{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-301634", "citation": "Res. 00047-2005 Tribunal Segundo Civil Sección II", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Embargabilidad de la concesión en zona marítimo terrestre", "title_en": "Attachability of the concession in the maritime-terrestrial zone", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Segundo Civil, Sección Segunda, resuelve un recurso de apelación en ejecución de sentencia sobre la negativa de embargo de una concesión municipal en zona marítimo terrestre. Retoma jurisprudencia constitucional que califica el derecho de concesión como un derecho real administrativo incorporado al patrimonio del concesionario, susceptible de ser gravado o cedido con las autorizaciones legales. Analiza el artículo 45 de la Ley 6043, que permite traspasar o gravar la concesión previa autorización municipal y del ICT o IDA, y el artículo 67, que autoriza expresamente a los bancos estatales a conceder préstamos con garantía de la concesión y sus mejoras. Concluye que la concesión tiene valor económico y, al estar en el patrimonio del concesionario, es embargable, aunque no contra el Estado o la Municipalidad por tratarse de bienes de dominio público. Revoca la resolución impugnada y ordena el embargo sobre la concesión identificada.", "summary_en": "The Second Civil Tribunal, Section Two, resolves an appeal in an enforcement of judgment regarding the denial of an attachment on a municipal concession in the maritime-terrestrial zone. It relies on constitutional case law characterizing the concession right as an administrative real right incorporated into the concessionaire's patrimony, susceptible to being encumbered or transferred with legal authorizations. It analyzes Article 45 of Law 6043, which allows the transfer or encumbrance of the concession with prior municipal and ICT or IDA authorization, and Article 67, which expressly authorizes state banks to grant loans secured by the concession and its improvements. It concludes that the concession has economic value and, being part of the concessionaire's patrimony, is attachable, though not against the State or the Municipality since they are public domain assets. It reverses the appealed order and orders the attachment of the identified concession.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Segundo Civil Sección II", "date": "09/03/2005", "year": "2005", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "zona marítimo terrestre", "concesión municipal", "derecho real administrativo", "embargo", "Registro Nacional de Concesiones", "dominio público", "Ley 6043", "Instituto Costarricense de Turismo" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "embargo", "concesión", "zona marítimo terrestre", "derecho real administrativo", "Ley 6043", "Artículo 45", "Artículo 67", "patrimonio del concesionario" ], "keywords_en": [ "attachment", "concession", "maritime-terrestrial zone", "administrative real right", "Law 6043", "Article 45", "Article 67", "concessionaire's patrimony" ], "excerpt_es": "Con el mismo razonamiento expuesto en el considerando anterior, es procedente embargar el valor económico del cual es titular el concesionario de la zona marítimo terrestre, pues si bien la zona indicada de uso restringido no es de su propiedad, cuenta en ella con un derecho otorgado por la Administración Pública respectiva. Al estar dentro de su patrimonio, con las limitaciones establecidas por ley, es susceptible de ser embargada contra este concesionario; en el caso concreto, la concesión se vence el doce de diciembre del dos mil quince. No es embargable, contra la Municipalidad o el Estado, pues al ser bienes de dominio público en dicha condición no podría ser embargados.", "excerpt_en": "With the same reasoning set forth in the preceding recital, it is appropriate to attach the economic value held by the concessionaire of the maritime-terrestrial zone, since although the restricted-use zone is not his property, he holds therein a right granted by the respective Public Administration. Being within his patrimony, with the limitations established by law, it is susceptible to being attached against this concessionaire; in the specific case, the concession expires on December twelve, two thousand fifteen. It is not attachable against the Municipality or the State, since as public domain assets in that condition they could not be attached.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Granted", "label_es": "Con lugar", "summary_en": "The Tribunal reverses the order denying the attachment and orders the attachment of the municipal concession on the indicated property, considering that the concession right is attachable because it has economic value and is part of the concessionaire's patrimony.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal revoca la resolución que rechazó el embargo y ordena embargar la concesión municipal sobre el inmueble indicado, al considerar que el derecho de concesión es embargable por tener valor económico y estar en el patrimonio del concesionario." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "it should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has rightly characterized the concession right as a true administrative real right.", "quote_es": "cabe resaltar que la propia Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha calificado, con acierto, el derecho de concesión como un verdadero derecho real de carácter administrativo." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "the concession, as an administrative real right, has an economic value that allows it to be transferred or encumbered, said value has as a necessary reference point the materiality of the property on which the concession is being granted", "quote_es": "la concesión, como derecho real administrativo, tiene un valor económico que le permite ser cedida o gravada, dicho valor tiene como punto de referencia necesario, la materialidad del inmueble sobre el cual se está otorgando la concesión" }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "it is appropriate to attach the economic value held by the concessionaire of the maritime-terrestrial zone, since although the restricted-use zone is not his property, he holds therein a right granted by the respective Public Administration.", "quote_es": "es procedente embargar el valor económico del cual es titular el concesionario de la zona marítimo terrestre, pues si bien la zona indicada de uso restringido no es de su propiedad, cuenta en ella con un derecho otorgado por la Administración Pública respectiva." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-32006", "citation": "Ley 6043", "title_en": "Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law", "title_es": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/03/1977", "year": "1977" }, { "id": "norm-18579", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 7841", "title_en": "Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "16/12/1977", "year": "1977" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-198042", "citation": "Res. 05210-1997 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Maritime-terrestrial zone concessions and condominium regime in Papagayo Project", "title_es": "Concesiones en zona marítimo terrestre y propiedad horizontal en Proyecto Papagayo", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "02/09/1997", "year": "1997" }, { "id": "norm-18579", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 7841", "title_en": "Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law Regulation", "title_es": "Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "16/12/1977", "year": "1977" }, { "id": "norm-32006", "citation": "Ley 6043", "title_en": "Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law", "title_es": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/03/1977", "year": "1977" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32006", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 6043 Art. 45" }, { "target_id": "norm-18579", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto Ejecutivo 7841 Art. 82" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-301634", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-18579", "norm_num": "7841", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "16/12/1977" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32006", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_name": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/03/1977" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Nº 047 \n\n \n\n TRIBUNAL SEGUNDO CIVIL, SECCION SEGUNDA.- San José, a las quince horas del nueve de marzo de dos mil cinco.-\n\n \n\n En EJECUCION DE SENTENCIA dentro del proceso ORDINARIO establecido en el JUZGADO SEXTO CIVIL DE SAN JOSE, bajo el número de expediente 96-001818-185-CI, por DICECSA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA contra COMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO, en virtud de apelación interpuesta por el licenciado Horacio Mejías González en su calidad de coapoderado especial judicial de la actora, conoce este Tribunal de la resolución de las nueve horas quince minutos del veintidós de setiembre del año recién pasado, la cual rechazó el embargo sobre la concesión en la zona marítimo terrestre a favor de la accionada, número CED1, inscrito en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones.-\n\n \n\n REDACTA el Juez FERNANDEZ HIDALGO; Y,\n\n \n\n CONSIDERANDO:\n\n \n\nI.- Recurre la parte actora, contra la resolución de las nueve horas quince minutos del veintidós de setiembre del dos mil cuatro, por cuanto rechazó el embargo sobre la concesión en la zona marítimo terrestre a favor de la accionada, número CED1, inscrito en el Registro Nacional de Concesiones. Afirma que la Sala Constitucional desde el voto número 5210 de las dieciséis horas del dos de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y siete, sostiene que la concesión de bienes de dominio público, si bien es regida por normas de derecho público, no enerva la circunstancia de que para todo efecto, la concesión se incorpore al patrimonio del concesionario desde que le concede un derecho o ventaja sobre un bien y en tal sentido resulta irreprochable la legitimidad de lo dispuesto en la ley en cuanto a que la concesión pueda ser dada en garantía de un préstamo obtenido por su titular. Ergo, está dentro del comercio de los hombres y, consecuentemente, es embargable el derecho de explotación. \n\n \n\nII.- Este Tribunal y sección en resolución que se indicará infra razonó lo siguiente: “cabe resaltar que la propia Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha calificado, con acierto, el derecho de concesión como un verdadero derecho real de carácter administrativo. Al respecto, ha dicho: ‘Es cierto, como lo indica la Procuraduría General de la República, que la concesión de uso de bienes públicos, si bien regida por normas de derecho público, no enerva la circunstancia de que, para todo efecto, la concesión -esto es, lo concedido- se incorpore al patrimonio del concesionario desde que le concede un derecho o ventaja sobre el bien demanial y en tal sentido resulta irreprochable la legitimidad de lo dispuesto en la ley en cuanto a que la concesión puede ser dada en garantía de un préstamo obtenido por su titular. Se trata, desde esa perspectiva y, como lo admite la doctrina que se ha venido desarrollando alrededor de este tema, del ejercicio legítimo de los derechos que deriva el concesionario de un verdadero derecho real administrativo que se le ha concedido sobre el bien de dominio público’ (Sala Constitucional, Voto No. 5210 de las dieciséis horas del dos de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y siete). Lo dicho por la Sala Constitucional está acorde con el marco normativo general que rige a las concesiones en la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. En efecto, el artículo 45 de la Ley respectiva dispone que es posible traspasar o gravar, total o parcialmente, las concesiones o los derechos derivados de ellas, siempre y cuando se cuente con la autorización previa y expresa de la municipalidad respectiva y del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, según sea el caso. Serían nulos los actos de disposición que no contaran con dichas autorizaciones, pero si las tienen, son actos de disposición completamente válidos. En otros términos, si los derechos se pueden ceder o, incluso, gravar, están dentro del comercio, con las limitaciones indicadas. Así, por ejemplo, si una institución bancaria otorga un crédito, con garantía real sobre una concesión, y el deudor incumple, podría sacarse a remate la concesión, con la base acordada en el respectivo contrato y, a falta de estipulación, con la valoración pericial real del derecho. Al respecto, cabe citar también lo dispuesto por el artículo 67 de la citada Ley, donde se dispone: ‘Los bancos del Sistema Bancario Nacional e instituciones del Estado quedan autorizados para conceder préstamos a los concesionarios de la zona restringida en la zona marítimo terrestre, con garantía de la respectiva concesión y sus edificaciones, mejoras e instalaciones’. Lo que está prohibido, es que las municipalidades o incluso particulares puedan vender la titularidad plena sobre los predios ubicados en la zona marítimo terrestre, creando entonces una propiedad privada sobre ellos. Pero ello no impide que otorguen derechos reales administrativos a favor de concesionarios, quienes, con las limitaciones legales respectivas, pueden disponer de éstos derechos reales derivados. Incluso, dichos derechos reales están sujetos a publicidad registral, la cual está confiada al Registro General de Concesiones, según los términos de los artículos 82 y siguientes del Reglamento de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, quienes deben inscribir los traspasos que se efectúen de concesiones otorgadas. En conclusión, la concesión, como derecho real administrativo, tiene un valor económico que le permite ser cedida o gravada, dicho valor tiene como punto de referencia necesario, la materialidad del inmueble sobre el cual se está otorgando la concesión -aunque no equivale al valor comercial del terreno-, la cual da al concesionario un derecho de utilización sobre el fundo respectivo, sujeto entonces a una estimación económica que tome en cuenta la realidad y no parámetros eminentemente administrativos, como sería el avalúo fiscal realizado al inicio de la concesión para fijar el valor del canon respectivo. Aceptar tal tesis alejada de la realidad, sería como creer que la valoración de un predio urbano para efectos del pago del impuesto territorial respectivo equivale a su valor real de mercado, lo cual, sabemos, no es cierto.” N 125, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del veintitrés de marzo del dos mil uno.-\n\n \n\nIII.- El Artículo 45 de la Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo-Terrestre, número 6043, dispone la imposibilidad de gravar en cualquier forma las concesiones o derechos derivados de ellas. Literalmente reza: “Es prohibido ceder o comprometer, o en cualquier otra forma traspasar o gravar, total o parcialmente, las concesiones o los derechos derivados de ellas, sin la autorización expresa de la municipalidad respectiva y del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o del Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, según sea el caso. Carecerán de toda validez los actos o contratos que infringieren esta disposición.” Es relevante analizar si, visto lo señalado en el considerando anterior, es posible aplicar un embargo por deudas no necesariamente registradas ante el Registro respectivo. Con el mismo razonamiento expuesto en el considerando anterior, es procedente embargar el valor económico del cual es titular el concesionario de la zona marítimo terrestre, pues si bien la zona indicada de uso restringido no es de su propiedad, cuenta en ella con un derecho otorgado por la Administración Pública respectiva. Al estar dentro de su patrimonio, con las limitaciones establecidas por ley, es susceptible de ser embargada contra este concesionario; en el caso concreto, la concesión se vence el doce de diciembre del dos mil quince. No es embargable, contra la Municipalidad o el Estado, pues al ser bienes de dominio público en dicha condición no podría ser embargados. Se repite lo embargable es la concesión otorgada por la Municipalidad respectiva a la demandada, sujeta a las regulaciones que establezca la Municipalidad o Administración Pública encargada de su gestión. En consecuencia, de lo anteriormente expuesto, debe revocarse la resolución recurrida, procédase al embargo de la Concesión sobre el inmueble con matrícula [Placa1], del Partido de Guanacaste. \n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\n \n\nEn el objeto de la apelación, se revoca la resolución recurrida. Se ordena el embargo de la concesión sobre el inmueble Z000623-000, del Partido de Guanacaste.\n\n \n\n Alvaro Castro Carvajal\n\n \n\nLuis Fernando Fernández Hidalgo Deyanira Martínez Bolívar\n\nORDINARIO N° 017-2005 - Ejecución de Sentencia -\n\nDICECSA S.A.\n\nContra\n\nCOMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO\n\nRacc.-\n\nJuez 1 [Nombre1]. .", "body_en_text": "Nº 047\n\nTRIBUNAL SEGUNDO CIVIL, SECCION SEGUNDA.- San José, at fifteen hours on March ninth, two thousand five.-\n\nIn EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT within the ORDINARY proceeding filed in the JUZGADO SEXTO CIVIL DE SAN JOSE, under case file number 96-001818-185-CI, by DICECSA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA against COMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO, by virtue of an appeal filed by attorney Horacio Mejías González in his capacity as special judicial co-representative of the plaintiff, this Tribunal hears the resolution of nine hours fifteen minutes of September twenty-second of the year just past, which rejected the attachment of the concession (concesión) in the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) in favor of the defendant, number CED1, registered in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones.-\n\nISSUED by Judge FERNANDEZ HIDALGO; AND,\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\nI.- The plaintiff appeals the resolution of nine hours fifteen minutes of September twenty-second, two thousand four, because it rejected the attachment of the concession in the maritime terrestrial zone in favor of the defendant, number CED1, registered in the Registro Nacional de Concesiones. They affirm that the Sala Constitucional, since vote number 5210 at sixteen hours on September second, nineteen ninety-seven, maintains that the concession of public domain assets, although governed by public law norms, does not negate the fact that, for all purposes, the concession is incorporated into the concessionaire's (concesionario) patrimony since it grants a right or advantage over an asset, and in this sense, the legitimacy of the law's provision that the concession may be given as collateral for a loan obtained by its holder is irreproachable. Ergo, it is within the commerce of men and, consequently, the exploitation right is attachable (embargable).\n\nII.- This Tribunal and section, in a resolution to be indicated below, reasoned as follows: “it should be highlighted that the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia itself has accurately classified the concession right as a true real right (derecho real) of an administrative nature. In this regard, it has stated: ‘It is true, as indicated by the Procuraduría General de la República, that the concession for the use of public assets, although governed by public law norms, does not negate the fact that, for all purposes, the concession—that is, that which is conceded—is incorporated into the concessionaire's patrimony since it grants a right or advantage over the demanial asset, and in this sense, the legitimacy of the law's provision that the concession may be given as collateral for a loan obtained by its holder is irreproachable. It is, from that perspective and, as admitted by the doctrine that has been developing around this topic, a legitimate exercise of the rights that the concessionaire derives from a true administrative real right that has been granted over the public domain asset’ (Sala Constitucional, Voto No. 5210 at sixteen hours on September second, nineteen ninety-seven). What the Sala Constitucional stated is in accordance with the general regulatory framework governing concessions in the Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Indeed, Article 45 of the respective Law provides that it is possible to transfer or encumber (gravar), totally or partially, the concessions or the rights derived from them, provided that the prior and express authorization of the respective municipality and of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, as the case may be, is obtained. Acts of disposition that lack such authorizations would be null, but if they have them, they are completely valid acts of disposition. In other words, if the rights can be transferred or even encumbered, they are within commerce, with the indicated limitations. Thus, for example, if a banking institution grants a loan, with a real guarantee (garantía real) on a concession, and the debtor defaults, the concession could be put up for public auction (remate), with the base value agreed upon in the respective contract and, in the absence of a stipulation, with the actual expert valuation of the right. In this regard, it is also worth citing the provisions of Article 67 of the cited Law, where it is provided: ‘Banks of the Sistema Bancario Nacional and State institutions are authorized to grant loans to concessionaires of the restricted zone in the maritime terrestrial zone, with the guarantee of the respective concession and its buildings, improvements, and installations.’ What is prohibited is that municipalities or even private parties may sell full ownership (titularidad plena) over the lots located in the maritime terrestrial zone, thereby creating private property over them. But this does not prevent them from granting administrative real rights in favor of concessionaires, who, with the respective legal limitations, may dispose of these derived real rights. Even these real rights are subject to registry publicity, which is entrusted to the Registro General de Concesiones, according to the terms of Articles 82 and following of the Reglamento de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, who must register the transfers made of granted concessions. In conclusion, the concession, as an administrative real right, has an economic value that allows it to be transferred or encumbered; this value has as a necessary reference point the materiality of the property over which the concession is being granted—although it does not equate to the commercial value of the land—which gives the concessionaire a right of use over the respective land, thus subject to an economic estimate that takes reality into account and not eminently administrative parameters, such as the fiscal appraisal conducted at the beginning of the concession to set the value of the respective fee (canon). Accepting such a thesis, divorced from reality, would be like believing that the valuation of an urban lot for the payment of the respective territorial tax is equivalent to its actual market value, which, we know, is not true.” N° 125, at nine hours thirty minutes on March twenty-third, two thousand one.-\n\nIII.- Article 45 of the Ley Sobre la Zona Marítimo-Terrestre, number 6043, provides for the impossibility of encumbering in any form the concessions or rights derived from them. It literally reads: “It is prohibited to transfer or pledge, or in any other form convey or encumber, totally or partially, the concessions or the rights derived from them, without the express authorization of the respective municipality and of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, as the case may be. Any acts or contracts that infringe this provision shall lack all validity.” It is relevant to analyze whether, given what was indicated in the previous considerando, it is possible to apply an attachment (embargo) for debts not necessarily registered with the respective Registry. With the same reasoning set out in the previous considerando, it is appropriate to attach the economic value held by the concessionaire of the maritime terrestrial zone, since although the indicated area of restricted use is not their property, they hold a right in it granted by the respective Public Administration. Being within their patrimony, with the limitations established by law, it is susceptible to being attached against this concessionaire; in the specific case, the concession expires on December twelfth, two thousand fifteen. It is not attachable against the Municipality or the State, since being public domain assets, in that condition they could not be attached. It is reiterated that what is attachable is the concession granted by the respective Municipality to the defendant, subject to the regulations established by the Municipality or Public Administration in charge of its management. Consequently, from the foregoing, the appealed resolution must be revoked; proceed with the attachment of the Concession on the property with registration number [Placa1], of the Partido de Guanacaste.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nRegarding the object of the appeal, the appealed resolution is revoked. The attachment of the concession on the property Z000623-000, of the Partido de Guanacaste, is ordered.\n\nAlvaro Castro Carvajal\n\nLuis Fernando Fernández Hidalgo Deyanira Martínez Bolívar\n\nORDINARIO N° 017-2005 - Ejecución de Sentencia -\n\nDICECSA S.A.\n\nContra\n\nCOMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO\n\nRacc.-\n\nJudge 1 [Nombre1]. .\n\nThe seizure of the concession over property Z000623-000, of the Partido de Guanacaste, is ordered.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Alvaro Castro Carvajal\n\n\n\nLuis Fernando Fernández Hidalgo Deyanira Martínez Bolívar\n\nORDINARIO N° 017-2005 - Ejecución de Sentencia -\n\nDICECSA S.A.\n\nContra\n\nCOMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO\n\nRacc.-\n\nJuez 1 [Nombre1]. .\n\n**II.-** This Court and section, in a resolution that will be cited below, reasoned as follows: \"it should be highlighted that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice itself has correctly qualified the concession right as a true administrative real right (derecho real de carácter administrativo). In this regard, it has stated: '*It is true, as the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic indicates, that the concession for the use of public assets, although governed by public law norms, does not negate the circumstance that, for all purposes, the concession —that is, what is granted— becomes part of the concessionaire's patrimony since it grants a right or advantage over the public domain asset (bien demanial), and in that sense, the legitimacy of what is provided in the law is irreproachable insofar as the concession can be given as collateral for a loan obtained by its holder. From that perspective, and as admitted by the doctrine that has been developing around this topic, it involves the legitimate exercise of the rights derived by the concessionaire from a true administrative real right (derecho real administrativo) that has been granted to him over the public domain asset' (Constitutional Chamber, Voto No. 5210 of sixteen hours on the second of September nineteen ninety-seven). What the Constitutional Chamber has stated aligns with the general regulatory framework governing concessions in the Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Indeed, Article 45 of the respective Law provides that it is possible to transfer or encumber, totally or partially, concessions or the rights derived from them, provided that prior and express authorization is obtained from the respective municipality and the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, as the case may be. Acts of disposition that lack such authorizations would be null, but if they have them, they are completely valid acts of disposition. In other words, if the rights can be assigned or even encumbered, they are within commerce, with the indicated limitations. Thus, for example, if a banking institution grants a loan, with a real guarantee on a concession, and the debtor defaults, the concession could be sold at a judicial auction (remate), with the basis agreed upon in the respective contract and, in the absence of a stipulation, with the real expert valuation of the right. In this regard, it is also worth citing what is provided in Article 67 of the aforementioned Law, which states: '*Banks of the National Banking System and State institutions are authorized to grant loans to concessionaires of the restricted zone in the zona marítimo terrestre, with a guarantee on the respective concession and its buildings, improvements, and installations*.' What is prohibited is that municipalities or even private parties may sell full ownership over the properties located in the zona marítimo terrestre, thereby creating private property over them. But this does not prevent them from granting administrative real rights (derechos reales administrativos) in favor of concessionaires, who, with the respective legal limitations, can dispose of these derived real rights (derechos reales derivados). Furthermore, these real rights are subject to registry publicity, which is entrusted to the General Registry of Concessions (Registro General de Concesiones), under the terms of Articles 82 and following of the Regulation to the Law on the Zona Marítimo Terrestre, which must register the transfers made of granted concessions. In conclusion, the concession, as an administrative real right, has an economic value that allows it to be assigned or encumbered; this value has as a necessary reference point the materiality of the real property (inmueble) over which the concession is being granted —although it does not equate to the commercial value of the land—, which gives the concessionaire a right of use over the respective property, subject then to an economic estimation that takes reality into account and not eminently administrative parameters, such as the fiscal appraisal carried out at the beginning of the concession to set the value of the respective fee (canon). Accepting such a thesis removed from reality would be like believing that the valuation of an urban property for the purposes of paying the respective land tax (impuesto territorial) is equivalent to its real market value, which, as we know, is not true.\" No. 125, at nine hours thirty minutes on the twenty-third of March two thousand one.-\n\n**III.-** Article 45 of the Law on the Zona Marítimo-Terrestre, number 6043, provides for the impossibility of encumbering concessions or rights derived from them in any way. It literally reads: \"It is prohibited to assign or commit, or in any other way transfer or encumber, totally or partially, concessions or the rights derived from them, without the express authorization of the respective municipality and the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, as the case may be. Any acts or contracts that violate this provision shall lack all validity.\" It is relevant to analyze whether, in light of what was indicated in the preceding recital (considerando), it is possible to levy an attachment (embargo) for debts not necessarily registered before the respective Registry. With the same reasoning set forth in the preceding recital, it is appropriate to attach the economic value of which the concessionaire of the zona marítimo terrestre is the holder, because although the indicated restricted-use zone is not his property, he holds a right therein granted by the respective Public Administration. Being within his patrimony, with the limitations established by law, it is susceptible to being attached against this concessionaire; in the specific case, the concession expires on the twelfth of December two thousand fifteen. It is not attachable against the Municipality or the State, because being public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) in that condition, they could not be attached. It is reiterated that what is attachable is the concession granted by the respective Municipality to the defendant, subject to the regulations established by the Municipality or Public Administration responsible for its management. Consequently, based on the foregoing, the appealed resolution must be revoked; proceed to the attachment of the Concession on the property with registry number [Placa1], of the Partido de Guanacaste.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nRegarding the subject of the appeal, the appealed resolution is revoked. The attachment of the concession on the property Z000623-000, of the Partido de Guanacaste, is ordered.\n\nAlvaro Castro Carvajal\n\nLuis Fernando Fernández Hidalgo Deyanira Martínez Bolívar\nORDINARIO N° 017-2005 - Ejecución de Sentencia -\nDICECSA S.A.\nContra\nCOMPLEJO TURISTICO AURORA DEL PACIFICO\n*Racc.-*\nJuez 1 [Nombre1]. ." }