Non-retroactivity of the soil-conformity requirement in possessory-information proceedings before the Agrarian TribunalIrretroactividad del requisito de uso conforme del suelo en información posesoria ante el Tribunal Agrario

V.The core issue of these proceedings revolves around the fact that, according to the certification from the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria, on the property described in cadastral plan A-665944, the proper land use (uso conforme del suelo) is not being exercised, since the implementation of plant cover on the slopes and terraces is recommended. For this reason, the Procuraduría General de la República opposes the approval of these proceedings if effective compliance with those technical recommendations is not achieved.

VI.It is essential to cite jurisprudence from the Sala Constitucional that analyzes general aspects of usucapion (Usucapion), which serve as a basis for resolving these proceedings, as it is a mode of acquiring real property rights: “GENERAL REGIME OF USUCAPION: In principle, it should be noted that possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) regulated by the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias N° 139 of July 14, 1941, and its reforms, are a non-contentious judicial procedure by which a property title for real estate is formalized in the Public Registry. In general, this procedure aims for possessors who lack a registrable title in the Public Registry to obtain one. Article 1 of that law provides that for a possessor of real estate to request the granting of a title based on the possessory information procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years under the conditions set forth in Article 856 of the Código Civil, namely, as owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing requirements of time and condition characterize the possession necessary to usucapt. To obtain ownership of real property by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, Article 853 of the Código Civil specifies as requirements: a translative title of domain and good faith. (...) it follows that the titling of the real property has the acquisition of ownership as a requirement. That is, the moment of acquiring ownership by usucapion is distinguished from the moment that situation is asserted in the possessory information proceeding to obtain a registrable title in the Public Registry. Hence, usucapion is considered a mode of acquiring ownership and other possessable real rights, and titling as the procedure through which, once the requirements of usucapion are verified, the registrable property title is conferred. Usucapion is an original mode of acquiring a possessable real right through the passage of time with the requirements of the law. The acquisitive legal effect of usucapion occurs automatically with the passage of time combined with a capable possession that meets the conditions established for possession ad usucapionem, and the other requirements established by law (...)”. (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. N° 04587-97 of fifteen hours forty-five minutes of August fifth, nineteen ninety-seven. Emphasis is not from the original).

VIII.Having analyzed the Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos N° 7779 of April 30, 1998, it is determined that said regulation does not require, as a prerequisite for titling through possessory information (Información Posesoria), that a soil study be conducted to verify compliance with proper land use, much less that the recognition of the property right be denied if possession is not currently exercised in accordance with the use the land should have. In accordance with the above, the state entity is incorrect that such a requirement is contemplated in that body of law. What does occur is that in Decreto N° 29375-MAG-MINAE-H-HACIENDA-MOPT of August 8, 2000, through which the Regulation to said law is enacted, Article 58 provides: "In any possessory information or application filed before the IDA or before the Courts of Justice, for the purpose of recording it in the Public Property Registry, the interested party, in addition to the requirements demanded by common regulations, must demonstrate with an adequate soil study that possession has been exercised in compliance with the proper land use for the activity carried out, in accordance with the approved methodology, and executing them with the best management practices, according to the best available technology, in compliance with the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 41, 43, and 64 of Ley N° 7779 and this Regulation," with Article 173 of that Regulation providing that it would take effect upon its publication.

IX.It is necessary to indicate that, before the Regulation requiring that prerequisite came into force (published in La Gaceta No 57 of March 21, 2001), the petitioner had already obtained usucapion over the land in question, since, as previously indicated, the possession personally exercised by the transferor [Nombre1] dates from nineteen seventy-six.

X.In the cited jurisprudential precedent of the Sala Constitucional, it is clearly inferred as a principle that OWNERSHIP IS ACQUIRED WHEN USUCAPION IS CONSOLIDATED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED, SINCE TITLING IS SIMPLY A FORMALIZATION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT.

XI.Under this reasoning, it is not possible to retroactively apply the Regulation to the detriment of already acquired rights, since the property right having been consolidated on the date the requirement of proper land use is incorporated by regulation, it is not appropriate to require the petitioner to demonstrate that the possessory acts on which they intend to base their titling were in accordance with that new regulation. Note that when the usucapion that gave rise to the property right was consolidated, the petitioner's transferor had exercised possessory acts in accordance with the requirements for acquiring ownership in force at that time.

XII.That said, the Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos N° 7779 of April 30, 1998, establishes in Article 6, subsection a), as one of the specific functions of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, "to oversee, evaluate, and conduct, when deemed necessary, basic land-use studies to define agricultural uses, complying with the guidelines of the legislation in force regarding territorial planning," and Article 41 establishes: "Every natural or legal person, public or private, shall be obligated to promote, contribute to, and execute all practices and activities necessary for the management, conservation, and recovery of soils. Therefore, it is mandatory to cooperate with and comply with the measures that the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, in coordination with the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, dictates for the purpose of managing, conserving, and recovering the soil resource." Likewise, Article 45 provides that "it is the obligation of natural and legal persons, owners or possessors of land with agricultural suitability, to allow the entry of technicians authorized by the Area Committee or the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, so they can verify the maintenance of soil management, conservation, and recovery practices." Similarly, Article 51 provides that "whosoever, by action or omission, violates the provisions of these regulations, including the purposes and objectives indicated in Chapters I and II of this law, shall incur the actions defined by the criminal and sanctioning legislation in force. Likewise, the corresponding administrative legislation shall be applied for offenses that imply a violation of the administrative rules that protect public or private property from these acts and that sanction offenders."

XIII.Under this line of thought, it is evident that approving the possessory information does not imply that the relevant public entities (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía or Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería) cannot follow up on this specific case in order to ensure fulfillment of the objectives and scope of the Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, applying the corresponding procedures.

XIV.The foregoing is so because it is not permissible to deny the titling of the property based on the fact that proper land use is not currently being fully achieved, since, as explained, through this possessory information proceeding, what is done is to recognize an already consolidated property right. Interpreting the opposite would practically imply the denial of a pre-existing property right for failing to comply with a regulatory provision that can be fulfilled through the administrative mechanisms provided for by law.

XV.Therefore, for the reasons stated, the objections of the Procuraduría General de la República are rejected, and the appropriate course is to affirm the resolution on appeal. The appealed judgment is affirmed on the matters appealed."

For that reason, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic opposes the approval of these proceedings if there is no effective compliance with those technical recommendations. VI. It is essential to cite case law from the Constitutional Chamber where general aspects of Usucapion (usucapion) are analyzed, which serve as a basis for resolving the present proceedings, given that it is a mode of acquisition of rights in rem: “GENERAL REGIME OF USUCAPION: In principle, it should be noted that the possessory information proceedings regulated in the Law of Possessory Information No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, are a non-contentious judicial procedure through which a title of ownership of real property is formalized in the Public Registry. In general, this procedure is intended to allow possessors who lack a registrable title in the Public Registry to obtain one. Article 1 of that law provides that for the possessor of real property to request the granting of a title based on the possessory information procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years under the conditions indicated in Article 856 of the Civil Code, namely, as owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing requirements of time and condition characterize the possession necessary to acquire by usucapion. To obtain ownership of real property by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, Article 853 of the Civil Code indicates the following requirements: a deed transferring ownership (título traslativo de dominio) and good faith (buena fe). (...), it follows that the titling of the real property has as a requirement the acquisition of ownership. That is, a distinction is made between the moment of acquisition of ownership by usucapion and the moment when that situation is asserted in the possessory information procedure to obtain a registrable title in the Public Registry. Hence, usucapion is considered a mode of acquiring ownership and other possessable rights in rem, and titling as the procedure through which, having verified the requirements of usucapion, the registrable title of ownership is conferred. Usucapion is an original mode of acquiring a possessable right in rem through the passage of time with the requirements of law. The acquisitive legal effect of usucapion occurs automatically with the passage of time coupled with effective possession (posesión hábil) that meets the conditions established for possession ad usucapionem, and the other requirements established by law (...)”. (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. No. 04587-97 at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on August fifth, nineteen ninety-seven. Emphasis is not from the original). VIII. Having analyzed the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils No. 7779 of April 30, 1998, it is found that said regulation does not require, as a prerequisite to obtain title through Possessory Information, that a soil study be conducted in order to verify whether or not the conforming use of the soil (uso conforme del suelo) is complied with, much less that the recognition of the right of ownership be denied if the possession is not currently exercised in accordance with the use that the soil should have. Based on the foregoing, the state entity is not correct that said requirement is contemplated in that legal body. What does occur is that in Decree No. 29375-MAG-MINAE-H-HACIENDA-MOPT of August 8, 2000, through which the Regulations to said law are promulgated, its Article 58 provides: "In any possessory information or [proceeding] filed before the IDA or before the Courts of Justice, for the purpose of recording [it] in the Public Property Registry, the interested party, in addition to the requirements demanded by common regulations, must demonstrate with an adequate soil study that they have exercised possession complying with the conforming use of the soil for the activity they carry out in accordance with the approved methodology, and executing them with the best management practices, according to the best available technology in compliance with the provisions of Articles 3, 6, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 41, 43, and 64 of Law No. 7779 and these Regulations", with Article 173 of those Regulations providing that it would take effect as of its publication. IX. It is necessary to indicate that, before the entry into force of the Regulations that require that requirement (published in La Gaceta No. 57 of March 21, 2001), the applicant had already obtained the usucapion over the land in question, since, as indicated above, the possession exercised personally by the transferor [Name1] dates back to nineteen seventy-six. X. From the jurisprudential precedent of the Constitutional Chamber cited, it is clearly inferred as a principle that OWNERSHIP IS ACQUIRED WHEN USUCAPION IS CONSOLIDATED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED, SINCE TITLING IS SIMPLY A FORMALIZATION OF THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP. XI. Under this reasoning, it is not possible to retroactively apply the Regulations to the detriment of rights already acquired, since, the right of ownership having been consolidated by the date on which the conforming use of the soil requirement was incorporated by regulation, it is not appropriate to require the applicant to demonstrate that the possessory acts on which they intend to base their titling have been in compliance with that new regulation. Note that when the usucapion that gave rise to the right of ownership was consolidated, the applicant's transferor had exercised the possessory acts in accordance with the requirements for acquiring ownership in force at that time. XII. Having said that, the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils No. 7779 of April 30, 1998, establishes in Article 6, subsection a), as one of the specific functions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, to "oversee (fiscalizar), evaluate, and carry out, when it deems necessary, basic land-use studies to define those for agricultural use, abiding by the guidelines of the legislation in force on territorial planning", and Article 41 establishes: "Every natural or juridical person, public or private, shall be obligated to promote, contribute to, and execute all necessary practices and activities for the management, conservation, and recovery of soils. Therefore, it is mandatory to cooperate with and abide by the measures that the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, in coordination with the Ministry of Environment and Energy, dictates for the purpose of managing, conserving, and recovering the soil resource". Likewise, Article 45 provides that "it is the obligation of natural and juridical persons, owners or possessors of lands of agricultural suitability, to allow the entry of technicians authorized by the Area Committee or the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, so that they may verify the maintenance of soil management, conservation, and recovery practices". Likewise, Article 51 provides that "whoever by action or omission threatens what is provided in these regulations, including the purposes and objectives indicated in Chapters I and II of this law, shall incur the actions defined by the criminal and sanctioning legislation in force. Likewise, the corresponding administrative legislation shall be applied to offenses that involve violations of the administrative norms that protect public or private property from these acts and that sanction the offenders." XIII. Under this order of ideas, it is evident that the approval of the possessory information does not imply that the relevant public entities (Ministry of Environment and Energy or Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock) cannot follow up on this specific case in order to achieve compliance with the objectives and scope of the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils, applying the corresponding procedures. XIV. The foregoing holds true because it is not possible to deny the titling of the property on the grounds that the conforming use of the soil is not currently fully complied with, since, as explained, through this possessory information procedure, what is done is to recognize an already consolidated right of ownership. Interpreting it otherwise would practically mean the denial of a pre-existing right of ownership due to non-compliance with a regulatory provision that can be complied with through the administrative mechanisms provided for by law. XV. That being the case, for the reasons stated, the objections of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic are rejected, and the proper course is to confirm the resolution appealed. The appealed judgment is confirmed in all respects.

"V. El punto medular de estas diligencias gira en torno al hecho que de conformidad con la certificación del Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria, en el inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado A-seiscientos sesenta y cinco mil novecientos cuarenta y cuatro no se ejerce el uso conforme del suelo, ya que se recomienda la implementaciòn de cobertura vegetal en los taludes y en las terrazas. Por tal motivo, la Procuraduría General de la República se opone a la aprobación de estas diligencias si no se da un efectivo cumplimiento a esas recomendaciones técnicas. VI. Resulta esencial citar jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional donde se analiza aspectos generales de la Usucapion, los cuales sirven de fundamento para resolver las presentes diligencias, en virtud de tratarse de un modo de adquisición de derechos reales: “REGIMEN GENERAL DE LA USUCAPION: En principio, debe indicarse que las diligencias de información posesoria reguladas en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias N° 139 el 14 de julio de 1941 y sus reformas, son un procedimiento judicial no contencioso por medio del cual se formaliza un título de propiedad de bienes inmuebles en el Registro Público. En general, con ese procedimiento se pretende que los poseedores que carecen de título inscribible en el Registro Público, lo obtengan. El artículo 1 de esa ley dispone que para que el poseedor de bienes raíces solicite el otorgamiento de título con base en el procedimiento de información posesoria, deberá demostrar una posesión por más de diez años con las condiciones que señala el artículo 856 del Código Civil, a saber, en calidad de propietario, continua, pública y pacífica. Los anteriores requisitos de tiempo y condición, caracterizan la posesión necesaria para usucapir. Para obtener la propiedad de los bienes inmuebles por prescripción positiva, además de la posesión en las condiciones indicadas, el artículo 853 del Código Civil señala como requisitos: el título traslativo de dominio y la buena fe. (...) , se desprende que la titulación del bien inmueble tiene como requisito la adquisición de la propiedad. O sea, que se distingue el momento de adquisición de la propiedad por usucapion del momento en que esa situación se hace valer en el procedimiento de información posesoria para obtener un título inscribible en el Registro Público. De ahí que se considere la usucapión como un modo de adquisición de la propiedad y de otros derechos reales poseíbles, y a la titulación como el procedimiento por medio del cual , comprobados los requisitos de la usucapion, se confiere el título de propiedad inscribible. La usucapion es un modo originario de adquirir un derecho real poseíble por el transcurso del tiempo con los requisitos de ley. El efecto jurídico adquisitivo de la usucapion se produce de manera automática con el transcurso del tiempo unido a una posesión hábil que reúna las condiciones fijadas para la posesión ad usucapionem, y a los demás requisitos establecidos por la ley (...)”. (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. N° 04587-97 de las quince horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del cinco de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y siete. El énfasis no es del original). VIII. Analizada la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos N° 7779 del 30 de abril de 1998, se tiene en dicha normativa no se exige como requisito para titular por medio de Información Posesoria, el que se efectúe el estudio de suelos a fin de verificar si se cumple o no con el uso conforme del suelo, mucho menos que se deniegue el reconocimiento del derecho de propiedad si no se ejerce actualmente la posesión conforme al uso que debe tener el suelo. De acuerdo a lo anterior, no lleva razón el ente estatal de que dicho requisito está contemplado en ese cuerpo legal. Lo que sí ocurre es que en el Decreto N° 29375-MAG-MINAE-H-HACIENDA-MOPT del 8 de agosto del 2000 mediante el cual se promulga el Reglamento a dicha ley, en su artículo 58 se dispone: "En toda información posesoria o que se presente ante el IDA o ante los Tribunales de Justicia, con el fin de inscribir en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, el interesado, además de los requisitos que exige la normativa común, deberá demostrar con un estudio adecuado de suelos, que ha ejercido la posesión cumpliendo con el uso conforme del suelo para la actividad que realiza de acuerdo con la metodología aprobada, y ejecutándolas con las mejores prácticas de su manejo, según la mejor tecnología disponible en cumplimiento con lo dispuesto en los artículos 3, 6, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 41, 43 y 64 de la Ley N° 7779 y este Reglamento", siendo que el artículo 173 de ese Reglamento dispuso que el mismo regiría a partir de su publicación. IX. Es menester indicar, antes de entrar en vigencia el Reglamento que exige ese requisito (publicado en La Gaceta No 57 del 21 de marzo del 2001), ya el promovente había obtenido la usucapion sobre el terreno de marras, toda vez tal y como se indicó anteriormente, la posesión ejercida personalmente por la trasmitente [Nombre1] data desde mil novecientos setenta y seis. X. En el antecedente jurisprudencial de la Sala Constitucional citado, se infiere claramente como principio que LA PROPIEDAD SE ADQUIERE CUANDO SE CONSOLIDA LA USUCAPION, INDEPENDIENTEMENTE DE SI SE INSCRIBE O NO EL INMUEBLE, TODA VEZ LA TITULACION ES SIMPLEMENTE UNA FORMALIZACION DEL DERECHO DE PROPIEDAD. XI. Bajo esta inteligencia, no es posible aplicar retroactivamente el Reglamento en perjuicio de derechos ya adquiridos, toda vez al haber estado consolidado el derecho de propiedad a la fecha en que se incorpora vía reglamentaria el requisito del uso conforme del suelo, no es procedente exigirle al promovente demostrar que los actos posesorios en que pretende basar su titulación han sido conformes a esa nueva normativa. Nótese cuando se consolidó la usucapion que di origen al derecho de propiedad, la trasmitente de la promovente había ejercido los actos posesorios conforme a los requisitos para adquirir el dominio vigentes en ese momento. XII. Ahora bien, la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos N° 7779 del 30 de abril de 1998, establece en el artículo 6 inciso a) como una de las funciones específicas del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería el "fiscalizar, evaluar y realizar, cuando lo considere necesario, los estudios básicos de uso de la tierra para definir los de uso agrícola, acatando los lineamientos de la legislación vigente en materia de ordenamiento territorial", y el artículo 41 establece: "Toda persona física o jurídica, pública o privada, estará obligada a fomentar, contribuir y ejecutar todas las prácticas y actividades necesarias para el manejo, la conservación y recuperación de suelos. Por tanto, es obligatorio cooperar y acatar la medidas que el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, en coordinación con el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, dicte con el fin de manejar, conservar y recuperar el recurso suelo". Asimismo el artículo 45 dispone que "es obligación de las personas físicas y jurídicas, propietarias o poseedoras de terrenos de aptitud agrícola, permitir el ingreso de los técnicos autorizados por el Comité del Area o el Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, para que verifiquen el mantenimiento de las prácticas de manejo, conservación y recuperación de suelos". Asimismo el artículo 51 dispone que "quien por acción u omisión, atente contra lo dispuesto en la presente normativa, incluso contra las finalidades y los objetivos señalados en los capítulos I y II de esta ley, incurrirán en las acciones que tipifique la legislación penal y sancionatoria vigente. Igualmente, se aplicará la legislación administrativa correspondiente en las faltas que impliquen violación de las normas administrativas que protegen de estos hechos a los bienes públicos o privados y que sancionen a los infractores". XIII. Bajo este orden de ideas, es evidente que al aprobarse la información posesoria, no implica que las entidades públicas del caso (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía o Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería) no puedan dar seguimiento a este caso concreto a fin de lograr que se cumplan los objetivos y alcances de la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, aplicando los procedimientos que correspondan. XIV. Lo anterior resulta de esa manera porque no es dable denegar la titulación del inmueble por el hecho de que no se cumpla en su totalidad actualmente con el uso conforme del suelo, ya que tal y como se explicó, mediante este procedimiento de información posesoria lo que se hace es reconocer un derecho de propiedad ya consolidado. Interpretar lo contrario implicaría prácticamente la denegación de un derecho de propiedad preexistente por no cumplirse con una disposición reglamentaria que puede ser cumplida a través de los mecanismos administrativos previstos por la ley. XV. Así las cosas, por las razones expuestas, se rechazan los embates de la Procuraduría Genral de la República, por lo que lo procedente es confirmar la resolución venida en alzada. En lo apelado se confirma la sentencia venida en alzada."