Constitutional court ducks key decision on rights-

By: Garland M. Baker B 

Exclusive to A.M. Costa Rica

Editor's Note: While this article was accurate at the time of publication, some information may now be outdated. We are currently preparing a comprehensive update. Sign up for our Alerts to be notified as soon as the revised content is live!

The Sala IV, the supreme court of Costa Rica, had a chance to decide who will be protected in real estate fraud cases. Much to the amazement of some in the Costa Rican legal community, the court decided not to decide.  

By deciding that two potentially landmark legal cases are "sin lugar," or without merit, magistrates have left the country hanging as to whom to protect, the crooks or the innocents.  

Historically, the Sala III, the supreme court for criminal appeals, has protected the innocent and returned scammed property back to its original owners.  

On the other hand, the Sala I, the civil supreme court, has protected third parties in property fraud cases.  In many situations, the third parties are the same thieves or accomplices who swindled the piece of property in the first place. 

In other words, the swindlers can steal property with forged documents, sell the property to someone else, and the civil court will protect the last owner in the chain. 

On Sept. 13, 2002, someone filed an action in the Sala IV saying that the criminal court, the Sala III, was wrong and that third parties should be protected.  

In May of this year, someone else filed another supreme court case against the Sala I, the civil court, stating original owners should be protected. The implications of a decision one way or the other were outlined in a previous article.  

A small country like Costa Rica needs only one set of laws, no matter in what court a legal action is litigated. For this reason, some in the Costa Rican legal community and property owners who have been defrauded were waiting patiently for the supreme court to give the country some direction. 

Just like in almost every other country of the world, when the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, it reaffirms what already is in place.  

So now, as before, property fraud cases will protect third parties if filed in Costa Rica’s civil court and protect original owners only if filed in Costa Rica’s criminal court. 

There is no court commentary to determine why the magistrates decided not to decide. 

Justice has always been considered as a universal right, that consists in giving everyone equal treatment. The public institution with the duty to protect this right in a democracy has always been the court. Costa Rica’s Constitution, Article 41 grants that all people can protect their rights and interests based on the law.

The country court system is broken down into four different courts or salas only as a method to expedite matters, not to have different sets of rules for different processes. The spirit of the legal system here is to have one congruent authority.

Several lawyers contacted had no idea of the recent ruling or even that these cases existed in front of the Supreme Court. The majority do not know there is a dichotomy in the law.

A supreme court that can’t decide and attorneys that don’t realize there are important decisions to be made suggest that land purchasers should be wary.

The best defense against purchasing defective products or falling victim to fraudulent practices is to learn the facts. 

One goal is to stay out of the Costa Rica court system.  However, for those who have landed in the maze, professionals who understand the shortcomings can rise above the obstacles. 

Article first published in A.M. Costa Rica on September 27, 2004.