{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-612011", "citation": "Res. 00002-2014 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Confirmación de justiprecio expropiatorio en Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas", "title_en": "Confirmation of just compensation for expropriation in Las Baulas National Marine Park", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII confirma la sentencia de primera instancia que fijó en ¢200,000 por metro cuadrado la indemnización a pagar por el Estado a la sociedad ACHSE S.A. por la expropiación de un terreno de 873.62 m² dentro del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Playa Grande, Guanacaste. El Estado apeló alegando rechazo indebido de prueba (voto constitucional 2012-8892, mapa de vulnerabilidad de acuífero, matriz de uso de suelo e informe de Contraloría) e incongruencia del fallo por usar un avalúo administrativo de un lote colindante (AA-69-2008) como base. La Sala desestima los agravios: la prueba fue correctamente rechazada por repetitiva o no influyente, y no hay contradicción al apoyar el juez su discrecionalidad en ese avalúo, integral con otros elementos. La indemnización se confirma por estar dentro de parámetros de peritajes y valoraciones estatales previas para inmuebles similares en la misma zona protegida.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Litigation Court, Section VII, upholds the lower court ruling setting just compensation at ¢200,000 per square meter for the State's expropriation of an 873.62 m² property owned by ACHSE S.A. within Las Baulas National Marine Park, Playa Grande, Guanacaste. The State appealed, arguing improper rejection of evidence (Constitutional Chamber ruling 2012-8892, aquifer vulnerability map, land-use matrix, and Comptroller's report) and internal inconsistency for relying on an administrative valuation of an adjacent lot (AA-69-2008). The Court dismisses both: the evidence was correctly excluded as repetitive or irrelevant, and the judge's use of the neighboring valuation was a valid exercise of discretion within the range of expert reports and previous state valuations for similar properties in the protected area. The compensation level is upheld as just and consistent with comparable expropriations.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VII", "date": "2014", "year": "2014", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "expropiación", "justiprecio", "avalúo administrativo", "sana crítica", "utilidad pública", "valor venal", "Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas", "tortuga baula" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 22", "law": "Ley de Expropiaciones" }, { "article": "Art. 36", "law": "Ley de Expropiaciones" }, { "article": "Art. 40", "law": "Ley de Expropiaciones" }, { "article": "Art. 293", "law": "Código Procesal Civil" } ], "keywords_es": [ "expropiación", "justiprecio", "Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas", "indemnización expropiatoria", "avalúo administrativo", "Leatherback turtle", "Guanacaste", "sana crítica", "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo" ], "keywords_en": [ "expropriation", "just compensation", "Las Baulas National Marine Park", "expropriation indemnity", "administrative valuation", "Leatherback turtle", "Guanacaste", "sound criticism", "Administrative Litigation Court" ], "excerpt_es": "El justiprecio debe referirse en el proceso de expropiación, al valor del inmueble en el estado y forma de explotación en que es tomado por el expropiador, para lo cual, resulta de suma importancia entonces, el criterio vertido por la propia Administración Tributaria en las valoraciones realizadas sobre los inmuebles aledaños y propios de la zona que alcanza el Proyecto del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, por ese motivo la utilización del avalúo que corre a folio doscientos treinta y nueve y siguientes como base probatoria para estimar un monto para el inmueble de marras es una acción adecuada...\n\nLa indemnización que ha de reconocerse en el trámite de expropiación ha de ser plenaria, debe cubrir el valor \"venal\" del bien de que se trate; para tal efecto complementan este concepto los principios del \"valor de reposición\", los \"valores de zona\", la \"depreciación\", y es con base en esos principios y a los factores positivos y negativos que afectan al inmueble expropiado, a través de instrumentos técnicos, que se llega a la determinación del justo precio unitario...", "excerpt_en": "The just price in expropriation proceedings must refer to the value of the property in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, for which the opinion issued by the Tax Administration itself in valuations of neighboring properties within the Las Baulas National Marine Park project zone is of the utmost importance; therefore, using the valuation at folio 239 et seq. as evidentiary basis to estimate an amount for the property in question is an appropriate action...\n\nThe compensation to be awarded in expropriation must be full, covering the 'venal' value of the property; for that purpose, the principles of 'replacement value', 'zonal values', and 'depreciation' complement this concept, and it is on the basis of these principles and the positive and negative factors affecting the expropriated property, through technical instruments, that the determination of the just unit price is reached...", "outcome": { "label_en": "Appeal dismissed", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The lower court ruling setting just compensation at ₡200,000 per square meter for the expropriated property in Las Baulas National Marine Park is upheld.", "summary_es": "Se confirma la sentencia de primera instancia que fijó el justiprecio en ¢200,000 por metro cuadrado para el inmueble expropiado en el Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "the concept of just compensation seeks to find a balance where the expropriated party is not harmed by a reduction in its real estate assets, nor does it become a source of profit to its benefit, with consequent harm to the expropriating entity, which can only be achieved through the wise combination of the principles of equity and justice...", "quote_es": "el concepto de justiprecio, lo que pretende es buscar el equilibrio donde no vaya a resultar perjudicado el expropiado al desmejorar su patrimonio inmobiliario ni tampoco, constituirse en una fuente de ganancias a su favor, con el consecuente perjuicio al ente expropiante, lo que solo se alcanza con la sabía combinación de los principios de equidad y justicia..." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "every expert report is only a recommendation to the Judge", "quote_es": "todo peritaje es solamente una recomendación hacia el Juzgador" }, { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the Judge's discretion in cases such as this is limited by legal requirements, specifically the minimum and maximum parameters of the administrative valuation and the expert opinions issued in this court", "quote_es": "la discrecionalidad del Juzgador en casos como el de marras se encuentra limitada por los requerimientos legales, específicamente los parámetros mínimo y máximo del avalúo administrativo y los dictámenes periciales rendidos en esta sede" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-612011", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "idTipoVoto": 3, "nombreTipoVoto": "Voto de mayoría", "id": 1, "nombre": "Expropiación", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Análisis sobre el fundamento, utililidad pública y fijación del justo precio" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Posibilidad del juez de separarse del peritaje administrativo y presupuestos para su revisión" } ] }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Indemnización por expropiación", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Fundamento, alcances y finalidad del justo precio" } ] }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Avalúo administrativo para expropiación", "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Posibilidad del juez de separarse del mismo y presupuestos para su revisión" } ] } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "2\n\n 2 \n\nEXPEDIENTE 07-000440-0163-ca\n\nDILIGENCIAS DE AVALÚO POR EXPROPIACIÓN\n\nPROMUEVE: EL ESTADO\n\nCONTRA: ACHSE S.A.\n\nNo. 02-2014- VI I\n\n TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN SÉTIMA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. GOICOECHEA, ANEXO A. A LAS SIETE HORAS TREINTA MINUTOS DEL QUINCE DE ENERO DEL AÑO DOS MIL CATORCE. \n\nDiligencias de avalúo por expropiación establecidas por el ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Georgina Chaves Olarte, cédula de identidad CED116468- - , contra ACHSE, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, cédula jurídica CED116469- - , representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, el señor Nombre26064 cédula CED116470- - . \n\nRESULTANDO\n\n1.- El Estado estableció estas diligencias para que en sentencia se fije la indemnización que le corresponde a ACHSE SOCIEDAD ANONIMA por la expropiación de un inmueble de su propiedad, el cual está inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad al Sistema de Folio Real matrícula cuarenta y dos mil setecientos ochenta y siete secuencia triple cero del Partido de Guanacaste y se localiza en Playa Grande. El terreno a expropiar conforme plano Placa30046 equivale a 873,62 metros cuadrados y se ubica dentro de los límites del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, por lo que su adquisición es necesaria para proteger los sitios de desove de la tortuga Baula.\n\n2.- La parte expropiada no estuvo de acuerdo con el monto establecido en el avalúo administrativo N°121-2006 del 22 de setiembre del 2006, realizado dentro del expediente administrativo Nº 127-2006.\n\n3.- El Licenciado Pablo Zeledón Hernández, J uez del Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo, mediante resolución número 1084-2013, dictada a las ocho horas diez minutos del trece de junio del dos mil trece, dispuso: “POR TANTO: De conformidad con lo expuesto, se fija la indemnización total que el Estado debe pagar a sociedad ACHSE S.A. en la suma de CIENTO SETENTA Y CUATRO MILLONES SETECIENTOS VEINTICUATRO MIL COLONES por la expropiación de un inmueble propiedad de esta última, el cual está inscrito en el Registro Público de la Propiedad matrícula Placa30047, situado en el Dirección15395 , de la Provincia de Guanacaste, que es terreno para construir, mide ochocientos setenta y tres metros cuadrados con sesenta y dos decímetros cuadrados, plano Placa30048, Linderos al Norte con calle con 20 metros, al Sur con zona marítimo terrestre, Este lote 41, Oeste con lote 43. Se condena al Estado al pago de los intereses legales sobre la diferencia entre el monto establecido en el avalúo administrativo y la indemnización fijada en la presente sentencia, a partir de la entrada en posesión del terreno y hasta el efectivo pago de lo debido. Se condena al Estado al pago de ambas costas de esta acción. Destínese lo expropiado al fin público indicado e inscríbase a nombre del Estado libre de gravámenes, limitaciones y anotaciones; cancélese las anotaciones declaratoria de interés público citas 567-42369-001, mandamiento de anotación de expropiación citas 571-18813-001; gravámenes de reservas y restricciones citas: 325-19328-01-0893-001 que pesan sobre el terreno expropiado. Una vez que la presente sentencia adquiera firmeza, se autoriza a la Notaría del Estado con el fin de que realice la protocolización de piezas correspondiente. El Registro Nacional está obligado a cancelar todas las anotaciones, las exacciones y los gravámenes que pesen sobre el bien expropiado, con fundamento en la escritura de protocolización de piezas, sin necesidad de ningún otro trámite.Notifíquese.\"\n\n4.- Inconforme con dicho fallo, la representación del Estado i nterpone recurso de apelación, gestión que les fue admitida y en virtud de lo cual conoce el Tribunal en alzada.\n\n5.- Al recurso se le ha dado el trámite que corresponde y se dicta esta resolución, previa la deliberación de rigor por unanimidad.\n\nRedacta la Jueza Solano Ramírez y,\n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI. HECHOS PROBADOS. Se avalan los hechos tenidos por probados en la sentencia impugnada y se adiciona en lo siguiente: 5) Que mediante memorial visible a folio 485, la representación estatal en atención a audiencia ordenada en auto de 9 horas 10 minutos del 8 de marzo del dos mil trece, indica : A.- HECHO NUEVO DE RELEVANCIA EN ESTE ASUNTO (...)\" (folio 485); 6) Que por oficio ASUB-043-2009, se remite mapa de vulnerabilidad intrínseca a la contaminación para el acuífero HUACAS TAMARINDO, Santa Cruz Guanacaste Costa Rica (folio 333 a 341); 7) Que mediante informe final de Consideraciones económicas sobre el valor de los terrenos expropiables en el Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas Playa Grande- Guanacaste, en marzo 2008 se estableció un modelo econométrico general para determinar el precio de los inmuebles en proceso expropiatorio de dicha zona (folios343 y siguientes); 8) Que por avalúo AA-69-2008, la Dirección General de Tributación de la Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas estableció un justiprecio para el lote 43 que es colindante de la finca de marras en la suma de ciento noventa y nueve mil quinientos colones el metro cuadrado (ver folios 370 y 376)\n\nII SOBRE LOS AGRAVIOS DEL APELANTE: Argumenta como motivos para su recurso la representación estatal: Que se rechazó unas pruebas ofrecidas como para mejor resolver siendo que la misma debía valorarse adecuadamente; indica que la Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nª 2012-8892, el mapa de vulnerabilidad del acuífero, la matriz de criterio de uso de suelo y el oficio DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 de la Contraloría General de la República eran de importancia en este proceso, que no lleva razón el A-quo en su rechazo por cuanto la resolución de la Sala aportada es vinculante erga omnes y por ello no puede calificarse técnicamente como prueba, que dicha sentencia fue emitida en junio 2012 y fue notificada hasta octubre de ese año, siendo que en marzo del 2013 se tiene conocimiento por esa representación de su contenido; expone que tampoco es cierto que no sea de influencia para el fallo dicha probanza porque en su contenido se ordenó a Nombre29313 , a la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental y a todas las municipalidades que la matriz de criterios de uso del suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de acuiferos para la protección del recurso hídrico en el Cantón de Cañas es de aplicación obligatoria en todos los cantones y zonas en donde se cuente con mapas de vulnerabilidad aprobado o confeccionados por el SENARA; de tal forma el voto dicho en su criterio otorga una validez a lo dispuesto en el oficio DIGH-038-09 de la Dirección de Investigación Hídrica del SENARA y del oficio ASUB-043-2009 del Area de Aguas subterráneas de la misma. Indica que dicho voto no resulta extemporáneo por cuanto fue aportado luego de su notificación, no es repetitivo por ser único y disponer en cuanto a la validez del mapa de vulnerabilidad del Acuífero Huacas tamarindo y de la matriz de uso de suelo, además, afirma que la fijación del precio de un terreno no puede ser la misma si el terreno se encuentra en una zona de extrema vulnerabilidad a comparación de un terreno que se encuentre en una zona de vulnerabilidad despreciable o baja. Señala que tampoco es repetitivo el documento consistente en matriz de uso de suelo por cuanto viene a color para dar absoluta claridad sobre la referencia a documentos \"DIGH.038-09\" y \"ASUB-043-2009\" ,en su orden de la dirección de Investigación Hídrica y del Area de Aguas subterráneas de SENARA, siendo que la influencia de los documentos en su criterio radica en que no puede otorgársele el mismo valor a un terreno que se encuentre en una zona de extrema vulnerabilidad a uno en una zona de baja o despreciable vulnerabilidad y el aportado muestra en color la información que permite identificar el área afectada por la vulnerabilidad. En cuanto al rechazo del Informe DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 del 26 de febrero del 2010 de la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa de la Contraloría General de la República, tampoco puede tenerse como extemporánea ni insignificante porque es contraprueba de la audiencia de 9:08 horas del 30 de noviembre del 2012 y del 8 de marzo del 2013, relacionada con el avalúo AA-69-2008, que dicha probanza resulta importante por cuanto critica los avalúos realizados por la autoridad Tributaria de Puntarenas que sobrevaloraron los terrenos por no tomar en cuenta factores de indudable importancia como la variable hídrica y de uso de suelo. En su criterio la sentencia debe apreciar en conjunto y de acuerdo con las reglas de la sana crítica racional la prueba descrita. Reclama que la sentencia es contradictoria por indicarse en ella que no puede tomarse el avalúo administrativo AA-69-2008 que consta a folio 239 a 247 como prueba para determinar per se el precio del metro cuadrado para este proceso, por ser relacionado con un terreno distinto y posteriormente el A quo procede a utilizarlo como base para obtener el citado justiprecio, indica que lo anterior hace que la sentencia incurra en incongruencia. Expone que no se menciona que el valor del avalúo administrativo AA-69-2008 fue omiso por no tomar en cuenta la variable hídrica y de uso de suelo en la valoración del bien. Solicita se revoque la sentencia impugnada y que se fije como justiprecio del bien el otorgado en avalúo administrativo AA-121-2006 del 22 de setiembre del 2006.\n\nIII SOBRE EL FONDO DEL RECURSO: Planteado este recurso de conformidad con lo antes expuesto, dos son los elementos a valorar; el primero de ellos es el rechazo de la prueba ofrecida por la parte apelante y que corre a folios 485 a 556 (voto 2012-8892 de la Sala Constitucional, mapa de vulnerabilidad del acuífero, matriz de criterio de uso de suelo y oficio DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 de la CGR) y el segundo, la existencia de incongruencia por inadecuada valoración o apreciación de la prueba. El análisis de estos elementos procede en forma separada.\n\nIV SOBRE EL RECHAZO DE LA PRUEBA EN PRIMERA INSTANCIA. La representante estatal aporta a folios 485 y siguientes un memorial en el cual indicó dicha representación que se ponía en conocimiento del A quo \"un hecho nuevo de relevancia\" y sobre la audiencia otorgada por resolución de nueve horas diez minutos del ocho de marzo del dos mil trece aportó copia del informe sobre evaluación de la gestión del Sistema Nacional de áreas de Conservación y del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, el informe DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 realizado por la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa de la Contraloría General de la República y copia certificada del mapa de vulnerabilidad del Acuífero Huacas- Tamarindo y la matriz de criterios de uso de suelo según la vulnerabilidad a la contaminación de Acuiferos, junto con el informe DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010. Sobre los hechos nuevos y prueba aportada en dicho memorial, reclama la apelante que no se trató de prueba para mejor resolver sino de contra prueba, y que en el caso de la sentencia documentada, por emanar de la Sala Constitucional es una documental que debe aplicarse al caso concreto por tratarse de disposiciones obligatorias. A la luz de esta valoración del apelante es procedente valorar la aportación de la prueba rechazada con carácter de prueba para mejor resolver: Establece la legislación procesal civil, aplicable supletoriamente en casos como el que nos ocupa, la posibilidad de constituir prueba en varios momentos procesales; al inicio de la participación procesal haciendo uso de la llamada \"prueba ordinaria\", o prueba de defensa de derechos\"; también a través de la \"contra prueba\" que está constituida por aquella que discute la aportada por la contraparte cuando ha sido otorgada audiencia sobre la misma; la llamada extemporánea, que se constituye en enteramente nueva o que se conoce por la parte en fecha posterior a la interposición de la demanda o contestación, y que se presenta al proceso a través de una incidencia para que se declare su admisibilidad y finalmente la prueba para mejor resolver que se aporta con el fin de que el juez de considerarlo apropiado la reciba para facilitar la solución procesal, pero que por esa característica es una facultad del Juzgador aceptarla o no. En el caso de marras , estima esta Cámara del tribunal que la prueba ofrecida por la entidad estatal en su memorial de folio 485 no es constitutiva de \"prueba para mejor resolver\", salvo por la documental relacionada con el voto de la Sala Constitucional; se trata de contra prueba y debe ser valorada por el Juzgador a la luz de esa condición procesal, tomando en cuenta su oportunidad, pertinencia, procedencia y necesidad procesal. Estima esta Cámara, que pese a que el A quo estimó esa prueba como ofrecida para mejor resolver, en nada se ve afectado el proceso dado que se efectuó una valoración en cuanto a su pertinencia, procedencia y necesidad, criterios expuestos que comparte esta integración del Tribunal para su rechazo. Indica el Juzgador sobre esas probanzas en la sentencia, que la prueba es repetitiva, y no es de influencia para el fallo, llevando razón el Juzgador en tales apreciaciones, pues al momento de hacerse valer los derechos sobre el peritaje final, como consta a folio 323 se aportaron oficios DIGH-038-09 y ASUB-043-2009 y mapas de vulnerabilidad y matriz de criterios de uso que tienen los mismos contenidos de la prueba rechazada en sentencia, en consecuencia si se constituye en repetitiva. De la prueba aportada, el único elemento que no constaba en el expediente para el momento de aportarse el memorial de interés, era el informe DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 que hace una valoración o evaluación de la gestión general de las entidades relacionadas con la administración de la reserva Parque Nacional Marino las Baulas, elemento que considera esta Cámara, al igual que el A quo, no tiene influencia para el fallo, pues es una valoración interna de actividades desplegadas en la zona, esos aspectos no tienen conexidad ni nexo alguno con la gestión de determinación del justiprecio de marras, siendo procedente confirmar lo dispuesto en ese sentido por el A quo. Ahora bien, sobre la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional que como hecho nuevo se aportó a los autos indicando que es de aplicación obligatoria y en consecuencia de relevancia en este asunto, esta Cámara indicar, en primer plano que no hace uso adecuado de las formas procesales reguladas por el artículo 293 del Código Procesal Civil, según el cual la entidad estatal para ofrecer prueba sobre un hecho señalado como nuevo debe acudir a la incidencia en la forma y procedimiento ahí establecidos y no por un simple enunciado, esa aportación defectuosa permite el rechazo sin mayor fundamento de la documental aportada, pero se estima prudente valorarla por el fondo para determinar claramente los motivos para su inadmisibilidad. Ha indicado el apelante que se trata de un hecho nuevo, y pretende la representación estatal que se tenga como cierto que esa sentencia es de carácter erga hommnes por emanar de la Sala Constitucional, aportando la documental en ese sentido; sobre tal afirmación debe indicarse que por el tipo de proceso al que se hace referencia en la sentencia dicha -Recurso de Amparo-, su aplicación es obligatoria al caso concreto para el que fue dictada, y para los trámites administrativos de los entes involucrados que sean \"futuros\" o \"posteriores\" al dictado de dicha sentencia; no puede pretenderse la aplicación de dicho pronunciamiento en forma general y obligatoria y mucho menos sobre informes emitidos con anterioridad a la sentencia que se invoca. La pretensión resulta entonces improcedente y en consecuencia se debe mantener la decisión del A quo sobre la prueba y documental ofrecidos en el memorial de folio cuatrocientos ochenta y cinco, y por los motivos aquí esgrimidos debe confirmarse en ese aspecto la sentencia impugnada. \n\nV. SOBRE LA INCONGRUENCIA POR INADECUADA VALORACIÓN O APRECIACIÓN DE LA PRUEBA. El fallo recurrido procede a establecer un análisis comparativo de los informes periciales y del avalúo administrativo a fin de encontrar deficiencias en el efectuado administrativamente y determinar la procedencia o no de la admisión de la gestión expropiatoria de marras. El Juzgador en el Considerando Cuarto inicia con una descripción somera de cada uno de los avalúos y peritajes rendidos, destacando los puntos relevantes de cada uno de ellos. En este Considerando se observa que los peritajes judiciales tuvieron sus fuentes de información basadas en zonas cercanas como Tamarindo y Flamingo, y en forma clara y precisa el A quo procede a destacar las debilidades que observa sobre cada uno de ellos, especificando que el terreno que se expropia es una propiedad con características de conservación y protección de especies y de ecosistema existente, además de que posee limitaciones y restricciones que hace que su valoración no pueda tenerse como efectuada acorde con otras propiedades salvo que poseen las mismas características. El Juez establece como producto de los informes de revisión y del avalúo administrativo los límites de su valoración y condena al Estado al pago de la diferencia indemnizatoria surgida entre el avalúo administrativo y lo fijado, así también al pago de intereses y costas personales indicando que fija el justiprecio tomando en cuenta las limitaciones que tiene el inmueble respecto a las condiciones propias del mismo y ante el hecho de que el mismo Estado promedia para un lote con características similares, colindante del de marras en el año dos mil ocho, según muestra la documental que corre a folios 239 a 247 del expediente, en una suma aproximada a los doscientos mil colones por metro cuadrado, establece el valor o justiprecio del metro cuadrado en el caso de marras en doscientos mil colones el metro cuadrado. Esa determinación, valorados los agravios de la parte apelante, para esta Cámara no presenta incongruencia, ello porque la sentencia claramente valora la prueba que corre en autos, y uno a uno establece el valor de los elementos documentales que considera para el dictado del fallo; indicar como lo hace \"que la prueba aportada no tiene la facultad de fijar per se el precio \", y luego utilizar esa prueba para establecer el justiprecio no es contradictorio, por cuanto no es posible por el hecho de presentarse un avalúo de otro inmueble como prueba, con ese solo elemento fijar en monto igual el precio, debe efectuarse un análisis y valoración de condiciones; el A quo expone con su apreciación que por si sola, la prueba aportada no es plena para imponer los elementos en ella expuestos al caso de marras, porque no se analiza en esa probanza directamente el lote de interés, sino uno similar; a través de la valoración interna del Juzgador, expuesta en la sentencia, es que esa documental se constituye en apoyo o base para la toma de una decisión jurisdiccional, y como tal, -como elemento de apoyo-, permite al Juzgador fijar un criterio; de ahí que esta Cámara no descubre falta de congruencia, al contrario, se estima que al utilizar la prueba se hace uso adecuado de los instrumentos puestos en conocimiento del Juzgador para dar una solución integral al elemento que se valora, apoya el A quo su decisión en documental que le permite exponer su decisión. Si es importante para esta Cámara destacar que el instituto de la expropiación, al que no se le niega el carácter restrictivo o limitativo del derecho de propiedad, encuentra justificación en la necesidad suprema que hace privar el derecho de propiedad sobre el interés social o la utilidad pública, limando o al menos intentando limar cualquier conflicto de intereses. La utilidad pública tiene por objeto la realización del bien común, por lo que lleva consigo misma la idea de expropiación, que -por ser forzosa- sólo puede tener lugar bajo la intervención directa del Estado, donde se respete lo de cada uno, pues tal atribución de calificación no puede entenderse en forma ilimitada. El concepto de utilidad pública queda determinado por sus dos elementos: la necesidad material y la aspiración del cuerpo social, que relacionadas al amparo de la legalidad, dan por coeficiente un hecho práctico que entraña lo que reporta ventajas al Estado, cuyo disfrute pertenece al cuerpo social, así, todo ciudadano contribuirá por su parte a la utilidad pública según sus fuerzas, sus talentos y su edad, y se regularán sus deberes con arreglo a leyes distributivas. El particular debe soportar el sacrificio de sus bienes, pues pasando a las arcas estatales, se auto beneficia también el individuo como miembro de la colectividad (al servir su bien para satisfacer una necesidad de interés general), razón suficiente para no negarse a la expropiación previa valoración del objeto expropiado . Para tales fines debe tenerse como valor del bien una suma que resulte una justa compensación . que es lo que se pretende fijar en este asunto; en ese sentido la doctrina ha intentado establecer los parámetros a seguir para determinar un justo precio, para Nombre33034 , se alcanza solamente a través de la vía judicial, única donde se verificaría esa \"justicia\" en cada caso, y la entiende como el valor de sustitución de la cosa expropiada, suficiente para adquirir otro bien análogo, al que por expropiación se priva. Otros se refieren al justiprecio como un elemento que actúa como factor determinante del valor objetivo del bien expropiado, sea el precio corriente en el comercio, esto es, el justiprecio ha de coincidir con el verdadero valor económico de los bienes expropiados, con objeto de proveer de dinero suficiente para obtener la adecuada sustitución de tales bienes. Nombre32650, tratadista argentino, considera que el justo valor supone que el expropiado debe recibir un valor equivalente a aquél del cual se lo priva, de modo actual e integral.- Dicho valor debe representar una suma al contado o en términos razonablemente equivalentes, por la cual el dueño del bien, deseoso de vender pero no obligado a hacerlo, hubiera vendido su propiedad a un comprador deseoso de ello, pero no obligado a hacerlo. Como se observa, el concepto de justiprecio, lo que pretende es buscar el equilibrio donde no vaya a resultar perjudicado el expropiado al desmejorar su patrimonio inmobiliario ni tampoco, constituirse en una fuente de ganancias a su favor, con el consecuente perjuicio al ente expropiante, lo que solo se alcanza con la sabía combinación de los principios de equidad y justicia, de tal manera que el justiprecio, siempre de concepción y estamento discrecional, debe referirse en el juicio de expropiación a lo que el inmueble vale en el estado y forma de explotación en que es tomado por el expropiador, según los valores y otros elementos de convicción concentrados en los autos. La indemnización que ha de reconocerse en el trámite de expropiación ha de ser plenaria, debe cubrir el valor \"venal\" del bien de que se trate; para tal efecto complementan este concepto los principios del \"valor de reposición\", los \"valores de zona\", la \"depreciación\", y es con base en esos principios y a los factores positivos y negativos que afectan al inmueble expropiado, a través de instrumentos técnicos, que se llega a la determinación del justo precio unitario; para ese fin los Juzgadores hacen uso de auxiliares externos que mediante la experticia, emiten dictámenes en ciencias que que les son ajenas, que le son impropias más no desconocidas, conforme los requerimientos formales que exige la ley para la realización del avalúo pericial,tomando en cuenta factores tales como el estado y uso actual de las construcciones existentes, condiciones del terreno –así referido por el artículo 22 -; la fijación del valor del bien a la fecha de su dictamen -artículo 24-, lo que también obliga la ley al experto judicial -artículo 36- normas todas de la Ley de Expropiaciones quedando abierta la posibilidad de que al aplicar el juez las reglas de la sana crítica racional, le sea necesario apartarse de las pericias, ante informes periciales rendidos que contravinieren la forma legal por omisos u oscuros o erráticos. Al momento de valorarse ese justiprecio, el artículo 22 de la Ley de Expropiaciones, reconoce únicamente los daños reales y permanentes, más no así, los hechos futuros ni las expectativas de derecho, o plusvalías derivadas del proyecto que originó la expropiació n, se considerarán las mejoras necesarias introducidas después de la declaración de interés público permitiéndose de esa forma que el avalúo administrativo no solo sea revisable por el o los peritos nombrados en sede judicial, sino que éstos pueden actualizarlo, bajo los alcances y límites contenidos en el numeral 36 de la ley de marras, y siempre y cuando no tomen en cuenta para fijar el monto de la indemnización los hechos futuros, las expectativas de derecho, ni las plusvalías derivadas de la expropiación. Bajo esos elementos, coincide esta Cámara con las apreciaciones del A quo que le obligan a alejarse de las experticias rendidas en autos, porque efectivamente, ninguna de ellas permite determinar en forma cierta y plena que las características del bien objeto de expropiación fueron adecuadamente valoradas, las omisiones señaladas por el A quo sobre cada una de las experticias, hacen imposible la utilización de dichas valoraciones para la determinación en este caso del justiprecio y siendo que \"todo peritaje es solamente una recomendación hacia el Juzgador ,\" la determinación final , que es siempre parte de la actividad jurisdiccional, será emitida alejándose de las formas periciales existentes, pero siempre con una debida fundamentación ya que no puede tenerse como completa ninguna de las valoraciones expuestas en autos y debe exponerse claramente los motivos para la determinación del precio final. En este caso, la prudencia del Juzgador sobre la base de la sana crítica, le ha permitido definir el justiprecio; ello haciendo uso de los avalúos administrativos incorporados a los autos como prueba adicional, y tomando en cuenta toda la documental existente en el proceso. En ese sentido, valida esta Cámara la apreciación del aquo en cuanto a que los peritajes rendidos contienen una serie de inconsistencias y defectos que impiden ser considerados como base para fijar el justiprecio, siendo que únicamente pueden ser considerados como referencia del precio máximo a otorgar por lo que es la prueba aportada como complementaria la que facilita al Juzgador la posibilidad de especificar la suma en que se estima el valor de este inmueble. \n\n VI El A quo en este caso para fijar el valor del bien, procede haciendo uso de una documental aportada a los autos, establece como parámetro un valor aproximado al determinado sobre otro inmueble, y obtiene los valores del avalúo AA-69-2008 como base para su decisión. Según tal avalúo, el terreno o finca 5-042789-000 , ubicado en la zona de Playa Grande número 43 sección A, que cuenta con una medida de 864.16 metros cuadrados, se fija el valor del metro cuadrado en ciento noventa y nueve mil quinientos colones, destacando tal documental que ese inmueble tiene ubicación, accesos, servicios y colindancia con calle pública en iguales condiciones que el inmueble de marras; pertenecen ambos al Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas. El A quo haciendo uso de dicha documental fija el precio en suma similar a la descrita en tal pericia, esta determinación es entonces un monto discrecional, apartado de los tres informes rendidos, que encuentra fundamento en el artículo 40 de la Ley de Expropiaciones y se ubica dentro del rango fijado por el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Si bien en la sentencia venida en apelación para la fijación del justiprecio en la suma determinada por el A quo no se exponen mayores fundamentos sobre el porque fija un valor aproximado, la información que hace constar sobre su decisión final -avalùo aportado como prueba- si resulta suficiente pues al utlizar ese instrumento probatorio cuenta con las variables de uso de suelo hidrología y demás elementos si valorados en aquel terreno ya expropiado por lo que no se evidencia por parte de esta Cámara la existencia de vicio alguno que amerite la revocatoria de la sentencia venida en apelación \n\nVII. SOBRE LA FIJACIÓN DE JUSTIPRECIO . La representante del Estado solicita se revoque el fallo de instancia y se fije el precio en el establecido por el avalúo administrativo AA-121-2006 del 22 de setiembre del 2006, tal petición debe ser rechazada ya que se ha indicado que el peritaje dicho, no puede ser tomado como cierto para efectos de fijar el justiprecio pues resulta superficial y omiso en la investigación de valores de mercado realizada. Como bien hace ver el A quo, esa experticia: no tiene referencia a las memorias del cálculo, procedimiento utilizado para calcular el valor unitario del terreno, no existe fundamentación ni justificación para el monto del valor unitario, no se demuestra la realización de la investigación ni la referencia de las consultas efectuadas, carece de indicación de las características de las fincas comparadas ni se aporta documental donde se constaten los criterios y valoras de los expertos a los que se indica se consulta sobre precio de mercado en el área geográfica de interés, omisiones que hacen imposible tener como cierto el precio en esa experticia estimado como valor del inmueble a expropiar. Así en aras de encontrar el justiprecio se valoran los argumentos de la actora, siendo que el alegato de la representación estatal según el cual los avalúos realizados por la Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas en el 2008, fueron defectuosos, ello por cuanto pertenecen, al mismo proyecto de expropiación en el Parque Marino Las Baulas, no es de recibo. Debe tenerse presente, como lo ha sostenido de manera reiterada éste Tribunal, \" el hecho de que exista un avalúo administrativo del que disiente la parte expropiada, no implica que esté mal confeccionado, o que con el mero ánimo de beneficiarse la Administración, adoptó el menor precio posible. Por el contrario, la discrepancia del criterio constituye tan sólo un indicativo para revisar el mismo, y dentro de esta connotación y bajo un esquema de juicio lógico, todo parece establecer que aquélla valoración primigenia indica un valor ínfimo para que pueda constituirse como un valor de restitución y por ende, como un justo precio. La fijación del monto a indemnizar está lejos de ser una ciencia exacta, de forma tal que se incumplan las reglas de la técnica, la lógica o la razón; sino que es un fenómeno multifactorial y consecuentemente complejo. De suerte que, se debe procurar integrar la mayor cantidad de elementos objetivos (e incluso eventualmente subjetivos) para generar un precio de indemnización que procure reducir el riesgo de equivocarse\". (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Sección Primera. Voto Nº 611-2010-I de las trece horas quince minutos del veintitrés de diciembre del dos mil diez). Para determinar el justiprecio del inmueble de marras debe esta Cámara tener a la vista la totalidad de la prueba aportada por la parte actora a los autos y que le fuera admitida, siendo que en la valoración de dichas probanzas no se encuentra ni descubre un adecuado estudio de las condiciones generales del inmueble a expropiar; en los estudios -no periciales- que corren en autos se hacen análisis generales de la zona que cuentan con observaciones en cuanto a costos y limitaciones materiales en la zona por las cargas naturales sobre el bien -manto acuífero, zona de reserva, acceso por enclave-; sin embargo no se aporta a los autos un estudio específico, que valore y desarrolle una determinación económica adecuada considerando todos los elementos legales necesarios para determinar el precio justo que tiene ese inmueble, todos los documentos aportados padecen de generalidad o de falta de especificidad lo que impide su utilización. Consecuencia de ello, el Juzgador debe, ante el hecho ineludible de que el inmueble expropiado y demás propiedades vecinas por estar circunscritas e incorporadas dentro de la declaratoria del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, creado el 10 de julio de 1995, mediante Ley Nº 7524 tiene limitaciones en el uso de suelo, analizar las pericias realizadas siendo que ninguna de ellas puede ser la opción del justiprecio a emitir por no tomar en cuenta la totalidad de esos elementos; también se estima que los resultados del Estudio Econométrico y en el Informe Final de Consideraciones Económicas sobre el Valor de los Terrenos Expropiables en el Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, rendido en el mes de marzo del 2008 (folios 343 a 375) y las matrices de uso de suelo aportadas, tampoco permiten valorar adecuadamente el precio dado pues no reflejan la realidad de la tendencia de valores en la zona donde se ubica el inmueble objeto de expropiación y no constituyen un parámetro razonable de valores pues se han rendido como informe interno institucional que no identifican individualmente los inmuebles objeto de estudio ni toma en cuenta las características de cada bien, sino que por el contrario, promedia las situaciones existentes. En consecuencia, las reglas de la sana crítica, ordenan analizar como referencial toda la documental siendo que concluye ésta Sección, que al ser improcedente la alternativa propuesta por la parte expropiante a efecto de fijar el justiprecio con el avalúo administrativo ante la carencia de elementos en el mismo, debe valorarse la prueba aportada hasta este momento para determinar si el monto fijado por el A quo es injusto; bajo tal análisis estima esta cámara que lo procedente es confirmar la sentencia de instancia en cuanto determinó un valor de ¢200 mil por metro cuadrado, ello porque las pruebas de autos no revelan que ese monto sea injusto o inadecuado y por el contrario, los antecedentes fijados por el Estado, con el pago de expropiación mediante otro avalúo en una finca colindante de la propiedad de la expropiada y que también le pertencecía, permiten estimar la suma fijada como adecuada; es lo cierto que la determinación del A quo se encuentra dentro de los parámetros de los peritajes rendidos en autos y considera además esta Cámara que la suma fijada, responde a una fijación acorde a valoraciones similares para inmuebles ubicados en el Parque Marino Las Baulas, que con similares características al bien expropiado, se han otorgado en otros procesos judiciales -antecedentes-, asímismo, resulta acorde a las valoraciones posteriores dadas por el Estado a otros bienes, según avalúos realizados por la propia Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas en el 2008. El justiprecio debe referirse en el proceso de expropiación, al valor del inmueble en el estado y forma de explotación en que es tomado por el expropiador, para lo cual, resulta de suma importancia entonces, el criterio vertido por la propia Administración Tributaria en las valoraciones realizadas sobre los inmuebles aledaños y propios de la zona que alcanza el Proyecto del Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, por ese motivo la utilización del avalúo que corre a folio doscientos treinta y nueve y siguientes como base probatoria para estimar un monto para el inmueble de marras es una acción adecuada pues procesalmente el Juzgador, en aras de efectuar una estimación más justa, hace uso de los instrumentos puestos a su conocimiento mediante ese documento, y con atención en el efectuó la imposición del monto. Esta Cámara considera que ese avalúo Administrativo que fue elaborado por la propia Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas dos años después de realizarse el Avalúo Administrativo de marras, realizado en un terreno ubicado en la misma zona en que se ubica el inmueble expropiado, que confrontando el contenido del folio setenta y uno bis, tiene mismas condiciones que el de marras, y siendo como consta en mismo folio, \"colindantes\", se consideran las características, las limitaciones y restricciones que las gravan en la valoración ya pagada por el estado; ello permite establecer que con relación a tal avalúo, el inmueble de marras se encuentra en idénticas condiciones, y siendo que no existe prueba que indique en forma clara y precisa lo contrario, lo más prudente es imponer como suma de justiprecio la fijada por el A quo a la luz de tales probanzas, ya que el valor por metro cuadrado fijado por el Ad-quo en la sentencia apelada, se encuentra dentro de los parámetros mínimo y máximo del avalúo administrativo y \n\nlos dictámenes periciales rendidos en ésta sede, que son los requerimientos legales limitantes de la discrecionalidad del Juzgador en casos como el de marras. En razón de lo expuesto y atendiendo al objeto específico y exclusivo -fijación del justiprecio-, que persiguen las presentes diligencias, los agravios formulados por la parte, se desestiman por las razones que se indican en esta sentencia y en consecuencia se mantiene establecido por el A quo en la sentencia impugnada.\n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe rechaza la prueba para mejor resolver. Se confirma la sentencia recurrida por las razones que expone este Tribunal. \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nALINNE SOLANO RAMÍREZ\n\n \n\n \n\nNombre126531 Nombre126532 Nombre8503", "body_en_text": "**CASE FILE 07-000440-0163-ca**\n\n**APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS FOR EXPROPRIATION**\n\n**PROMOTED BY: THE STATE**\n\n**AGAINST: ACHSE S.A.**\n\n**No. 02-2014-VII**\n\n**CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. SEVENTH SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. GOICOECHEA, ANNEX A. AT SEVEN HOURS THIRTY MINUTES ON THE FIFTEENTH OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.**\n\nAppraisal proceedings for expropriation (Diligencias de avalúo por expropiación) established by the STATE, represented by the Procuradora Georgina Chaves Olarte, identity card CED116468- -, against ACHSE, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, legal ID CED116469- -, represented by its general agent without sum limit, Mr. Nombre26064, ID CED116470- -.\n\n**WHEREAS (RESULTANDO)**\n\n1.- The State established these proceedings so that the compensation (indemnización) owed to ACHSE SOCIEDAD ANONIMA for the expropriation of a property it owns be set in judgment. The property is registered in the Public Property Registry under the Folio Real System, title number forty-two thousand seven hundred eighty-seven, triple zero sequence, of the Guanacaste Registry and is located in Playa Grande. The land to be expropriated, according to map Placa30046, is equivalent to 873.62 square meters and is located within the limits of the Las Baulas National Marine Park (Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas), making its acquisition necessary to protect the nesting sites of the Leatherback turtle (Tortuga Baula).\n\n2.- The expropriated party did not agree with the amount set in the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) No. 121-2006 of September 22, 2006, conducted within administrative file No. 127-2006.\n\n3.- Licenciado Pablo Zeledón Hernández, Judge of the Contentious-Administrative Court (Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo), through resolution number 1084-2013, issued at eight hours ten minutes on June thirteenth, two thousand thirteen, ordered: \"THEREFORE (POR TANTO): In accordance with the above, the total compensation that the State must pay to the corporation ACHSE S.A. is set at the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND COLONES for the expropriation of a property owned by the latter, which is registered in the Public Property Registry under title Placa30047, located at Dirección15395, of the Province of Guanacaste, which is land for construction, measuring eight hundred seventy-three square meters and sixty-two square decimeters, map Placa30048, Boundaries: North with street for 20 meters, South with maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), East lot 41, West with lot 43. The State is ordered to pay legal interest on the difference between the amount set in the administrative appraisal and the compensation set in this judgment, from the taking of possession of the land until the effective payment of what is owed. The State is ordered to pay both sets of costs of this action. Destine the expropriated property to the indicated public purpose and register it in the name of the State free of encumbrances (gravámenes), limitations, and annotations; cancel the annotations of declaration of public interest file numbers 567-42369-001, and the order of annotation of expropriation file numbers 571-18813-001; encumbrances of reserves and restrictions file numbers: 325-19328-01-0893-001 that weigh on the expropriated land. Once this judgment becomes final, the State Notary's Office is authorized to carry out the corresponding protocolization of documents (protocolización de piezas). The National Registry is obligated to cancel all annotations, levies (exacciones), and encumbrances weighing on the expropriated property, based on the deed of protocolization of documents, without the need for any other proceeding. Notify.\"\n\n4.- Disagreeing with said ruling, the State's representation filed an appeal (recurso de apelación), a motion that was admitted and by virtue of which the Tribunal hears the case on appeal (en alzada).\n\n5.- The appeal has been given the corresponding process, and this resolution is issued following the required deliberation, by unanimity.\n\nJudge Solano Ramírez writes; and,\n\n**CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO)**\n\nI. PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS). The facts held as proven in the appealed judgment are endorsed, and the following is added: 5) That through a brief visible on folio 485, the state representation, regarding the hearing ordered in the decree of 9 hours 10 minutes on March 8, two thousand thirteen, indicated: \"A.- NEW FACT OF RELEVANCE IN THIS MATTER (...)\" (folio 485); 6) That through official letter ASUB-043-2009, a map of intrinsic vulnerability to contamination for the HUACAS TAMARINDO aquifer (mapa de vulnerabilidad intrínseca a la contaminación para el acuífero), Santa Cruz Guanacaste Costa Rica, was submitted (folios 333 to 341); 7) That through a final report on Economic considerations regarding the value of the expropriable lands in Las Baulas National Marine Park Playa Grande-Guanacaste, in March 2008, a general econometric model was established to determine the price of properties in the expropriation process in said zone (folio 343 and following); 8) That through appraisal AA-69-2008, the Directorate General of Taxation of the Tax Administration of Puntarenas (Dirección General de Tributación de la Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas) set a just price (justiprecio) for lot 43, which is adjacent to the property in question (finca de marras), in the sum of one hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred colones per square meter (see folios 370 and 376).\n\nII. ON THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT (APELANTE): The state representation argues as reasons for its appeal: That some evidence offered as for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) was rejected, which had to be properly assessed; it indicates that the Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) No. 2012-8892, the aquifer vulnerability map, the land-use criteria matrix (matriz de criterio de uso de suelo), and the official letter DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 from the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) were important in this process, and that the lower court (A-quo) is incorrect in its rejection, since the Chamber's resolution provided is binding erga omnes and therefore cannot technically be classified as evidence; that said judgment was issued in June 2012 and was notified until October of that year, and that in March 2013, this representation became aware of its content; it states that it is also not true that this piece of evidence has no influence on the ruling because its content ordered Nombre29313, the Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Ambiental), and all municipalities that the land-use criteria matrix based on vulnerability to contamination of aquifers for the protection of water resources in the Canton of Cañas is mandatory in all cantons and zones where there are vulnerability maps approved or prepared by SENARA; in this way, the aforementioned resolution, in its opinion, grants validity to the provisions of official letter DIGH-038-09 from the SENARA Hydric Research Directorate (Dirección de Investigación Hídrica) and official letter ASUB-043-2009 from the same entity's Groundwater Area (Area de Aguas subterráneas). It indicates that this resolution is not extemporaneous because it was provided after its notification, and not repetitive because it is unique and provides for the validity of the Huacas Tamarindo Aquifer vulnerability map and the land-use matrix; in addition, it affirms that fixing the price of land cannot be the same if the land is in a zone of extreme vulnerability compared to land in a zone of negligible or low vulnerability. It points out that the document consisting of the land-use matrix is also not repetitive because it is pertinent to provide absolute clarity regarding the references to documents \"DIGH.038-09\" and \"ASUB-043-2009\", from the Hydric Research Directorate and the Groundwater Area of SENARA respectively, in that order; the influence of these documents, in its opinion, lies in the fact that the same value cannot be given to land in a zone of extreme vulnerability as to one in a zone of low or negligible vulnerability, and the one provided shows colored information that allows identification of the area affected by vulnerability. Regarding the rejection of Report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 of February 26, 2010, from the Operative and Evaluative Oversight Division of the Comptroller General of the Republic, it cannot be considered extemporaneous or insignificant because it is counter-evidence of the hearing at 9:08 a.m. on November 30, 2012, and March 8, 2013, related to appraisal AA-69-2008; that this evidence is important because it criticizes the appraisals conducted by the Tax Authority of Puntarenas, which overvalued the lands by not considering undeniably important factors such as water variables and land use. In its opinion, the judgment must assess the described evidence as a whole and according to the rules of sound rational criticism (sana crítica racional). It claims the judgment is contradictory for stating in it that the administrative appraisal AA-69-2008, found on folios 239 to 247, cannot be taken as evidence to determine, per se, the price per square meter for this process, because it relates to a different land, and subsequently, the lower court proceeds to use it as a basis for obtaining said just price; it indicates the above makes the judgment incur incongruence. It states that it is not mentioned that the value of the administrative appraisal AA-69-2008 was silent because it failed to consider the water variable and land use in the valuation of the property. It requests that the appealed judgment be revoked and that the just price of the property be set at that granted in administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006.\n\nIII. ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL: This appeal having been filed in accordance with the above, there are two elements to evaluate; the first is the rejection of the evidence offered by the appellant, which runs from folios 485 to 556 (resolution 2012-8892 of the Constitutional Chamber, aquifer vulnerability map, land-use criteria matrix, and official letter DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 from the CGR), and the second is the existence of incongruence due to inadequate valuation or assessment of the evidence. The analysis of these elements proceeds separately.\n\nIV. ON THE REJECTION OF THE EVIDENCE IN FIRST INSTANCE. The state representative provided, at folio 485 and following, a brief in which said representation stated it was making known to the lower court \"a new fact of relevance,\" and regarding the hearing granted by resolution of nine hours ten minutes on March eight, two thousand thirteen, it provided a copy of the report on the management evaluation of the National System of Conservation Areas and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 prepared by the Operative and Evaluative Oversight Division of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and a certified copy of the vulnerability map of the Huacas-Tamarindo Aquifer and the land-use criteria matrix based on vulnerability to contamination of Aquifers, together with report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010. Regarding the new facts and evidence provided in said brief, the appellant claims it was not a matter of evidence for better resolution but rather counter-evidence, and that in the case of the documented ruling, emanating from the Constitutional Chamber, it is a documentary that must be applied to the specific case because it involves mandatory provisions. In light of this assessment by the appellant, it is appropriate to evaluate the provision of the rejected evidence, which was considered evidence for better resolution: Civil procedural legislation, supplementary applicable in cases such as the one at hand, establishes the possibility of establishing evidence at various procedural stages; at the start of the procedural participation, using the so-called \"ordinary evidence,\" or evidence for the defense of rights; also through \"counter-evidence,\" which consists of that which disputes the evidence provided by the opposing party when a hearing on it has been granted; the so-called extemporaneous evidence, which is entirely new or becomes known to the party after the filing of the complaint or the response, and which is presented in the process through an incident for its admissibility to be declared; and finally, evidence for better resolution, which is provided so that the judge, if deemed appropriate, receives it to facilitate the procedural solution, but which, due to this characteristic, is a power of the Judge to accept or not. In the case at hand, this Chamber of the Tribunal considers that the evidence offered by the state entity in its brief at folio 485 is not constitutive of \"evidence for better resolution,\" except for the documentary evidence related to the Constitutional Chamber's ruling; it is counter-evidence and must be assessed by the Judge in light of that procedural condition, considering its timeliness, relevance, procedural appropriateness, and necessity. This Chamber considers that, although the lower court deemed this evidence as offered for better resolution, the process is not affected at all, given that an assessment was made regarding its relevance, procedural appropriateness, and necessity, which are criteria established for its rejection that this Tribunal panel shares. The Judge indicates regarding these pieces of evidence in the judgment that the evidence is repetitive and has no influence on the ruling, the Judge being correct in such assessments, because at the time the rights regarding the final expertise were asserted, as shown on folio 323, official letters DIGH-038-09 and ASUB-043-2009 were provided, along with vulnerability maps and the use criteria matrix, which have the same content as the evidence rejected in the ruling; consequently, it is indeed repetitive. Of the evidence provided, the only element not already in the case file at the time the brief of interest was submitted was report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010, which makes an assessment or evaluation of the general management of the entities related to the administration of the Las Baulas National Marine Park reserve, an element this Chamber considers, like the lower court, has no influence on the ruling, because it is an internal evaluation of activities carried out in the area; those aspects have no connection or link whatsoever with the procedure for determining the just price in question, making it appropriate to confirm what was ordered in that regard by the lower court. Now, regarding the Constitutional Chamber's ruling that was provided to the file as a new fact, indicating it is mandatory and consequently relevant in this matter, this Chamber first and foremost indicates that the state entity did not properly use the procedural forms regulated by Article 293 of the Civil Procedural Code, according to which, to offer evidence on a fact indicated as new, it must resort to the incidental procedure in the form and process established therein and not by a simple statement; this defective presentation allows the provided documentary to be rejected without further basis, but it is deemed prudent to evaluate it on its merits to clearly determine the reasons for its inadmissibility. The appellant indicated it was a new fact, and the state representation intends it to be held true that this judgment is erga omnes because it emanates from the Constitutional Chamber, providing the documentary in that sense; regarding such an assertion, it must be stated that, due to the type of process referred to in said judgment—Amparo Appeal (Recurso de Amparo)—its application is mandatory for the specific case for which it was issued, and for the administrative procedures of the involved entities that are \"future\" or \"subsequent\" to the issuance of said judgment; the application of this pronouncement in a general and mandatory manner cannot be intended, much less regarding reports issued prior to the invoked judgment. The claim is therefore inappropriate, and consequently, the lower court's decision on the evidence and documents offered in the brief at folio four hundred eighty-five must be upheld; for the reasons argued herein, the appealed judgment must be confirmed in that aspect.\n\nV. ON THE INCONGRUENCE DUE TO INADEQUATE VALUATION OR ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE. The appealed ruling proceeds to establish a comparative analysis of the expert reports and the administrative appraisal to find deficiencies in the one conducted administratively and to determine whether the admission of the expropriation proceeding in question is appropriate or not. The Judge, in the Fourth Considering, begins with a brief description of each of the appraisals and expert reports rendered, highlighting the relevant points of each. In this Considering, it is observed that the judicial expert reports had their information sources based on nearby areas such as Tamarindo and Flamingo, and clearly and precisely, the lower court proceeds to highlight the weaknesses it observes in each, specifying that the expropriated land is a property with characteristics of conservation and protection of existing species and ecosystem, and also has limitations and restrictions that mean its valuation cannot be considered as conducted in accordance with other properties unless they possess the same characteristics. As a product of the review reports and the administrative appraisal, the Judge establishes the limits of his valuation and orders the State to pay the compensatory difference arising between the administrative appraisal and what was set, as well as the payment of interest and personal costs, indicating that he sets the just price considering the limitations that the property has regarding its own conditions and given the fact that the State itself, for a lot with similar characteristics, adjacent to the one in question in the year two thousand eight, according to the documentary evidence on folios 239 to 247 of the file, averaged a sum of approximately two hundred thousand colones per square meter; he establishes the value or just price per square meter in the case at hand at two hundred thousand colones per square meter. This determination, having assessed the grievances of the appellant, does not present incongruence for this Chamber, because the judgment clearly assesses the evidence in the file and establishes one by one the value of the documentary elements it considers for issuing the ruling; stating as it does \"that the evidence provided does not have the power to fix the price per se,\" and then using that evidence to establish the just price is not contradictory, because it is not possible, by the mere fact of presenting an appraisal of another property as evidence, to fix the price in an equal amount with that single element; an analysis and assessment of conditions must be carried out. The lower court states through its assessment that, by itself, the evidence provided is not sufficient to impose the elements set forth in it onto the case at hand, because that piece of evidence does not directly analyze the lot of interest, but a similar one; it is through the Judge's internal assessment, set forth in the judgment, that this documentary evidence becomes support or a basis for making a jurisdictional decision, and as such—as a supporting element—it allows the Judge to fix a criterion; hence, this Chamber does not find a lack of congruence; on the contrary, it considers that by using the evidence, adequate use is made of the instruments placed at the Judge's disposal to provide a comprehensive solution to the element being assessed; the lower court supports its decision on documentary evidence that allows it to expound its decision. It is important for this Chamber to highlight that the institution of expropriation (expropiación), which is not denied its restrictive or limiting character of the right to property, finds its justification in the supreme need that makes the right to property give way to social interest or public utility (utilidad pública), filing down or at least attempting to file down any conflict of interests. Public utility has as its object the realization of the common good, and therefore carries with it the idea of expropriation, which—being compulsory—can only take place under the direct intervention of the State, where what belongs to each is respected, since this power of classification cannot be understood as unlimited. The concept of public utility is determined by its two elements: material necessity and the aspiration of the social body, which, related to the protection of legality, yield a practical fact that entails what brings advantages to the State, the enjoyment of which belongs to the social body; thus, every citizen will contribute, to their part, to the public utility according to their strength, talents, and age, and their duties will be regulated according to distributive laws. The individual must bear the sacrifice of their property, given that, upon passing to the state coffers, the individual is also benefited as a member of the community (by having their property serve to satisfy a need of general interest), a sufficient reason not to refuse the expropriation after valuation of the expropriated object. For such purposes, the value of the property must be considered a sum that represents a just compensation, which is what is intended to be set in this matter; in this sense, legal scholars have attempted to establish parameters to determine a just price. For Nombre33034, it is only achieved through the judicial route, the only place where such \"justice\" would be verified in each case, and he understands it as the replacement value (valor de sustitución) of the expropriated thing, sufficient to acquire another analogous property, from which one is deprived through expropriation. Others refer to the just price as an element that acts as a determining factor of the objective value of the expropriated property, that is, the current price in commerce, i.e., the just price must coincide with the true economic value of the expropriated goods, in order to provide sufficient money to obtain the adequate substitution of such goods. Nombre32650, an Argentine scholar, considers that the just value assumes that the expropriated party must receive a value equivalent to that of which they are deprived, in a current and comprehensive manner. This value must represent a sum in cash or in reasonably equivalent terms, for which the owner of the property, willing to sell but not obligated to do so, would have sold their property to a buyer willing to do so, but not obligated. As observed, the concept of the just price seeks to find a balance where the expropriated party will not be harmed by diminishing their real estate assets, nor will it constitute a source of profit in their favor, with the consequent harm to the expropriating entity, which is only achieved with the wise combination of equity and justice principles, such that the just price, always a discretionary concept and status, must refer in the expropriation trial to what the property is worth in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, according to the values and other elements of conviction gathered in the file. The compensation to be recognized in the expropriation process must be full; it must cover the \"market\" value (\"venal\") of the property in question. For this purpose, this concept is complemented by the principles of \"replacement value\" (\"valor de reposición\"), \"area values\" (\"valores de zona\"), \"depreciation\", and it is based on these principles and the positive and negative factors affecting the expropriated property, through technical instruments, that the determination of the just unit price is reached. For this end, the Judges use external assistants who, through expertise, issue reports in sciences that are foreign to them, that are beyond their own knowledge but not unknown to them, in accordance with the formal requirements that the law demands for conducting the expert appraisal, taking into account factors such as the state and current use of existing constructions, land conditions –as referred to in Article 22–; the fixation of the property's value as of the date of its report –Article 24–, which the law also obligates the judicial expert –Article 36–, all of these norms from the Expropriations Law (Ley de Expropiaciones), leaving open the possibility that when applying the rules of sound rational criticism, the judge finds it necessary to depart from the expert opinions, when the expert reports rendered contravene the legal form by being silent, unclear, or erroneous. When assessing that just price, Article 22 of the Expropriations Law recognizes only real and permanent damages, but not future facts, expectations of rights, or surplus values (plusvalías) derived from the project that originated the expropriation; necessary improvements introduced after the declaration of public interest will be considered, thus allowing the administrative appraisal not only to be reviewable by the expert or experts appointed in judicial proceedings, but also allowing them to update it, under the scopes and limits contained in numeral 36 of the law in question, and as long as they do not take into account to fix the compensation amount the future facts, expectations of rights, or surplus values derived from the expropriation. Under these elements, this Chamber agrees with the lower court's assessments that compel it to depart from the expert reports rendered in the file, because effectively, none of them allows for a certain and full determination that the characteristics of the property subject to expropriation were adequately valued; the omissions pointed out by the lower court regarding each of the expert reports make it impossible to use such valuations for the determination of the just price in this case and, given that \"all expert reports are only a recommendation to the Judge,\" the final determination, which is always part of the jurisdictional activity, will be issued departing from the existing expert forms, but always with proper reasoning, since none of the assessments set forth in the file can be considered complete, and the reasons for determining the final price must be clearly stated. In this case, the Judge's prudence, based on sound rational criticism, has allowed him to define the just price; doing so by using the administrative appraisals incorporated into the file as additional evidence, and taking into account all documentary evidence existing in the process. In this sense, this Chamber validates the lower court's assessment that the expert reports rendered contain a series of inconsistencies and defects that prevent them from being considered as a basis for setting the just price, meaning they can only be considered as a reference for the maximum price to grant, and it is the evidence provided as complementary that facilitates the Judge the possibility of specifying the sum at which the value of this property is estimated.\n\nVI. The lower court, in this case, to set the value of the property, proceeds by using a documentary incorporated into the file, establishes a value approximate to that determined for another property as a parameter, and obtains the values from appraisal AA-69-2008 as the basis for its decision. According to said appraisal, for land or property 5-042789-000, located in the Playa Grande zone, number 43, section A, which has a measurement of 864.16 square meters, the value per square meter is set at one hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred colones, with said documentary highlighting that this property has a location, accesses, services, and adjacent public street under the same conditions as the property in question; both belong to the Las Baulas National Marine Park. The lower court, using said documentary, sets the price at a sum similar to that described in said expert report; this determination is thus a discretionary amount, departing from the three reports rendered, which finds its basis in Article 40 of the Expropriations Law and falls within the range set by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal. Although the appealed judgment, for the fixation of the just price in the sum determined by the lower court, does not set forth greater reasoning on why it sets an approximate value, the information stated regarding its final decision—the appraisal provided as evidence—is indeed sufficient, because by using that evidentiary instrument, it has the variables of land use, hydrology, and other elements already assessed in that previously expropriated land, so this Chamber does not find the existence of any defect that warrants the revocation of the appealed judgment.\n\nVII. ON THE SETTING OF THE JUST PRICE (JUSTIPRECIO). The State representative requests that the instance ruling be revoked and the price be set at that established by the administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006. This petition must be rejected because it has been indicated that said expert report cannot be taken as true for purposes of setting the just price, as it is superficial and silent in investigating the market values conducted.\n\nAs the lower court rightly notes, that expert report: lacks reference to the calculation memoranda, the procedure used to calculate the unit value of the land; there is no basis or justification for the amount of the unit value; no demonstration of the investigation conducted or reference to the consultations made is shown; it lacks an indication of the characteristics of the compared properties, nor is documentary evidence provided to verify the criteria and valuations of the experts who are stated to have been consulted regarding the market price in the geographical area of interest; omissions that make it impossible to accept as true the price estimated in that expert report as the value of the real estate to be expropriated. Thus, in an effort to find the just compensation (justiprecio), the arguments of the plaintiff are evaluated, given that the allegation of the State representation, according to which the appraisals (avalúos) carried out by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas in 2008 were defective, because they pertain to the same expropriation project in the Las Baulas Marine National Park, is not admissible. It must be borne in mind, as this Court has repeatedly held, \"the fact that there is an administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) from which the expropriated party dissents, does not imply that it is poorly prepared, or that, with the mere intention of benefiting itself, the Administration adopted the lowest possible price. On the contrary, the discrepancy in criteria constitutes only an indication to review it, and within this connotation and under a scheme of logical judgment, everything seems to establish that said original valuation indicates a minimal value such that it can constitute a restitution value and, therefore, a just price. The determination of the amount to be compensated is far from being an exact science, such that the rules of technique, logic, or reason are contravened; rather, it is a multifactorial and consequently complex phenomenon. Hence, one must seek to integrate the greatest number of objective elements (and even eventually subjective ones) to generate a compensation price that seeks to reduce the risk of error.\" (Administrative Contentious Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo). First Section. Vote No. 611-2010-I of thirteen hours fifteen minutes of December twenty-third, two thousand ten). To determine the just compensation (justiprecio) of the property in question, this Chamber must have in view all the evidence provided by the plaintiff to the case file that was admitted, given that in the evaluation of such evidence, an adequate study of the general conditions of the real estate to be expropriated is neither found nor discovered; in the studies—non-expert—that appear in the case file, general analyses of the area are made that include observations regarding costs and material limitations in the area due to the natural burdens on the property—aquifer mantle (manto acuífero), reserve zone, access by enclave—; however, a specific study, which assesses and develops an adequate economic determination considering all the necessary legal elements to determine the just price of that real estate, has not been provided to the case file; all the documents provided suffer from generality or lack of specificity, which prevents their use. As a consequence, the Judge must, before the unavoidable fact that the expropriated real estate and other neighboring properties, because they are circumscribed and incorporated within the declaration of the Las Baulas Marine National Park, created on July 10, 1995, through Law No. 7524, have land-use limitations, analyze the expert reports (pericias) conducted, given that none of them can be the option for the just compensation (justiprecio) to be issued since they do not take into account all of those elements; it is also considered that the results of the Econometric Study and the Final Report of Economic Considerations on the Value of Expropriable Lands in the Las Baulas Marine National Park, rendered in the month of March 2008 (folios 343 to 375) and the land-use matrixes provided, also do not allow for an adequate valuation of the price, as they do not reflect the reality of the value trend in the area where the real estate subject to expropriation is located and do not constitute a reasonable parameter of values, having been rendered as an internal institutional report that does not individually identify the real estate under study nor take into account the characteristics of each property, but rather, on the contrary, averages the existing situations. Consequently, the rules of sound criticism order that all the documentary evidence be analyzed as a reference, and this Section concludes that, since the alternative proposed by the expropriating party for setting the just compensation (justiprecio) using the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) is inadmissible due to the lack of elements therein, the evidence provided up to this moment must be evaluated to determine if the amount set by the lower court is unjust; under this analysis, this Chamber considers that the appropriate course is to confirm the judgment of the first instance in that it determined a value of ₡200,000 per square meter, because the evidence in the case file does not reveal that this amount is unjust or inadequate and, on the contrary, the precedents set by the State, with the payment of expropriation through another appraisal (avalúo) on an adjacent property belonging to the expropriated party and which also belonged to her, allow the sum set to be considered adequate; it is certain that the lower court's determination falls within the parameters of the expert reports (peritajes) rendered in the proceedings, and this Chamber also considers that the sum fixed corresponds to a setting in accordance with similar valuations for real estate located in the Las Baulas Marine Park, which, with similar characteristics to the expropriated property, have been granted in other judicial processes—precedents—; likewise, it is in accordance with the subsequent valuations given by the State to other properties, according to appraisals (avalúos) carried out by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself in 2008. The just compensation (justiprecio) in an expropriation process must refer to the value of the real estate in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, for which, the criterion provided by the Tax Administration itself in the valuations (valoraciones) conducted on the neighboring and own properties of the area covered by the Las Baulas Marine National Park Project is therefore extremely important. For this reason, the use of the appraisal (avalúo) that appears from folio two hundred thirty-nine onwards as a probative basis for estimating an amount for the property in question is an appropriate action, since procedurally, the Judge, in pursuit of making a fairer estimate, makes use of the instruments brought to his knowledge through that document, and with attention to it, imposed the amount. This Chamber considers that this Administrative Appraisal (Avalúo Administrativo), which was prepared by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself two years after the Administrative Appraisal (Avalúo Administrativo) in question was carried out, conducted on land located in the same zone as the expropriated real estate, which, comparing the content of folio seventy-one bis, has the same conditions as the one in question, and being, as stated in the same folio, \"adjacent,\" the characteristics, limitations, and restrictions that encumber them in the valuation already paid by the State are considered; this allows establishing that, in relation to such appraisal (avalúo), the real estate in question is under identical conditions, and since there is no evidence that clearly and precisely indicates the contrary, the most prudent course is to impose as the sum of just compensation (justiprecio) that set by the lower court in light of such evidence, since the value per square meter set by the lower court (Ad-quo) in the appealed judgment falls within the minimum and maximum parameters of the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) and\n\nthe expert opinions (dictámenes periciales) rendered in this venue, which are the legal requirements limiting the Judge's discretion in cases such as the one in question. By reason of the foregoing, and attending to the specific and exclusive purpose—determination of the just compensation (justiprecio)—pursued by these proceedings, the grievances formulated by the party are dismissed for the reasons indicated in this judgment, and consequently, what was established by the lower court in the appealed judgment is upheld.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe evidence proposed for a better provision is rejected. The appealed judgment is confirmed for the reasons set forth by this Court.\n\nALINNE SOLANO RAMÍREZ\n\nNombre126531 Nombre126532 Nombre8503\n\nRequests that the appealed judgment be revoked and that the just price (justiprecio) of the property be set at the amount granted in administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006.\n\n**III ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL**: Having filed this appeal in accordance with the foregoing, there are two elements to assess; the first is the rejection of the evidence offered by the appellant and found at folios 485 to 556 (Constitutional Chamber ruling (voto) 2012-8892, aquifer vulnerability map, land-use criteria matrix, and official communication DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 from the CGR) and the second, the existence of inconsistency due to inadequate valuation or assessment of the evidence. The analysis of these elements proceeds separately.\n\n**IV ON THE REJECTION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.** The State representative provides at folio 485 and following a brief in which said representation stated that it was bringing to the attention of the lower court (A quo) \"a new and relevant fact\" and, regarding the hearing granted by resolution of nine hours ten minutes on March eight, two thousand thirteen, provided a copy of the report on the evaluation of the management of the Sistema Nacional de áreas de Conservación and the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, the report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 prepared by the División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa of the Contraloría General de la República and a certified copy of the vulnerability map of the Acuífero Huacas-Tamarindo and the criteria matrix for land use according to aquifer contamination vulnerability, together with report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010. Regarding the new facts and evidence provided in said brief, the appellant claims that this was not evidence for better resolution (prueba para mejor resolver) but rather counter-evidence (contra prueba), and that in the case of the documented judgment, because it emanates from the Constitutional Chamber, it is documentary evidence that must be applied to the specific case as it involves mandatory provisions. In light of this assessment by the appellant, it is appropriate to evaluate the contribution of the rejected evidence, characterized as evidence for better resolution: Civil procedural legislation, applicable supplementarily in cases such as the one at hand, establishes the possibility of constituting evidence at various procedural moments; at the beginning of the procedural participation using so-called \"ordinary evidence,\" or evidence for the defense of rights; also through \"counter-evidence\" which consists of that which challenges the evidence provided by the opposing party when a hearing has been granted regarding it; the so-called untimely evidence, which is entirely new or becomes known to the party after the filing of the complaint or response, and which is introduced into the process through an incidental proceeding to declare its admissibility; and finally, evidence for better resolution which is provided so that the judge, if deemed appropriate, may receive it to facilitate the procedural solution, but which, due to this characteristic, is a power of the Judge to accept or not. In the case at hand, this Chamber of the court considers that the evidence offered by the State entity in its brief at folio 485 does not constitute \"evidence for better resolution,\" except for the documentary evidence related to the Constitutional Chamber ruling (voto); it is counter-evidence and must be assessed by the Judge in light of that procedural condition, taking into account its timeliness, relevance, appropriateness, and procedural necessity. This Chamber considers that, even though the lower court deemed this evidence as offered for better resolution, the process is not affected in any way because an assessment was made regarding its relevance, appropriateness, and necessity, criteria set forth which this panel of the Court shares for its rejection. The Judge indicates in the judgment regarding these pieces of evidence that the evidence is repetitive and has no influence on the decision, and the Judge is correct in such assessments, because at the time of asserting rights regarding the final expert report, as recorded at folio 323, official communications DIGH-038-09 and ASUB-043-2009 were provided, along with vulnerability maps and the usage criteria matrix, which have the same contents as the evidence rejected in the judgment; consequently, it is indeed repetitive. Of the evidence provided, the only element that was not in the case file at the time the brief of interest was provided was report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010, which provides an assessment or evaluation of the general management of the entities related to the administration of the Parque Nacional Marino las Baulas reserve, an element this Chamber considers, as did the lower court, has no influence on the decision, as it is an internal evaluation of activities deployed in the area; those aspects have no connection or any link whatsoever with the management of determining the just price (justiprecio) at hand, making it appropriate to confirm what was ordered in that regard by the lower court. Now, regarding the Constitutional Chamber judgment that was provided to the case record as a new fact, indicating its mandatory application and therefore its relevance in this matter, this Chamber must state, in the first place, that appropriate use is not made of the procedural forms regulated by Article 293 of the Código Procesal Civil, according to which the State entity, in order to offer evidence of a fact indicated as new, must resort to the incidental proceeding in the form and procedure established therein and not by a simple statement; this defective contribution allows the rejection of the contributed documentary evidence without further grounds, but it is deemed prudent to assess it on its merits to clearly determine the reasons for its inadmissibility. The appellant has indicated that this is a new fact, and the State representation seeks to have it taken as true that this judgment has erga omnes effect because it emanates from the Constitutional Chamber, providing the documentary evidence to that effect. Regarding such an assertion, it must be indicated that due to the type of process referenced in said judgment —Recurso de Amparo— its application is mandatory for the specific case for which it was issued, and for the administrative procedures of the involved entities that are \"future\" or \"subsequent\" to the issuance of said judgment. The general and mandatory application of said pronouncement cannot be intended, much less regarding reports issued prior to the judgment being invoked. The claim is therefore inadmissible, and consequently, the lower court's decision on the evidence and documentary evidence offered in the brief at folio four hundred eighty-five must be upheld, and for the reasons set forth herein, the appealed judgment must be confirmed in that respect.\n\n**V. ON THE INCONSISTENCY DUE TO INADEQUATE VALUATION OR ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE.** The appealed decision proceeds to establish a comparative analysis of the expert reports and the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) in order to find deficiencies in the one carried out administratively and to determine the appropriateness or not of admitting the expropriation action at hand. The Judge, in the Fourth Considerando (Considerando Cuarto), begins with a brief description of each of the appraisals and expert reports rendered, highlighting the relevant points of each one. In this Considerando, it is observed that the judicial expert reports had their information sources based on nearby areas such as Tamarindo and Flamingo, and clearly and precisely, the lower court proceeds to highlight the weaknesses it observes in each of them, specifying that the land being expropriated is a property with characteristics of conservation and protection of species and the existing ecosystem, in addition to having limitations and restrictions meaning its valuation cannot be considered as conducted in accordance with other properties unless they possess the same characteristics. The Judge establishes, as a product of the review reports and the administrative appraisal, the limits of their valuation and orders the State to pay the compensatory difference arising between the administrative appraisal and the amount determined, as well as the payment of interest and personal costs, indicating that the just price (justiprecio) is fixed taking into account the limitations the property has regarding its own conditions and in view of the fact that the State itself averaged an amount of approximately two hundred thousand colones per square meter for a lot with similar characteristics, adjacent to the one at hand, in the year two thousand eight, according to the documentary evidence at folios 239 to 247 of the case file, it establishes the value or just price (justiprecio) of the square meter in the case at hand at two hundred thousand colones per square meter. This determination, having assessed the grievances of the appellant, in this Chamber's view does not present inconsistency, because the judgment clearly assesses the evidence in the record and, one by one, establishes the value of the documentary elements it considers for issuing the decision. To state, as it does, that \"the evidence provided does not have the power to set per se the price,\" and then to use that evidence to establish the just price (justiprecio) is not contradictory, because it is not possible, by the mere fact of presenting an appraisal of another property as evidence, to set the price at an equal amount with that sole element; an analysis and assessment of conditions must be carried out. The lower court explains through its assessment that, on its own, the evidence provided is not sufficient to impose the elements set forth therein on the case at hand, because that evidence does not directly analyze the lot of interest, but a similar one. It is through the Judge's internal assessment, set forth in the judgment, that this documentary evidence constitutes support or a basis for making a jurisdictional decision, and as such —as a supporting element— it allows the Judge to establish a criterion. Hence, this Chamber finds no lack of consistency; on the contrary, it is considered that by using the evidence, appropriate use is made of the instruments brought to the Judge's attention to provide a comprehensive solution to the element being assessed; the lower court supports its decision with documentary evidence that allows it to set forth its decision. It is important for this Chamber to emphasize that the institution of expropriation, the restrictive or limiting character of property rights not being denied, finds its justification in the supreme necessity that causes property rights to yield to social interest or public utility, smoothing over, or at least attempting to smooth over, any conflict of interests. Public utility aims at the realization of the common good, and therefore carries with it the idea of expropriation, which —being compulsory— can only take place under the direct intervention of the State, where what belongs to each is respected, as such an attribution of qualification cannot be understood in an unlimited manner. The concept of public utility is determined by its two elements: material necessity and the aspiration of the social body, which, related under the protection of legality, result in a practical fact that entails what brings advantages to the State, whose enjoyment belongs to the social body. Thus, every citizen shall contribute on their part to public utility according to their strength, talents, and age, and their duties shall be regulated according to distributive laws. The individual must bear the sacrifice of their property, because when it passes to the State coffers, the individual also benefits as a member of the community (by their property serving to satisfy a need of general interest), sufficient reason not to refuse expropriation after prior valuation of the expropriated object. For such purposes, the value of the property must be considered a sum that results in *a just compensation* (una justa compensación), which is what is sought to be determined in this matter. In that sense, doctrine has attempted to establish the parameters to follow in determining a just price; for Nombre33034, it is achieved only through the judicial route, the only place where such \"justice\" would be verified in each case, and he understands it as *the replacement value of the expropriated thing, sufficient to acquire another analogous property, of which one is deprived by expropriation* (el valor de sustitución de la cosa expropiada, suficiente para adquirir otro bien análogo, al que por expropiación se priva). Others refer to the just price (justiprecio) as an element that acts as a determining factor of the objective value of the expropriated property, that is, the current price in commerce, that is, *the just price must coincide with the true economic value of the expropriated property, in order to provide sufficient money to obtain the adequate replacement of such property* (el justiprecio ha de coincidir con el verdadero valor económico de los bienes expropiados, con objeto de proveer de dinero suficiente para obtener la adecuada sustitución de tales bienes). Nombre32650, an Argentine legal scholar, considers that the just value assumes that *the expropriated party must receive a value equivalent to that of which they are deprived, in a current and comprehensive manner* (el expropiado debe recibir un valor equivalente a aquél del cual se lo priva, de modo actual e integral). Said value must represent a sum in cash, or in reasonably equivalent terms, for which the owner of the property, willing to sell but not obliged to do so, would have sold their property to a buyer willing to do so, but not obliged to do so. *As can be observed, the concept of just price seeks to find the balance where the expropriated party will not be harmed by deteriorating their real estate assets, nor will it constitute a source of profit in their favor, with the consequent detriment to the expropriating entity, which is only achieved through the wise combination of the principles of equity and justice, in such a way that the just price, always discretionary in conception and standing, must refer in the expropriation proceeding to what the property is worth in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, according to the values and other elements of conviction gathered in the record* (Como se observa, el concepto de justiprecio, lo que pretende es buscar el equilibrio donde no vaya a resultar perjudicado el expropiado al desmejorar su patrimonio inmobiliario ni tampoco, constituirse en una fuente de ganancias a su favor, con el consecuente perjuicio al ente expropiante, lo que solo se alcanza con la sabía combinación de los principios de equidad y justicia, de tal manera que el justiprecio, siempre de concepción y estamento discrecional, debe referirse en el juicio de expropiación a lo que el inmueble vale en el estado y forma de explotación en que es tomado por el expropiador, según los valores y otros elementos de convicción concentrados en los autos). The compensation to be recognized in the expropriation proceeding must be plenary; it must cover the \"market\" (venal) value of the property in question. For this purpose, this concept is complemented by the principles of \"replacement value\" (valor de reposición), \"zoning values\" (valores de zona), and \"depreciation\" (depreciación), and it is based on these principles and on the positive and negative factors that affect the expropriated property, through technical instruments, that the determination of the just unit price is reached. To this end, Judges make use of external assistants who, through expertise, issue opinions in sciences that are foreign to them, that are improper to them but not unknown, according to the formal requirements that the law demands for conducting the expert appraisal (avalúo pericial), taking into account factors such as the state and current use of the existing constructions, terrain conditions – as referred to by Article 22 -; fixing the value of the property as of the date of its opinion -Article 24-, which also the law obligates the judicial expert to do -Article 36-, all rules from the Ley de Expropiaciones, leaving open the possibility that when applying the rules of sound rational criticism, it may be necessary for the judge to depart from the expert reports, in the face of expert reports rendered that contravene the legal form by being incomplete, obscure, or erratic. At the time of assessing that just price (justiprecio), Article 22 of the Ley de Expropiaciones recognizes only real and permanent damages, but not future events or expectations of rights, or capital gains derived from the project that originated the expropriation; necessary improvements introduced after the declaration of public interest will be considered, thus allowing the administrative appraisal to not only be reviewable by the expert or experts appointed in the judicial venue, but also allowing them to update it, under the scope and limits contained in numeral 36 of the law at hand, and provided they do not take into account future events, expectations of rights, or capital gains derived from the expropriation to fix the amount of compensation. Under these elements, this Chamber agrees with the lower court's assessments that require it to depart from the expert reports rendered in the record, because effectively, none of them allows for a certain and full determination that the characteristics of the property subject to expropriation were adequately assessed; the omissions pointed out by the lower court regarding each of the expert reports make the use of said valuations impossible for the determination of the just price (justiprecio) in this case, and given that \"*every expert report is merely a recommendation to the Judge*\" (\"*todo peritaje es solamente una recomendación hacia el Juzgador*\"), the final determination, which is always part of the jurisdictional activity, shall be issued departing from the existing expert forms, but always with due justification, since none of the valuations set forth in the record can be considered complete, and the reasons for the determination of the final price must be clearly stated. In this case, the Judge's prudence, based on sound criticism, has allowed them to define the just price (justiprecio), doing so by making use of the administrative appraisals incorporated into the record as additional evidence, and taking into account all the documentary evidence existing in the process. In this sense, this Chamber validates the lower court's assessment that the expert reports rendered contain a series of inconsistencies and defects that prevent them from being considered as a basis for setting the just price (justiprecio), given that they can only be considered as a reference for the maximum price to be granted, and it is the evidence provided as complementary that provides the Judge with the possibility of specifying the sum at which the value of this property is estimated.\n\n**VI** The lower court, in this case, to set the value of the property, proceeds by making use of documentary evidence provided to the record, establishing as a parameter an approximate value determined for another property, and obtains the values from appraisal AA-69-2008 as the basis for its decision. According to this appraisal, for the land or property 5-042789-000, located in the Playa Grande area, number 43 section A, which measures 864.16 square meters, the value per square meter is fixed at one hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred colones, with said documentary evidence highlighting that this property has location, access, services, and adjacency to a public street under the same conditions as the property at hand; both belong to the Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas. The lower court, making use of said documentary evidence, fixes the price at a sum similar to that described in that expert report; this determination is therefore a discretionary amount, separate from the three reports rendered, which finds its basis in Article 40 of the Ley de Expropiaciones and falls within the range set by the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Although in the judgment under appeal, for the determination of the just price (justiprecio) at the sum determined by the lower court, no major grounds are set forth as to why it fixes an approximate value, the information stated regarding its final decision —the appraisal provided as evidence— is indeed sufficient because by using that evidentiary instrument, it has the variables of land use, hydrology, and other elements already assessed in that already expropriated land. Therefore, this Chamber finds no evidence of any defect that would warrant the revocation of the judgment under appeal.\n\n**VII. ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE JUST PRICE**. The State representative requests that the lower court’s decision be revoked and that the price be set at that established by administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006. This request must be rejected, as it has been indicated that said expert report cannot be taken as true for the purpose of setting the just price (justiprecio) because it is superficial and incomplete in the investigation of market values carried out. As the lower court rightly points out, that expert report: lacks reference to the calculation notes, the procedure used to calculate the unit value of the land, there is no basis or justification for the unit value amount, the performance of the investigation is not demonstrated, nor is the reference to the consultations made; it lacks an indication of the characteristics of the compared properties, nor is documentary evidence provided to verify the criteria and values of the experts who are indicated as having been consulted about the market price in the geographical area of interest, omissions that make it impossible to take as true the price estimated in that expert report as the value of the property to be expropriated. Thus, in the interest of finding the just price (justiprecio), the plaintiff's arguments are assessed, considering that the State representation's allegation that the appraisals carried out by the Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas in 2008 were defective, because they belong to the same expropriation project in the Parque Marino Las Baulas, is not acceptable. It must be kept in mind, as this Court has repeatedly held, \"*the fact that an administrative appraisal exists from which the expropriated party dissents does not imply that it is poorly prepared, or that the Administration, with the mere intention of benefiting itself, adopted the lowest possible price. On the contrary, the discrepancy of opinion constitutes only an indication to review the same, and within this connotation and under a scheme of logical judgment, everything seems to establish that that original valuation indicates a value too low to constitute a replacement value and, therefore, a just price*\" (\"*el hecho de que exista un avalúo administrativo del que disiente la parte expropiada, no implica que esté mal confeccionado, o que con el mero ánimo de beneficiarse la Administración, adoptó el menor precio posible. Por el contrario, la discrepancia del criterio constituye tan sólo un indicativo para revisar el mismo, y dentro de esta connotación y bajo un esquema de juicio lógico, todo parece establecer que aquélla valoración primigenia indica un valor ínfimo para que pueda constituirse como un valor de restitución y por ende, como un justo precio.*\")\n\n\"Setting the amount to be indemnified is far from an exact science, such that the rules of technique, logic, or reason would be breached; rather, it is a multifactorial and consequently complex phenomenon. Thus, one must seek to integrate the greatest number of objective elements (and even eventually subjective ones) to produce an indemnification price that seeks to reduce the risk of error.\" (Administrative Litigation Court. First Section. Voto Nº 611-2010-I of thirteen hours fifteen minutes of December twenty-third, two thousand ten). To determine the just price of the property in question, this Chamber must take into account all the evidence provided by the plaintiff to the record and that was admitted, given that in the assessment of said evidence, an adequate study of the general conditions of the property to be expropriated is neither found nor discovered; in the studies—non-expert—that appear in the record, general analyses of the area are made that contain observations regarding costs and material limitations in the area due to the natural burdens on the property—aquifer mantle (manto acuífero), reserve zone (zona de reserva), access by enclave (acceso por enclave); however, a specific study is not provided to the record, one that evaluates and develops an adequate economic determination considering all the legal elements necessary to determine the just price that this property has; all the documents provided suffer from generality or lack of specificity, which prevents their use. As a consequence, the Adjudicator must, given the unavoidable fact that the expropriated property and other neighboring properties, being circumscribed and incorporated within the declaration of the Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, created on July 10, 1995, by Ley Nº 7524, have limitations on land use (uso de suelo), analyze the expert reports conducted, given that none of them can be the option for the just price to be issued because they do not take into account all of those elements; it is also considered that the results of the Econometric Study and the Final Report of Economic Considerations on the Value of Expropriable Lands in the Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, rendered in the month of March 2008 (folios 343 to 375) and the land-use matrices provided, also do not allow an adequate valuation of the price given, as they do not reflect the reality of the trend of values in the area where the property subject to expropriation is located and do not constitute a reasonable parameter of values, since they were rendered as an internal institutional report that does not individually identify the properties under study nor take into account the characteristics of each property, but rather, on the contrary, averages the existing situations. Consequently, the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica) order that all the documentary evidence be analyzed as a reference, and this Section concludes that, since the alternative proposed by the expropriating party for the purpose of setting the just price with the administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) is inadmissible due to the lack of elements therein, the evidence provided up to this point must be assessed to determine whether the amount set by the lower court (A quo) is unjust; under such analysis, this chamber considers that the appropriate course is to confirm the lower court's judgment in that it determined a value of ¢200,000 per square meter, because the evidence in the record does not reveal that this amount is unjust or inadequate, and on the contrary, the precedents set by the State, with the payment of expropriation through another appraisal on a farm adjacent to the property of the expropriated party and that also belonged to her, allow the sum fixed to be considered adequate; it is true that the lower court's determination falls within the parameters of the expert reports rendered in the record, and this Chamber also considers that the sum fixed corresponds to a determination consistent with similar valuations for properties located in the Parque Marino Las Baulas, which, with similar characteristics to the expropriated property, have been granted in other judicial proceedings—precedents; likewise, it is consistent with the subsequent valuations given by the State to other properties, according to appraisals carried out by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself in 2008. The just price in the expropriation proceeding must refer to the value of the property in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, for which, then, the criterion issued by the Tax Administration itself in the valuations carried out on the surrounding properties and properties specific to the area covered by the Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas Project is of utmost importance; for that reason, the use of the appraisal appearing at folio two hundred thirty-nine and following as an evidentiary basis to estimate an amount for the property in question is an appropriate action, since procedurally the Adjudicator, in order to make a fairer estimation, makes use of the instruments brought to his knowledge through that document, and with attention to it, he imposed the amount. This Chamber considers that this administrative appraisal that was prepared by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself two years after the execution of the administrative appraisal in question, carried out on a land located in the same area where the expropriated property is located, which, comparing the content of folio seventy-one bis, has the same conditions as the one in question, and as it is stated in the same folio, \"adjoining\", the characteristics, limitations, and restrictions that burden them are considered in the valuation already paid by the state; this allows establishing that in relation to such appraisal, the property in question is in identical conditions, and since there is no evidence that clearly and precisely indicates the contrary, the most prudent course is to impose as the sum of just price the one set by the lower court in light of such evidence, since the value per square meter set by the appellate court (Ad-quo) in the appealed judgment falls within the minimum and maximum parameters of the administrative appraisal and\n\nthe expert opinions rendered at this stage, which are the legal requirements limiting the Adjudicator's discretion in cases such as the one in question. By reason of the foregoing and attending to the specific and exclusive purpose—determination of the just price—that these proceedings pursue, the grievances formulated by the party are dismissed for the reasons indicated in this judgment and consequently, the decision established by the lower court in the challenged judgment is upheld.\n\nPOR TANTO (THEREFORE)\n\nThe evidentiary motion for better resolution is rejected. The appealed judgment is confirmed for the reasons set forth by this Court.\n\nALINNE SOLANO RAMÍREZ\n\nNombre126531 Nombre126532 Nombre8503 \n\n\"\n\nThe land to be expropriated according to plan Placa30046 amounts to 873.62 square meters and is located within the boundaries of the Las Baulas National Marine Park, so its acquisition is necessary to protect the nesting sites of the Baula turtle.\n\n2.- The expropriated party did not agree with the amount established in administrative appraisal (avalúo administrativo) No. 121-2006 of September 22, 2006, carried out within administrative file No. 127-2006.\n\n3.- Licenciado Pablo Zeledón Hernández, Judge of the Contentious Administrative Court, by means of ruling number 1084-2013, issued at eight hours ten minutes on June thirteenth, two thousand thirteen, ordered: \"THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing, the total compensation that the State must pay to the company ACHSE S.A. is set in the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND COLONES for the expropriation of a property owned by the latter, which is registered in the Public Property Registry under folio number Placa30047, located at Dirección15395, of the Province of Guanacaste, which is land for construction, measuring eight hundred seventy-three square meters and sixty-two square decimeters, plan Placa30048, Boundaries to the North with street with 20 meters, to the South with maritime terrestrial zone, East lot 41, West with lot 43. The State is ordered to pay legal interest on the difference between the amount established in the administrative appraisal and the compensation set in this judgment, from the entry into possession of the land and until effective payment of what is owed. The State is ordered to pay both costs of this action. The expropriated property shall be destined for the indicated public purpose and registered in the name of the State free of liens, limitations, and annotations; cancel the annotations of declaration of public interest citations 567-42369-001, writ of expropriation annotation citations 571-18813-001; liens of reserves and restrictions citations: 325-19328-01-0893-001 that weigh on the expropriated land. Once this judgment becomes final, the State Notary's Office is authorized to carry out the corresponding protocolization of documents. The National Registry is obligated to cancel all annotations, charges, and liens that weigh on the expropriated property, based on the deed of protocolization of documents, without the need for any other procedure. Notify.\"\n\n4.- Disagreeing with said ruling, the State's representation files an appeal, a motion that was admitted and by virtue of which the Court hears the case on appeal.\n\n5.- The appeal has been given the corresponding procedure and this resolution is issued, following rigorous deliberation by unanimity.\n\nJudge Solano Ramírez writes and,\n\nCONSIDERING\n\nI. PROVEN FACTS. The facts held as proven in the appealed judgment are endorsed and the following is added: 5) That by means of a brief visible at folio 485, the state representation, in response to a hearing ordered in a decree of 9 hours 10 minutes on March 8, two thousand thirteen, indicates: A.- NEW FACT OF RELEVANCE IN THIS MATTER (...)\" (folio 485); 6) That by official letter ASUB-043-2009, an intrinsic vulnerability to contamination map for the HUACAS TAMARINDO aquifer, Santa Cruz Guanacaste Costa Rica is sent (folio 333 to 341); 7) That through a final report on Economic considerations regarding the value of expropriable lands in the Las Baulas National Marine Park Playa Grande- Guanacaste, in March 2008 a general econometric model was established to determine the price of properties in the expropriation process of said area (folios 343 and following); 8) That by appraisal (avalúo) AA-69-2008, the General Directorate of Taxation of the Tax Administration of Puntarenas established a fair price for lot 43, which is adjacent to the property in question, in the sum of one hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred colones per square meter (see folios 370 and 376)\n\nII ON THE APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES: The state representation argues as grounds for its appeal: That some evidence offered as for better resolution was rejected, given that it should have been properly assessed; indicates that Constitutional Chamber Ruling No. 2012-8892, the aquifer vulnerability map, the land-use criterion matrix, and official letter DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic were of importance in this process, that the A-quo is wrong in its rejection because the Chamber ruling provided is binding erga omnes and therefore cannot technically be classified as evidence, that said judgment was issued in June 2012 and was notified until October of that year, being that in March 2013 this representation became aware of its content; states that it is also not true that said evidence is not of influence for the ruling because in its content it ordered Nombre29313, the Environmental Technical Secretariat and all municipalities that the matrix of land-use criteria according to aquifer contamination vulnerability for the protection of water resources in the Cañas Canton is mandatorily applicable in all cantons and areas where there are vulnerability maps approved or prepared by SENARA; thus, the aforementioned vote in its view grants validity to what is provided in official letter DIGH-038-09 from SENARA's Directorate of Hydric Investigation and official letter ASUB-043-2009 from the entity's Groundwater Area. Indicates that said vote is not untimely because it was provided after its notification, it is not repetitive because it is unique and provides regarding the validity of the Huacas Tamarindo Aquifer vulnerability map and the land-use matrix, furthermore, affirms that setting the price of a piece of land cannot be the same if the land is located in an area of extreme vulnerability compared to a piece of land located in an area of negligible or low vulnerability. Points out that the document consisting of the land-use matrix is also not repetitive because it comes to provide absolute clarity regarding the reference to documents \"DIGH.038-09\" and \"ASUB-043-2009\", respectively from the Directorate of Hydric Investigation and the Groundwater Area of SENARA, being that the influence of the documents in its view lies in the fact that the same value cannot be given to a piece of land located in an area of extreme vulnerability as to one in an area of low or negligible vulnerability, and the one provided shows the information in color that allows identifying the area affected by the vulnerability. As for the rejection of Report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 of February 26, 2010, from the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, it cannot be considered untimely or insignificant either because it is counter-evidence to the hearing of 9:08 hours on November 30, 2012, and March 8, 2013, related to appraisal AA-69-2008, that said evidence is important because it critiques the appraisals carried out by the Tax authority of Puntarenas that overvalued the lands by not taking into account factors of undeniable importance such as the water and land-use variable. In its view, the judgment must assess the described evidence as a whole and in accordance with the rules of sound rational criticism. Complains that the judgment is contradictory because it indicates that administrative appraisal AA-69-2008, found at folio 239 to 247, cannot be taken as evidence to determine per se the price per square meter for this process, being related to a different piece of land, and subsequently the A quo proceeds to use it as a basis to obtain the cited fair price, indicates that the foregoing makes the judgment incur in inconsistency. States that it is not mentioned that the value of administrative appraisal AA-69-2008 was remiss for not taking into account the water and land-use variable in valuing the property. Requests that the appealed judgment be revoked and that the fair price of the property be set at the one granted in administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006.\n\nIII ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL: Having raised this appeal in accordance with the foregoing, there are two elements to assess; the first of these is the rejection of the evidence offered by the appealing party and which appears at folios 485 to 556 (vote 2012-8892 of the Constitutional Chamber, aquifer vulnerability map, land-use criteria matrix, and official letter DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 from the CGR) and the second, the existence of inconsistency due to inadequate assessment or appreciation of the evidence. The analysis of these elements proceeds separately.\n\nIV ON THE REJECTION OF THE EVIDENCE IN FIRST INSTANCE. The state representative provided at folio 485 and following a brief in which said representation indicated that \"a new fact of relevance\" was being brought to the attention of the A quo and regarding the hearing granted by resolution of nine hours ten minutes on March eight, two thousand thirteen, provided a copy of the report on evaluation of the management of the National System of Conservation Areas and the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010 carried out by the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division of the Comptroller General of the Republic and a certified copy of the vulnerability map of the Huacas-Tamarindo Aquifer and the matrix of land-use criteria according to aquifer contamination vulnerability, together with report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010. Regarding the new facts and evidence provided in said brief, the appellant complains that it was not evidence for better resolution but rather counter-evidence, and that in the case of the documented judgment, because it emanates from the Constitutional Chamber, it is a documentary piece of evidence that must be applied to the specific case as it involves mandatory provisions. In light of this assessment by the appellant, it is appropriate to assess the provision of the evidence rejected as evidence for better resolution: Civil procedural legislation, applicable supplementarily in cases such as the one at hand, establishes the possibility of constituting evidence at various procedural moments; at the beginning of the procedural participation making use of the so-called \"ordinary evidence,\" or evidence of defense of rights\"; also through \"counter-evidence\" which is constituted by that which disputes the evidence provided by the opposing party when a hearing has been granted on it; the so-called untimely evidence, which is entirely new or which becomes known to the party after the date of filing the claim or response, and which is presented to the process through a procedural incident so that its admissibility is declared, and finally evidence for better resolution which is provided so that the judge, if deemed appropriate, receives it to facilitate the procedural solution, but which by that characteristic is a faculty of the Judge to accept or not. In the case at hand, this Chamber of the court considers that the evidence offered by the state entity in its brief at folio 485 does not constitute \"evidence for better resolution,\" except for the documentary evidence related to the vote of the Constitutional Chamber; it involves counter-evidence and must be assessed by the Judge in light of that procedural condition, taking into account its timeliness, relevance, origin, and procedural necessity. This Chamber considers that, despite the fact that the A quo considered that evidence as offered for better resolution, the process is in no way affected given that an assessment was made regarding its relevance, origin, and necessity, criteria expressed that this panel of the Court shares for its rejection. The Judge indicates regarding those pieces of evidence in the judgment, that the evidence is repetitive, and is not of influence for the ruling, the Judge being correct in such appreciations, since at the time of asserting the rights regarding the final expert report, as recorded at folio 323, official letters DIGH-038-09 and ASUB-043-2009 and vulnerability maps and matrix of use criteria were provided which have the same contents as the evidence rejected in the judgment, consequently, it does constitute repetitive evidence. Of the evidence provided, the only element that was not in the case file at the time of providing the brief of interest was report DFOE-PGAA-IF-3-2010, which makes an assessment or evaluation of the general management of the entities related to the administration of the Las Baulas National Marine Park reserve, an element that this Chamber considers, like the A quo, has no influence for the ruling, because it is an internal assessment of activities deployed in the area, these aspects have no connection or any nexus with the process of determining the fair price in question, it being appropriate to confirm what was ordered in that regard by the A quo. Now, regarding the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber that was provided to the case record as a new fact, indicating that it is mandatorily applicable and consequently of relevance in this matter, this Chamber must indicate, in the first place that proper use is not made of the procedural forms regulated by Article 293 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which the state entity, to offer evidence of a fact indicated as new, must resort to the procedural incident in the manner and procedure established therein and not by a simple statement; that defective provision allows the rejection without further basis of the documentary evidence provided, but it is considered prudent to assess it on the merits to clearly determine the reasons for its inadmissibility. The appellant has indicated that it involves a new fact, and the state representation intends to hold it as certain that this judgment is of an erga omnes nature because it emanates from the Constitutional Chamber, providing the documentary evidence in that sense; regarding such affirmation, it must be indicated that due to the type of process referred to in said judgment -Amparo Appeal-, its application is mandatory for the specific case for which it was issued, and for the administrative procedures of the involved entities that are \"future\" or \"subsequent\" to the issuance of said judgment; the application of said pronouncement in a general and mandatory manner cannot be intended, much less regarding reports issued prior to the judgment being invoked. The claim is therefore inappropriate and consequently, the decision of the A quo regarding the evidence and documentary evidence offered in the brief at folio four hundred eighty-five must be upheld, and for the reasons set forth herein, the appealed judgment must be confirmed in that aspect.\n\nV. ON THE INCONSISTENCY DUE TO INADEQUATE ASSESSMENT OR APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE. The appealed ruling proceeds to establish a comparative analysis of the expert reports and the administrative appraisal in order to find deficiencies in the one carried out administratively and determine the appropriateness or not of admitting the expropriation process in question. The Judge in Considering Clause Four begins with a brief description of each of the appraisals and expert reports rendered, highlighting the relevant points of each of them. In this Considering Clause, it is observed that the judicial expert reports had their information sources based on nearby areas such as Tamarindo and Flamingo, and clearly and precisely the A quo proceeds to highlight the weaknesses observed regarding each of them, specifying that the land being expropriated is a property with characteristics of conservation and protection of species and of the existing ecosystem, in addition to having limitations and restrictions that mean its valuation cannot be considered as carried out in accordance with other properties unless they possess the same characteristics. The Judge establishes, as a product of the review reports and the administrative appraisal, the limits of their valuation and orders the State to pay the compensatory difference arising between the administrative appraisal and that which was set, as well as the payment of interest and personal costs, indicating that he sets the fair price taking into account the limitations that the property has regarding its own conditions and in light of the fact that the State itself averaged for a lot with similar characteristics, adjacent to the one in question, in the year two thousand eight, as shown by the documentary evidence at folios 239 to 247 of the case file, a sum approximating two hundred thousand colones per square meter, he sets the value or fair price per square meter in the case in question at two hundred thousand colones per square meter. That determination, having assessed the grievances of the appealing party, for this Chamber does not present inconsistency, because the judgment clearly assesses the evidence in the case record, and one by one establishes the value of the documentary elements it considers for the issuance of the ruling; to indicate as it does \"that the evidence provided does not have the faculty to set per se the price,\" and then use that evidence to establish the fair price is not contradictory, because it is not possible, by the mere fact of presenting an appraisal of another property as evidence, to set the price at an equal amount with that single element; an analysis and assessment of conditions must be carried out; the A quo explains with its appreciation that on its own, the evidence provided is not sufficient to impose the elements set forth in it on the case in question, because that evidence does not directly analyze the lot of interest, but rather a similar one; it is through the internal assessment of the Judge, set out in the judgment, that this documentary evidence becomes support or basis for making a jurisdictional decision, and as such, -as an element of support-, it allows the Judge to establish a criterion; hence, this Chamber does not find a lack of congruence, on the contrary, it is considered that by using the evidence, adequate use is made of the instruments brought to the Judge's attention to provide a comprehensive solution to the element being assessed; the A quo supports his decision on documentary evidence that allows him to set out his decision. It is important for this Chamber to highlight that the institute of expropriation, which is not denied its restrictive or limiting character of the right to property, finds justification in the supreme need that causes the right to property to prevail over social interest or public utility, smoothing out or at least attempting to smooth out any conflict of interests. Public utility has as its object the realization of the common good, so it carries with it the very idea of expropriation, which -because it is compulsory- can only take place under the direct intervention of the State, where each person's due is respected, since such attribution of qualification cannot be understood in an unlimited manner. The concept of public utility is determined by its two elements: the material necessity and the aspiration of the social body, which related to the protection of legality, yield a practical fact that entails what brings advantages to the State, the enjoyment of which belongs to the social body, thus, every citizen will contribute in his part to the public utility according to his strengths, his talents, and his age, and his duties shall be regulated in accordance with distributive laws. The individual must bear the sacrifice of their property, because passing into the state coffers, the individual is also self-benefited as a member of the community (by their property serving to satisfy a need of general interest), a sufficient reason not to refuse expropriation after prior valuation of the expropriated object. For such purposes, the value of the property must be a sum that results in a fair compensation.\n\n... what is intended to be determined in this matter; in that sense, the doctrine has attempted to establish the parameters to follow to determine a fair price, for Nombre33034, it is only achieved through the judicial route, the only one where that \"justice\" would be verified in each case, and understands it as *the replacement value of the expropriated thing, sufficient to acquire another analogous property, of which one is deprived by expropriation*. Others refer to just compensation (justiprecio) as an element that acts as a determining factor of the objective value of the expropriated property, that is, the current price in commerce, that is, *the just compensation must coincide with the true economic value of the expropriated properties, in order to provide sufficient money to obtain the adequate substitution of such properties*. Nombre32650, an Argentine commentator, considers that fair value supposes that *the expropriated party must receive a value equivalent to that of which they are deprived, in a current and integral manner*.- Said value must represent a cash sum or in reasonably equivalent terms, for which the owner of the property, desirous of selling but not obliged to do so, would have sold their property to a buyer desirous of it, but not obliged to do so.\n*As can be observed, the concept of just compensation, what it seeks is to find the equilibrium where the expropriated party will not end up being harmed by diminishing their real estate assets, nor will it constitute a source of profit in their favor, with the consequent harm to the expropriating entity, which is only achieved with the wise combination of the principles of equity and justice, in such a way that just compensation, always of discretionary conception and establishment, must refer in the expropriation proceeding to what the property is worth in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, according to the values and other elements of conviction concentrated in the record.* The compensation that must be recognized in the expropriation process must be plenary, it must cover the \"market\" value of the property in question; for this purpose, this concept is complemented by the principles of \"replacement value\", \"zonal values\", \"depreciation\", and it is based on these principles and on the positive and negative factors that affect the expropriated property, through technical instruments, that the determination of the fair unit price is reached; for that end, the Judges make use of external auxiliaries who, through expert examination (experticia), issue opinions in sciences that are foreign to them, that are improper to them but not unknown, in accordance with the formal requirements that the law demands for carrying out the expert appraisal (avalúo pericial), taking into account factors such as the state and current use of existing constructions, land conditions –as referred to by Article 22-; the setting of the value of the property as of the date of their opinion -Article 24-, which also obligates the judicial expert under the law -Article 36- all rules of the Expropriation Law (Ley de Expropiaciones), leaving open the possibility that upon the judge applying the rules of sound rational criticism, it may be necessary to depart from the expert reports (pericias), in the face of expert reports rendered that contravene the legal form by being omitted, obscure, or erratic. At the moment of evaluating that just compensation, Article 22 of the Expropriation Law recognizes only real and permanent damages, but not future events nor expectations of rights, or added value (plusvalías) derived from the project that originated the expropriation; necessary improvements introduced after the declaration of public interest will be considered, thus allowing the administrative appraisal not only to be reviewable by the expert or experts appointed in judicial proceedings, but also that they can update it, under the scopes and limits contained in numeral 36 of the aforementioned law, and provided they do not take into account future events, expectations of rights, nor added value derived from the expropriation to fix the amount of compensation.\nUnder these elements, this Chamber agrees with the assessments of the A quo that oblige moving away from the expert reports (experticias) rendered in the record, because indeed, none of them allows for determining in a certain and full manner that the characteristics of the property subject to expropriation were adequately evaluated; the omissions pointed out by the A quo regarding each of the expert reports make it impossible to use said valuations for the determination of just compensation in this case, and since \"*every expert opinion is merely a recommendation to the Judge*,\" the final determination, which is always part of jurisdictional activity, will be issued moving away from the existing expert forms, but always with due basis, since none of the valuations set forth in the record can be considered complete, and the reasons for the determination of the final price must be clearly stated. In this case, the prudence of the Judge, based on sound criticism, has allowed defining just compensation; this by making use of the administrative appraisals incorporated into the record as additional evidence, and taking into account all the documentary evidence existing in the process.\nIn that sense, this Chamber validates the assessment of the a quo to the effect that the expert reports rendered contain a series of inconsistencies and defects that prevent them from being considered as a basis for setting just compensation, being that they can only be considered as a reference for the maximum price to be awarded, so it is the evidence provided as complementary that provides the Judge with the possibility of specifying the sum in which the value of this property is estimated.\n\n**VI**\n The A quo in this case, to set the value of the property, proceeds making use of a documentary piece contributed to the record, establishes as a parameter a value approximate to that determined on another property, and obtains the values from appraisal AA-69-2008 as a basis for its decision.\n According to said appraisal, for the land or farm 5-042789-000, located in the Playa Grande area number 43 section A, which has a measurement of 864.16 square meters, the value per square meter is set at one hundred ninety-nine thousand five hundred colones, with this documentary piece highlighting that said property has location, accesses, services, and adjacency to a public street under the same conditions as the property in question; both belong to the Las Baulas National Marine Park (Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas).\n The A quo, making use of said documentary piece, sets the price at a sum similar to that described in such expert report; this determination is therefore a discretionary amount, detached from the three reports rendered, which finds basis in Article 40 of the Expropriation Law and falls within the range set by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo). Although in the judgment appealed for the setting of just compensation in the sum determined by the A quo, greater bases are not set forth regarding why an approximate value is fixed, the information set down regarding its final decision -appraisal contributed as evidence- is indeed sufficient, because by using that evidentiary instrument, it accounts for the variables of land use (uso de suelo), hydrology, and other elements, which were valued in that already expropriated land, whereby this Chamber does not evidence the existence of any defect meriting the revocation of the judgment appealed.\n\n**VII. ON THE SETTING OF JUST COMPENSATION** . The representative of the State requests that the ruling of the lower court be revoked and the price be set at that established by the administrative appraisal AA-121-2006 of September 22, 2006; such a request must be rejected, as it has been indicated that said expert report (peritaje) cannot be taken as accurate for the purposes of setting just compensation, as it is superficial and omitted in the investigation of market values conducted.\n As the A quo correctly points out, that expert report: has no reference to the calculation notes, the procedure used to calculate the unit value of the land; there is no foundation nor justification for the amount of the unit value; the carrying out of the investigation is not demonstrated, nor is there reference to the consultations made; it lacks an indication of the characteristics of the compared farms, nor is documentary evidence provided verifying the criteria and values of the experts who were stated to have been consulted regarding market price in the geographical area of interest; omissions that make it impossible to accept as accurate the price estimated in that expert report as the value of the property to be expropriated. Thus, in order to find just compensation, the arguments of the plaintiff are valued, being that the claim of the state representation that the appraisals conducted by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas (Administración Tributaria de Puntarenas) in 2008 were defective, owing to the fact that they belong to the same expropriation project in the Las Baulas National Marine Park, is not admissible. It must be kept in mind, as this Tribunal has repeatedly held, *\"the fact that there exists an administrative appraisal from which the expropriated party dissents, does not imply that it is poorly prepared, or that, with the mere intention of benefiting itself, the Administration adopted the lowest possible price. On the contrary, the discrepancy in criteria constitutes only an indication to review it, and within this connotation and under a scheme of logical judgment, everything seems to establish that said originating valuation indicates an extremely low value for it to constitute a restitution value, and therefore, a fair price. The setting of the amount to compensate is far from being an exact science, such that the rules of technique, logic, or reason are breached; rather, it is a multi-factorial and consequently complex phenomenon. So then, one must endeavor to integrate the greatest number of objective elements (and even eventually subjective ones) to generate a compensation price that seeks to reduce the risk of error\".* (Contentious-Administrative Tribunal. First Section. Voto Nº 611-2010-I of thirteen hours fifteen minutes of December twenty-third two thousand ten). To determine the just compensation for the property in question, this Chamber must have before it the totality of the evidence contributed by the plaintiff to the record and that was admitted, it being that in the valuation of said evidence there is neither found nor discovered an adequate study of the general conditions of the property to be expropriated; in the studies -non-expert- that appear in the record, general analyses of the area are made that contain observations regarding costs and material limitations in the area due to natural burdens on the property -aquifer mantle (manto acuífero), reserve area (zona de reserva), access by enclave-; however, a specific study is not provided to the record that values and develops an adequate economic determination considering all the legal elements necessary to determine the fair price that this property has; all the documents provided suffer from generality or lack of specificity, which prevents their use. As a consequence, the Judge must, given the unavoidable fact that the expropriated property and other neighboring properties, by being circumscribed and incorporated within the declaration of the Las Baulas National Marine Park, created on July 10, 1995, by Law No. 7524 (Ley Nº 7524), have land-use limitations (limitaciones en el uso de suelo), analyze the expert reports conducted, it being the case that none of them can be the option for the just compensation to be issued because they do not take into account the totality of those elements; it is also considered that the results of the Econometric Study (Estudio Econométrico) and the Final Report of Economic Considerations on the Value of Expropriatable Lands in the Las Baulas National Marine Park (Informe Final de Consideraciones Económicas sobre el Valor de los Terrenos Expropiables en el Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas), rendered in the month of March 2008 (folios 343 to 375) and the land-use matrices contributed, also do not allow for adequately valuing the given price, as they do not reflect the reality of the value trend in the area where the property subject to expropriation is located and do not constitute a reasonable parameter of values, as they have been rendered as an internal institutional report that does not individually identify the properties under study or take into account the characteristics of each property, but rather, on the contrary, averages the existing situations. Consequently, the rules of sound criticism command analyzing all the documentary evidence as referential, it being that this Section concludes that, since the alternative proposed by the expropriating party to set just compensation with the administrative appraisal is improper given the lack of elements therein, the evidence provided up to this moment must be valued to determine if the amount set by the A quo is unjust; under such analysis, this chamber considers that the appropriate course is to confirm the lower court judgment insofar as it determined a value of ¢200 thousand per square meter, this because the evidence in the record does not reveal that this amount is unjust or inadequate and, on the contrary, the records set by the State, with the expropriation payment by means of another appraisal on an adjacent farm belonging to the expropriated party and which also belonged to her, allow the sum fixed to be estimated as adequate; what is certain is that the determination of the A quo falls within the parameters of the expert reports rendered in the record, and this Chamber further considers that the sum fixed responds to a setting in accordance with similar valuations for properties located in the Las Baulas National Marine Park, which, with similar characteristics to the expropriated property, have been awarded in other judicial processes -records-, likewise, it is in accordance with subsequent valuations given by the State to other properties, according to appraisals conducted by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself in 2008. The just compensation must refer in the expropriation process to the value of the property in the state and form of exploitation in which it is taken by the expropriator, for which, the criterion rendered by the Tax Administration itself in the valuations conducted on the surrounding properties and those typical of the area affected by the Las Baulas National Marine Park Project is of the utmost importance; for that reason, using the appraisal appearing at folio two hundred thirty-nine and following as a probative basis to estimate an amount for the property in question is an appropriate action, because procedurally, the Judge, in order to make a fairer estimate, makes use of the instruments brought to their attention through that document, and with attention thereto, effected the imposition of the amount.\n This Chamber considers that this Administrative appraisal, which was prepared by the Tax Administration of Puntarenas itself two years after the Administrative Appraisal in question was carried out, conducted on a land located in the same zone where the expropriated property is located, which, comparing the content of folio seventy-one bis, has the same conditions as the one at issue, and being as stated in said folio, \"adjacent\", the characteristics, limitations, and restrictions that burden them are considered in the valuation already paid by the state; this allows establishing that, in relation to such appraisal, the property at issue is in identical conditions, and since there is no evidence that clearly and precisely indicates the contrary, the most prudent course is to impose as the sum of just compensation that fixed by the A quo in light of such evidence, since the value per square meter fixed by the Ad-quo in the appealed judgment falls within the minimum and maximum parameters of the administrative appraisal and\nthe expert opinions (dictámenes periciales) rendered in this venue, which are the legal requirements limiting the Judge's discretion in cases such as the one at issue. By reason of the foregoing, and attending to the specific and exclusive purpose -setting of just compensation- that these proceedings pursue, the grievances formulated by the party are dismissed for the reasons indicated in this judgment, and consequently, what was established by the A quo in the challenged judgment is maintained.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe evidence for a better resolution is rejected.\n\nThe appealed judgment is confirmed for the reasons set forth by this Court.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n**ALINNE SOLANO RAMÍREZ**\n\n \n\n \n\n**Nombre126531** **Nombre126532** **Nombre8503**\n\n " }