{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-632093", "citation": "Res. 00170-2015 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Demolición de obras por vicios en permiso de construcción y caducidad", "title_en": "Demolition of works due to defects in construction permits and expiration", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección III, conoce de un recurso de apelación en jerarquía impropia contra la resolución del Alcalde de Valverde Vega que rechazó la solicitud de demolición de una construcción. Las apelantes, propietarias colindantes, alegaron que un local comercial fue construido sin permisos o con vicios en el permiso obtenido, invadiendo parcialmente su propiedad. El Tribunal analiza el ejercicio del \"ius aedificandi\", el poder de policía municipal en materia urbanística y el procedimiento para demolición de obras previsto en el artículo 93 de la Ley de Construcciones. Concluye que, al existir un permiso de construcción vigente desde 2002 y haber transcurrido más de diez años desde la edificación, operó la caducidad para impugnar la licencia por vicios de nulidad. Además, determina que el problema de colindancias y traslapes es de naturaleza civil y debe ser resuelto por la jurisdicción ordinaria. Confirma la resolución del Alcalde y declara agotada la vía administrativa.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Court, Section III, hears an improper-hierarchy appeal against the decision of the Mayor of Valverde Vega, which rejected a request for demolition of a construction. The appellants, neighboring property owners, alleged that a commercial building was built without permits or with defective permits, partly encroaching on their property. The Court analyzes the exercise of \"ius aedificandi\", the municipal police power in urban planning, and the procedure for demolition of works under Article 93 of the Construction Law. It concludes that, as a construction permit has existed since 2002 and more than ten years have passed since the building was erected, the statute of limitations for challenging the license for nullity has expired. Moreover, it determines that the issue of boundaries and overlaps is a civil-law matter to be resolved by the ordinary courts. The appeal is denied, confirming the Mayor's decision and declaring the administrative process exhausted.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "date": "16/04/2015", "year": "2015", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "ius aedificandi", "caducidad", "nulidad absoluta", "lesividad", "poder de policía", "jerarquía impropia", "colindancias", "traslape" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "ius aedificandi", "demolición", "permiso de construcción", "caducidad", "nulidad absoluta", "lesividad", "poder de policía municipal", "colindancias", "traslape", "jerarquía impropia" ], "keywords_en": [ "ius aedificandi", "demolition", "construction permit", "statute of limitations", "absolute nullity", "prejudiciality", "municipal police power", "boundaries", "overlap", "improper hierarchy" ], "excerpt_es": "Entendido entonces cómo se activa el mecanismo para demolición de obras por parte de las municipalidades, sobra decir que cuando el administrado ya ha obtenido la licencia constructiva, no puede el ayuntamiento ordenar la demolición de las obras, pues ello sería actuar en contra del espíritu de la misma Ley de Construcciones. La única posibilidad legítima administrativamente sería mediante un procedimiento de nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta regulada en el numeral 173 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, o bien, mediante un proceso de lesividad, a los cuales puede accesar un tercero con la interposición de un recurso extraordinario de revisión que acuse vicios en el otorgamiento de la licencia, mientras ésta esté surtiendo efectos, o sea, durante las fases constructivas de las obras. Para ello debe actuarse dentro de los plazos de caducidad previstos en la ley, sean de un año para los supuestos del artículo 173 de cita o del proceso de lesividad, o de diez años en el supuesto del recurso extraordinario de revisión, siempre y cuando las obras estén en proceso de edificación, pues superados dichos plazos, no puede la administración ni terceros en la vía administrativa, obtener dicha nulidad (ver artículo 163 del Código Municipal y 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). En el caso sometido a estudio, se ha demostrado que el permiso constructivo se expidió en el año 2002 y según el dicho de la señora Nombre104483, la edificación se levantó en el año 2003. Ciertamente han transcurrido de sobra todos los plazos previstos en la ley para poder incoar vicios de nulidad en la licencia constructiva otorgada, resultando imposible legalmente que la Municipalidad venga ahora a iniciar procedimiento alguno de nulidad ni ordenar la demolición pedida, pues ha operado la caducidad legal.", "excerpt_en": "Having understood how the mechanism for demolition of works by municipalities is triggered, it goes without saying that when the citizen has already obtained a construction license, the town council cannot order the demolition of the works, as that would be acting against the spirit of the Construction Law itself. The only legitimate administrative possibility would be through a procedure of absolute, evident and manifest nullity regulated in Article 173 of the General Public Administration Act, or through a prejudiciality action, to which a third party can gain access by filing an extraordinary appeal for review alleging defects in the granting of the license, while it is still in effect, that is, during the construction phases of the works. To this end, action must be taken within the expiration periods provided by law, which are one year for the cases of Article 173 cited or the prejudiciality action, or ten years in the case of the extraordinary appeal for review, provided that the works are still under construction, because once those periods have passed, neither the administration nor third parties in the administrative process can obtain such nullity (see Article 163 of the Municipal Code and Article 39 of the Administrative Procedure Code). In the case under study, it has been proven that the construction permit was issued in 2002 and, according to the statement of Ms. Nombre104483, the building was erected in 2003. Indeed, all the periods provided by law to challenge the nullity of the construction permit granted have more than expired, making it legally impossible for the Municipality to now initiate any nullity procedure or order the requested demolition, because the legal expiration has taken effect.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Court denies the appeal, confirms the contested decision, and declares the administrative process exhausted, having found that the statute of limitations for challenging the construction permit had expired.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación, confirma la resolución impugnada y da por agotada la vía administrativa, al considerar que operó la caducidad para impugnar el permiso de construcción." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes.", "quote_es": "los gobiernos locales deben actuar oportunamente en el ejercicio del poder de policía, utilizando las potestades que el ordenamiento jurídico les ha otorgado para alcanzar sus cometidos." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "This is the only existing scenario under current legislation in which municipal corporations are empowered to order the demolition of a work, so they may only act in this way in the event of total non-compliance by the citizen in obtaining their license, or in the irregular abuse thereof.", "quote_es": "Este es el único supuesto existente en la legislación vigente, mediante el cual las corporaciones municipales están facultadas para proceder a ordenar la demolición de una obra, de modo que únicamente pueden actuar de esa manera ante el total incumplimiento del administrado en la obtención de su licencia, o bien, en el abuso irregular de la misma." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "when the citizen has already obtained a construction license, the town council cannot order the demolition of the works, as that would be acting against the spirit of the Construction Law itself.", "quote_es": "cuando el administrado ya ha obtenido la licencia constructiva, no puede el ayuntamiento ordenar la demolición de las obras, pues ello sería actuar en contra del espíritu de la misma Ley de Construcciones." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-35669", "citation": "Ley 4240", "title_en": "Urban Planning Law", "title_es": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "doc_type": "law", "date": "15/11/1968", "year": "1968" }, { "id": "norm-36307", "citation": "Ley 833", "title_en": "Construction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Construcciones", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/11/1949", "year": "1949" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-427299", "citation": "Res. 00175-2009 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "title_en": "Distinction between simple subdivision and urbanization and municipal annulment procedures", "title_es": "Distinción entre fraccionamiento simple y urbanización y vías de anulación municipal", "doc_type": "court_decision", "date": "30/01/2009", "year": "2009" }, { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-430263", "citation": "Res. 00176-2009 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "title_en": "Mayor's Veto Against Annulment of Agreements on Taquiscú Project", "title_es": "Veto del Alcalde de Oreamuno contra anulación de acuerdos sobre proyecto Taquiscú", "doc_type": "court_decision", "date": "30/01/2009", "year": "2009" }, { "id": "norm-35669", "citation": "Ley 4240", "title_en": "Urban Planning Law", "title_es": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "doc_type": "law", "date": "15/11/1968", "year": "1968" }, { "id": "norm-36307", "citation": "Ley 833", "title_en": "Construction Law", "title_es": "Ley de Construcciones", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/11/1949", "year": "1949" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-632093", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-35669", "norm_num": "4240", "norm_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "15/11/1968" }, { "doc_id": "norm-36307", "norm_num": "833", "norm_name": "Ley de Construcciones", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/11/1949" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Expediente 14-002215-1027-CA\n\nExpediente 14-002215-1027-CA\n\nApelación de jarquía impropia\n\nNombre104482 y Nombre104482 c/ Municipalidad de Valverde Vega\n\nInterviene: Nombre104483 \n\n \n\nN° 170-2015\n\nTRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las trece horas cincuenta minutos del dieciséis de abril del dos mil quince.\n\n Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio, del recurso de apelación interpuesto por Nombre104482 , cédula CED80860, en su condición personal y como apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma de Nombre104482 , cédula CED80861, contra la resolución del Alcalde de Valverde Vega, No.- ALCALDE 0268-2014 del 13 de marzo del 2014. Interviene como interesado directo Nombre104483 . cédula CED80862. \n\nRedacta la Juez Solano Ulloa, y: \n\nCONSIDERANDO: \n\nI.- Hechos probados. Se tienen como hechos relevantes para resolver la presente causa, los siguientes: 1) Mediante Permiso de Construcción emitido el 29 de mayo del 2002 por el Departamento de Ingeniería de la Municipalidad de Valverde Vega, se autorizó a la señora Nombre104483 a construir un local comercial de 16m2 (folio 30); 2) En memorial suscrito por la señora Nombre104482 el día 18 de octubre del 2005, se indicó que el local ubicado en la colindancia con la señora Nombre104483 , fue construido con su permiso (folio 31); 3) El 5 de setiembre del 2013, las señoras Nombre104482 y Nombre104482 , en su condición de propietarias de la finca del partido de Alajuela, con matrícula de folio real Placa18153 submatrículas Placa2200 , colindante a la vez de la propiedad de Nombre104483 , con matrícula de folio real Placa18154, acusaron ante la municipalidad que se construyó sin permisos municipales y sin cumplir los requisitos mínimos, un pequeño local que en parte está dentro del terreno que es de su propiedad. Por esa razón, solicitaron a la Municipalidad de Valverde vega que solicitara a la señora Nombre104483 el derribo de dicho inmueble, o en caso contrario, procediera la corporación local con el derribo (folios 14 y 15); 4) En el oficio No. DDU-OF-191-2013 del 09 de setiembre del 2013, el Director del Departamento de Desarrollo Urbano, le respondió a la señora Nombre104482 , que el problema es de tipo particular respecto del cual la Municipalidad no tiene competencia, por lo que le sugería ir a las instancias legales correspondientes (folio 16); 5) Contra dicho acto, el apoderado especial de las señoras Nombre104482 , interpuso sendos recursos ordinarios, a efecto de que la Municipalidad verificara si existía permiso municipal sobre la construcción y, en caso de que no existiera, procediera conforme a derecho (folios 17 y 18); 6) Por orden del Alcalde el Departamento de Bienes Inmuebles y Valoración realizó un estudio técnico respecto de los movimientos registrales, modificación de cabida y linderos de las dos propiedades en mención, concluyendo que ambas fincas no son colindantes según un montaje de planos, siendo que la finca con la que colinda el terreno de las apelantes, está solamente en posesión de la señora Nombre104483 , además que el plano de la finca de las recurrentes no muestra ninguna construcción ni traslape. Agrega que la construcción en mención, sí obtuvo permiso de construcción cuya área coincide con la edificación existente, por lo que consideró la denuncia mal planteada (folios 85 a 94); 7) El Departamento Legal emitió el oficio No. DL-OF-018-2014 del 12 de marzo del 2014, en donde consideró que la Municipalidad no tiene competencia para determinar si el traslape existe o no, lo cual solamente un juez podría determinarlo, con lo cual sí se podría iniciar el proceso de demolición respetando el derecho de defensa de las partes y el ordenamiento jurídico aplicable (folios 134 146); 8) Con base en los estudios señalados, el Alcalde resolvió en el oficio ALCALDE 0268-2014 del 13 de marzo del 2014, considerando que al existir un permiso constructivo, cualquier demolición dependerá de que el tema de la sobreposición de linderos debe ser previamente atendido por los tribunales de justicia, sin lo cual no se puede proceder, confirmándose el acto impugnado y rechazando la apelación interpuesta (folios 163 a 147); 9) Contra dicha resolución, el apoderado de las señora Nombre104482 interpuso sendos recursos ordinarios, resultando que en resolución ALCALDE 0335-2014 del 25 de marzo del 2014, se rechazó la revocatoria y elevó el recurso de apelación interpuesto (folios 178 y 179).\n\nII.- Motivos de agravio. En resumen, alega el recurrente, que la justificación del traslape no debe ser motivo para la decisión tomada, menos cuando el permiso de la señora no reúne los requisitos mínimos o no podía haberse dado, pues carece de planos y del respectivo alineamiento otorgado por el MOPT, resultando que la propiedad está construida a menos de los doce metros de la Dirección1747 , defectos con los cuales sí debe ordenarse la demolición. La señora Nombre104483 , en su defensa, acusa que no puede utilizarse el plano más reciente de la parte apelante, quien modificó sus medidas y linderos sin haber realizado acta de deslinde, lo cual no es suficiente para ordenar la demolición. Indica que los apelantes no pueden solicitar la demolición de una construcción que no les pertenece, menos aún utilizando un plano levantado con tales irregularidades, siendo que tienen más de diez años de conocer la construcción, de la cual la señora Nombre104482 otorgó el respectivo permiso, por lo que pide se confirme lo resuelto por el Alcalde.\n\nIII.- Sobre el fondo. Sobre el ejercicio del \"ius aedificandi\" . El ejercicio de derecho de edificación sobre los bienes inmuebles -\"ius edificandi\"- está sujeto a limitaciones de orden público que definen en esencia hasta dónde se puede ejercer el derecho de propiedad y que, como tales, se encuentran debidamente reguladas en el ordenamiento territorial y urbanístico vigente. De ello deriva que las las licencias constructivas, conforme lo disponen los artículos 74 y 79 de la Ley de Construcciones, y 70 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, son actos reglados que se perfeccionan ante el cumplimiento de las exigencias legales por parte del administrado. El otorgamiento de cualquier permiso de construcción está condicionado a que el proyecto en cuestión resulte conforme con la ordenación urbanística aplicable; lo cual supone un control previo de habilitación o \"permiso\" , acompañado de la actividad de fiscalización en la ejecución de la actividad autorizada, a fin de que se realice conforme a la licencia o permiso concedido y a las regulaciones ambientales que rigen la actividad. En este sentido, como lo ha señalado este Tribunal en diversos pronunciamientos (entre ellos, los número 175-2009, de las 15:40 horas y 176-2009 de 15:50 horas, ambos, del 30 de enero del 2009), \" los gobiernos locales deben actuar oportunamente en el ejercicio del poder de policía , utilizando las potestades que el ordenamiento jurídico les ha otorgado para alcanzar sus cometidos\" (el resaltado no es del original); que en la materia de urbanismo, se concreta en el control de los procesos de urbanización, fraccionamiento y edificación de obras de infraestructura. Mediante el ejercicio de los poderes de policía, las Municipalidades deben y pueden proceder a verificar el cumplimiento, por parte de los administrados de su circunscripción territorial, de la obtención de todas las licencias constructivas, en acatamiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 74 de la Ley de Construcciones. En caso de incumplimiento a esta obligación, las autoridades del gobierno local, no pueden ni deben evadir su atención oportuna y efectiva, lo que implica por supuesto, que están obligadas a aplicar en su caso, las sanciones que correspondan, en su justo rigor y medida, y en total concordancia con la magnitud de las infracciones cometidas. Esta facultad, que es por su propia naturaleza obligatoria, se trata de un poder-deber de las autoridades municipales que no pueden dejar de aplicar y procede donde se compruebe el acaecimiento de transgresiones al ordenamiento urbanístico. De lo contrario, incurrirían en un incumplimiento grave de sus funciones y ello podría generar responsabilidad no sólo disciplinaria, sino civil y eventualmente penal. Esto no es más que el ejercicio de las potestades de imperio de la administración municipal, por lo que, obviamente, les obliga a implementar el régimen urbanístico con todo el rigor del caso. \n\nIV.- A partir de numeral 93 de la Ley de Construcciones, se prevé un procedimiento a efecto de que las corporaciones locales otorguen plazo a los administrados que levantan sus edificaciones sin la respectiva licencia, o bien, que edifican obras distorsionando los planos cuyos permisos han obtenido, tendiente a que se pongan a derecho. Para ello, junto con la clausura inmediata, se ha de realizar dos prevenciones dándoles espacio para aportar todos los requisitos de rigor y, solamente ante el supuesto de que definitivamente no se logre obtener la licencia, la Municipalidad puede ordenar el desalojo y demolición de las obras defectuosas. Este es el único supuesto existente en la legislación vigente, mediante el cual las corporaciones municipales están facultadas para proceder a ordenar la demolición de una obra, de modo que únicamente pueden actuar de esa manera ante el total incumplimiento del administrado en la obtención de su licencia, o bien, en el abuso irregular de la misma, construyendo más de lo que se le permitió. \n\nV.- Entendido entonces cómo se activa el mecanismo para demolición de obras por parte de las municipalidades, sobra decir que cuando el administrado ya ha obtenido la licencia constructiva, no puede el ayuntamiento ordenar la demolición de las obras, pues ello sería actuar en contra del espíritu de la misma Ley de Construcciones. La única posibilidad legítima administrativamente sería mediante un procedimiento de nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta regulada en el numeral 173 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, o bien, mediante un proceso de lesividad, a los cuales puede accesar un tercero con la interposición de un recurso extraordinario de revisión que acuse vicios en el otorgamiento de la licencia, mientras ésta esté surtiendo efectos, o sea, durante las fases constructivas de las obras. Para ello debe actuarse dentro de los plazos de caducidad previstos en la ley, sean de un año para los supuestos del artículo 173 de cita o del proceso de lesividad, o de diez años en el supuesto del recurso extraordinario de revisión, siempre y cuando las obras estén en proceso de edificación, pues superados dichos plazos, no puede la administración ni terceros en la vía administrativa, obtener dicha nulidad (ver artículo 163 del Código Municipal y 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). En el caso sometido a estudio, se ha demostrado que el permiso constructivo se expidió en el año 2002 y según el dicho de la señora Nombre104483 , la edificación se levantó en el año 2003. Ciertamente han transcurrido de sobra todos los plazos previstos en la ley para poder incoar vicios de nulidad en la licencia constructiva otorgada, resultando imposible legalmente que la Municipalidad venga ahora a iniciar procedimiento alguno de nulidad ni ordenar la demolición pedida, pues ha operado la caducidad legal. En efecto, tal y como lo acusa la señora Nombre104483 , las apelantes tienen más de diez años de conocer de la existencia de esta infraestructura, tiempo durante el cual no incoaron ninguna gestión de nulidad ni de demolición, obras que de por sí, se levantaron inclusive con el consentimiento de la señora Nombre104482 , pues así consta en memorial suscrito por ella el 18 de octubre del 2005. \n\nVI.- Por otra parte, es claro que en un inicio, las apelantes pidieron el derribo de las obras ante la carencia de licencia constructiva. Ha quedado demostrado que sí existe un permiso constructivo otorgando en mayo del 2002, por lo que bastaba con este hecho para denegar su gestión. Es hasta en el escrito en que se impugna lo resuelto por el Alcalde, que se cambian los motivos de la demolición pedida, para ahora venir a invocar vicios en la licencia constructiva, los cuales, se reitera, ante el transcurso del tiempo, no pueden ser atendidos por haber sido superados todos los plazos legales para ello.\n\nV.- Asimismo, el problema de determinación de las colindancias y posibles traslapes de fincas no es resorte del municipio, así como tampoco de esta jerarquía impropia, en el tanto este es un problema de derecho civil que únicamente puede ser dilucidado por una autoridad jurisdiccional, quien sería el único que podría ordenar una demolición mediante una sentencia con autoridad de cosa juzgada material. \n\nVI.- Con base en los fundamentos expuestos, el recurso de apelación debe ser rechazado, confirmándose la resolución venida en alzada. Al no haber ulterior recurso, se ha de dar por agotada la vía administrativa.\n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto y se confirma la resolución impugnada. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa. \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nEvelyn Solano Ulloa\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nJorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Cháves Torres\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nTribunal Contencioso Administrativo Y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Tercera.\n\nResolución 170-2015 de las 13:50 horas del 16 de abril del 2015. \n\n2 de 8", "body_en_text": "Expediente 14-002215-1027-CA\n\nExpediente 14-002215-1027-CA\n\nImproper hierarchy appeal\n\nNombre104482 and Nombre104482 v/ Municipalidad de Valverde Vega\n\nIntervenes: Nombre104483\n\nN° 170-2015\n\nCONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at thirteen hours fifty minutes on April sixteenth, two thousand fifteen.\n\nThis Tribunal hears, as improper hierarchical superior, the appeal filed by Nombre104482, identity card CED80860, in her personal capacity and as unlimited general power of attorney for Nombre104482, identity card CED80861, against the resolution of the Mayor of Valverde Vega, No.- ALCALDE 0268-2014 of March 13, 2014. Nombre104483, identity card CED80862, intervenes as a directly interested party.\n\nJudge Solano Ulloa writes, and:\n\nCONSIDERING:\n\nI.- Proven facts. The following are considered relevant facts for resolving the present case: 1) By means of a Construction Permit issued on May 29, 2002, by the Engineering Department of the Municipalidad de Valverde Vega, Mrs. Nombre104483 was authorized to build a 16m2 commercial premises (folio 30); 2) In a written statement signed by Mrs. Nombre104482 on October 18, 2005, it was indicated that the premises located adjacent to Mrs. Nombre104483 was built with her permission (folio 31); 3) On September 5, 2013, Mrs. Nombre104482 and Nombre104482, in their capacity as owners of the property in the Alajuela district, with real estate folio registration number Placa18153 sub-registrations Placa2200, also adjacent to the property of Nombre104483, with real estate folio registration number Placa18154, accused before the municipality that a small premises was built without municipal permits and without meeting the minimum requirements, which is partly on their own land. For this reason, they requested the Municipalidad de Valverde Vega to order Mrs. Nombre104483 to demolish said building, or otherwise, for the local corporation to proceed with the demolition (folios 14 and 15); 4) In official communication No. DDU-OF-191-2013 of September 9, 2013, the Director of the Urban Development Department responded to Mrs. Nombre104482 that the problem is of a private nature for which the Municipality has no jurisdiction, suggesting she go to the corresponding legal instances (folio 16); 5) Against said act, the special legal representative of Mrs. Nombre104482 filed corresponding ordinary appeals, so that the Municipality would verify whether a municipal permit existed for the construction and, if one did not exist, proceed according to law (folios 17 and 18); 6) By order of the Mayor, the Real Estate and Valuation Department conducted a technical study regarding the registration movements, area modification, and boundaries of the two properties mentioned, concluding that both properties are not adjoining according to a map overlay, and the property bordering the appellants' land is only in the possession of Mrs. Nombre104483; additionally, the survey map of the appellants' property shows no construction or overlap. It adds that the construction in question did obtain a construction permit whose area coincides with the existing building, and therefore considered the complaint to be ill-founded (folios 85 to 94); 7) The Legal Department issued official communication No. DL-OF-018-2014 of March 12, 2014, in which it considered that the Municipality does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the overlap exists or not, which only a judge could determine, with which a demolition process could then be initiated respecting the right of defense of the parties and the applicable legal system (folios 134 146); 8) Based on the studies indicated, the Mayor resolved in official communication ALCALDE 0268-2014 of March 13, 2014, considering that since a construction permit exists, any demolition will depend on the issue of boundary overlap needing to be first addressed by the courts of justice, without which action cannot be taken, confirming the challenged act and rejecting the appeal filed (folios 163 to 147); 9) Against said resolution, the legal representative of Mrs. Nombre104482 filed corresponding ordinary appeals, resulting in resolution ALCALDE 0335-2014 of March 25, 2014, which rejected the revocation request and elevated the appeal filed (folios 178 and 179).\n\nII.- Grounds for grievance. In summary, the appellant claims that the justification of the overlap should not be the reason for the decision taken, even less so when the lady's permit does not meet the minimum requirements or could not have been granted, as it lacks survey maps and the respective alignment granted by the MOPT, resulting in the property being built less than twelve meters from Dirección1747, defects for which demolition must indeed be ordered. Mrs. Nombre104483, in her defense, claims that the most recent survey map of the appellant party, who modified their measurements and boundaries without having executed a boundary demarcation act, cannot be used, which is insufficient to order demolition.\n\nHe states that the appellants cannot request the demolition of a construction that does not belong to them, much less by using a plan drawn up with such irregularities, given that they have been aware of the construction for more than ten years, for which Mrs. Nombre104482 granted the respective permit, and therefore requests that the Mayor's decision be upheld.\n\n**III.- On the merits.** **On the exercise of the** ***\"ius aedificandi\"* (right to build)** . The exercise of the right to build on real estate—\"ius edificandi\"—is subject to public policy limitations that essentially define the extent to which property rights can be exercised and which, as such, are duly regulated in the current territorial and urban planning framework. It follows from this that construction permits (licencias constructivas), as provided in Articles 74 and 79 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), and 70 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), are regulated acts that are perfected upon the administered party's fulfillment of legal requirements. The granting of any construction permit is conditional upon the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban planning regulations; this entails a prior control of qualification or \"permit,\" accompanied by supervisory activity during the execution of the authorized activity, to ensure it is carried out in accordance with the granted license or permit and the environmental regulations governing the activity. In this regard, as this Court has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at 3:40 p.m. and 176-2009 at 3:50 p.m., both of January 30, 2009), *\"local governments must act in a timely manner in the* **exercise of police power** *, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their objectives\"* (emphasis not in original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is realized through the control of urbanization processes, subdivision (fraccionamiento), and the building of infrastructure works. Through the exercise of police powers, the Municipalities must and can proceed to verify compliance, by the administered parties within their territorial jurisdiction, with obtaining all construction permits (licencias constructivas), in observance of the provisions of Article 74 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones). In the event of non-compliance with this obligation, the local government authorities cannot and must not evade their timely and effective attention, which implies, of course, that they are obliged to apply the corresponding sanctions, in their just rigor and measure, and in total concordance with the magnitude of the infractions committed. This power, which is mandatory by its very nature, is a power-duty of the municipal authorities that they cannot fail to apply and which proceeds where the occurrence of transgressions of the urban planning framework is proven. Otherwise, they would incur a serious breach of their duties, and this could generate not only disciplinary liability, but also civil and potentially criminal liability. This is nothing more than the exercise of the imperium powers of the municipal administration, so, obviously, it obliges them to implement the urban planning regime with all the rigor of the case.\n\n**IV.-** Starting from Article 93 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), a procedure is provided so that local corporations may grant a period to administered parties who erect their buildings without the respective license, or who build works distorting the plans for which they have obtained permits, aimed at bringing them into compliance. For this, together with the immediate closure, two warnings must be issued, giving them space to provide all the rigorous requirements, and only in the event that the license definitively cannot be obtained, may the Municipality order the eviction and demolition of the defective works. This is the only existing scenario in current legislation by which municipal corporations are empowered to proceed to order the demolition of a work, so they can only act in this manner in the face of the complete failure of the administered party to obtain their license, or in the irregular abuse thereof, building more than what was permitted.\n\n**V.-** Once it is understood how the mechanism for the demolition of works by municipalities is activated, it goes without saying that when the administered party has already obtained the construction permit (licencia constructiva), the city council cannot order the demolition of the works, as this would be acting against the spirit of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) itself. The only administratively legitimate possibility would be through a procedure of absolute, obvious, and manifest nullity regulated in Article 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), or through a lesivity proceeding, which a third party can access by filing an extraordinary review appeal alleging defects in the granting of the license, while it is still producing effects, that is, during the construction phases of the works. For this, action must be taken within the expiration periods provided in the law, whether one year for the scenarios under the cited Article 173 or the lesivity proceeding, or ten years in the scenario of the extraordinary review appeal, provided the works are in the process of being built, as once these periods have expired, neither the administration nor third parties can, through administrative channels, obtain such nullity (see Article 163 of the Municipal Code and Article 39 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code). In the case under study, it has been demonstrated that the construction permit was issued in 2002, and according to the statement of Mrs. Nombre104483, the building was erected in 2003. Certainly, all the periods provided in the law to be able to bring forward defects of nullity in the granted construction permit (licencia constructiva) have elapsed by far, making it legally impossible for the Municipality to now initiate any nullity proceeding or order the requested demolition, as the legal expiration has occurred. In effect, as Mrs. Nombre104483 points out, the appellants have been aware of the existence of this infrastructure for more than ten years, a time during which they initiated no action for nullity or for demolition, works that, in themselves, were even erected with the consent of Mrs. Nombre104482, as recorded in a brief signed by her on October 18, 2005.\n\n**VI.-** Moreover, it is clear that initially, the appellants requested the demolition of the works due to the lack of a construction permit (licencia constructiva). It has been demonstrated that a construction permit was indeed granted in May 2002, so this fact alone was sufficient to deny their request. It is only in the brief challenging the Mayor's decision that the grounds for the requested demolition are changed, now invoking defects in the construction permit (licencia constructiva), which, it is reiterated, cannot be addressed due to the passage of time, as all legal periods for doing so have been exceeded.\n\n**V.-** Likewise, the problem of determining boundaries and possible overlaps of properties is not the purview of the municipality, nor of this improper hierarchy, as this is a civil law problem that can only be elucidated by a jurisdictional authority, which would be the only one that could order a demolition through a judgment with the authority of material res judicata.\n\n**VI.-** Based on the grounds set forth, the appeal must be rejected, confirming the resolution brought on appeal. As there is no further appeal, the administrative remedy is deemed exhausted.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe appeal filed is declared without merit and the challenged resolution is confirmed. The administrative remedy is deemed exhausted.\n\n**Evelyn Solano Ulloa**\n\n**Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Francisco José Cháves Torres**\n\n***Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Tercera.***\n*Ruling 170-2015 of 1:50 p.m. on April 16, 2015.*\n\n**III. On the merits. On the exercise of the *\"ius aedificandi\"* .** The exercise of the right to build on real property—*\"ius edificandi\"*—is subject to public policy limitations that essentially define the extent to which property rights may be exercised and which, as such, are duly regulated in the current territorial and urban planning framework. It follows from this that construction licenses, as provided in Articles 74 and 79 of the Ley de Construcciones, and 70 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, are regulated acts that are perfected upon the applicant's compliance with legal requirements. The granting of any construction permit is conditional upon the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban planning regulations; this entails a prior enabling control or \"permit,\" accompanied by supervisory activity during the execution of the authorized activity, to ensure it is carried out in accordance with the granted license or permit and the environmental regulations governing the activity. In this regard, as this Tribunal has noted in various rulings (among them, numbers 175-2009, at 15:40 hours, and 176-2009 at 15:50 hours, both dated January 30, 2009), *\"local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their objectives\"* (emphasis added); which, in the field of urban planning, takes concrete form in the control of urbanization, subdivision (fraccionamiento), and building of infrastructure works. Through the exercise of their police powers, Municipalities must and can proceed to verify that the residents of their territorial jurisdiction have obtained all required construction licenses, in compliance with the provisions of Article 74 of the Ley de Construcciones. In the event of non-compliance with this obligation, local government authorities cannot and must not evade their duty of timely and effective attention, which implies, of course, that they are obligated to apply the appropriate sanctions, in their proper rigor and measure, and in full accordance with the magnitude of the infractions committed. This power, which by its very nature is mandatory, is a power-duty of municipal authorities that they cannot fail to apply and is proper where the occurrence of transgressions of the urban planning framework is verified. Otherwise, they would incur a serious breach of their duties, which could give rise to liability not only of a disciplinary nature, but also civil and possibly criminal. This is nothing more than the exercise of the sovereign powers of the municipal administration, which therefore obviously obligates them to implement the urban planning regime with all due rigor.\n\n**IV.-** Based on Article 93 of the Ley de Construcciones, a procedure is established so that local corporations may grant a deadline to residents who erect their buildings without the respective license, or who build works distorting the plans for which they have obtained permits, aimed at bringing them into compliance. To this end, along with immediate closure, two warnings must be issued, giving them time to provide all the required documentation, and only in the event that the license definitively cannot be obtained may the Municipality order the eviction and demolition of the defective works. This is the only existing scenario in current legislation under which municipal corporations are empowered to order the demolition of a work, meaning they may only act in this manner in the face of the applicant's total failure to obtain their license, or their irregular abuse of it by constructing more than was permitted.\n\n**V.-** Understanding then how the mechanism for the demolition of works by municipalities is activated, it goes without saying that when the applicant has already obtained the construction license, the town council cannot order the demolition of the works, as this would be acting against the spirit of the Ley de Construcciones itself. The only administratively legitimate possibility would be through a procedure of absolute, evident, and manifest nullity regulated in Article 173 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, or through a lesivity proceeding, which a third party may access by filing an extraordinary motion for review alleging defects in the granting of the license, while it is still in effect, that is, during the construction phases of the works. To do this, action must be taken within the statute of limitations periods provided by law, being one year for the scenarios in Article 173 cited or for the lesivity proceeding, or ten years in the case of an extraordinary motion for review, provided the works are in the process of being built, as once these deadlines have passed, neither the administration nor third parties via administrative channels can obtain such a declaration of nullity (see Article 163 of the Código Municipal and Article 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). In the case under study, it has been shown that the construction permit was issued in 2002 and, according to the statement of Mrs. Castro Vargas, the building was erected in 2003. Certainly, all the deadlines provided by law for being able to bring actions for nullity defects in the granted construction license have amply passed, making it legally impossible for the Municipality to now initiate any nullity procedure or order the requested demolition, as the legal statute of limitations has expired. Indeed, as Mrs. Castro Vargas points out, the appellants have known of the existence of this infrastructure for more than ten years, during which time they did not initiate any nullity or demolition action, works that, moreover, were erected even with the consent of Mrs. Ana Yancy Dodero, as recorded in a brief signed by her on October 18, 2005 [...].”\n\nDrafted by Judge Solano Ulloa, and:\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**I.- Proven facts.** The following are considered relevant facts for resolving this case: **1)** By means of a Construction Permit issued on May 29, 2002, by the Engineering Department of the Municipality of Valverde Vega, Mrs. Nombre104483 was authorized to build a 16m2 commercial premises (folio 30); **2)** In a brief signed by Mrs. Nombre104482 on October 18, 2005, it was indicated that the premises located on the boundary with Mrs. Nombre104483 was built with her permission (folio 31); **3)** On September 5, 2013, Mrs. Nombre104482 and Mrs. Nombre104482, in their capacity as owners of the property in the Alajuela district, with real estate folio number Placa18153, sub-registrations Placa2200, also bordering the property of Nombre104483, with real estate folio number Placa18154, complained to the municipality that a small premises was built without municipal permits and without meeting the minimum requirements, which is partly within their property's land. For this reason, they requested the Municipality of Valverde Vega to demand that Mrs. Nombre104483 demolish said property, or failing that, that the local corporation proceed with the demolition (folios 14 and 15); **4)** In official letter No. DDU-OF-191-2013 of September 9, 2013, the Director of the Urban Development Department responded to Mrs. Nombre104482 that the problem is a private matter over which the Municipality has no jurisdiction, suggesting she go to the corresponding legal bodies (folio 16); **5)** Against said act, the special attorney-in-fact of Mrs. Nombre104482 filed the corresponding ordinary appeals, so that the Municipality could verify whether a municipal permit existed for the construction and, if it did not, proceed according to law (folios 17 and 18); **6)** By order of the Mayor, the Department of Real Estate and Valuation carried out a technical study regarding the registry movements, modification of area, and boundaries of the two properties mentioned, concluding that both properties are not bordering according to a map overlay, given that the property bordering the appellants' land is merely in the possession of Mrs. Nombre104483, and further that the appellants' property map does not show any construction or overlap. It adds that the construction in question did obtain a building permit whose area coincides with the existing building, therefore it considered the complaint unfounded (folios 85 to 94); **7)** The Legal Department issued official letter No. DL-OF-018-2014 of March 12, 2014, in which it considered that the Municipality does not have jurisdiction to determine if the overlap exists or not, a matter that only a judge could determine, after which the demolition process could be initiated, respecting the right of defense of the parties and the applicable legal system (folios 134–146); **8)** Based on the mentioned studies, the Mayor decided in official letter **ALCALDE 0268-2014 of March 13, 2014**, considering that since a construction permit exists, any demolition will depend on the issue of boundary overlap being previously addressed by the courts of justice, without which one cannot proceed, thus confirming the contested act and rejecting the appeal filed (folios 163 to 147); **9)** Against said resolution, the attorney-in-fact of Mrs. Nombre104482 filed the corresponding ordinary appeals, with the result that in resolution ALCALDE 0335-2014 of March 25, 2014, the revocation was rejected and the appeal filed was elevated (folios 178 and 179).\n\n**II.- Grounds for appeal.** In summary, the appellant alleges that the justification of the overlap should not be the reason for the decision taken, even less so when the lady's permit does not meet the minimum requirements or could not have been granted, as it lacks plans and the respective alignment granted by the MOPT, with the result that the property is built less than twelve meters from Dirección1747, defects for which demolition must be ordered. Mrs. Nombre104483, in her defense, argues that the most recent map of the appellant, who modified her measurements and boundaries without having completed a boundary demarcation act (acta de deslinde), cannot be used, and this is insufficient to order demolition. She notes that the appellants cannot request the demolition of a building that does not belong to them, even less so using a map drawn up with such irregularities, and that they have known about the building for more than ten years, for which Mrs. Nombre104482 granted the respective permission, and therefore requests that the Mayor's resolution be confirmed.\n\n**III.- On the merits. On the exercise of \"ius aedificandi\".** The exercise of the right to build on real property—\"ius edificandi\"—is subject to public policy limitations that essentially define how far the right of property can be exercised and which, as such, are duly regulated in the current territorial and urban planning system. From this it follows that construction permits (licencias constructivas), as provided in articles 74 and 79 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), and 70 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), are regulated acts perfected upon the compliance by the administered party with the legal requirements. The issuance of any construction permit is conditioned on the project in question being in conformity with the applicable urban development regulations; this implies a prior enabling control or \"permit,\" accompanied by supervisory activity during the execution of the authorized activity, to ensure it is carried out according to the license or permit granted and the environmental regulations governing the activity. In this sense, as this Court has indicated in various rulings (among them, numbers 175-2009, at 15:40 hours, and 176-2009 at 15:50 hours, both of January 30, 2009), \"local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power (poder de policía), using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their objectives\" (highlighting is not from the original); which, in the area of urban planning, is materialized in the control of urbanization, subdivision (fraccionamiento), and building of infrastructure works. Through the exercise of police powers, the Municipalities must and can proceed to verify compliance by the administered parties within their territorial circumscription, regarding the obtention of all construction permits, in compliance with the provisions of article 74 of the Construction Law. In the event of non-compliance with this obligation, the local government authorities cannot and must not evade their timely and effective attention, which implies, of course, that they are obliged to apply the corresponding sanctions, in their proper rigor and measure, and in total concordance with the magnitude of the infractions committed. This faculty, which is by its very nature mandatory, is a power-duty of the municipal authorities that they cannot fail to apply and that proceeds where the occurrence of transgressions to the urban development regulations is verified. Otherwise, they would incur a serious breach of their duties, which could generate not only disciplinary but also civil and eventually criminal liability. This is merely the exercise of the powers of authority (potestades de imperio) of the municipal administration, for which reason, obviously, it obliges them to implement the urban development regime with all the rigor of the case.\n\n**IV.-** From section 93 of the Construction Law onwards, a procedure is provided for so that local corporations grant a deadline to administered parties who construct their buildings without the respective license, or who build works distorting the plans for which they obtained permits, aimed at bringing them into compliance with the law. To this end, along with the immediate closure, two warnings must be given, providing them the opportunity to submit all the required documents, and only in the event that the license definitively cannot be obtained, the Municipality may order the eviction and demolition of the defective works. This is the only existing circumstance in current legislation by which municipal corporations are empowered to proceed to order the demolition of a work, so that they can only act in this manner in the face of the total failure of the administered party to obtain their license, or the irregular abuse thereof by building more than was permitted.\n\n**V.-** Having understood how the mechanism for the demolition of works by municipalities is activated, it goes without saying that when the administered party has already obtained the construction permit, the town council cannot order the demolition of the works, as that would be acting against the spirit of the Construction Law itself. The only legitimate administrative possibility would be through a procedure of absolute, evident, and manifest nullity regulated in section 173 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), or through a lesivity proceeding (proceso de lesividad), which a third party can access by filing an extraordinary review appeal (recurso extraordinario de revisión) alleging defects in the issuance of the license, while it is in effect, that is, during the construction phases of the works. For this, one must act within the expiration periods provided in the law, whether one year for the cases in article 173 cited or the lesivity proceeding, or ten years in the case of the extraordinary review appeal, provided the works are in the building process, since once these periods have elapsed, neither the administration nor third parties in the administrative channel can obtain said nullity (see article 163 of the Municipal Code and 39 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code). In the case under study, it has been demonstrated that the construction permit was issued in 2002 and, according to the statement of Mrs. Nombre104483, the building was constructed in 2003. Certainly, all deadlines provided by law to be able to assert defects of nullity in the granted construction permit have elapsed more than sufficiently, making it legally impossible for the Municipality to now initiate any nullity procedure or order the requested demolition, as the legal expiration has occurred. In effect, as Mrs. Nombre104483 argues, the appellants have known of the existence of this infrastructure for more than ten years, time during which they did not initiate any nullity or demolition action, works which in themselves, were even raised with the consent of Mrs. Nombre104482, as stated in the brief signed by her on October 18, 2005.\n\n**VI.-** Furthermore, it is clear that initially, the appellants requested the demolition of the works due to the lack of a construction permit. It has been proven that a construction permit indeed exists, granted in May 2002, so this fact alone was sufficient to deny their petition. It is only in the brief challenging the Mayor's decision that the grounds for the requested demolition are changed to now invoke defects in the construction permit, which, it is reiterated, given the passage of time, cannot be addressed because all legal deadlines for doing so have expired.\n\n**V.-** Likewise, the problem of determining boundaries and possible overlaps of properties is not the responsibility of the municipality, nor of this improper hierarchy, insofar as this is a civil law problem that can only be resolved by a jurisdictional authority, which would be the only entity capable of ordering a demolition through a judgment with the authority of material res judicata.\n\n**VI.-** Based on the grounds set forth, the appeal must be rejected, confirming the resolution under appeal. As there is no further recourse, the administrative channel must be deemed exhausted.\n\n**THEREFORE**\n\nThe appeal filed is declared without merit, and the contested resolution is confirmed. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.\n\n\n\n**Evelyn Solano Ulloa**\n\n\n\n**Jorge Leiva Poveda** **Francisco José Cháves Torres**\n\n\n\n***Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, Third Section.***\n***Resolution 170-2015 of 13:50 hours on April 16, 2015.***\n\n*2 of 8*" }