2) By means of an order (auto) issued at fourteen hours and forty-one minutes on April 30, 2013, this Court deemed the present proceeding established against INVU and granted the statutory hearing (audiencia de ley) for the response (contestación).- (I, 90-93).
\n3) INVU responded negatively to the complaint, according to the filing of June 21, 2013, in which it raised the defenses (excepciones) of lack of right (falta de derecho), capacity to sue (capacidad para accionar), and lack of current interest (falta de interés actual).- (I, 189-222).-
\n4) By means of Resolution N° 1474-2013-T at ten hours thirty-five minutes on July 19, 2013, the Administrative Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) granted a provisional remedy (medida cautelar) in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the resolution at 14:41 hours on April 30, 2013, issued by the Court, in which, by means of an interim provisional remedy (medida cautelar provisionalísima), the administrative act N° C-PEP-620-2012 and any order for eviction (desalojo) or demolition (demolición) of structures on the property inhabited by María Mayela Salazar Salazar were suspended. (I, 268-277).-
\n5) The Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda), by order (auto) at eleven hours and nine minutes on August 16, 2013, deemed the complaint responded to and the aforementioned defenses raised.- (I, 278-279).
\n6) A preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar) was held on September 5, 2016, with the participation of both parties. During this preliminary hearing, the adjustment of the claims (pretensiones) was made, the disputed facts were determined, and the documentary and testimonial evidence was admitted. Before the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the plaintiff (parte actora) indicated electronic means as the primary means for notifications. (I, 364-370).
\n7) By means of an order (auto) at thirteen hours and fifty minutes on November 7, 2016, a date and time were set for the holding of the oral and public trial hearing (audiencia de juicio oral y público). (I, 371-372).
\n8) The order (auto) convening the trial hearing was notified to the indicated means. (I, 376).
\n9) The plaintiff (parte actora) requested a new provisional remedy (medida cautelar) on March 14, 2017, before the Court. (I, 377-378).
\n10) The Administrative Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) granted a hearing on the new request for a provisional remedy by order (auto) at fourteen hours and seventeen minutes on March 15, 2017. The plaintiff was notified at the indicated electronic means. (I, 379 and 380).
\n11) The Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda) issued Resolution N° 54-2017 at eight hours thirty minutes on June 7, 2017; rejecting what was requested therein. This order (auto) was notified to the plaintiff at the indicated electronic means. (I, 384-391 and 393).
\n12) The oral and public trial (juicio oral y público) was convened again for August 6, 2018, according to the order (auto) at ten hours and twenty-three minutes on August 9, 2017. (I, 395-396).
\n13) The order (auto) convening the trial was notified to the means indicated by the plaintiff. (I, 398).
\n14) The Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, Section VIII, composed of Judge Alexandra Zúñiga Mora, and Judges Jonatán Canales Hernández and Paulo Alonso Soto. The oral and public trial hearing was held on August 6, 2018, as convened. Despite being scheduled to begin at eight hours thirty minutes, due to a problem with the electrical power supply and access to the digital file, with the consent of INVU's representation, and as indicated in CPCA art. 86 subsection 2), the oral and public trial began at thirteen hours thirty minutes. It was considered that the plaintiff had already missed the preliminary hearing, without any justification. During the oral and public trial hearing, testimony was given by the expert witnesses: Bach. Jaime Rodríguez Sánchez, ID 1-1172-369 and Eng. Robert Garita Hernández, ID 4-140-379, the evidence of the plaintiff admitted in the case record, namely Yolanda Paniagua Araya and Shirley Cubero Arroyo, being unenforceable, as they did not appear during the oral and public trial hearing without any justification. , before the conclusion of the oral and public trial hearing, they declared the proceeding as highly complex in light of the provisions of CPCA, art. 111. and issued, by unanimity, vote (voto) N° 76-2018 of August 27, 2018, under the drafting of the last judge. (I, 399-401). (I, 403-424).
\n15) The First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, by Resolution N° 000366-F-S1-2021 at eleven hours twenty minutes on February 18, 2021, declared the appeal of cassation (recurso de casación) with merit and annulled the aforementioned judgment, ordering the remand (reenvío) to the Court to issue a new ruling, according to the provisions of CPCA art. 150 subsection 1). (455-469).
\n16) By reason of the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) N° 22-020548-0007-CA filed, among others, against CPCA art. 150.1, by means of an order (auto) at seven hours fifty-five minutes on May 12, 2023, the hearing of the proceeding was suspended. (I, 502).
\n17) Having the indicated constitutional challenge been declared without merit, by vote (voto) N° 2024-034693 at twelve hours and forty-one minutes on November 20, two thousand twenty-four, and correcting a material error by vote (voto) N° 2025002703 at nine hours forty-five minutes on January 29, two thousand twenty-five, we proceed to lift the suspension and issue the judgment ordered by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice.
\n18) In the proceedings, all legal prescriptions have been fulfilled and no defects susceptible of producing nullity or defenselessness (indefensión) of the parties are observed.
\n\n**II) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING.-** The claim was definitively determined in the preliminary hearing, held on September 5, 2016, in the following terms, on which a ruling will be made in the judgment: \"*Claim 1: Is eliminated as it was already resolved through the Precautionary Measure. Claim 2: I request that a declaration be made of the non-conformity of the administrative conduct with the legal system and of all related acts or actions in relation to the present case.// Claim 3: I request that the total annulment of the act and all effects it may cause be ordered.// Claim 4: I request a declaration by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo regarding the fixing of the amount to be paid, monthly installments, and the due interest to be able to cancel the obligation as its regulations stipulate for any legal situation, as well as the adoption of any measures necessary and appropriate for this purpose.// Claim 5: I request that I be granted the subjective right of ownership of the lot that I have been possessing for more than 10 years, quietly, publicly, peacefully, as owner, and which is part of the property registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, folio number 233264-000 owned by INVU, and that the Public Registry be ordered to register the indicated lot in my name.// Claim 6: I request that the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo be ordered to refrain from adopting and executing any conduct that could harm the public interest or the current or potential legal situations towards my person in the present case until the entire situation is clarified and resolved by the competent jurisdiction. //Claim 7: was considered withdrawn in the preliminary hearing. This stated:* \"*7. I request a sentence for the payment of damages and losses in my favor for all the moral and economic damages caused during this entire process; which are caused by the construction of the dwelling, the payment of participation in the association and its constitution, of which it is not known how the dues collected from all the associates were invested. Said expenses are estimated at around ten million colones*\" *(Was considered withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff)// Subsidiary Claim: In relation to number 5, in the event that the property title is not granted: I request that my condition as a beneficiary and awardee in the El Faro housing project be declared, and by virtue thereof, that I be granted the right of ownership that I have been possessing for more than 10 years, quietly, publicly, peacefully, as owner, and which is part of the property registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, folio number 233264-000 owned by INVU, and that the Public Registry be ordered to register the indicated lot in my name.*\"\n\n(Virtual case file, images 364-370).-\n\n**III) PROVEN FACTS.** The following are considered proven facts of relevance for the resolution of this declaratory proceeding:\n\n**A) FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:**\n\n**1)** That INVU acquired the property of the Heredia district registered under real folio number 77006B-000, through expropriation, in accordance with the provisions of subsection n) of article 5 of the Organic Law of INVU, Law No. 1788 and 1882, for the purposes of INVU, as recorded in public deed No. 75 executed before Notary Public Manuel Solano Avendaño, on September 22, 1983.- (Virtual case file images 352-354).-\n\n**2)** That INVU is the registered owner of the property with real folio number No. 233264-000, with an area of five thousand eight hundred sixty-four square meters, plan H-1517125-2011, whose prior title history corresponded to property 4-00077006B-000. (Virtual case file, images 358 and 360-361).-\n\n**3)** By means of a letter addressed to Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, Executive President of INVU, on October 9, 2012, a group of members of the housing project known as El Faro requested the granting of the property title over the land owned by INVU, which thirty-five families had been occupying for 19 years.- (I, 5-7).-\n\n**4)** The Executive President of INVU, Álvaro González Alfaro, by official letter PE-0278-12-2012, dated December 5, 2012, replied to the plaintiff’s letter of October 9, 2012, indicating the following: *\"In this regard, I enclose a copy of Memorandum PEP-767-2012, sent to this Office by Architect Arturo Argüello of the Project Execution Process of our Institution, which responds to your letter.\"*.- (I, 8).-\n\n**5)** The referenced memorandum PEP-767-2012, dated October 31, 2012, stated the following: *\"Regarding the letter received at the Executive Presidency on October 9, 2012, and memoranda PE-0689-10-2012 (October 17, 2012) and PT-1310-2012 (October 22, 2012), the following is reported: //The families presenting the letter, plus other families belonging to the Organized Group Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas, occupy the land where the El Faro Project is being promoted. The land corresponds to the property Real Folio No. 4-233264-000, cadastral plan H-1517125-2011.*\n\nThe Project is promoted by the Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas, Legal ID Number 3-002-611980, under the Regulation for the Production of Social Interest Housing Solutions.// The Association has submitted to the Institute, to begin the formalities, all pertinent pre-feasibility documentation, as well as the list of potential beneficiaries who must qualify according to the legal and regulatory provisions determined by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda and the INVU as an authorized entity of the Sistema Financiero de la Vivienda and the INVU as an authorized entity of the Sistema Financiero de la Vivienda.// Under these conditions, their application cannot be processed, since this Institute has specific plans for that land, such as the construction of the El Faro Project.\" (I, 9; the underlining and highlighting is ours).-\n\n6) The plaintiff, by means of a note dated November 2, 2012, together with other neighbors of Guararí, made an inquiry to Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, Executive President of the INVU, in the following terms: \"The undersigned neighbors of Guararí, Radial Los Sauces, have resided for 19 years on a property owned by the INVU.// We have never had problems of any kind, we have lived peacefully, we have not been disturbed in the possession we have maintained, and we have undertaken efforts aimed at the titling of the plots.// For approximately one year, Mrs.: LIGIA MURILLO QUIRÓS, ID No. 2-0471-0646, who is the President of the Housing Committee, has been threatening us with eviction if we do not pay her the fees she demands, in the amount of four thousand colones for her salary and one thousand colones for affiliation dues; she says she is authorized by (sic) Amarilis Aguilar Carmona, representative of the INVU.// We request an official pronouncement from the INVU regarding this issue, as we are extremely nervous and sick due to the threats we are receiving daily, and we denounce this situation because we know this is not the way the Entity you represent should act; indeed, in the official propaganda the population is urged to report these anomalies.// We attach copies of the notes that said lady has distributed in the community.// Heredia, November 01, 2012.\" (I, 10-11).-\n\n7) That through official communication C-PEP-620-2012 dated November 6, 2012, Architect Arturo Argüello Matamoros, from the INVU's Department of Project Execution, communicated to the plaintiff Salazar Salazar, in relevant part, that: \"By this means, I am permitted to indicate that it has been verified that you irregularly occupy the INVU property where the Project called 'El Faro' will be developed, in Guararí de Heredia, which consists of only 44 housing solutions, a number of houses that is not sufficient to serve all the families in need of housing at the site.// Reason that obliges us to make the following warning so that you voluntarily vacate and demolish your housing structure, which you built without authorization from this Institute and because the provisional structure you inhabit impedes the development of the infrastructure works of this project.// In turn, I am permitted to indicate that once the land is vacated, you report to the INVU your new address and telephone number in order to include your name on a waiting list to be considered for a future housing project to be developed on the Guararí property, provided that your case meets all the requirements established by the INVU and the Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda and there is budgetary content for its execution.// Therefore, a non-extendable period of 15 business days is granted for you to vacate the land you occupy; otherwise, what legally corresponds will proceed.\" (I, 3).-\n\n8) On March 11, 2014, the then Executive President of the INVU, Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, the Mayor of Heredia, José Manuel Ulate Avendaño, the then Minister of Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos, Guido Monge Fernández, and representatives of Housing Associations jointly signed the document called: \"GUIDELINES FOR THE DEFINITION OF TARGET POPULATIONS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS ON LAND OWNED BY THE INVU LOCATED IN GUARARI DE HEREDIA,\" a document which, in relevant part, stated: \"1. Normative basis of interest. I) Regarding who makes the final qualification of the final beneficiaries// The MIVAH and the Municipality do not have the authority to define or qualify a list of beneficiaries for a housing project. Article 15 and Article 113 of the Operations Regulations of the Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda (SFNV) indicate that the Authorized Entities of the SFNV are responsible for this (...).- //3. Nomination of potential families to the Authorized Entity// Following the provisions of the SFNV Financing Options Regulations// Article 16. SFNV Operations Regulations// The procedure for obtaining the Bond or subsidy shall be initiated through an application submitted to the Authorized Entity, on the forms established for this purpose by the BANHVI, an application to which the other documents determined for the purpose shall be attached.// In practice, there is a diversity of sources for the family's nomination, which are worth citing: • The family through its own means • The Municipality or other authority with representation in the area • The District Councils (according to Article 52 of the Municipal Code) • Development association • Organized pro-housing group • The developer • In cases of emergencies, extreme need, evictions, or other similar processes that generate highly urgent housing needs, an institution of the Executive Branch could channel the nomination.// (...) 4. Criteria for the selection of target populations and prioritization of families, potential beneficiaries of housing projects on INVU land in Guararí de Heredia// Due to the large number of families interested in housing solutions, the fact that there are few available lands, and that projects do not have sufficient space to satisfy all the existing demand in the area, it is essential to define the following criteria to organize the demand, in an objective and transparent manner: 1. Priority will be given to families, inhabitants of Guararí, who have resided publicly and peacefully in Guararí for at least 10 years.\n\n//They must prove their permanence in the sector, throughout all that time, by means of some public and official document (examples: clinic records, school enrollment records, official public utilities with address, municipal charges, or others)// 2. In cases where the land is invaded, the assessment begins with the families that are located on the land of the project to be carried out, previously surveyed by INVU, which will send a copy to MIVAH and the Municipality of Heredia. //Of the families living on the site, according to the survey, priority will be given to those who have at least 10 years of public and peaceful habitation in Guararí. They must prove this by the same means explained above.// 3. The current regulations must be complied with according to the INVU Reglamento para Producción de Soluciones de Vivienda de Interés Social (RPSV). According to this regulation, for the development of a Social Interest Housing Project, an organized group, selected with the criteria of the Municipality, MIVAH, and INVU, will be used to advance the processes of contracting the design and obtaining the project permits. As established in Art. 27 of the INVU Reglamento para Producción de Soluciones de Vivienda de Interés Social: \"The Association or Organized Group that opts for financing and/or technical and social advice from INVU, for the development of a housing project must be consolidated from a legal standpoint and be duly registered in the Registry of Associations, with current legal capacity (personería jurídica) and have the legalized books up to date. The INVU must provide certified copies of the articles of incorporation, identification number (cédula jurídica), and certification of legal capacity (personería jurídica), to date\"// This group, once informed by INVU that it will be the group leading the project, may not affiliate new families to its Association. Only families that belonged to this group before the moment the group was informed by INVU that it would take charge of the project will be evaluated. If the group fails to comply with this guideline, it may be removed from the development of the project by INVU.// 4. No lists of family applications will be received, in any government institution, from any pro-housing association, until the project has advanced and has the design and permits. This prevents generating expectations that cannot be met through the project.// Once the project design and permits are available, the number of real solutions that the project can accommodate will be known. It will be at this moment that the Authorized Entity of the Housing Financial System, which will be in charge of the project, in coordination with the Municipality, will receive the nominated families from the associations, according to the criteria and procedures established in this document and in accordance with the project's capacity.//\n5. Each group, of the organized groups living in Guararí that comply with the RPSV, and which have expressed interest in the project through notes received by INVU before the granting of the municipal permit, will be allowed to nominate a small list of 10 principal applicants and 10 alternate applicants.// These families must also have at least 10 years of public and peaceful habitation in Guararí and prove it by the means already mentioned.// 6. The groups must nominate the most needy families, in a prioritized manner, placing first those they consider require a housing solution first.// This information will be corroborated through the social information tools available to the State.// The groups must give special consideration to families in extreme need, whose incomes are equal to or less than stratum 1.5, or from more vulnerable populations, such as older adults, those with members with disabilities, those headed by a single person, or families with a greater number of members.// It is clarified, to the pro-housing groups, that the nomination of a family does not imply its definitive acceptance for the granting of a housing voucher (bono de vivienda), since this can only be defined once the number of families the project can accommodate is known and once the family is qualified, according to the regulations of the National Housing Financial System (Sistema Financiero Nacional de la Vivienda).// 7. The Authorized Entity will use: a) the information from the survey of families living on-site for more than 10 years, b) the lists of applicant families it receives from the associations, c) the real capacity of housing solutions of the project, and d) the criteria established herein, to form the preliminary total list of the project, and begin the final qualification process for families and verification of requirements// According to current regulations, the Authorized Entity in charge of the project must use the National Social Information System (SINAIS) to carry out its social analyses and determine the most vulnerable population among the families living on the site and the applications submitted by the groups.// The leaders of the association or pro-housing group who are proven, through judicial means, to be carrying out improper charges will be separated from the beneficiary application process. In such cases, and so that families are not punished for the faults of the leadership, the Municipality will assume the family application process for that sector. (It is recalled that Article 113 of the SFNV Operations Regulations prohibits associations from charging their members for participation in the respective project)// 9. Similarly, families that are proven to have presented false information or concealed information about their family unit, income, or other relevant information may be disqualified from the process (according to Article 58 of Law 7052 of the SFNV).//10. To be the final beneficiary of the project, the family must provide the SFNV and the Municipality with authorization for the demolition of the shack (rancho) they inhabit, so that it is not re-invaded, sold, or rented to another family. In this way, the State promotes its policy of slum eradication (erradicación de precarios). The demolition will be coordinated by the Municipality.// 11.\n\nFamilies that receive the benefit of the family housing voucher (bono familiar de vivienda) and its housing solution, and who misuse their dwelling, changing its use to one different from that for which it was defined as a dwelling, who attempt to sell or rent it within the 10-year restriction period established by law, or who build any structure on the lot without the proper construction permits, are exposed to the procedures established by Ley 7052, including the potential loss of the voucher benefit and are exposed to having to reimburse the voucher to the Costa Rican State, as stipulated by current regulations.//5. Final Qualification of the Beneficiary Families of the Projects// After the prioritization criteria are applied, it is the responsibility of the Authorized Entity (Entidad Autorizada), applying Article 5 of the SFNV Operations Regulation (Reglamento de Operaciones del SFNV), to review compliance with the eligibility criteria, which are, in summary: • Constitute a family nucleus// • Not own a home or the owned home requires repairs, improvements, or completion of construction// • Be Costa Rican or have legal residency in the country// • Not have received a voucher in the past// • Have a monthly family income not exceeding four times the minimum wage.// • Meet the other requirements requested for the specific program.// (...) The final qualification of the family is the exclusive activity of the Authorized Entity. Families, to be eligible for the Family Housing Voucher (Bono Familiar de la Vivienda), must meet the other requirements indicated by Ley 7052 and regulations.\" This is according to certification issued by the Executive Presidency Secretary of INVU, Alejandra Chinchilla Castro, at nine o'clock on May 26, 2014.- (Virtual case file, images 310-317).-\n\n**9)** By memorandum P-057-2014 dated May 30, 2014, sent to engineer Luis Gustavo Lobo Vargas, of INVU Housing Projects, and issued by Bach. Jaime A. Rodríguez Sánchez of Institutional Planning, in relation to the \"Delivery of case files for Social Interest Housing Projects and summary of the current status of the social component for each of them,\" regarding the lists of case files by name of the or the representative of the family group for each of the projects, of which a brief reference will be made about the current situation of the social component, in relation to the specific case, the following was provided: \"(...) El Faro Project: // This project presents a conflictive situation due to the fact that the Board of Directors of the Provivienda Las Orquídeas Association, responsible for promoting the project, left out of the list of potential beneficiary families some of those settled on the site where the construction of the housing is planned; this prompted the affected families to file legal actions against INVU and the president of the organized group; this situation has caused BANHVI not to have finalized the approval of financing.// Below are listed the case files corresponding to the list of beneficiary families provided by the organized group (...)// In view of the problematic situation that arose, as an initiative of the Directorate of the Social Interest Housing Area (Dirección del Área de Vivienda de Interés Social), a Social Work team was formed that was tasked with conducting home visits to those families who, according to a census conducted in 2010, lived in the settlement and were not included by the association in the list of potential beneficiary families, as well as to those who appear on said list but who, according to the 2010 census, did not live in the place, so as part of the case files, those that were able to be assembled thanks to this intervention are also delivered to you, the same are listed below:\n\n| No. RANCHO | NAME | CÉDULA | OBSERVATIONS |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| (....) | | | |\n| 9 | Salazar Salazar María Mayela | 155805033203 | Did not provide documents |\n| (...) | | | |\n\n(I, 330-351).-\n\n**B) OF THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:**\n\n**10)** Testimony of Mr. **Jaime Rodríguez Sánchez**, cedula 1-1172-0369, after being advised and sworn to tell the truth; as relevant, he indicated that he holds a licentiate degree in Social Work, and works in the Housing Projects Unit of INVU, for ten years. He has had contact with the community for ten years and it was he who applied the census and on that occasion he did meet her. The census is a research technique with which the aim is to characterize the population that is intended to be served with the housing project so that it responds to the characteristics of the population and its particularities. In the first two censuses conducted, the plaintiff lived in the area.\n\nIn the last one, there was no record of her living on the site. In the last census, it turned out that several families who were living there did not want to be counted. I performed coordination tasks in that census and was responsible for consolidating the information that the different professionals generated with the inputs obtained. In the last list, the lady does not appear; in the last census conducted. When a census is carried out, they are informed of its purpose, and that it is with the objective of formulating a project and generating financing to obtain a housing solution. He denied that it is customary for INVU to threaten evictions. No family can be told that they will be left out of a project, since progress must be made to later stages of the project and have a more in-depth understanding of the conditions of Law 7052, which establishes the requirements, and it is not in a census where people can be ruled out of the projects. The regulations establish certain conditions, and these may be left out if they fail to meet the requirements, such as if they have other properties, or if their income exceeds the corresponding amount. In this case, the advanced stage of the project has not been reached. He clarified that the census is to know who lives on the site and their conditions. At the beginning, a Pro-Vivienda Association that exists in the settlement did participate. There was no promise that they would stay in the place. He clarified that he does not know the reasons why the families refused the census. He stated that they communicate the activities to the Associations and he does not know if everyone is part of the Association. That if there are people who are not part of the Association and meet the conditions, their application is attended to. The questioning was concluded. (Listen to the oral and public trial hearing).-\n\n**11)** **Robert Garita Hernández,** ID 4-140-379, after being warned and sworn in, stated he would tell the truth. In what is pertinent, he indicated that he is a Civil Engineer and works in the Housing Projects Unit of INVU. That he knows the plaintiff, at the site where she is living, from conducting censuses. He stated that he is the person in charge of the project \"El Faro\", which is located in Guararí de Heredia. The land corresponds to a segregation of about four to five thousand meters where it is estimated to benefit through a vertical condominium, given the scarcity of land and the large number of people who require a housing solution, so a solution would be provided to about seventy-five families. The proposal has not been submitted to BANHVI, due to claims from the families. When the census is done, they are told that they are potential beneficiaries to be served, and that later a qualification must be made, and they know they have to qualify to enter the project. My role has been like drawing up a sketch, and the census part itself is done by a social work specialist. Regarding the refusal to be counted, he indicated that he does not know the reasons, since his role is to help locate the social work colleagues. He denied that any earthworks (movimiento de tierra) had been done on the site. That he became acquainted with an Association called Las Orquídeas that coordinated with the institution. That the people know the land needs to be formalized in order to be segregated and give them their lot or house, and they know they are living irregularly on the land. Judge Alexandra Zúñiga Mora inquired about the vertical development and how many could benefit if it were not so, if it were horizontal. If done horizontally, it would be for about forty-four families, and fifty-eight were counted in the census. If done vertically, there would instead be space left over for more families. Currently, there are about thirty-two informal lots, which have neither a plat nor a deed. The lots average between 130 and 150 m2. Regarding the plaintiff's lot, he indicated it is around 120 m2. Regarding the constructions, he indicated they vary, some are better than others. Judge Canales inquired about the history of the place. He stated that it is by the Almacén El Rey. He located the place. That belonged to a parent property (finca madre) of INVU, meaning it was acquired many years ago, and he understands they entered when it was already an INVU property. That is what I know. When I became familiar with the sector, the property was part of the INVU parent property, and the families were already settled there. In the first census of the year 2010, she was there, before that there is no census to corroborate. Judge Alonso Soto asked him about the Las Orquídeas Association and if a suggestion of possible beneficiaries had been made, and he does not know if she was on it. The list is about potential beneficiaries; they are checked, but until it is formalized they continue to be potential beneficiaries, and INVU does that when the construction is completed and delivered to the Municipality. The procedure is like this: if there is a property, one must go all the way to construction permits, preliminary studies, land use (uso del suelo) are done, the Municipality agrees with the type of construction, approval is obtained from AYA, from SETENA, permits from the Municipality that pass through the Ministry of Health, Fire Department, and financing is requested from the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda to carry out the project. INVU enters as an authorized entity, like mutuals, banks, INVU enters as an authorized entity, and the BANHVI law says that in these cases what is given is a complete solution, the housing voucher is given for free, the house for free, and what is done, for example, is that BANHVI pays for the infrastructure and the house, and INVU is recognized for the payment of the land. He denied that the plaintiff had been given any document granting her the house. He clarified that it has been by mere tolerance. He stated that it seems to him that the plaintiff's house was prefabricated. The witness's participation was concluded. (Listen to the oral and public trial hearing).-\n\n**IV) UNPROVEN FACTS:**\n\n**1)** That a lot within the property registered in the province of Heredia under real folio registration number 233264-000 was pre-awarded to the plaintiff by INVU. Note that the plaintiff herself stated in writing that she does not have the document. (The case file I, 71-72 and 86-89).\n\n**2)** That the Pro-Vivienda Las Orquídeas Association excluded the plaintiff from its meetings. (The case file).\n\n**3)** That the plaintiff was disqualified by INVU or the National Financial System for Housing (SFNV).- (The case file).\n\n**4)** The time that the plaintiff has occupied the property in question.- (The case file).\n\n**5)** That the payment of taxes and public services is in the plaintiff's name. (The case file).\n\n**6)** That the photograph of a house provided to the case file is circumstantiated in time, manner, and place, and determines by itself its owner. (The case file).\n\n**7)** That there is an official communication C-PEP-627-2012 dated November 6, 2012. (The case file).\n\n**V) ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES: OF THE PLAINTIFF:** The plaintiff indicated that she has been occupying an INVU property irregularly since 1996, where the \"El Faro\" project will be developed. That through official communication C-PEP-620-2012, INVU warned her to vacate and demolish the structure. She stated that those lands were pre-awarded to different occupants at the time. That INVU has counted the area, on at least three occasions, which is why it knows the situation of the occupants of the property registered in the province of Heredia, registration number 233264-000. She clarified that INVU has not set the amount, the term, the monthly payment, and the interest that the pre-awardees were to pay; an omission of its duties as established by Articles 6 and 10 of the INVU Housing Award Regulations, and that they have repeatedly requested that these be determined. She argued that according to the general principle of \"one's own acts\", the Administration cannot go back on its own acts, (Articles 11 and 34 of our Magna Carta), rendering void the act of pre-awarding the land granted in 1993 without legal reasons to support said act.\n\nI state that because I have been inhabiting the land pre-assigned (preadjudicado) by INVU, I do not constitute a precarious occupant (ocupante en precario), since with the pre-assignment (preadjudicación) I was placed in a lawful position and with the passage of time I have also built and made improvements on said place to provide a better quality of life for my family. On the other hand, I considered that the mere pre-assignment (preadjudicación) grants me sufficient right to occupy the land that was granted to me, but moreover, such right is granted by the passage of time during which I have occupied it, a period of time in which I have already acquired a possessory right and therefore INVU does not have the authority to request an eviction against me, as I am possessing this land completely in accordance with the law. I then indicated that during this time in which I have inhabited that land, an Association was established called \"Asociación pro-vivienda Las Orquídeas\", which holds legal identity card number 3-002-611980, and whose president is Ligia Murillo Quirós; an association that has been involved with the development of the *\"El Faro*\" project, which established a list of potential beneficiaries of the project; a situation I consider arbitrary since that determination corresponds to INVU, which has indicated that the project is in a pre-feasibility stage, the fundamental idea being to benefit the families that inhabit the sector informally, such criterion being a fallacious and spurious argument to evict us, for which reason the administrative act becomes ineffective, since it is not aimed at satisfying a public interest. I indicated that the Association in question excluded me from its meetings, thus violating the right to due process, pursuant to Article 308 of the LGAP.\n\n**INVU’S ALLEGATION.** The representation of INVU, during the trial hearing, indicated that the plaintiff has stated that she has the right to request the title of ownership for a farm that is the property of INVU, called El Faro and which corresponds to the farm registered in the province of Heredia under registration number 4- 233264-000 and corresponds to the cadastral map H-1517125-2011, which is admitted as evidence, and pointed out that the plaintiff is an irregular occupant of this farm whose purpose is for housing solutions and it was for that purpose that INVU acquired it in the city of Heredia, being a farm invaded by many people. The plaintiff argues that she has been in possession for more than ten years, publicly, peacefully, and as owner, but INVU has it registered in its name and has carried out acts for the housing solution, according to Articles 4 and 5 of Law No. 1788 and that INVU resorted to expropriation to dedicate them to the housing solution, in accordance with the Regulation as well as the National Housing Legislation; it indicated that she turned out to be a precarious possessor (posedora en precario) and believing that by possessing for more than ten years she has acquired it by adverse possession (usucapido) in her favor, however, because it is a property of INVU, it is not susceptible to positive prescription. He reiterated that INVU acquired the property for a housing solution, however, the property has been subject to a multiple invasion where INVU has a planned housing solution with financing from the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda. That the plaintiff here has refused to carry out censuses, income studies, since INVU's objective is to finish the project and provide a solution to the occupants in accordance with the Regulations and to the greatest possible number. That in this case, the plaintiff claims at her whim a property with an area greater than two hundred square meters and with the measures implemented by her, she has prevented the continuation of the housing solution for a greater number of people. In this case, INVU raised the exception of lack of right since the property is registered in the name of the institution to provide a solution to the greatest number of people, according to the fulfillment of requirements and in this case, the plaintiff has refused to provide information to INVU and with her attitude of bad faith, has obstructed the solution for more people to a housing solution, according to their income and in accordance with urban planning in the city of Heredia; specifying that the property is of public domain (dominio público), imprescriptible and inalienable, not being susceptible to being acquired by adverse possession (usucapido) by the plaintiff. In its statement of defense, it stated that INVU is the owner of the MOTHER Farm registered under Real Folio Registration Number 4- 00077006B-000; which was acquired by deed number seventy-five at three o'clock in the afternoon of the twenty-seventh of September of the year nineteen eighty-three before Notary Manuel Solano Avendaño, after an expropriation process, stating where relevant: *\"PURPOSE: farm destined for a low-cost housing program\"*.- That INVU has developed several Housing Projects in the area, having carried out segregations of the mother farm for such purpose, among them the farm registered under Real Folio Registration Number 4-00233988-000, cadastral map Number H-1594537-2012, known as the \"EL FORTÍN\" Farm, registered in the name of INVU and the Real Folio Registration Number 4-233264-000, cadastral map Number H-1517125-2011; known as the \"EL FARO\" Farm, registered in the name of I.N.V.U., with the latter being attended by an organized group called \"Asociación Pro Vivienda Las Orquídeas\" in accordance with the Regulation for the Production of Social Interest Housing Solutions, an internal Regulation that applies to Organized Groups, the housing problem of 44 families will be attended to, which must adjust to the administrative, social, and legal provisions to be subjects of the benefit in accordance with the Organic Law of the Institution; Law No. 1788, of August 24, 1954; as well as the provisions of the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda and its Law called \"LEY DEL SISTEMA FINANCIERO NACIONAL PARA LA VIVIENDA, - ARTÍCULO 59- to which it has been (called \"CONJUNTO RESIDENCIAL EL FARO\", which, having fulfilled the legal requirements in due course, the project to be developed will be sent to the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda by I.N.V.U, in its role as authorized entity, which will ultimately approve or not the housing project, in accordance with \"Law No. 7052, and Law No. 7208 and their reforms.\n\nThus, regarding the development of the project called \"El Faro\", it specified that in the year 2012 it was surveyed, yielding a population of 179 people, where it is only viable to attend to 44 families in the area due to the characteristics of the project's development, the land, but above all due to the social and legal conditions to which each family group must adjust in accordance with the principle of legality.\n\nOn the other hand, regarding what was stated by the plaintiff, specifically, INVU's representation pointed out that the plaintiff acknowledges her irregular and illegal situation of invasion of a land owned by INVU, without having provided any suitable document accrediting that INVU authorized her to enter the property; being an illegal possessor in a lot whose ownership corresponds to INVU, and as such corresponds to a demanial (demanial) property, subject to a specific purpose according to its acquisition, and therefore not susceptible to adverse possession (usucapión) and inalienable; only being possible to use it in accordance with the provisions of current regulations. He denied that INVU has been negligent. He reiterated that in this case there is no consolidated legal situation with the plaintiff, specifying that in this case what exists is an irregular occupation of a public property and therefore a demanial (demanial) property in the name of INVU, without her having accredited, as it corresponds, that INVU granted her a pre-assignment (preadjudicación) in her name, the document she presented being in the name of another person from whom she brings action.\n\nHe specified that the plaintiff irregularly inhabits the sector where INVU is promoting the housing project called \"El FARO\" and which corresponds to the farm property of INVU Real Folio registration No. 4-233264-000, cadastral map No. H-1517125-2011.\n\nHe stated that INVU's institutional custom is to develop said projects in coordination with the housing association representing the potential beneficiaries, which in most cases exceed in quantity the housing solutions that can be built on the site, since this facilitates the preliminary determination of the potential beneficiaries of the project so as to guarantee that the occupants of our lands have the option to opt for a housing solution on the site; a situation that in no way constitutes a guarantee that surely, the entirety of the list provided by the association will be benefited with a solution in the projects we develop; this because the families must meet the requirements established by the regulations applicable in the Institution and by the Law of the National Financial System for Housing, regarding the benefits of the voucher.\n\nIn that context, he indicated that INVU has been working jointly with the Las Orquídeas Housing Association, who have provided the list of occupants and potential beneficiaries of the project and are preparing the necessary documentation so that the Institution can submit the financing for the El Faro housing project to the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, and given that from the operational point of view and the safety of the occupants in the construction process, and especially when carrying out earthworks (movimiento de tierra) for the construction of the building works, the vacation of the lands is required, for which reason they have been notified in that sense, a case file is opened for them, and in the event they are not eligible for a housing solution in some other place, where the institution carries out another project. In conclusions, the representative of INVU indicated that by Public Deed No. 75 granted before Notary Public Manfred Solano Avendaño, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on September 27, 1973, and on the occasion of expropriation proceedings, INVU purchased farm No. 77006-B-000 with an area of more than seventy-five thousand square meters, from which in the year 2012 two farms were segregated, which are No. 770006-B-000 and 4-233264-000, it being on this latter one, as has been indicated, where the \"El Faro\" project is located and where the house that the plaintiff intends to acquire by usucapion (usucapir) is located. The farm was acquired for housing solutions and therefore constitutes a public domain asset (bien demanial), pointing out that the law creating INVU establishes among its purposes that of providing a housing solution to families who deserve it, throughout the national territory, but the beneficiaries under the principle of legality must meet the requirements to qualify as a beneficiary; it not being possible for people to acquire by usucapion (usucapir) INVU assets that are imprescriptible (imprescriptibles) and inalienable (inalienables). To be a beneficiary, one must meet the requirements of the law, in such a way that one does not receive an increase in assets. In this case, the occupants knew that they must meet the requirements to be determined as beneficiaries. In the case of \"El Faro\", INVU has been working on a solution of seventy-five solutions, where even the plaintiff would be a beneficiary. In this case, the representatives of INVU have been clear, but I do know that it has been explained to them that it would be a vertical solution, but the Tico is reluctant to this type of vertical solutions. That this farm in El Faro, 2-233264-000 was segregated to carry out a horizontal housing solution. In this case, the public interest is demonstrated, and that INVU exercises the attributes of property and as a public entity and in accordance with ruling Voto No. 794-2006 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which establishes based on the Civil Code, that any land that is in ownership is imprescriptible (imprescriptible). In this case, there is no certainty as to the date of occupation, but it is an imprescriptible (imprescriptible) and inalienable (inalienable) asset. For all of the foregoing, he requested that the claim be dismissed, the defenses be upheld, and given that possession in bad faith cannot be compensated in any way, since she knew that the property belonged to INVU and made the construction at her own risk knowing that she was building on someone else's property. Furthermore, I request that the precautionary measure that is affecting the interests of many people for the benefit of one be lifted, as it is impossible to acquire the property in question by usucapion (usucapir).\n\n**VI) OF THE OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING**: Pursuant to what is sought by the plaintiffs—without prejudice to the literalness of what is requested—this proceeding fundamentally seeks that the administrative conduct of the defendant entity be declared non-conforming and that INVU determine for her the amount to pay, monthly installments, and interest in order to cancel her obligation in relation to the occupied land and that she be granted the right of ownership, by reason of having possessed for more than 10 years, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner, as owner, and is part of the farm registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, Folio 233264-000 owned by INVU, ordering the Public Registry to make the corresponding registration, or in the alternative, in the event that ownership is not granted to her, that her status as beneficiary and awardee in the El Faro housing project be declared and by virtue thereof, I be granted the right of ownership that I have been possessing for more than 10 years in a quiet, public, peaceful manner, as owner, and is part of the farm registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, Folio 233264-000 owned by INVU and that the Public Registry be ordered to register the indicated lot in my name.\n\n**VII) OF THE RIGHT TO HOUSING AND THE OBJECTIVE OF INVU, PURSUANT TO ITS ORGANIC LAW.-** In principle, the Right to Housing, regulated internationally under the aegis of the \"Universal Declaration of Human Rights\", adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly in its resolution 217 A (III), of December 10, 1948, provides: *\"Article 25.//1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.// 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.\".*- In the same sense, our Fundamental Charter, where relevant, provides: *\"ARTICLE 65.- The State shall promote the construction of low-cost housing and shall create the family patrimony of the worker.\".*- It was thus, that this fundamental right to housing was developed at the legislative level, through the creation of the INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO, by Law No. 1788 of August 24, 1954, which has among its purposes (art. 4) *\"a) To direct its activities with a view to obtaining greater economic and social well-being, procuring for the Costa Rican family a better dwelling and the corresponding related elements; b) To plan the development and growth of cities and other smaller centers, in order to promote the better use of land, locate public areas for community services, establish functional street systems and formulate investment plans for public works, to satisfy the consequent needs; c) To provide Costa Rican families who lack adequate housing and, under normal conditions, the necessary means to obtain it with their own resources, the possibility of occupying, in ownership or lease, a dwelling that meets the essential requirements in order to facilitate the development and conservation of the physical and mental health of its inhabitants.\"*\n\nPreferentially, the problem of the lowest-income class of the community must be addressed, both in cities and in the countryside; ch) Promote and carry out studies and research on all aspects of housing and urban planning for the purposes pursued by the Institute, seeking the widest dissemination of its results, in order to indicate the appropriate guidelines for the country in these fields; d) Develop its plans and programs duly coordinated in their different stages of socioeconomic research, planning, and construction, as well as in the educational and assistance activities required by their administration; e) Advise State agencies and other Public Institutions and coordinate public initiatives in matters of housing and urbanization (urbanización), when so requested; and f) Adapt its plans and studies to the national economic and social development programs, submitting them for the approval of the Ministry of Public Health in their sanitary aspects.\".\n\nOn the other hand, we have that this Institute, in the exercise of its powers, is responsible for developing the following essential attributions, pursuant to Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation, namely: \"a) (...) b) Formulate general plans for the construction and sanitation (higienización) of dwellings or neighborhood units; or for the formulation of urbanizations (urbanizaciones), taking into account the needs, severity, and urgency presented by the rural or urban housing problem in the various places of the country and the demands of urban planning.// The programs referred to in this subsection shall be executed first in those cantons where, according to data provided by the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, there is the greatest need for housing, taking into account the number of those that, due to their poor condition, need to be renewed and the urgency of houses to accommodate new families, in accordance with the intensity of growth of each population;// c) Build hygienic dwellings, of an individual or collective type, within the reach of families with scarce economic resources, based on collective and even individual programs, aimed at the ordering of housing zones; // ch) Gradually eliminate from urban areas unhealthy or dangerous constructions and dwellings, through adequate plans for reconstruction or readaptation of the same, which the Institute shall elaborate within the best security standards for its investments, taking into account, of course, the social aspect that the problem presents. // (...) d) Promote the construction, sanitation (higienización), repair, or expansion of dwellings and stimulate the execution of urbanization works and urban sanitation (saneamiento urbano) by private or public persons or entities, provided they conform to the technical standards dictated by the Institute; e) Execute, within its housing construction programs, the urbanization works and urban sanitation (saneamiento urbano). And build the centers for necessary community services; f) Promote the coordination of activities relating to housing and urban planning of all State agencies and its autonomous Institutions and Corporations that deal with these matters; g) (...) h) Lease, sell, exchange, encumber, and administer the dwellings and community service centers that it acquires or builds, as well as the other assets of its property; i) Grant loans in cash or in materials, with mortgage guarantee, for the construction, reconstruction, expansion, or sanitation (higienización) of urbanizations (urbanizaciones), neighborhoods, or urban or rural dwellings, within the regulatory standards that ensure their positive benefit for the community, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this law. (...) j) Establish a housing financing system with guarantees of policies from the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the Sociedad de Seguros de Magisterio Nacional, or the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, guaranteeing the total cancellation of the mortgage in the event of the death of the acquirer and, as a consequence, the immediate possession of the dwelling free of encumbrances for the spouse or other dependents. The aforementioned Institutions may invest part of their reserves to finance their insured in the construction of dwellings through advances to the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo;// (...) n) Acquire, in accordance with common law or through expropriation (expropiación), in accordance with the corresponding law, movable or immovable property. Expropriations shall be decreed by the Executive Branch upon an express and motivated request from the Institute and by determining their needs and conditions. //Apart from those determined in the current laws, the following are grounds of public utility or social interest for decreeing expropriation (expropiación); the need to carry out works for the growth or expansion of cities or urban conglomerates; security; sanitation; ornament; beautification; construction or modernization of neighborhoods; the opening or expansion of streets, squares, parks, and public gardens;// (...)\".\n\nFurthermore, Article 41 of this Organic Law of INVU, provides in its Article 41, that: \"Dwellings built by the Institute with funds from state contributions may only be awarded to those who are Heads of families or are responsible for the support of persons who in fact constitute a family and lack sufficient resources to build their own home.// (...) The requirements and conditions under which awards and loans are to be made shall be set forth in the regulations.\".- (Legislation obtained from SINALEVI), with the underlining and bold highlighting being ours).-\n\nOn the other hand, our legislation has also provided protection under Law No. 7052, -a special regulation- called: \"Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda y Creación del BANHVI (Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda)\" dated November 13, 1986, which -the BANHVI- constitutes an entity of public interest, whose main objective is national and foreign savings and investment, with the purpose of collecting financial resources to seek a solution to the existing housing problem in the country, including the aspect of services (Art. 1), with the Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda, which is composed of the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, as the governing entity, and by the authorized entities provided for by law, (Art. 2), among which are the public and private institutions and entities authorized by the Bank to operate within the System, and the mutual associations. (Art.\n\n3, subsection c).- As provided in Article 59 of this latter regulation, families that include among their members one or more persons with a total and permanent disability, and whose income is equal to or less than one and a half times the minimum wage of an unskilled construction industry worker, and those who do not own their own home, or having one, require its repair or improvement, shall have the right to receive a family and a half housing voucher (bono familiar y medio), in order to compensate for this impairment. The Mortgage Housing Bank (Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, Banhvi) may, with prior duly motivated authorization from the Board of Directors, based on the corresponding technical study in each case, allocate up to forty percent (40%) of the annual income of the Housing Subsidy Fund (Fondo de Subsidios para la Vivienda, Fosuvi) to subsidize, through authorized entities of the National Financial System for Housing, the acquisition, segregation (segregación), adjudication of land, urbanization works, improvements, construction of housing, in cases of individual or collective projects for the eradication of slums and precarious settlements (asentamientos en precario), located in rural or urban areas, for families whose income is equal to or less than one and a half times the minimum wage of an unskilled construction industry worker or who have been declared in a state of emergency. This regulation also provides that Banhvi shall establish the conditions and mechanisms for granting this subsidy and must ultimately permit the individualization of subsidies and the administration cost of these types of programs, in which the Board of Directors may allocate part of those resources to carrying out housing construction projects, to achieve the participation of interested parties duly organized into cooperatives, specific associations, development associations, or solidarity associations, as well as to address housing problems caused by emergency or extreme necessity situations. This legislation has been regulated through the so-called \"Reglamento de Operaciones del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda,\" which in its Article 5 provides: \"Eligibility. To be eligible for the Voucher (Bono) or other subsidies, the following requirements must be met://a) Constitute a family, according to the definition contained in this Regulation.// b) Not own their own home, without prejudice to the exceptions provided in this regulation, or that the owned home requires repairs, improvements, or completion of construction, according to these rules. The simulated transfer of a property in order to evade this requirement shall be considered grounds for resolving the donations received and for making the credits received enforceable, without prejudice to other civil or criminal liabilities that may apply.//c) Have a monthly family income not exceeding four times the minimum wage.//d) Comply with the other requirements requested for the specific program, or that are warranted according to the nature of the case.\".- Furthermore, it regulates the procedures and other requirements for obtaining the corresponding subsidy; regarding which, that is, regarding -the granting of housing vouchers, and aid provided by the State, through its institutions-, it is important to consider what has already been indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, among others, in resolution No. 2016-418 of 09:30 hours on January 15, 2016, where it concluded that: \"V. (...) Regarding the granting, subsidies, or aid that the State provides to vulnerable populations, it should be noted that there is no right enforceable before the respondent authorities to receive a housing voucher (bono de vivienda), but rather, the granting of said benefit is subject to various requirements and procedures established in the legal system, among which is the formal application for a voucher before an authorized entity and compliance with other individual requirements such as not having previously received the housing voucher, not having properties registered in one's name, having a regular migratory status, among others. Therefore, this Tribunal stated in resolution 1415-1999 of 9:00 hours on February 26, 1999, that the housing voucher: 'it is a benefit, not a right, also created by the State as a range of protections for its citizens, in compliance with the rights and guarantees established in the Political Constitution. In effect, said voucher is economic aid granted by the State to families of scarce economic resources, so that it is an act of liberality on the part of the State given that the resources to be granted are limited'.\" Resolution with which this Tribunal fully concurs.-\n\n**VIII) OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:** From the proven facts, it is clear that the plaintiff is a resident of Heredia, \"El Faro\" urbanization, where she has occupied and built her home on land owned by INVU, which forms part of real property registration folio 233264-000; for which reason, through a note addressed to Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, Executive President of INVU, on October 9, 2012, by a group of affiliates to the housing project known as El Faro, they requested the granting of the property title over the land they occupied, owned by INVU, for 19 years. In response to this petition, the Executive President of INVU, Álvaro González Alfaro, through official letter PE-0278-12-2012, dated December 5, 2012, replied to the plaintiff's note of October 9, 2012, indicating the following: \"In this regard, I attach a copy of Memorandum PEP-767-2012, sent to this Office by Arch. Arturo Argüello of the Project Execution Process of our Institution, which responds to your note.\"; in which, she and other families belonging to the Organized Group Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas who are occupying the land were told, where the El Faro Project is being promoted, which is certainly promoted by the Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas; which delivered the list of potential beneficiaries who must qualify according to the legal and regulatory provisions determined by the Mortgage Housing Bank (Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda) and INVU as an authorized entity of the Housing Financial System, therefore the request could not be granted. Then, the plaintiff, through a note dated November 2, 2012, together with other neighbors of Guararí, made an inquiry to Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, Executive President of INVU, requesting the granting of the property in question and exposing the problems with the leaders of the cited Asociación Provivienda; missive that was answered through official letter C-PEP-620-2012 dated November 6, 2012, by Architect Arturo Argüello Matamoros, from the Project Execution Process Department of INVU, stating that: \"By this means I am permitted to indicate that it is verified that you irregularly occupy the INVU property where the Project called 'El Faro' will be developed, in Guararí de Heredia, which consists of only 44 housing solutions, a number of houses that is not sufficient to serve all the families in need of housing on the site.// Reason that obliges us to make the following warning for you to voluntarily vacate and demolish your housing structure, which you built without authorization from this Institute and because the provisional structure you inhabit impedes the development of the infrastructure works of this project. // In turn, I am permitted to indicate that once you vacate the land, report to INVU your new address and telephone number in order to include your name on a waiting list to be considered for a future housing project to be developed on the Guararí property, provided and only when your case meets all the requirements established by INVU and the National Financial System for Housing and there is budgetary content for its execution.// Therefore, you are granted a non-extendable period of 15 business days to vacate the land you occupy, otherwise, we will proceed with what legally corresponds.\".- That is, it was through this last official letter that the eviction (desalojo) of the plaintiff from the land owned by INVU occupied by her and where a structured dignified housing project would be developed was ordered.\n\nAfter that, INVU, on March 11, 2014, by the then Executive President of INVU, Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, the Mayor of Heredia, José Manuel Ulate Avendaño, the then Minister of Housing and Human Settlements, Guido Monge Fernández, and representatives of Housing Associations, jointly signed the document entitled: \"GUIDELINES FOR THE DEFINITION OF TARGET POPULATIONS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS ON LANDS OWNED BY INVU LOCATED IN GUARARI DE HEREDIA\", a document in which it was clearly established that families could apply on their own behalf to the authorized authorities—that is, without needing to be part of any Provivienda Association—and that to be deserving of the corresponding housing voucher (bono) or subsidy, the requirements set forth in the legal system had to be met. That said, the claims will now be addressed one by one, in relation to the aforementioned regulations, with the preceding recitals constituting the grounds for the decision reached.\n\n**IX) THE CLAIMS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:** Notwithstanding the foregoing, an individualized analysis of each claim will be conducted below.\n\n**FIRST CLAIM:** *\"I respectfully request that precautionary measures be ordered immediately and prima facie to cease the effects that may be generated by the resolution challenged herein, to guarantee the effectiveness of the final decision adopted in this proceeding.\"*\n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** The plaintiff herself withdrew this claim at the preliminary hearing held on September 5, 2016, since the precautionary measure was granted, as evidenced in the case file.\n\n**SECOND CLAIM:** *\"I request a declaration of non-conformity of the administrative conduct with the legal system and of all related acts or proceedings in connection with this case.\"*\n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** This claim is extremely broad, but this Tribunal understands—in accordance with the proven facts and the filed lawsuit—that it relates to the notification received by the plaintiff regarding the eviction from the property and the response received from INVU, concerning the impossibility of granting the property right. Thus, from the proven facts, we have that through a note addressed to Mr. Álvaro González Alfaro, Executive President of INVU, on October 9, 2012, by a group of members affiliated with the housing project known as El Faro, they requested the granting of the property title over the land owned by INVU, which thirty-five families had been occupying for 19 years. Regarding this, the Executive President of INVU, Álvaro González Alfaro, through official letter PE-0278-12-2012, dated December 5, 2012, replied to the plaintiff's note of October 9, 2012, indicating the following: *\"In this regard, I attach a copy of Memorandum PEP-767-2012, sent to this Office by Arch. Arturo Argüello of the Project Execution Process of our Institution, which responds to your note.\"* In the memorandum PEP-767-2012, dated October 31, 2012, mentioned above, the following was stated: *\"Regarding the letter received in the Executive Presidency on October 9, 2012, and to memoranda PE-0689-10-2012 (October 17, 2012) and PT-1310-2012 (October 22, 2012), the following is reported: //The families submitting the letter, plus other families belonging to the Organized Group Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas, occupy the land where the El Faro Project is being promoted. The land corresponds to the farm Folio Real N° 4-233264-000, cadastral map H-1517125-2011. The Project is promoted by the Asociación Provivienda Las Orquídeas, Legal ID N° 3-002-611980, in accordance with the Regulations for the Production of Social Interest Housing Solutions.// The Association has submitted to the Institute, to begin the procedures, all pertinent pre-feasibility documentation, as well as the list of potential beneficiaries who must qualify in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions determined by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda and INVU as an authorized entity of the Housing Financial System and INVU as an authorized entity of the Housing Financial System.// Under these conditions, their request cannot be processed, since this Institute has specific plans for that land, such as the construction of the El Faro Project.\"* This administrative action does not constitute a final act, but rather a mere procedural act, given that as indicated by the witness, Eng. Robert Garita Hernández, an official of INVU, who under oath stated that the land where the plaintiff resides is part of a segregation that was made to the parent farm and is designated to address the housing solution of many families who are awaiting the development of the project, which has not been able to commence due to the occupation of the property that the plaintiff requires in part for herself. The witness official stated that the procedure for the housing solution begins with the farm, for which construction permits must be obtained, preliminary studies, land use (uso de suelo) studies are conducted, the Municipality agrees with the type of construction, approval is obtained from AYA, from SETENA, permits from the Municipality that go through the Ministry of Health, Fire Department, and financing is requested from the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda to carry out the project. INVU enters as an entity, like mutuales, banks, INVU; as an authorized entity and the BANHVI law, which states that in these cases what is provided is a complete solution, the housing voucher (bono) is given for free, the dwelling for free, and what is done for example is that BANHVI pays for the infrastructure and the dwelling, and INVU is recognized for the payment of the land. The witness denied that the plaintiff had been given any document granting her the dwelling; specifying that she occupies by mere tolerance. Then, this Chamber observes that through official letter C-PEP-620-2012 dated November 6, 2012, Architect Arturo Argüello Matamoros, from the Project Execution Department of INVU, communicated to the plaintiff Salazar Salazar, the following where relevant: *\"By this means, I am to indicate that it has been verified that you irregularly occupy the property of INVU where the Project called 'El Faro' will be developed, in Guararí de Heredia, which consists of only 44 housing solutions, a number of houses that is not sufficient to serve all the families needing housing on the site.// Reason that obliges us to make the following warning for you to voluntarily vacate and demolish your housing structure, which you built without authorization from this Institute and because the provisional structure you inhabit impedes the development of the infrastructure works for this project.// At the same time, I am to indicate that once you vacate the land, report to INVU your new address and telephone number in order to include your name on a waiting list to be considered for a future housing project to be developed on the Guararí farm, provided that your case meets all the requirements established by INVU and the National Housing Financial System and there is budgetary content for its execution.// Therefore, a non-extendable period of 15 business days is granted for you to vacate the land you occupy, otherwise, we will proceed with what legally corresponds.\"* In this regard, it should be noted that this is an administrative procedural act, since there is no record that the plaintiff has submitted by herself or through any Association the corresponding requirements to qualify as a beneficiary. As both witnesses indicated, censuses were carried out at the site to determine the inhabitants and their economic and social characteristics in order to develop a housing solution according to their needs.\n\nIn the consideration of this Tribunal, and with all due respect that the plaintiff deserves, it is noted that the plaintiff did not specifically establish which element or elements of the challenged actions suffer from a defect in their subjective material elements, such as regarding competence, investiture, or standing, nor in their objective material elements, such as: purpose, content, and aim, nor in their formal constitutive elements, such as procedure, statement of reasons. From a detailed review, this Tribunal does not determine that the plaintiff has challenged any of the various constitutive elements of the administrative acts, in accordance with the General Public Administration Law, and under the presumption protected by this regulation, that an administrative act that substantially conforms to the legal system shall be valid, even regarding the motive of the official who issues it—Doctrine of the principle of preservation of the act (principio de conservación del acto), protected in Article 128 and 168 of the LGAP—the latter of which provides that in case of doubt about the existence or classification and importance of the defect, the consequence most favorable to the preservation of the act (conservación del acto) shall be followed, given that Article 223 of the LGAP provides that only the omission of substantial procedural formalities shall cause nullity of the proceedings, insofar as these have prevented or changed the final decision in important aspects, or whose omission caused defenselessness; normative assumptions that this Chamber does not find lacking in any of the actions, which could be qualified as mere procedure, given that the plaintiff has not been rejected in any way as a housing beneficiary, since to date she has not even submitted the corresponding requirements to assess or weigh whether she is deserving of them, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, among others, in Resolution No. 2016-418 of 09:30 hours on January 15, 2016, which stated: \"V. (...) Regarding the granting, subsidies or aid that the State provides to vulnerable populations, it should be noted that there is no enforceable right before the respondent authorities to receive a housing voucher (bono de vivienda), but rather, the granting of said benefit is subject to various requirements and procedures established in the legal system, among which are the formal application for a voucher before an authorized entity and the fulfillment of other individual requirements such as not having previously received a housing voucher, not having properties registered in one's name, having a regular migratory status, among others.\" Likewise, this Chamber is motivated to reject the nullity regarding official letter C-PEP-620-2012 dated 06 de noviembre de 2012, specifying that INVU, in accordance with the powers established in its Law No. 1788, of August 24, 1954, which has among its purposes (Art. 4) \"a) To guide its activities with a view to obtaining greater economic and social well-being, procuring for the Costa Rican family a better dwelling and the corresponding related elements; b) To plan the development and growth of cities and other minor centers, in order to promote the best use of land, to locate public areas for community services, to establish functional street systems and to formulate investment plans for public utility works, to satisfy the consequent needs; c) To provide Costa Rican families who lack adequate housing and, under normal conditions, the means necessary to obtain it with their own resources, the possibility of occupying, in ownership or lease, a dwelling that meets the essential requirements to facilitate the development and conservation of the physical and mental health of its inhabitants. Preferentially, the problem of the lowest-income class of the community must be addressed, both in cities and in the countryside; ch) To promote and carry out studies and research on all aspects of housing and urban planning for the purposes pursued by the Institute, seeking the widest dissemination of its results, in order to indicate the appropriate guidelines for the country in these fields; d) To develop its plans and programs duly coordinated in their different stages of socio-economic research, planning, and construction, as well as in the educational and assistance activities required by their administration; e) To advise State agencies and other Public Institutions and to coordinate public initiatives in housing and urbanization matters, when so requested; and f) To adapt its plans and studies to the national economic and social development programs, submitting them for approval to the Ministry of Public Health in their sanitary aspects.\" Furthermore, we have that this Institute, in the exercise of its powers, is responsible for developing the following essential attributions, in accordance with Article 5 of the cited regulation, namely: \"a) (...) b) To formulate general plans for the construction and sanitation of dwellings or neighborhood units; or for the formulation of urban developments, attending to the needs, severity, and urgency presented by the problem of rural or urban housing, in the various places of the country and to the demands of urban planning.// The programs referred to in this subsection shall be executed primarily in those cantons where, according to data provided by the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, there is a greater need for dwellings, taking into account the number of these that, due to their poor condition, need to be renovated and the urgency of houses to accommodate new families, according to the growth intensity of each population;// c) To build hygienic dwellings, of an individual or collective type, within reach of families of scarce economic resources, based on collective and even individual programs, aimed at the ordering of housing zones; // ch) To gradually eliminate unhealthy or dangerous constructions and dwellings from urban areas, through adequate plans for reconstruction or readaptation of the same, which the Institute shall elaborate within the best safety standards for its investments, taking into account, of course, the social aspect that the problem presents. // (...) d) To promote the construction, sanitation, repair, or expansion of dwellings and to stimulate the execution of urbanization and urban sanitation works by private or public persons or entities, provided they comply with the technical standards dictated by the Institute; e) To execute, within its housing construction programs, urbanization and urban sanitation works, and to build centers for the necessary community services; f) To promote the coordination of activities relating to housing and urban planning of all State dependencies and its Autonomous Institutions and Corporations that deal with these matters; g) (...) h) To lease, sell, exchange, encumber, and administer the dwellings, community service centers that it acquires or builds, as well as the other property it owns; i) To grant loans in cash or in materials, with a mortgage guarantee, for the construction, reconstruction, expansion, or sanitation of urban developments, neighborhoods, or urban or rural dwellings, within the regulatory standards that ensure their positive benefit for the community, in accordance with the purposes pursued by this law. (...) j) To establish a housing financing system with the guarantee of policies from the National Insurance Institute, the National Teachers' Insurance Society, or the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, guaranteeing the full cancellation of the mortgage in the event of the death of the acquirer and, consequently, the immediate possession of the dwelling free of encumbrances for the spouse or other relatives. The aforementioned Institutions may invest part of their reserves to finance their insured members in the construction of dwellings through advances to the National Institute of Housing and Urban Planning;// (...) n) To acquire, in accordance with common law or through expropriation, in accordance with the corresponding law, movable or immovable property. Expropriations shall be decreed by the Executive Branch upon express and reasoned request of the Institute and determined the needs and conditions thereof. //Apart from those determined in the laws in force, reasons of public utility or social interest for decreeing expropriation include: the need to carry out works for the growth or expansion of cities or urban conglomerates; for safety; for sanitation; for adornment; for beautification; for the construction or modernization of neighborhoods; for the opening or expansion of streets, squares, parks, and public gardens;// (...)\". From the foregoing, it is clear that INVU, as the governing institution of the housing sector, is responsible for formulating general plans for the construction and sanitation of dwellings or neighborhood units; or for the formulation of urban developments, attending to the needs, severity, and urgency presented by the problem of rural or urban housing, in the various places of the country and to the demands of urban planning. From the proven facts, it is evident that the plaintiff is an occupant by mere tolerance of the property belonging to INVU where, as credited by the testimonial evidence admitted to the record, the intent is to pursue housing development for some 75 families, which must demonstrate before the Institution that they satisfy the legal and regulatory requirements in order to become awardees. That said, the eviction whose nullity is rejected clearly seeks on the part of INVU to comply with its legal attributions and to prepare the property for the definitive housing solution for a group of families; that is, of a greater public interest, over the particular interest of the plaintiff.\n\nAll these dilatory actions postpone the housing reorganization in the area and impose individual will over the general interest promoted by the INVU, in satisfying the housing solution for more and more families; a consequence of mere tolerance and precarious occupation (ocupación en precario). For all the aforementioned reasons, this claim is hereby rejected. It is reiterated that the plaintiff did not prove with suitable evidence that she had managed, before the authorities of the INVU, the fulfillment of the requirements established in the INVU Law and its Regulations to be declared a beneficiary of a housing solution. Based on the reasons indicated, this claim is rejected.\n\n**THE THIRD CLAIM:** *\"I request the total annulment of the act and all the effects that it may cause.\"*\n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** The Tribunal reiterates the reasoning given in the claim preceding this other one. Note that this claim has a different formulation than No. 2, but essentially, it consists of the same thing, as it seeks to annul the act – likewise indeterminate – and without substantiating its flaws, for which reason this Chamber rejects this claim with reasoning identical to that cited above for claim 2.- In spite of what has already been noted, and without intending to be exhaustive, it is indicated that from the procedural record, provided by the plaintiff herself, it is determined that the act in question is the act in which her eviction from the INVU property is ordered, and which corresponds to official communication C-PEP-620-2012 dated November 06, 2012, sent by Architect Arturo Argüello Matamoros, from the Project Execution Department, of the INVU, in which he communicated to the plaintiff Salazar Salazar, in the pertinent part that: *\"By this means I allow myself to indicate that it has been verified that You irregularly occupy the INVU property where the Project called \\\"El Faro\\\" will be developed, in Guararí de Heredia, which consists of only 44 housing solutions, a number of houses that is not sufficient to attend to all the families that need housing at the site.// Reason that obliges us to make the following warning for you to voluntarily vacate and demolish your housing structure, which you built without authorization from this Institute and because the provisional structure you inhabit impedes the development of the infrastructure works of this project. // In turn, I allow myself to indicate to you that once the land is vacated, report to the INVU your new address and telephone number in order to include your name on a waiting list to be considered for a future housing project to be developed on the Guararí farm, provided that your case meets all the requirements established by the INVU and the National Financial System for Housing and budgetary content exists for its execution.// Therefore, a non-extendable term of 15 business days is granted for you to vacate the land you occupy, otherwise we will proceed with what legally corresponds.\"*. This chamber already pronounced on the document in the previous claim, where, as indicated, the party did not question its elements and therefore, under the principle of conservation of administrative acts, it maintains its validity and efficacy. Now, it is worth noting that the plaintiff did not discredit with documentary or technical evidence that the property was not owned by the INVU, as recorded in the proven facts and constitutes, as indicated by the INVU official witnesses, a property where the INVU intends to provide housing for between 44 to 75 families, according to the type of development that can be achieved; where it would even be possible upon meeting the requirements for the plaintiff to be among the beneficiaries, but as the project is suspended due to legal actions such as that of the plaintiff, the INVU has been unable to advance in pursuit of a permanent housing solution for the families that timely meet the requirements that the INVU's own law establishes and its Regulations, and which this Chamber observes the plaintiff does not prove to satisfy, beyond the mere fact of possessing an asset that is titled in the name of the INVU, and therefore, according to the Civil Code, it is not possible to adversely possess (usucapir) because it has a registered owner. (Doctrine of articles 267, 455 and 456 of the CC). In this regard, it is worth remembering that property rights are judicially protectable when they are registered in the Public Registry. Thus, article 267 of the CC establishes in the pertinent part that: *\"ARTICLE 267.- For property over real estate to produce all legal effects, it is necessary that it be duly registered in the General Property Registry.\"* From the proven facts, the INVU proved to be the registered owner of the real folio property registration number N° 233264-000, with an area of five thousand eight hundred sixty-four meters with zero square decimeters, plan H-1517125-2011, whose title history corresponded to property 4-00077006B-000; and from the arguments of the plaintiff it follows that the plaintiff is aware of such situation; by stating as evidence that the INVU supposedly pre-assigned (preadjudicó) her a lot within the property registered in the province of Heredia under real folio registration number N° 233264-000.- Note that the plaintiff herself indicated in the complaint brief that she does not have the document. From this article 267 arises the principle of registry publicity, which governs our legal system and is regulated in articles 455 and 456 of the cited body of laws. The first states *\"Instruments subject to registration that are not registered do not affect third parties, except from the date of their presentation to the Registry.\"* Article 456 indicates *\"Registration does not validate registered acts or contracts that are null or voidable according to the law. However, registered acts or contracts executed or granted by persons who in the Registry appear with the right to do so, once registered, shall not be invalidated with respect to a third party, even if the right of the grantor is later annulled or resolved by virtue of an unregistered instrument from implied causes or from causes that although explicit do not appear in the Registry.\"* Such norms allow us to extract the importance that our regulations grant to registry inscriptions, since all those circumstances alien to the registration prove to be ineffective when they intend to defeat this duly registered property right. In the case at hand (sub júdice), the plaintiff alleges – without proving with suitable evidence – having been a possessor for more than ten years; however, as indicated, this is not sufficient to defeat the ownership of the property that the INVU holds over the property in question. On the other hand, it is not possible to allege positive adverse possession (usucapión positiva) either, since the Civil Code requires good faith to configure it, as indicated by article 284 of the Civil Code, by establishing: *\"ARTICLE 284.- For possession of more than one year to confer the right to possess, it is necessary that said possession be in good faith.\"*. And the following article provides: *\"ARTICLE 285.- In all cases in which the law requires good faith possession, the possessor who, at the act of taking possession, believed they had the right to possess, is considered a good faith possessor. If there was sufficient reason for them to doubt that such right corresponded to them, they should not be considered a good faith possessor; but if the possession was in good faith at its commencement, it does not lose that character by the mere fact that the possessor subsequently doubts the legitimacy of their right.\"*\n\nPossession ceases to be in good faith at the moment of acquiring the certainty that one possesses unduly, and it also ceases from the notification of the lawsuit in which another claims the right to possess.\". It can be seen that in this case, it is more than evident, since the party itself so recognizes, that the property belongs to INVU and she claims to be a pre-adjudicatee of the property without proving it with suitable evidence.- Consequently, this claim is rejected with the reasoning indicated.\n\n**THE FOURTH CLAIM:** ***\"I request the declaration by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo regarding the determination of the amount to be paid, monthly installments, and the due interest in order to be able to pay the obligation as its regulation stipulates for any legal situation, as well as the adoption of all measures that are necessary and appropriate for this purpose.\"** .-* \n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** In this regard, this innovative claim is rejected, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate, as was her responsibility, that she holds an administrative pre-adjudication in relation to the property in question. The plaintiff does not provide the document in which she alleges that INVU adjudicated the property to her. Furthermore, nor did she prove, in accordance with the regulations on the matter, namely the INVU Law, its Regulations, etc., that she had satisfied the requirements to be a beneficiary of a housing solution. The administrative file does not contain evidence that the party even filled out a form making a request before INVU. It is impossible for the Tribunal to resolve on the basis of assumptions. From the testimonial evidence, it is inferred that the plaintiff occupies, in a precarious manner, by mere tolerance, a property of INVU, in a place where this institution is awaiting the eviction of her and other persons in order to be able to provide a housing solution, in which she could be included -if she meets the corresponding requirements determined by the legal system- for a total of 75 families; however, this has not been possible due, among other things, to the action of the plaintiff, since INVU needs to formalize the project before the BANVHI, build it, and once built, carry out the free award (adjudicación) to the persons who have met the requirements. The witness, official Jaime Rodríguez Sánchez, was clear in this regard, who stated that they communicate the activities to the Associations and does not know if everyone is part of the Association; but he specified that if there are persons who are not part of the Association and meet the conditions, their petition is addressed. Having said the above, this claim is rejected with the reasoning indicated.\n\n**THE FIFTH CLAIM:** ***\"I request that I be granted the subjective right of ownership of the lot that I have been possessing for more than 10 years, in a quiet, public, peaceful manner, as owner, and which is part of the property registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, folio 233264-000 owned by INVU, and that the Public Registry be ordered to register said lot in my name.** / * \n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** In this case, the plaintiff requests the acquisition of part of the property in question by acquisitive prescription (usucapión), which consists of a mode of acquiring real rights, by the passage of time and as regulated by the Civil Code in article 853; it also requires, along with the passage of time, the translative title of ownership, good faith, and possession. Although article 854 of the CC excludes the obligation to prove the just title, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated that for such presumption of just title to apply, the possession must be public, peaceful, continuous, and in the capacity of its true owner.- See, among other resolutions, No. 4587-97, at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on August fifth, nineteen ninety-seven, of the aforementioned Chamber.- In the present case, INVU is requested to transfer part of a terrain from the property registered under real folio No. 4-233264-000; as was proven in the established facts, such property is duly registered in the name of INVU, which acquired it through an expropriation proceeding in order to fulfill the purpose for which this Institution was created, which can be established as providing decent housing to families that meet the corresponding requirements for this purpose.- That is to say, INVU acquired that property, as was proven by public deed number seventy-five, granted before Notary Public Manfred Solano Avendaño at fifteen hours on September 27, 1983, on the occasion of the corresponding expropriation proceedings, carried out so that the property in question would be used in INVU's housing programs. From the statement of claim, it is inferred that the plaintiff, and from the documentary evidence provided to the case file, which forms part of the list of established facts, that the plaintiff knew that such terrain formed part of the property registered in the name of INVU and therefore affected by the public purpose of that institution, which leads this Chamber to consider it proven that such possession was neither peaceful, nor in good faith, for which reason the claim for acquisitive prescription (usucapión) is rejected, and therefore what was claimed is rejected in all its aspects; this for not complying with the legal requirements to acquire by prescription protected in numerals 455, 456, 459, 853 and 854 of the Civil Code.- \n\n**THE SIXTH CLAIM:** ***\"I request that the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo be ordered to refrain from adopting and executing any conduct that may harm the public interest or the current or potential legal situations towards my person in the present case until the entire situation is clarified and resolved by the competent jurisdiction\"** .- * \n\n**THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES:** In relation to this claim, the Tribunal proceeds to its rejection, for the following reasons: 1) The party did not prove having satisfied the requirements that the legal system demands of her to be a recipient of a housing voucher or subsidy. 2) This Tribunal cannot order that the regulations cease to be complied with in a specific case; the legality of the Administrative Function must be ensured, not preventing the Public Administration from fulfilling its legal competencies. By reason of that reasoning, this Chamber rejects this claim as inadmissible and so declares it. The plaintiff asks this Tribunal to order that the public interest not be harmed. In this case, INVU, as indicated by its representative, is attempting to develop the \"El Faro\" project, to provide housing for some 75 families, and this has not been possible due to the plaintiff's refusal to vacate the property owned by INVU, so that, as indicated, a vertical solution can be developed that could even cover the plaintiff, if she were to prove before the corresponding authorities that she meets the requirements established in the regulations to become an awardee of a housing solution by INVU. \n\n**THE SEVENTH CLAIM WAS WITHDRAWN IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.**\n\nTHE SUBSIDIARY CLAIM: \"In relation to number 5, in the event that the property title is not granted to her: I request that I be declared the condition of beneficiary and awardee in the 'El Faro' housing project and, by virtue thereof, that I be granted the right of ownership that I have been possessing for more than 10 years in a quiet, public, peaceful manner, as owner, and which is part of the property registered in the National Property Registry, Province of Heredia, under title deed 233264-000 owned by INVU, and that the Public Registry be ordered to register the indicated lot in my name.\"\n\nTHE TRIBUNAL RESOLVES: In accordance with what was indicated in the rejected main claims, this Chamber cannot grant the property title to the plaintiff. Now, neither can it declare that she has the condition of beneficiary and awardee in the 'El Faro' housing project, since the plaintiff has not proven compliance with the requirements established in the corresponding Law and Regulation. The party did not provide suitable evidence to demonstrate compliance with the requirements established by the legal system. Here, the party solely demands that INVU hand over the property and the condition of awardee for the simple fact of possessing, by mere tolerance, a real estate asset of the Institution; however, we must remember that public institutions, from which INVU is not exempt, must act under the principle of legality and adjust their administrative conduct to the legal framework, and it is not possible to ignore the requirements for granting the condition of awardee or beneficiary to a person, such as the plaintiff in a housing project, nor can the Tribunal assume the exercise of active competencies of the Public Administration. Based on the reasoning indicated, this claim is rejected.- The precautionary measure shall be lifted once the final judgment on the merits is firm.-\n\nX) ON THE EXCEPTIONS.- The exception of lack of right raised by the representation of INVU is accepted, based on what was indicated to reject the plaintiff's claims; likewise, the exception of lack of current interest is rejected, alleged on the grounds that, as the controversy was pending, a judgment was the only way to resolve it. The lack of capacity ad processum is rejected, since the plaintiff proved she was possessing an INVU property by mere tolerance, and it was in the exercise of the supposed right of ownership—by adverse possession (usucapión)—that she filed suit within this process; the previous recitals having rejected such right on the merits.\n\nXI) ON COURT COSTS: In accordance with the provisions of Article 193 of the Contencioso Administrativo Procedure Code, court costs are borne by the losing party, solely by virtue of being so. However, said article allows their waiver when \"Due to the nature of the issues debated, there has been, in the Tribunal's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate.\" This Deciding Body considers that in this case there has been sufficient reason to litigate, as it was demonstrated that the plaintiff has inhabited the plot whose titling she requests for many years, and while it is true that this alone is not a sufficient condition to grant her claim, in the Tribunal's discretion, it could have been sufficient reason for the party to believe in the existence of some right in her favor derived from that possession. Consequently, this matter is resolved without a special award of court costs.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe exception of lack of right is accepted. The exceptions of lack of capacity and lack of current interest are rejected.- The lawsuit filed by MARÍA MAYELA SALAZAR SALAZAR against the INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE VIVIENDA Y URBANISMO is declared inadmissible. Each party shall bear its own court costs.\n\nNotify. Judge PALONSO\n\nPAULO ALONSO SOTO\n\nALEXANDRA ZÚÑIGA MORA JONATÁN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ\n\n| | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| | ???????????????