De las normas\r\nenunciadas se desprende, que este tipo de asociaciones se diferencian de las\r\nAsociaciones comunes que se crean al amparo de la Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218, y\r\nque regulan aquellas creadas para fines científicos, artísticos, deportivos,\r\nbenéficos, de recreo y cualesquiera otros lícitos que no tengan por único y\r\nexclusivo objeto el lucro o la ganancia (ver art 1 de ley 218), por su\r\nfinalidad y la ausencia de lucro o ganancia de sus asociados, ya que lo que\r\npersiguen es el desarrollo y organización de la comunidad, por esa razón el\r\nConsejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, mediante el decreto Decreto Nº 32595\r\ndel 4 de agosto de 2005, estableció en el artículo 10 , que contarán con fondos\r\naquellos proyectos empresariales, de infraestructura, capacitación, adquisición\r\nde bienes inmuebles, compra de maquinaria y equipo, acordes con la política de\r\ndesarrollo del país, o actividades específicas de desarrollo comunal de\r\nesfuerzo conjunto organizado en los campos económico, social y cultural. Esos\r\nproyectos serán financiados, según el artículo 19 de la Ley Nº 3859 por “ El Estado, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas,\r\nlas municipalidades y demás entidades públicas, quedan autorizadas para otorgar\r\nsubvenciones, donar bienes o suministrar servicios de cualquier clase a estas\r\nasociaciones, como una forma de contribuir al desarrollo de las comunidades y\r\nal progreso económico y social del país. El Estado incluirá en el Presupuesto\r\nNacional una partida equivalente al 2% de lo estimado del Impuesto sobre la Renta de ese período que se\r\ngirará al Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, para las\r\nasociaciones de desarrollo de la comunidad, debidamente constituidas y\r\nlegalizadas. El Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo, depositará esos fondos en el\r\nBanco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, para girarlos exclusivamente a las\r\nAsociaciones de Desarrollo de la\r\n Comunidad y a la vez para crear un fondo de garantías e\r\nincentivos, que permita financiar o facilitar el financiamiento de proyectos\r\nque le presenten las mismas asociaciones, de acuerdo con la respectiva\r\nreglamentación.” En el caso que nos ocupa, se demostró que con la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y\r\nExtraordinario de la República\r\npara el Ejercicio Fiscal de 1989 Nº 711, se dispuso una partida presupuestaria\r\npara la construcción y compra de materiales del Polideportivo Municipal por la\r\nsuma de cinco millones quinientos setenta mil colones, posteriormente, en la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y\r\nExtraordinario de la República,\r\nFiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1995, Nº 7465, se destinó\r\nuna partida para la\r\n Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y\r\nMantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, por la suma de diez millones quinientos\r\nmil colones, y la Ley\r\nde Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por\r\nProgramas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1996, Nº 7563, reservó una partida para\r\nla Asociación\r\nde Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de\r\nGrecia, por la suma de nueve millones doscientos mil colones. Las anteriores\r\npartidas o transferencias presupuestarias, así como el porcentaje establecido\r\nen la ley de la recaudación del impuesto sobre la renta, -conformado por los\r\ngravámenes a las utilidades de las empresas y las personas físicas que realizan\r\nactividades lucrativas, el impuesto sobre las rentas del trabajo personal\r\ndependiente, los impuestos sobre las remesas al exterior y el impuesto a los\r\ndividendos e intereses de títulos valores, y demás fuentes establecidas en la Ley Nº 3859- confirman, la\r\nteoría del caso sostenida por el ente demandado y paradójicamente confirmada\r\npor la actora, de que el Polideportivo Griego se construyó con fondos públicos,\r\nconcepto que nos remite a aquel \" conjunto de de dinero y valores\r\nexistentes en el erario público; y además las obligaciones activas a favor del\r\nEstado y las cooporaciones públicas, como impuestos y derechos pendientes de\r\npago\" Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volumen I. pág 94), esa\r\npropiedad que tiene el Estado sobre los fondos públicos hace que se integren al\r\npatrimonio público entendido como \"...la universalidad constituida por los\r\nfondos públicos y los pasivos a cargo de la Hacienda Pública.\"\r\n(art. 8 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General\r\nde la República).\r\nEl Estado para llevar a cabo sus proyectos y actividades, requiere de riqueza\r\nfluida, que cumple una instrumentalidad económica, y por eso el dinero que\r\npercibe forma parte del presupuesto del Estado. El dinero con independencia de\r\nla fuente de donde se obtenga (tributos, tasas, contribuciones especiales, crédito\r\ninterno y externo bienes patrimoniales, operaciones de deuda pública, o cualquier\r\notro recurso) constituyen ingresos de la Hacienda pública, que se presupuestan, cada año\r\npara una finalidad y la satisfacción de un interés público. Las partidas específicas\r\nfueron por muchos años, una distorsión presupuestaria en el gasto público, ya\r\nque permitían la asignación de fondos, del presupuesto nacional, para cumplir\r\ncon compromisos adquiridos a nivel legislativo y sin criterio técnico que lo\r\nrespaldara, ni apego a la prioridades definidas por el Poder Ejecutivo y los órganos\r\nespecializados, en el caso concreto fueron varias de estas partidas, las que\r\npermitieron la edificación de gran parte del Polideportivo. Aclarado lo\r\nanterior conviene señalar que en el caso concreto, la actora no deslindó cuales\r\nrecursos del total que se invirtieron en la construcción y mantenimiento del\r\nPolideportivo, no provenían de esas partidas, del importe del impuesto sobre la\r\nrenta, donaciones, o incluso de los recursos que el uso o alquiler de las\r\ninstalaciones generaba, pese a que le incumbía la carga de la prueba, por eso\r\nno es posible otorgar suma alguna de la reclamada, aclarando que aún y cuando\r\nse hubiere probado que hubo aportes de los socios, estos no podían ser\r\ndevueltos, no solo por la naturaleza de la asociación a la cual ya se ha hecho\r\nreferencia, sino porque aún y cuando se hubiere probado, que se realizaron esos\r\naportes, los mismos tenían una finalidad coadyuvar en la consecución del\r\ndesarrollo y bienestar comunal que se perseguía. La denegatoria en el pago, se\r\nfundamenta precisamente, en el hecho de que los fondos usados eran públicos,\r\npor eso la Asociación\r\nno podía reclamar su titularidad como dueña, cuando solo era su administradora,\r\ncargo que tampoco significaba debía prestar a perpetuidad, lo anterior nos\r\nlleva a un planteamiento esencial que no hay que olvidar, el Polideportivo tenía\r\nun fin público que cumplir, independientemente de quien lo administrara, y por\r\neso a Municipalidad, como titular del inmueble ejerció sus competencias, al\r\ndisponer del mismo y darlo en arrendamiento, pero concomitantemente debía de\r\nejercer control, sobre los actos de utilización, y por ello podía verificar ,\r\nque efectivamente se destinara al fin para el cual fue arrendado, y que las\r\ninstalaciones se mantuvieran en las mejores condiciones, para que los\r\nciudadanos pudieran practicar de forma segura deportes y actividades\r\nrecreativas, sin embargo las múltiples quejas de los vecinos de la comunidad y\r\nusuarios de las instalaciones, le permitieron llegar a una conclusión\r\ndiferente, sumándose a lo anterior, que una auditoria realizada por DINADECO,\r\nevidenció desorden en la administración de la finanzas. Además hay que acotar\r\nque como titular del inmueble, la Municipalidad tenía la potestad de no prorrogar más\r\nel contrato de arrendamiento, como efecto lo hizo. Finalmente se rechaza el\r\ncobro de los daños perjuicios reclamados, al no haber demostrado la parte\r\nactora su existencia, pese a que le competía la carga de la prueba.”",
  "body_en_text": "**IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE**\n\nThe plaintiff alleged that on March 22, 1990, the Municipal Council of Grecia, in Session number twenty, Article III, subsection 9, adopted a firm resolution, approved unanimously, to lease the property it owned, located behind the Eulogia Ruiz School, to the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones, for a symbolic price of one hundred colones, for a period of 10 years, extendable. Subsequently, the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones convened its various affiliated associations, and on May 19, 1990, they formed the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia, legal identification number 3-002-114673, which had, according to its bylaws, the objective of promoting the development and construction of the Sports Complex in its entirety, maintaining all the infrastructure of the sports complex, which would be at the service of the people of Grecia, as well as the administrative aspects; for this it would have resources from voluntary dues of its members, donations and contributions from its honorary members or from international organizations, donations and contributions and any kind of contribution that State institutions, municipalities or any public, private, civic or professional entity might agree to in its favor, and the percentage of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) established by law. During the term of the lease, an infrastructure was built comprising a large pool and another small one, a restaurant, a gym, bathrooms and changing rooms, a basketball court, a machine room, a finish-line shelter, a well, a warehouse, a green zone, and a beach zone. The construction was able to be erected thanks to specific budget allocations assigned to the association, with the funds used being public, not municipal. For this reason, the plaintiff maintains that if the Municipality wishes to evict them, it must pay the Asociación de Desarrollo Especifico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia the value of what was built, as well as the damages caused by attempting to recover the property. The case theory of the Municipality maintains that since the works were built with public funds, the association cannot claim, as owner, the value of what was built; moreover, it did not provide accounting books, invoices, or documents by which it could demonstrate that private contributions were received, nor does this appear in the Association's book, which is why it could not charge any amount for that concept; it further notes that they received multiple complaints from residents of the community alleging that the infrastructure was in a state of abandonment, which is why the Council, in an extraordinary Session on February 26, 2010, recorded in minute No. 322, decided to inform the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Grecia that it would no longer extend the contract or agreement granted for the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex, granting a period of 30 days to vacate the property, as from that date the Municipality would assume its administration, which it indeed did.\n\n**V.-**\n\n**ON THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL**\n\nThe central point underpinning the plaintiff's case theory for claiming payment of the value of the building that was constructed is the assertion that although the Sports Complex was built on municipal land, the funds were public and not municipal. Before proceeding to the analysis of the claim, it is appropriate to note that there is no controversy regarding the fact that the property given in lease was an unbuilt property registered in the Public Registry under title number 196628-000, whose owner was the municipality of Grecia. By a singular designation (afectación singular), this patrimonial asset was destined to fulfill a public utility function, by authorizing the construction of a Sports Complex, a purpose that was evidently connected to the service of the community, since it would become a place where all the inhabitants of that territorial circumscription could healthily practice sports activities, contributing to health and recreation. The lease contract for carrying out the cited works was signed on March 22, 1990, between the municipal entity and the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, for a symbolic rent of one hundred colones per month, and with a duration of ten years, extendable. The foregoing leads us to separate two realities: the property on which the Sports Complex was built, which undoubtedly became a public use asset (bien de uso público), whose ownership is not claimed, since being property of the administration it escapes the general logic applied to private goods, whose normal purpose is to be an object of appropriation, while public ones, as already noted, are withdrawn from commerce among men, and are inalienable and imprescriptible. To this end, it is necessary to specify that although the lease contract was signed with the Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones de Desarrollo, the construction was assigned to a different association, which was formed on May 19, 1990, under the supervision of DINADECO, under the name Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, registered in the Person Registry under legal identification number 3-002-114673 and in the National Registry of Associations at volume 11, folio 478, entry 18497, which would have among its objectives the total construction of the Sports Complex and the maintenance of the infrastructure. That association was formed under the aegis of the Community Development Law No. 3859 (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº3859), which regulates the formation of associations wishing to dedicate themselves to community development, as set forth in Article 15 of the cited Law: “The communities of the country that wish to organize themselves to carry out comprehensive or specific development activities for their own benefit and for the benefit of the country may do so in the form of district, cantonal, regional, provincial, or national associations, which shall be governed by the provisions of this law.” For its formation, “... it shall be necessary that at least one hundred persons, and no more than fifteen hundred, over the age of fifteen and interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, meet. The jurisdictional area of a development association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural basis for community grouping. In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of development associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above. In no case may associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five.” (Art. 16 eiusdem). These associations shall be governed by bylaws, which must contain, among others, the determination of the specific or general purpose it pursues and the resources it will have; furthermore, they must coordinate their activities with the Municipality of the respective canton, so that these are successful. The fulfillment of the purpose for which it was created is so relevant that its existence and operation are subordinated to it, and it is prohibited from: “a) using the association for purposes other than those indicated in the bylaws… b) carrying out activities for profit on behalf of its board members or any of its associates….” (Art. 24 Ley Nº 3859). However, for its operation, it may acquire all kinds of property, enter into contracts of any type, and carry out all kinds of lawful operations aimed at achieving its purposes (Art. 23 of the cited law). It is evident from the rules stated that this type of association differs from common Associations created under the Associations Law No. 218 (Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218), which regulate those created for scientific, artistic, sports, charitable, recreational, and any other lawful purposes that do not have profit or gain as their sole and exclusive object (see Art 1 of Law 218), by their purpose and the absence of profit or gain for their associates, since what they pursue is the development and organization of the community. For this reason, the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, through decree Decreto Nº 32595 of August 4, 2005, established in Article 10 that business, infrastructure, training, acquisition of real estate, purchase of machinery and equipment projects, consistent with the country's development policy, or specific community development activities of organized joint effort in the economic, social, and cultural fields, will receive funds. According to Article 19 of Ley Nº 3859, those projects shall be financed by: “The State, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, the municipalities, and other public entities, are authorized to grant subsidies, donate goods, or provide services of any kind to these associations, as a way of contributing to the development of the communities and the economic and social progress of the country. The State shall include in the National Budget an allocation equivalent to 2% of the estimated Income Tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta) for that period, which shall be transferred to the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, for the duly constituted and legalized community development associations. The Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo shall deposit those funds in the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, to be disbursed exclusively to the Community Development Associations and, at the same time, to create a fund for guarantees and incentives, to enable the financing or facilitate the financing of projects submitted by the same associations, in accordance with the respective regulations.” In the case at hand, it was demonstrated that with the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic for the Fiscal Year 1989, No. 711 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República para el Ejercicio Fiscal de 1989 Nº 711), a budgetary allocation was provided for the construction and purchase of materials for the Municipal Sports Complex in the sum of five million five hundred seventy thousand colones; subsequently, in the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Economic Year 1995, No. 7465 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1995, Nº 7465), an allocation was destined for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, in the sum of ten million five hundred thousand colones; and the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budget of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Economic Year 1996, No. 7563 (Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Económico de 1996, Nº 7563), reserved an allocation for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, in the sum of nine million two hundred thousand colones. The aforementioned budget allocations or transfers, as well as the percentage established in the law from the collection of income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) – comprised of levies on corporate profits and on individuals conducting lucrative activities, the tax on dependent personal labor income, taxes on remittances abroad and the tax on dividends and interest from securities, and other sources established in Ley Nº 3859 – confirm the case theory maintained by the defendant entity and paradoxically confirmed by the plaintiff: that the Greek Sports Complex was built with public funds, a concept that refers to that “set of money and assets existing in the public treasury; and also the active obligations in favor of the State and public corporations, such as taxes and duties pending payment” (Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volume I. p. 94). That ownership the State holds over public funds means they become part of the public patrimony, understood as “...the universality constituted by the public funds and the liabilities chargeable to the Public Treasury.” (Art. 8 of the Organic Law of the General Comptroller of the Republic). The State, to carry out its projects and activities, requires fluid wealth, which fulfills an economic instrumentality, and therefore the money it receives forms part of the State budget. The money, regardless of the source from which it is obtained (tributes, fees, special contributions, internal and external credit, patrimonial assets, public debt operations, or any other resource), constitutes income of the Public Treasury, which is budgeted each year for a specific purpose and the satisfaction of a public interest. Specific allocations were, for many years, a budgetary distortion in public spending, as they allowed the assignment of funds from the national budget to fulfill commitments acquired at the legislative level without supporting technical criteria or adherence to the priorities defined by the Executive Branch and the specialized bodies. In this specific case, several of these allocations were what enabled the construction of a large part of the Sports Complex. Having clarified the above, it is appropriate to note that in this specific case, the plaintiff did not separate which resources from the total invested in the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex did not originate from those allocations, from the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) amount, donations, or even from the resources generated by the use or rental of the facilities, even though it bore the burden of proof. For this reason, it is not possible to grant any sum of the claimed amount, clarifying that even if it had been proven that there were contributions from members, these could not be returned, not only due to the nature of the association to which reference has already been made, but also because even if it had been proven that those contributions were made, their purpose was to contribute to the achievement of the communal development and well-being that were being pursued. The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, and therefore the Association could not claim ownership of them as the owner, when it was only its administrator, a role which also did not mean it had to provide such services in perpetuity. The foregoing leads us to an essential consideration that must not be forgotten: the Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipality, as the titleholder of the property, exercised its powers in disposing of it and leasing it, but concomitantly it had to exercise control over the acts of utilization, and therefore it could verify that it was indeed destined for the purpose for which it was leased, and that the facilities were maintained in the best conditions, so that citizens could safely practice sports and recreational activities. However, the multiple complaints from community residents and users of the facilities allowed it to reach a different conclusion, adding to this that an audit conducted by DINADECO revealed disorder in the administration of finances. Furthermore, it must be noted that as the titleholder of the property, the Municipality had the power not to further extend the lease contract, which it effectively did. Finally, the claim for damages requested is rejected, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate their existence, even though it bore the burden of proof.”\n\n**IV.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE**\n\nThe plaintiff alleged that on March 22, 1990, the Municipal Council of Grecia, in Session number twenty, article III, subsection 9, adopted a firm and unanimously approved agreement to lease, for the symbolic price of one hundred colones, the property owned by it, located behind the Eulogia Ruiz School, to the Cantonal Union of Associations (Unión Cantonal de Asociaciones), for a period of 10 years, renewable. Consequently, the Cantonal Union of Associations convened its various affiliated associations, and they constituted on May 19, 1990, the Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Griego Sports Complex of Grecia (Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego de Grecia), legal identification number 3-002-114673, which had, according to its bylaws, the objective of promoting the development and construction of the Sports Complex in its entirety, maintaining all the infrastructure of the sports complex, which would be at the service of the people of Grecia, as well as the administrative aspects; for this, it would have resources from voluntary dues of its members, donations and contributions from its honorary members or from international organizations, donations and contributions and any kind of contribution agreed in its favor by State institutions, municipalities or any public, private, civic or professional entity, the percentage of the income tax (impuesto sobre la renta) agreed by law. During the term of the lease, an infrastructure was built that included a large pool and a small pool, a restaurant, a gym, bathrooms and changing rooms, a basketball court, a machine house, a finish line shelter, a well, a warehouse, a green area, and a beach area. The construction was achieved thanks to specific budget allocations assigned to the association, the funds used being public, not municipal. For this reason, the plaintiff maintains that if the Municipality wishes to evict them, it must pay the Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Griego Sports Complex of Grecia the value of what was built, as well as the damages caused by attempting to recover the property. The case theory of the Municipality maintains that since the works were built with public funds, the association cannot claim, as the owner, the value of what was built; furthermore, it did not provide accounting books, invoices, or documents through which it could demonstrate that private contributions were received, nor does this appear in the Association's book, which is why it could not charge any sum for that concept. Additionally, it notes that it received multiple complaints from community neighbors alleging that the infrastructure was in a state of abandonment, for which reason the Council, in an extraordinary Session on February 26, 2010, recorded in minute No. 322, decided to notify the Cantonal Union of Associations of Grecia that it would not further extend the contract or agreement granted for the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex, granting a period of 30 days to vacate the property, since from that date the Municipality would assume its administration, as it effectively did.\n\n**V.-**\n\n**ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL**\n\nThe core point underpinning the plaintiff's case theory, to claim payment of the value of the building that was constructed, is the assertion that although the Sports Complex was built on municipal land, the funds were public, not municipal. Before addressing the analysis of the claim, it should be noted that there is no controversy regarding the fact that the leased property was an unbuilt property registered in the Public Registry under folio number 196628-000, whose owner was the municipality of Grecia. By a singular designation, this patrimonial asset was destined to **fulfill a public utility function**, by authorizing the construction of a Sports Complex, a purpose that was evidently connected to community service, as it would become a place where all the inhabitants of that territorial circumscription could healthily practice sports activities that contributed to health and recreation. The lease contract for carrying out the cited works was signed on March 22, 1990, between the municipal entity and the Cantonal Union of Development Associations, for a symbolic rent of one hundred colones per month, and with a duration of ten years, renewable. The foregoing leads us to separate two realities: the property on which the Sports Complex was built, which undoubtedly became a public-use asset, whose ownership is not claimed, since being property of the administration, it escapes the general logic applied to private assets, whose normal purpose is to be an object of appropriation, while public assets, as already noted, are outside the commerce of men and are inalienable and imprescriptible. For this, it is necessary to specify that although the lease contract was signed with the Cantonal Union of Development Associations, the construction was assigned to a different association, which was constituted on May 19, 1990, under the supervision of DINADECO, with the name Specific Development Association Pro-Construction and Maintenance of the Sports Complex of Grecia, registered in the Persons Registry under legal identification number 3-002-114673 and in the National Registry of Associations at volume 11, folio 478, entry 18497, which would have among its objectives the total construction of the Sports Complex and the maintenance of the infrastructure. That association was formed under the aegis of the Law on Community Development No. 3859 (Ley sobre el Desarrollo de la Comunidad Nº 3859), which regulates the constitution of associations wishing to dedicate themselves to community development, as prescribed in Article 15 of the cited Law: *\"The communities of the country that wish to organize themselves to carry out comprehensive or specific development activities for their own benefit and for the benefit of the country, may do so in the form of district, cantonal, regional, provincial or national associations, which shall be governed by the provisions of this law.\"* For its constitution *\"...it will be necessary that at least one hundred persons, and no more than fifteen hundred, over the age of fifteen and interested in promoting, through joint and organized effort, the economic development and the social and cultural progress of a determined area of the country, meet. The jurisdictional area of a development association shall correspond to that territory which constitutes a natural foundation of community grouping. In exceptional cases, the Directorate may authorize the existence of development associations composed of a number lower or higher than that indicated above. In no case may associations be created with a number of persons less than twenty-five.\"* (Art. 16 ejúsdem), these associations shall be governed by bylaws, which must contain, among other things, the determination of the special or general purpose pursued and the resources it will have; furthermore, they must coordinate with the Municipality of the respective canton their activities, so that these are successful.\n\nThe fulfillment of the purpose for which it was created is so relevant that its existence and operation are subordinated to it, and it is prohibited from “a) using the association for purposes other than those indicated in the bylaws…b) carrying out activities for profit in favor of the board members or any of its associates….” (Art. 24 Ley Nº 3859), however, for its operation it may acquire all kinds of goods, enter into contracts of any type, and carry out all kinds of lawful operations aimed at achieving its purposes (Art. 23 of the cited law). From the aforementioned provisions, it follows that this type of association differs from ordinary Associations created under Ley de Asociaciones Nº 218, which regulate those created for scientific, artistic, sports, charitable, recreational, and any other lawful purposes that do not have profit or gain as their sole and exclusive object (see Art. 1 of Ley 218), by its purpose and the absence of profit or gain for its associates, since what they pursue is the development and organization of the community. For that reason, the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, by decree Decreto Nº 32595 of August 4, 2005, established in Article 10 that those business projects, infrastructure, training, acquisition of real estate, purchase of machinery and equipment, in accordance with the country’s development policy, or specific community development activities of organized joint effort in the economic, social, and cultural fields, will have funds. Those projects will be financed, according to Article 19 of Ley Nº 3859, by *“The State, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, the municipalities, and other public entities, are authorized to grant subsidies, donate goods, or provide services of any kind to these associations, as a way of contributing to the development of the communities and to the economic and social progress of the country. The State shall include in the National Budget an item equivalent to 2% of the estimated income tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta) for that period, which shall be transferred to the Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo de la Comunidad, for the duly constituted and legalized community development associations. The Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo shall deposit those funds in the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, to be transferred exclusively to the Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad and at the same time to create a guarantee and incentive fund, which allows financing or facilitating the financing of projects submitted to it by the same associations, in accordance with the respective regulations.”* In the case at hand, it was demonstrated that with the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República for the 1989 Fiscal Year, Nº 711, a budget item was allocated for the construction and purchase of materials for the Municipal Sports Complex (Polideportivo Municipal) in the sum of five million five hundred seventy thousand colones; subsequently, in the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas for the 1995 Economic Year, Nº 7465, an item was allocated to the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo Griego, in the sum of ten million five hundred thousand colones; and the Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas for the 1996 Economic Year, Nº 7563, reserved an item for the Asociación de Desarrollo Específico Pro-Construcción y Mantenimiento del Polideportivo de Grecia, in the sum of nine million two hundred thousand colones. The foregoing budget items or transfers, as well as the percentage established in the law from the collection of income tax—made up of levies on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities, the tax on dependent personal labor income, taxes on remittances abroad, and the tax on dividends and interest from securities, and other sources established in Ley Nº 3859—confirm the theory of the case sustained by the defendant entity and paradoxically confirmed by the plaintiff, that the Polideportivo Griego was built with public funds, a concept that refers to that “set of money and securities existing in the public treasury; and also the active obligations in favor of the State and public corporations, such as taxes and rights pending payment” Founrouge Giuliani. Derecho Financiero, volume I. p. 94). That ownership that the State has over public funds means that they become part of the public patrimony (patrimonio público), understood as “...the universality constituted by the public funds and the liabilities charged to the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública).” (Art. 8 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). The State, to carry out its projects and activities, requires fluid wealth, which fulfills an economic instrumentality, and for that reason the money it receives forms part of the State budget. Money, regardless of the source from which it is obtained (tributes, rates, special contributions, internal and external credit, patrimonial assets, public debt operations, or any other resource), constitutes **revenue of the Public Treasury (ingresos de la Hacienda pública),** which is budgeted each year for a purpose and the satisfaction of a public interest. Specific items were, for many years, a budgetary distortion in public spending, since they allowed the allocation of funds from the national budget to fulfill commitments acquired at the legislative level without technical criteria to support it, nor adherence to the priorities defined by the Executive Branch and the specialized bodies. In the specific case, it was several of these items that allowed the construction of a large part of the Sports Complex. Having clarified the foregoing, it should be noted that in the specific case, the plaintiff did not specify which resources from the total invested in the construction and maintenance of the Sports Complex did not come from those items, from the amount of the income tax, donations, or even from the resources generated by the use or rental of the facilities, despite the fact that the burden of proof fell upon it. For that reason, it is not possible to award any sum of the amount claimed, clarifying that even if it had been proven that there were contributions from the associates, these could not be returned, not only due to the nature of the association to which reference has already been made, but also because even if it had been proven that those contributions were made, they had the purpose of contributing to the achievement of the community development and well-being that was pursued. The denial of payment is based precisely on the fact that the funds used were public, which is why the Asociación could not claim ownership as the owner, when it was only its administrator, a role that also did not mean it had to serve in perpetuity. The foregoing leads us to an essential point that must not be forgotten: the Sports Complex had a public purpose to fulfill, regardless of who administered it, and for that reason the Municipalidad, as the owner of the property, exercised its powers by disposing of it and granting it under lease, but concomitantly it had to exercise control over the acts of use, and for that reason it could verify that it was effectively destined for the purpose for which it was leased, and that the facilities were maintained in the best conditions so that citizens could safely practice sports and recreational activities. However, the multiple complaints from community neighbors and users of the facilities allowed it to reach a different conclusion, adding to the foregoing that an audit carried out by DINADECO showed disorder in the administration of finances. Furthermore, it must be noted that as the owner of the property, the Municipalidad had the power not to further extend the lease contract, as it indeed did. Finally, the claim for damages is rejected, as the plaintiff did not demonstrate their existence, despite the fact that the burden of proof fell upon it.”"
}