Temporal application of the natural resource protection requirement in possessory information proceedingsAplicación temporal del requisito de protección del recurso natural en información posesoria

"VI.- Regarding the substantive aspects of the judgment, it rejects the proceedings on the grounds that the natural resource was not protected. To this end, it considered as a proven fact (number 8) that the property to be titled was originally covered by forest on at least two-thirds of its area, which was accredited with the map on folio 4. Subsequently, with the judicial inspection, it considered as an unproven fact that the applicant had protected the natural resource, since during the judicial proceeding it was verified that the land is dedicated to pastureland (repastos), and therefore it accepts the criterion of the Procuraduría General de la República in the sense that there was a land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo). In this regard, it is pertinent to make the following considerations. Article 7 of the Ley Informaciones Posesorias was amended by Ley 7575 of February 13, 1996, indicating that for properties located outside protected areas that contain forests, they can only be titled if the applicant proves to be the holder of the legal rights of ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years and having protected the natural resource. This Tribunal, in another Voto, conducted an analysis of this norm and the manner in which the issue of protecting the natural resource should be interpreted. In this regard, we cite part of that Voto, which is 311 of ten hours and fifty minutes of May twenty-eighth, two thousand three: " VI.- Regarding the first ground, in the Tribunal's judgment, it is important to analyze the task of the Judge when interpreting legal norms, especially those referring to the transversal evolution that Agrarian Law has undergone, due to the emergence of Environmental Law and the transformation that has been taking place in some agrarian institutes by virtue of that influence. The guiding criterion is provided by Article 10 of the Civil Code, which establishes the Judge's obligation to interpret the norms according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and reality. The evolution suffered in the social function of property is an example of this. During the fifties, sixties, and up to the seventies of the 20th century, a paradigm of our agrarian legislation was the need to promote land productivity, and for this purpose, the peasant was encouraged to clear mountains and create pastureland or agricultural areas, as a way to prove their possession and suitability as a producer. An example of this is the Ley de Tierras y Colonización of October 1961. Ideas in this regard began to change with the development of environmental awareness starting in the seventies of the 20th century. The situation of loss of natural resources in the world, driven by deforestation, overuse of resources, population growth, and poverty, became evident in those years and prompted an alert from countries, international organizations, and scientists, initiating the enactment of documents of legal value, such as the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 and the World Charter for Nature of 1983. In the early years, the concern was to guarantee the conservation of the natural spaces of our planet, so seriously threatened. As a consequence, the creation of National Parks was stimulated, as zones of exclusion and absolute protection. In our country, the Law for the creation of National Parks is representative of this vision. It is by virtue of the United Nations Brundtland Report, which first led to the World Charter for Nature of 1983 and then to the Declaration on Development of 1986, having discovered that the environmental issue and the development issue could not be treated separately, and that one leads to the other, thus giving rise to the concept of sustainable development, which from a legal point of view consists of a bundle of obligations and rights for the world's citizens to enjoy development that is harmonious with Nature and therefore lasting for the benefit of future generations. The Declaration on Development of 1986, the Rio Declaration on Environment of 1992, with its new legal instruments, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and finally the 2002 Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development, are examples of this new conception. This process also impacts our legislation and jurisprudence. At the Regional level, the Central American conventions on Biological Diversity and on the management and conservation of Forests and Protected Wild Areas (1993) were ratified. The legislation approved starting with the Ley Forestal 4465 of 1969 slowly begins to vary these paradigms. Thus, a large number of laws incorporating the environmental variable were approved, beginning with a modification to our Political Constitution, which through Law No. 7412 of May 24, 1994, added a new paragraph to Article 50 so that it would provide that: 'Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to report acts that infringe this right and to claim compensation for the damage caused. The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve this right. The Law shall determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions.' . The 1990s are particularly important for the development of agro-environmental legislation; among others, the following were enacted: the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre No. 7317 of October 21, 1992, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554 of October 4, 1995, the Ley Forestal No 7575 of February 5, 1996, the Ley de Biodiversidad No 7788 of April 30, 1998, and the Ley de Uso, manejo y conservación de suelos number 7779 of April 30, 1998. This set of laws establishes a series of principles and regulations that incorporate the principles of sustainable development. This concept, firmly anchored in our Legislation, understands that sustainable development involves a social dimension, an economic dimension, and an ecological dimension. In the social dimension, development with equity for the inhabitants of rural communities is sought. In the economic dimension, it is understood that it is necessary to give value to our natural resources, and in the environmental dimension, it is understood that sustainable development is not possible unless the balance of ecosystems is guaranteed. We find a definition of sustainable development in Article 2 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, which establishes in its subsection c) the following: Article 2: Principles. The principles inspiring this law are the following: …c) The State shall ensure the rational use of environmental elements in order to protect and improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the national territory. Likewise, it is obliged to promote economic and environmentally sustainable development, understood as development that meets basic human needs, without compromising the options of future generations. ' As we can see, with the example developed, the paradigms immersed in the legal norm have changed rapidly in just a few years. The Agricultural Judge must therefore take into account, when analyzing situations like the present one, what the context within which the norms were issued has been, and apply it to the specific case.." As can be observed in that vote, when analyzing the issue of protecting the natural resource, one must historically situate the different agrarian policies that have prevailed in the country, for in the seventies and even the eighties, it was understood that good use of the natural resource was made by those who eliminated the mountain to create agriculture and pastureland, as this was an indication of progress and development. Today we understand that forests fulfill a series of environmental services (servicios ambientales) and therefore, in the Ley Forestal 7575 of 1996, the land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) is prohibited. It is not about justifying deforestation but about scaling the interpretation of the norms in the specific case based on what Article 10 of the Civil Code establishes. Therefore, in cases such as the present one, the Tribunal analyzes the issue with special care in order to correctly apply the norms. The question that must be asked is what the retroactive effect of that norm is, taking into account the regulations existing in earlier times. The country's forestry legislation, although it has isolated precedents in different norms, developed more systematically starting with the first forestry law, number 4465 of 1969. Said law represented a first step in addressing the forestry issue but was far from resolving it; one of the first problems was that of the principles upon which the law's provisions were based. Thus, in Article 1, the main objective of the law was established as ensuring the use, conservation, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of multiple use of renewable natural resources. On May 7, 1986, Law 7032 was enacted, replacing 4465. This law was in force until 1990 when it was declared unconstitutional by the Sala Constitucional, through Voto 546-90 of 2:30 PM on May 22, 1990, by virtue of encountering constitutional deficiencies as it did not have a qualified vote of two-thirds of the votes of the deputies of the Asamblea Legislativa. The Voto put Ley 4465 into effect until a new law existed, which was approved by Congress on July 16, 1990, which is number 7174, which is very similar to the repealed 7032. In these laws, there is a qualitative leap regarding some legal regulations. For example, the reference to the principle of multiple use of natural resources was eliminated, and in its place, the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources was established, and the principle was imposed that all lands of forest aptitude and the country's forests, whether state-owned or privately owned, would be subject to the purposes of the law. In 1996, the current Ley Forestal, number 7575, was approved, which is framed within the new concerns about the accelerated deterioration of natural resources. Within this law, it was established in Article 19 that in lands covered with forest, changing land use (uso del suelo) shall not be permitted, nor shall establishing forest plantations. It is the first time this principle is expressly incorporated. Therefore, when we analyze the issue of protecting the natural resource, we must do so with reference to the conditions under which agricultural and forestry productive activity was to be carried out in the country and the demands of the time in which it had to be applied. Evidently, the obligation to protect natural resources, and in particular forest resources, has existed since the Political Constitution of 1949 when Article 69 incorporates the principle of rational use of natural resources; however, what was understood by this at the level of ordinary legislation varies; thus, we have seen that Law 4465 allows for a multiple use of natural resources, and Law 7174, again for rational use. The prohibition on land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) came into effect starting in 1996; therefore, it could not be demanded of an owner that in the 1970s they make use of the forest resource, as long as they did not depredate the natural resources and did so in accordance with the regulations in force. VII.- In the present case, the applicant acquired the land on October fifth, nineteen seventy-seven, through public deed (folio 1). On that occasion, his brother [Nombre1] transferred to him a right to half of a land described as cultivated with star grass and natural pastures over an area of fifty hectares and the remainder as mountain, with two wooden houses with zinc roofs and an animal pen, measuring eighty-six hectares. Subsequently, the respective map was drawn up, which is number L-490608-82. Said map indicates that it is mountain and agricultural land. It has been affirmed by the Procuraduria and the lower court's ruling that the proportion is two-thirds mountain and one-third agriculture; however, that is an appreciation from observing the map, not a scientific verification or technical criterion, since it could also be interpreted, based on a view of it, that the mountain area is half of the land. On the other hand, the map as a document has limitations. Our Civil Code echoes this by limiting the effects of the measurement of a land. Article 301 states: "The measurement of a land, whether or not protested, is not sufficient by itself to prove possession of the same land." Therefore, the evaluation of the evidence must be done respecting and taking into account what, as a whole, allows a conclusion to be drawn. In this case, the ruling is based solely and exclusively on what the map shows, without any other supporting element. The testimonial evidence received stated the following: Witness [Nombre2] declared: "I have known the property (sic) for twenty-six years, I do not know previous possessors, since I have known it [Nombre3] has had it, since always he has dedicated it to cattle activity, currently Don [Nombre3] has cattle but I do not know how many, it measures between thirty-nine and forty hectares ..." (folio 48). For his part, witness [Nombre4] declared: "I have known [Nombre3]'s property (sic) for twenty-seven years and since I have known this property the only possessor has been [Nombre3], when [Nombre3] (sic) began to work this property it had agriculture, subsequently he sowed pastures and dedicated it to cattle ranching...towards the center of this property there is an area of forest that is small..." (folio 49). Finally, deponent [Nombre5] declared: "I have known this property for sixteen years, correction twenty-six years, previously there was another possessor but I remember the name, the property measures from thirty-nine to forty hectares that have been dedicated to cattle up to today..." On the other hand, we have the soil studies on folio 9 indicating that the applicant has exercised conforming soil use (uso del suelo) for the activity being carried out, and within the recommendations item, it says: "area covered with natural pasture, coverage that protects the soil reducing its degradation according to its capacity." From the evidence collected, evaluated as a whole based on criteria of equity and law, as the matter requires, it cannot be affirmed that the applicant did not demonstrate having protected the natural resource. In the first place, since he acquired it in 1977, the land already had areas of pastureland. It cannot be determined whether what he acquired was the agriculture and pasture part or the mountain part. In any case, by 1987, the applicant had already consolidated his possession, in the terms required by the legal framework of that era. According to the testimonial evidence, on the farm, the applicant has always had cattle and agricultural activities in the area; there is no mention of tree felling or timber activity. Finally, the land-use study (estudio de uso del suelo) reports that a use according to the soil's capacity is being made, and no change regarding that is proposed, as the maintenance of natural pasture is recommended rather as a means of combating its degradation. For all these reasons, it is appropriate to revoke the appealed judgment and instead approve the present proceedings for the information on possession (diligencias de información posesoria). The Registro Público de la Propiedad is ordered to register in the name of [Nombre3], of legal age, married once, farmer, identity card number CED1, resident of Valle de la Estrella, place known as Río Duruy, without prejudice to third parties with better rights and free of encumbrances, the property described as follows; situated in Río Dury, [Dirección1], province of Limón, with an area of thirty-nine hectares, seven thousand six hundred eighty-four meters with twenty-two square decimeters, according to cadastral map number L- four hundred ninety thousand six hundred eight dash eighty-two. Dedicated to cattle ranching and has four constructions, one of them being the applicant's house. The acquisitive cause was a purchase-sale via public deed number one hundred forty-five of nine hours on October fifth, nineteen seventy-seven. It borders to the north with [Nombre6], to the south: Protection Zone of the Río Duruy and an easement (servidumbre) of passage with a measurement of five meters wide and five hundred thirty-eight meters long which borders: to the North with [Nombre1] and to the East with a stream; to the south with the protection zone of [Dirección2] and to [Dirección3] with the property to be titled); East: [Nombre1] and West: [Nombre7]. The adjoining owners were notified, and the edict was published in the respective Boletín Judicial. For tax purposes, it is valued at the sum of five million colones. The area adjacent to the Río Duruy indicated by Article 33 subsection b) of the Ley Forestal No 7575 constitutes a protection area, and the felling of trees is prohibited." The prohibition on land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo) took effect in 1996; therefore, a landowner could not be required, in the 1970s, to have carried out forest resource utilization, provided they did not deplete natural resources and acted in accordance with the regulations in force at the time. VII.- In the present case, the applicant acquired the land on October 5, 1977, by public deed (folio 1). On that occasion, his brother [Nombre1] transferred to him a half interest in a property described as cultivated with star grass and natural pasture over an area of fifty hectares, with the remainder being mountain, with two wooden houses with zinc roofs and a livestock pen, measuring eighty-six hectares. Subsequently, the corresponding survey plan was prepared, numbered L-490608-82. This plan indicates that the land is mountain and agriculture. The Office of the Attorney General and the lower court ruling have asserted that the proportion is two-thirds mountain and one-third agriculture; however, that is an assessment based on observing the plan, not a scientific verification or technical criterion, since it could just as well be interpreted from viewing the same plan that the mountain area is half of the land. Furthermore, the survey plan as a document has limitations. Our Civil Code echoes this by limiting the effects of the survey (mensura) of a property. Article 301 states the following: "The survey of a property, whether challenged or not, is not sufficient by itself to prove possession of the same property." Therefore, the evaluation of evidence must be done taking into account what the evidence as a whole allows one to conclude. In this case, the ruling is based solely and exclusively on what the plan shows, without any other element to support it. The testimonial evidence received stated the following: The witness [Nombre2] testified: "I have known the farm (sic) for twenty-six years, I do not know previous possessors, since I have known it [Nombre3] has held it, he has always dedicated it to cattle activity, currently Mr. [Nombre3] has cattle but I do not know how many, it measures between thirty-nine and forty hectares..." (folio 48). For his part, the witness [Nombre4] testified: "I have known [Nombre3]'s farm (sic) for twenty-seven years and since I have known this farm the only possessor has been [Nombre3], when [Nombre3] (sic) began working this farm it had agriculture, later he sowed pasture and dedicated it to livestock...towards the center of this farm there is a forest area that is very small..." (folio 49). Finally, the deponent [Nombre5] testified: "I have known this farm for sixteen years, I correct that to twenty-six years, previously another possessor held it but I remember the name, the farm measures from thirty-nine to forty hectares which he has dedicated to cattle up to the present day..." Furthermore, we have the soil study at folio 9, which indicates that the applicant has exercised land use consistent with the activity being carried out, and within the recommendations section it states: "area covered with natural pasture, a cover that protects the soil, reducing its degradation according to its capacity." From the evidence gathered, evaluated as a whole based on criteria of equity and law, as the subject matter requires, it cannot be affirmed that the applicant has not demonstrated having protected the natural resource. First, since he acquired it in 1977, the land already had pasture areas. It cannot be determined whether what he acquired included the agriculture and pasture portion or the mountain portion. In any event, by 1987, the applicant had already consolidated his possession, under the terms required by the legal framework in force at that time. According to the testimonial evidence regarding the farm, the applicant has always had cattle and agricultural activities in the area; no mention is made of tree felling or timber activity. Finally, the land-use study accounts for the fact that use is being made according to the land's capacity, and no change whatsoever is proposed in this regard; rather, the maintenance of the natural pasture is recommended as a means of combating its degradation. For all these reasons, it is appropriate to reverse the appealed judgment and instead approve these possessory information proceedings. The Public Registry of Property is hereby ordered to register in the name of [Nombre3], of legal age, married once, farmer, identity card number CED1, resident of Valle de la Estrella, place known as Río Duruy, without prejudice to third parties with superior rights and free of encumbrances, the real property described as follows; located in Río Dury, [Dirección1], province of Limón, with a measurement of thirty-nine hectares, seven thousand six hundred eighty-four square meters and twenty-two square decimeters, according to cadastral plan number L-490608-82. Dedicated to livestock and having four buildings, one of which is the applicant's house. The cause of acquisition was purchase and sale by public deed number one hundred forty-five at nine o'clock on October 5, 1977. It borders on the north with [Nombre6], on the south: Protective Zone of the Río Duruy and an easement (servidumbre) for passage measuring five meters wide and five hundred thirty-eight meters long, which borders: on the North with [Nombre1] and on the East with a ravine; on the south with the protective zone of [Dirección2] and on the [Dirección3] with the property to be titled); East: [Nombre1] and West: [Nombre7]. The adjacent landowners were notified and the edict was published in the respective Judicial Bulletin. For tax purposes, it is estimated at the sum of five million colones. The area adjacent to the Río Duruy indicated by Article 33, subsection b) of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 constitutes a protection area and tree felling is prohibited." Finally, the deponent [Nombre5] declared: "I have known this property for sixteen years, I correct myself, twenty-six years, previously another possessor held it but I remember the name, the property measures from thirty-nine to forty hectares which I have dedicated to cattle up to the present day..." On the other hand, we have the soil studies on folio 9 that indicate the applicant has exercised the conforming use (uso conform) of the soil for the activity being carried out and within the recommendations item it states: "area covered with natural pasture cover that protects the soil reducing its degradation according to its capacity." From the evidence gathered, assessed as a whole based on criteria of equity and law, as the matter requires, it cannot be affirmed that the applicant has not demonstrated having protected the natural resource. In the first place, since he acquired it in 1977, the land already had pasture lands. It cannot be determined whether what he acquired was the agriculture and pasture portion or the mountain portion. In any case, by 1987, the applicant had already consolidated his possession, under the terms required by the legal framework (bloque de legalidad) at that time. According to the testimonial evidence on the property, the applicant has always had cattle and agricultural activities in the area; no mention is made of tree felling or logging activity. Finally, the land-use study (estudio de uso del suelo) accounts that a use is being made according to the soil's capacity, and no change whatsoever is proposed regarding that, since it is rather recommended to maintain the natural pasture as a means of combating its degradation. For all these reasons, the proper course will be to revoke the appealed judgment and instead approve these possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria). The Public Property Registry (Registro Público de la Propiedad) shall be ordered to register in the name of [Nombre3], of legal age, married once, farmer, identity card number CED1, resident of Valle de la Estrella, place known as Río Duruy, without prejudice to third parties with better right and free of encumbrances, the real property described as follows; situated in Río Dury, [Dirección1], province of Limón, with an area of thirty-nine hectares, seven thousand six hundred eighty-four meters with twenty-two square decimeters, according to cadastral map number L- four hundred ninety thousand six hundred eight dash eighty-two. Dedicated to cattle ranching and has four constructions, one of them the applicant's house. The root of title (causa adquisitiva) was sale through public deed number one hundred forty-five at nine o'clock on October fifth, nineteen seventy-seven. Bounded on the north by [Nombre6], on the south: protective zone (zona protectora) of the Río Duruy and right-of-way easement (servidumbre de paso) measuring five meters wide and five hundred thirty-eight meters long which is bounded: on the North by [Nombre1] and on the East by a ravine; on the south by the protective zone of [Dirección2] and on [Dirección3] by the property to be titled); East: [Nombre1] and West: [Nombre7]. The adjoining landowners were notified and the edict was published in the respective Judicial Bulletin. For tax purposes, it is valued at the sum of five million colones. The area adjacent to the Río Duruy indicated in Article 33, subsection b) of the Forestry Law No. 7575 constitutes a protection area (área de protección) and the felling of trees is prohibited."

"VI.- En relación con los aspectos de fondo de la sentencia, la misma rechaza las diligencias al considerar no se protegió el recurso natural. Para ello tuvo como hecho probado ( número 8) que la finca a titular se encontraba originalmente cubierta de bosque en al menos dos terceras partes de su cabida, lo cual acreditó con el plano de folio 4. Luego con el reconocimiento judicial tuvo como hecho no probado que el titulante hubiera protegido el recurso natural , pues en la diligencia judicial constató que el terreno se encuentra dedicado a repastos, por lo cual acoge el criterio de la Procuraduría General de la República en el sentido de que hubo un cambio de uso del suelo. Al respecto conviene hacer las siguientes consideraciones. El artículo 7 de la Ley Informaciones Posesorias fue reformado por Ley 7575 de 13 de febrero de 1996, indicando que en las fincas ubicadas fuera de áreas protegidas que contengan bosques, las mismas solo pueden ser tituladas si el promovente demuestra ser el titular de los derechos legales de posesión decenal, ejercida por los menos durante diez años y haber protegido el recurso natural. Este Tribunal en otro Voto hacía un análisis de esta norma y la forma en que debe ser interpretado el tema de la protección del recurso natural. Al respecto citamos parte de ese Voto, que es 311 de diez horas cincuenta minutros del veiontiocho de mayo del dos mil tres :" VI.- En cuanto al primer motivo, a juicio del Tribunal, es importante analizar la tarea que tiene el Juez a la hora de interpretar las normas jurídicas, en especial las que se refieren a la evolución transversal que ha sufrido el Derecho Agrario, por la irrupción del Derecho Ambiental y la transformación que ha venido operándose de algunos institutos agrarios en virtud de esa influencia. El criterio orientador lo aporta el artículo 10 del Código Civil el cual establece la obligación del Juez de, interpretar las normas según el sentido propio de sus palabras, en relación con el contexto, los antecedentes históricos y legislativos y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser aplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y realidad de ellas. La evolución sufrida en la función social de la propiedad es un ejemplo de ello. Durante los años cincuenta, sesenta y hasta el setenta del siglo XX, existía como paradigma de nuestra legislación agraria, la necesidad de impulsar la productividad de la tierra, y para ello se estimulaba al campesino a abrir montaña y crear repastos o áreas de agricultura, como forma de probar su posesión y su idoneidad como productor. Ejemplo de ello es la Ley de Tierras y Colonización de Octubre de 1961. Las ideas al respecto empiezan a cambiar con el desarrollo de la conciencia ambiental a partir de los años setenta del siglo XX. La situación de pérdida de recursos naturales en el mundo, motivada por la deforestación, el sobre uso de los recursos, el crecimiento de la población, la pobreza, se hizo evidente en esos años y motivó la alerta de los países, las organizaciones internacionales, y los científicos, iniciando la promulgación de documentos de valor jurídico, como la Declaración de Estocolmo de 1972, y la Carta de la Naturaleza de 1983. En los primeros años la preocupación era garantizar la conservación de los espacios naturales de nuestro planeta, tan seriamente amenazados. Como consecuencia de ello se estimuló la creación de Parques Nacionales, como zonas de exclusión y de protección absoluta. En nuestro país la Ley de creación de Parques Nacionales es representativa de esta visión. Es virtud del Informe Bruntland de las Naciones Unidas, que desembocó primero en la Carta de la Naturaleza de 1983 y luego en la Declaración del Desarrollo de 1986, haber descubierto que el tema ambiental y el tema del desarrollo no podían tratarse en forma separada, y que uno conduce al otro, dando origen así al concepto del desarrollo sostenible, que desde el punto de vista del Derecho consiste en un haz de obligaciones y derechos de los ciudadanos del mundo a disfrutar de un desarrollo que sea armónico con la Naturaleza y que por ello sea perdurable en beneficio de las generaciones futuras. La Declaración sobre el Desarrollo de 1986, la Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente de 1992, con sus nuevos instrumentos jurídicos, la Convención Marco sobre Cambio Climático y el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, finalmente la Cumbre de Johannesburgo del 2002 sobre desarrollo sostenible, son ejemplo de esta nueva concepción. Ese proceso impacta también nuestra legislación y nuestra jurisprudencia. A nivel Regional fueron ratificados los convenios Centroamericanos sobre la diversidad Biológica y sobre el manejo y conservación de Bosques y Areas Silvestres Protegidas (1993). La legislación aprobada a partir de la Ley Forestal 4465 de 1969, empieza lentamente a variar estos paradigmas. Así se aprobaron gran cantidad de leyes donde se incorpora la variable ambiental, empezando por una modificación a nuestra Constitución Política, que mediante Ley No. 7412 de 24 de mayo de 1994 agregó un nuevo párrafo al artículo 50 a fin de que contemplar que: “ toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por ello está legitimada para denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado. El Estado garantizará, defenderá y preservará ese derecho. La Ley determinará las responsabilidad y las sanciones corrrespondientes .” . Los años 90 son particularmente importantes para el desarrollo de legislación agro ambiental, se promulgan entre otras la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre No. 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente No. 7554 del 4 de octubre de 1995, la Ley Forestal No 7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996, la Ley de Biodiversidad No 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998 y la Ley de Uso, manejo y conservación de suelos número 7779 de 30 de abril de 1998. Este conjunto de leyes establecen una serie de principios y regulaciones que incorporan los principios del desarrollo sostenible. Este concepto firmemente anclado en nuestra Legislación entiende que el desarrollo sostenible involucra, una dimensión social, una dimensión económica y una dimensión ecológica. En la dimensión social se busca un desarrollo con equidad para los habitantes de las comunidades rurales. En la dimensión económica se entiende que es necesario darle valor a nuestros recursos naturales, y en la dimensión ambiental se entiende, el desarrollo sostenible no es posible si no se garantiza el equilibrio de los ecosistemas. Encontramos una definición de desarrollo sostenible en el artículo 2 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente que establece en su inciso c) lo siguiente: Artículo 2: Principios. Los principios que inspiran esta ley son los siguientes: …c) El Estado velará por la utilización racional de los elementos ambientales con el fin de proteger y mejorar la calidad de vida de los habitantes del territorio nacional. Asimismo está obligado a propiciar un desarrollo económico y ambientalmente sostenible, entendido como el desarrollo que satisface las necesidades humanas básicas, sin comprometer las opciones de las generaciones futuras. “ Como podemos apreciar, con el ejemplo desarrollado, los paradigmas inmersos en la norma jurídica han cambiado velozmente en pocos años. El Juez Agrario debe tener en cuenta entonces a la hora de analizar situaciones como la presente, cuales han sido el contexto dentro del cual se dieron las normas, y aplicarlo al caso concreto.." Como se puede observar en ese voto, a la hora de analizar el tema de la protección del recurso natural debe ubicarse históricamente las diferentes políticas agrarias que han imperado en el país, pues en la década de los setenta e incluso los ochenta se entendía que hacía buen uso del recurso natural quien eliminaba la montaña para hacer agricultura y repastos, pues ello era un indicativo de progreso y desarrollo. Hoy entendemos los bosques cumplen una serie de servicios ambientales y por ello en la Ley Forestal 7575 de 1996, se prohíbe el cambio de uso de suelo. No se trata de justificar la deforestación pero si dimensionar en lo concreto la interpretación de las normas a partir de lo que establece el artículo 10 del Código Civil. Por ello en casos como el presente el Tribunal analiza con especial cuidado el tema a fin de aplicar correctamente las normas. La pregunta que corresponde hacerse es cual es el efecto retroactivo de esa norma, tomando en cuenta la normativa existente en épocas anteriores. La legislación forestal del país, aunque tiene antecedentes aislados en diferentes normas, en forma más sistemática se desarrolla a partir del la primera ley forestal, la número 4465 de 1969. Dicha ley significó un primer paso en el atención del tema forestal pero estuvo muy lejos de resolverlo, uno de los primeros problemas fue, el de los principios sobre los cuales se asentaron las disposiciones de la ley. Así en el artículo 1ero se estableció como objetivo principal de la ley velar por el aprovechamiento, conservación y fomento de los recursos forestales del país, de acuerdo con el principio de uso múltiple de los recursos naturales renovables. El 7 de mayo de 1986 se promulgó la ley 7032 que sustituyò a la 4465. Esta ley estuvo vigente hasta 1990 cuando fue declarada inconstitucional por parte de la Sala Constitucional, mediante voto 546-90 de las 14:30 hrs del 22 de mayo de 1990, en virtud de encontrarse deficiencias constitucionales al no contar con una votación calificada de las dos terceras partes de los votos de los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa. El voto puso en vigencia la Ley 4465 hasta tanto no existiera una nueva ley, la que fue aprobada por el Congreso el 16 de julio de 1990, que es la número 7174, la cual es muy similar a la 7032 derogada. En estas leyes hay un salto de calidad en cuanto a algunas regulaciones jurídicas. Se eliminó por ejemplo la referencia al principio de uso múltiple de los recursos naturales y en su lugar se estableció el de uso racional de los recursos naturales renovables y se impuso el principio de que todos los terrenos de aptitud forestal y los bosques del país ya sean estatales o del dominio particular quedarían sometidos a los fines de la ley. En el año 1996 se aprueba la actual ley Forestal , número 7575,la cual se enmarca dentro de la nuevas nuevas preocupaciones por el deterioro acelerado de los recursos naturales. Dentro de esta ley se estableció en el artículo 19 que en terrenos cubiertos de bosque no se permitirá cambiar el uso del suelo, ni establecer plantaciones forestales. Es la primera vez que se incorpora en forma expresa este principio. Por tanto cuando analizamos el tema de la protección del recurso natural tenemos que hacerlo referido a las condiciones en que debía desarrollarse la actividad productiva agraria y forestal en el país y las exigencias del tiempo en que tenía aplicarse. Evidentemente la obligación de proteger los recursos naturales y en particular los forestales existe desde la Constitución Política de 1949 cuando en el artículo 69 de incopora el principio de uso racional de los recursos naturales, no obstante lo que que entendía por ello a nivel de legislación ordinaria varía, así hemos visto , la ley 4465, permite hacer un uso múltiple de los recursos naturales y la 7174, de nuevo un uso racional. La prohibición de cambio de uso del suelo se da a partir de 1996, por ello no podría exigirse a un propietario que en los años 70 hiciera aprovechamiento del recurso forestal, siempre y cuando no depredara los recursos naturales y lo hiciera en concordancia con la normativa vigente. VII.- En el presente caso el titulante adquirió el terreno el cinco de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y siete mediante escritura pública ( folio 1). En esa oportunidad se le transmitió por parte de su hermano [Nombre1] un derecho a la mitad sobre un terreno que describe como de cultivo de pastos estrella y natural en una extensión de cincuenta hectáreas y el resto de montaña, con dos casas de madera y techo de zinc y un corral para animales, mide ochenta y seis hectáreas. Posteriormente se confecciona el respectivo plano que es el número L-490608-82. En dicho plano se indica que es terreno de montaña y agricultura. Se ha afirmado por la Procuraduria y el fallo de instancia que la proporción es de dos terceras partes de montaña y una tercera parte de agricultura, sin embargo esa es una apreciación de la observación del plano, no una constatación científica o criterio técnico, pues igual podría interpretarse con vista del mismo que el área de montaña es la mitad del terreno. Por otra parte el plano como documento tiene limitaciones. Nuestro Código Civil se hace eco de eso ello al limitar los efectos de la mensura de un terreno. dice el 301 lo siguiente: "La mensura de un terreno, sea o no protestada, no basta por sí sola para probar la posesión del mismo terreno" . Por ello la valoración de la prueba debe hacerse respetando tomando en cuenta lo que en su conjunto permite concluir. En este caso el fallo se basa única y exclusivamente en lo que arroja el plano, sin otro elemento que lo avale. La prueba testimonial recibida expresó lo siguiente: El testigo [Nombre2] declaró: " conoce la finca ( sic) hace veintiseis años, no conozco anteriores poseedores, desde que la conozco la tiene [Nombre3], desde siempre la ha dedicado a a la actividad de ganado, actualmente don [Nombre3] tiene ganado pero no se cuanto, mide entre treinta y nueve y cuarenta hectáreas ..." ( folio 48) Por su parte el testigo [Nombre4] declaró: " Tengo de conocer la finzca(sic) de [Nombre3] hace veintisiete años y desde que conozco esta finca el único poseedor ha sido [Nombre3], cuando [Nombre3] ( sic) emepzó a trabajar esta finca tenía agricultura, posteriormente sembró pastos y la dedicó a la ganadería...hacia el centro de esta finca hay una área de bosque que es poquita..." ( folio 49). Finalmente la deponente [Nombre5] declaró: " Conozco esta finca hace dieciséis años, corrijo veintiseis años, anteriormente la hubo otro poseedor pero recuerdo el nombre, la finca mide de treinta y nueve a cuarenta hectáreas que la dedicado a ganado hasta el día de hoy..." Por otra parte tenemos el estudios de suelos de folio 9 que indica el titulante ha ejercido el uso conform del suelo para la actividad que se está realizando y dentro del item de recomendaciones dice: " área cubierta de pasto natural cobertura que protege el suelo reduciendo la degradación de estos de acuerdo a su capacidad ". De la prueba recolectada, valorada en conjunto con base en criterios de equidad y derecho, como exige la materia, no se puede afirmar que el titulante no haya demostrado haber protegido el recurso natural. En primer término desde que adquirió en el año 1977, el terreno ya tenía terrenos de pastos. No se puede determinar si dentro de lo que adquirió, fue la parte de agricultura y pastos o la parte de montaña. En todo caso para el año 1987, ya el titulante había consolidado su posesión, en los términos que exigía el bloque de legalidad en esa época. Según la prueba testimonial en la finca, el titulante siempre ha tenido ganado y actividades agrícolas en la zona, no se menciona la corta de árboles o actividad maderera. Finalmente, el estudio de uso del suelo da cuenta de que se está haciendo un uso según la capacidad del suelo, y no se plantea ningún cambio en cuanto a tal, pues más bien se recomienda la mantención del pasto natural como medio de combatir la degradación del mismo. Por todas estas razones lo procedente será revocar la sentencia venida en alzada y en su lugar aprobar las presentes diligencias de información posesoria. Se ordenará al Registro Público de la Propiedad inscribir a nombre de [Nombre3] , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, cédula de identidad número CED1 , vecino de Valle de la Estrella, sitio conocido como Río Duruy, sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derecho y libre de gravámenes el inmueble que se describe de la siguiente manera; situado en Río Dury, [Dirección1] , , provincia de Limón, con una medida de treinta y nueve hectáreas siete mil seiscientos ochenta y cuatro metros con veintidos decímetros cuadrados, según plano catastrado número L- cuatrocientos noventa mil seiscientos ocho guión ochenta y dos. Dedicado a ganadería y cuenta con cuatro construcciones una de ellas la casa del titulante. La causa adquisitiva fue compraventa mediante escritura pública número ciento cuarenta y cinco de las nueve horas del cinco de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y siete. Colinda al norte con [Nombre6] , al sur: Zona protectora del Río Duruy y servidumbre de paso con una medida de cinco metros de ancho y quinientos treinta y ocho metros de largo la cual colinda: al Norte con [Nombre1] y al Este con quebrada; al sur con zona protectora de [Dirección2] y al [Dirección3] con finca a titular); Este: [Nombre1] y Oeste: [Nombre7] . Los colindantes fueron notificados y el edicto fue publicado en el Boletín Judicial respectivo. Para efectos fiscales se estima en la suma de cinco millones de colones. El área contigua al Río Duruy que señala el artículo 33 inciso b) de la Ley Forestal No 7575 constituye área de protección y queda prohibida la corta de árboles."