Spanish
Santo Domingo. – The judges of the Second Chamber of the Superior Administrative Tribunal (TSA) annulled a sentence that ordered the Dominican State to pay a fair price to several individuals for land allegedly expropriated within the Cotubanamá National Park, in the municipality of San Rafael del Yuma.
The decision was adopted by magistrates Antonio Sánchez Mejía and Úrsula Carrasco Márquez, with the dissenting vote of judge María Guillermina Calderón Abreu, who declared the inapplicability of the one-year term established in article 40 of Law 1494 to file the review appeal.
The court upheld an exception of unconstitutionality raised by the General Directorate of National Assets (DGBN), considering that said deadline limits access to justice for the defense of collective heritage.
National Assets, along with the Public Ministry, argued that Article 16 of the Constitution declares Protected Areas as patrimonial assets of the Nation, inalienable, unseizable, and imprescriptible. In the process, the Attorney General's Office, the Specialized Prosecutor's Office for the Prosecution of Administrative Corruption (PEPCA), and the Administrative Attorney General's Office acted as compulsory interveners.
In its decision, the court established that the term of article 40 of Law 1494-47 "directly contravenes the mandate of articles 6 and 16 of the Constitution".
Furthermore, it determined that the former Parcel 18 DC 10/2 8 acquired the status of public domain property with the declaration of Protected Area through Decree 722 of 1975.
The TSA ruling revoked decision no. 0030-03-2022-SSEN-00193, which favored Sonia Yolanda Cedeño Valdez and Castillo Cedeño, SRL, for considering it "seriously questioned." The original ruling was issued without the court knowing about key legal proceedings initiated by the State that undermine the legality of the titles.
In 2022, a fair price was ruled in favor of Sonia Yolanda Cedeño Valdez and Castillo Cedeño, SRL without regularly summoning the State and without taking into account that the sanitation process of the Plot in litigation was carried out without considering Decree 722 of 1975.
The judges took into account that there are multiple active lawsuits filed by the State Attorney before the Land Court of La Altagracia, who are unaware of the plaintiffs' ownership in fair compensation and suggests the existence of fraudulent maneuvers during the sanitation.
