TCP rules Santa Cruz municipality to continue in possession of Mutualista market land

The Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP) of Bolivia has ruled that the Santa Cruz de la Sierra municipality will continue to possess the land designated for the Mutualista market, ending a four-year dispute. The court has directed that the ownership conflict with the Crapuzzi family be settled through ordinary legal proceedings.

In a significant decision, the TCP declared that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate venue for defining property rights. This ruling effectively nullifies a previous constitutional judgment, Sentence 0531/2024-S3, which had invalidated Municipal Law 417 and mandated the issuance of land use permits and cadastral certificates to Nelson Miguel Crapuzzi.

Two recent TCP rulings have altered the legal landscape of the conflict. The most recent, Sentence 1052/2026-S3 dated July 30, 2026, provisionally granted protection in a Popular Action filed by Rolando Schrupp. This action sought to safeguard Santa Cruz de la Sierra's public assets, ordering the municipal government to maintain possession of the Mutualista market while the land ownership dispute is resolved by the competent jurisdiction.

Additionally, Auto Constitucional Plurinacional 0153/2026-O, issued on July 28, 2026, dismissed appeals filed by the Crapuzzi family's defense. This auto confirmed that disputes over property rights must be adjudicated in ordinary courts, as the constitutional court lacks the authority to definitively determine property ownership. The ruling noted that the Constitutional Chamber had overstepped its bounds by assuming jurisdiction over matters belonging to ordinary courts.

The constitutional auto also addressed documentation, indicating that some properties listed under the claimant's name do not correspond to the Mutualista market's location. These include parcels named Soledad (9,000 sq meters), another of 8,694 sq meters in the northeast, and a third of 4,489 sq meters, also in the northeast. The court found discrepancies in the registration and location of these properties, suggesting they are distinct from the market's disputed land.