Special Agrarian Usucapion vs. Reivindication — Ruling 00927-2006Usucapión especial agraria frente a reivindicación — Voto 00927-2006

V.- Before proceeding to analyze the appellant's grievances, it is appropriate to conduct an analysis of the protective actions for agrarian real rights, in order to determine whether the case has been resolved according to law. These actions maintain a parallelism with respect to the protective actions for other real rights, such as possession, usufruct, and easement (servidumbre), which acquire other names depending on the goal pursued. Let us see: 1. To recover possession, the holder of the right of ownership has the revendication action, while the person who holds the right of possession but was dispossessed has the well-known "publician action" or action for better right of possession; 2. Also, when the owner does not seek to recover possession but to obtain a declaration of his right with effects erga omnes, he has the declaratory action or action for certainty; 3. Likewise, he may deny the real right of another person who attributes it to themselves, known as the negatory action. It is logical to think that these last two are also available in the case of the right of possession as a real right that needs protection; thus the possessor whose right of possession is disturbed (no longer in possession as a mere fact, a case in which he could exercise the interdictal action), may petition in ordinary proceedings that it be declared that the right assists him, and also deny another person a right that is being wrongfully attributed to them and does not belong to them (declaratory and negatory actions).- THE REVENDICATION ACTION AND THE PUBLICIAN ACTION: "The revendication action is an action of a real nature, with effects erga omnes, whose essential purpose is the restitution of the movable or immovable thing to its legitimate owner, from whom it has been taken by a third party who possesses it illegitimately. It is the 'actio in re' par excellence. With this action, the owner exercises the 'ius possidendi' inherent in his right of ownership. The most specialized doctrine on this matter attributes the following characteristics to this action: a) Of a real nature: Or it may be exercised against anyone who possesses the thing without right; b) Recovery or restitutory: Its basic objective is to obtain material possession of the good; c) It is for condemnation: the judgment favorable to the plaintiff will impose a specific behavior on the defendant. The revendication action constitutes the most vigorous procedural remedy against the most radical aggression the owner can suffer, which is the dispossession of the thing belonging to him.- (See [Nombre1], Roberto, 'La acción reinvidicatoria' In Derecho Agrario Costarricense, San José, Costa Rica, Ilanud, 1992, page 69). There are three prerequisites for the validity of the revendication action: 1). Active legitimation, according to which the holder must possess the quality of owner, indicating that the owner must be the proprietor; 2) passive legitimation; according to which the possessor, or defendant, must exercise his possessory acts as an illegitimate possessor; and 3) identity of the thing, between the good claimed by the owner and that illegitimately possessed by the defendant or possessor." (First Chamber of the Court, No. 230 of sixteen hours on the twentieth of July of nineteen ninety). VI.- FOUNDATION OF USUCAPION: In general terms, the most authoritative doctrine has defined this institute and explained its foundation as follows: "Usucapion (or positive prescription) is the acquisition of ownership or another real right capable of being possessed, through the continued possession thereof for the time and with the conditions established by law. Thus, s the usucapient, during this time and with these conditions, appears, figures, acts or comes to behave as the holder of the right in question (if it is the right of property, as owner of the thing in question; if of usufruct, as if he were the usufructuary thereof). And that right, which did not really belong to him, becomes his by virtue of having been appearing as if it corresponded to him. Through usucapion, the state of fact that is prolonged in time becomes the state of Law. The foundation of usucapion lies in the idea (accurate or not, but accepted by our law) that, for the sake of the security of traffic, it is, in principle, advisable that, after a certain time, the person who holds as his own certain rights that do not belong to him becomes their holder, without contradiction from the interested party... what matters is something objective, that the holder has not used the right, even if he later demonstrates ad nauseam that he wanted to conserve it. Now, the expression presumption of abandonment can be accepted to capture the foundation of usucapion in the sense that, if the right is not used, it is normally presumable that it was abandoned, and upon that normal presumability of abandonment, usucapion has been established by law, which, operating according to the id quod plerumque accidit, sets as a rule that others may acquire, by using them as their own, the rights that their holders have presumably abandoned... Usucapion is an original mode of acquiring the usucapted right, insofar as the acquisition is not based on any prior right, that is, the usucapient does not make it his own because the person who held it transferred it to him (causal relationship), but rather becomes its holder - independently of whether another person was before - because he has been behaving as such. And it is as a consequence of a new right, incompatible with the previous one, being established over the thing, that the person who previously held it loses theirs. The usucapient acquires without anything in exchange. If it were acquisition by means of an act, this would thus be gratuitous. But in any case, the usucapient acquires gratuitously." ([Nombre2], Manuel. La usucapión, Madrid, 2004, pp. 13-16). And it is opportune to also cite doctrine originated in light of the French Civil Code of 1884, which highlights the social utility of usucapion, utility that remains in force today: "The ancients said that prescription is the patron of humankind, and the Statement of Motives of the title On Prescription says that it is, of all the institutions of civil law, the most necessary for social order. Nothing is more true. Proof of ownership would be impossible if usucapion did not exist. How did I become an owner? Because I acquired the thing by purchase, donation, or succession; but I could only have acquired ownership if the previous possessor held title to it. The same problem, in the same terms, arises for all successive possessors of the thing, and if even one in the series was not the owner, all those who followed him will also not be. Prescription eliminates this difficulty, which would be insoluble; a certain number of years of possession suffice. It can also be supposed that the title of acquisition of the current possessor or one of his closer predecessors has been lost or is unknown. Then prescription comes to the aid of the possessor. Usucapion plays, therefore, a considerable social role. Without it, no estate would be safe from unforeseen claims. It is true that under certain conditions, usucapion may favor a possessor without title and in bad faith; it will then cover an expoliation. But this fact is rare and would be rarer still when the owner, despoiled by the effect of usucapion, is not negligent. Why has he remained such a long time without carrying out possessory acts over his thing and without reclaiming it? He is allowed sufficient time to become aware of the usucapion taking place against him and to protest. The outcomes contrary to equity, which one risks producing in this way, cannot be compared with the decisive advantages that usucapion provides every day." (PLANIOL Y RIPERT. Civil Law, Law Classics, Harla, 1997, p. 465). VII.- AGRARIAN SPECIAL USUCAPION: It is important to point out a jurisprudential precedent of this Tribunal by virtue of which the prerequisites and foundations of this institute as a means of acquiring agrarian property are analyzed. It is thus that VOTE No. 145-F-05 of eleven hours thirty minutes on the ninth of March two thousand five established: " (...) In the case at hand, we are facing an ordinary agrarian proceeding for USUCAPION, which, from its legal characterization, corresponds rather to a AGRARIAN SPECIAL USUCAPION, derived from a precarious possession of lands, and not simply common usucapion. As we shall see, the special provisions of the Law of Lands and Colonization are applicable and not only those of the Civil Code, for in this case, the general norms are modified by the special ones of the Law of Lands and Colonization. With regard to usucapion, this Tribunal several years ago made the distinction between usucapion derived from the Civil Code and the agrarian special one, which is indicated in the following recitals: 'V.- This Tribunal has no doubt whatsoever, with the abundant documentary and testimonial evidence, that the plaintiffs meet each and every one of the requirements that both doctrine and jurisprudence have established to acquire, through the institute of agrarian positive prescription, the three real properties that are the subject of this debate. This is the product, not only of an assessment of the evidence brought to the process, 'according to conscience and without strict subjection to the norms of common law' (Article 54 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction), but also is the product of interpretation in accordance with Article 10 of the Preliminary Title of our Civil Code, which establishes 'The norms shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative antecedents, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose.', and also that established in Article 11 of the same legal body, when providing: 'Equity must be pondered in the application of the norms...' And subsequently, the equity and law foundations of the second instance ruling are given (cited Article 54). VI.- It is imperative to refer to the Institute of Agrarian Usucapion -a heritage of Agrarian Law-, and to its particularities in our Legislation. One could affirm, without fear of error, that AGRARIAN USUCAPION is a typical institute of Agrarian Law, independent even of those already traditionally known, such as agrarian property, agrarian possession, contracts, and the agrarian enterprise; this does not prevent the fact that, being a reflection of the same normative system, there are confluent elements among them. Moreover, this institute evidently acquires differential features from typical CIVIL USUCAPION. One of the effects of possession is USUCAPION: an original mode - for it is not based on any prior right and no transmission exists - of acquisition, not only of property, but of any other real right capable of being possessed (article 853 first paragraph of the Civil Code) through the continuous exercise of possessory acts over a certain time, and complying with the other requirements demanded by law, both those common to possession and those special in the case of civil usucapion of real property. The requirements common to all possession suitable for usucapion are: 1. Possession in the capacity of owner or holder of the real right, requiring that the possessor behaves as if he were the owner or holder of the real right in question, 'in the quality of proprietor' as our law states (article 856 of the Civil Code); 2. Peaceful possession, defined negatively as that in which no violence has existed, the latter being understood as an actual and imminent force, both physical and moral - threats -, for possession maintained with violence is not useful for prescription, but only from the time the violence ceases (Article 857 of the Civil Code); 3. Public possession, using or enjoying the thing in a visible manner, without concealment or secrecy, preventing anyone interested in interrupting the prescription from being able to know of it (Article 858 of the Civil Code), possession taken clandestinely can only be valid for prescription from the moment that circumstance is known to the dispossessed person (Article 279 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code). 4. Uninterrupted possession, that is, exercised in a continuous, repeated, and maintained manner; it ceases to be continuous when the possessor ceases to exercise possessory acts over the good or ceases to have the effective possibility of carrying out such acts (Article 856 of the Civil Code); possession may be interrupted naturally, when the possessor is deprived of possession of the thing or enjoyment of the right for one year, unless he recovers one or the other judicially (Article 875 of the Civil Code), since the right to possess prescribes by the possession of one year (Article 860 of the Civil Code), but it may also be interrupted civilly by an acknowledgment made in favor of the owner, or by the judicial summons duly notified to the debtor (Article 876 of the Civil Code), and its effect is to make useless for usucapion all the time that had elapsed previously (Article 878 of the Civil Code). Our legislation establishes as special requirements for ordinary usucapion - apart from possession with the characteristics indicated - the 'translative title of ownership' and 'good faith' (article 853 of the Civil Code): 5. The translative title of ownership or just title is not a document of acquisition of ownership, but rather refers to the fact sufficient to have produced the acquisition of the right in question, which is why it is confused rather with the acquisitive cause; if it concerns easements, movable goods, or the right to possess '...the fact of possession presumes title, so long as the contrary is not proven' (Article 854 of the Civil Code). The title or just title must be adequate - to acquire the object of possession -, true - that the acquisitive cause exists -, and valid. ...6.-Good faith: Good faith pertains to the personal conviction of the subject regarding his legitimacy; one must speak of belief and not of intention, this belief being generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith in possession serves the purpose of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor (acquisition of fruits, payment for improvements and right of retention, non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing, etc.) (Articles 327 and 328 of the Civil Code). While for general good faith - as a requirement of possession - ignorance or error as to the existence of a defect invalidating the title or mode of acquisition is necessary, for the good faith necessary for usucapion - which also includes the former - the belief that the transferor of the title is the owner of the transferred thing or has the power to carry out such transmission is also necessary. VII.- Among the principles of Agrarian Law is the social function of property, through which it seeks to guarantee 'access' to property for persons who lack it or possess it insufficiently, and also the equitable distribution of products, guaranteeing the food supply for the entire population and greater social justice in the countryside. One of the premises by which property fulfills its social function lies in the need to give the land its natural economic purpose: the exercise of agrarian activities of animal husbandry or plant cultivation on goods of a productive nature and with agricultural, forestry, or livestock aptitude. In Comparative Agrarian Law, most legislations seek the suitable owner; to this end they have consecrated Agrarian Usucapion or Usucapio pro-labore. In Brazil, the Law of Usucapio Pro-Labore, number 6969 of December 10, 1981, established: 'Any person who, not being a rural or urban owner, possesses as his own, for five uninterrupted years without opposition, a rural area continuously, not exceeding 25 hectares, making it productive with his work and having his dwelling there, acquires ownership thereof, independent of just title and good faith, being able to request the judge to so declare by judgment, which shall serve as title in the Real Estate Registry.' In Italy, by Law number 346 of May 10, 1976, agrarian usucapion is regulated as a particular means of acquiring ownership. In Peruvian Agrarian Law, the figure of agrarian usucapion is regulated by the Single Consolidated Text of Decree Law 17716 (Peruvian Agrarian Reform Law), Article 8 final paragraph, which establishes: 'He who has possessed for himself rural lands in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraphs continuously and for a term of 5 years, acquires them by prescription and may bring action before the Private Agrarian Jurisdiction to be declared owner. The revendication action and other real actions prescribe in the same term.' In Venezuela, the Organic Law of Agrarian Tribunals and Procedures, in its Article 14, introduces the figure of agrarian usucapion, establishing a ten-year term. In Costa Rica, the Law of Lands and Colonization No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, established not only a special concept of agrarian possession, the precarious possession of lands, but also established agrarian special usucapion, eliminating as requirements just title and good faith, and demanding the exercise of agrarian activities for the subsistence of the possessor and his family. The principle of Agrarian Law that provides the foundation for the existence of Agrarian Usucapion is that 'the land must belong to whoever works it'; thereby agrarian labor is exalted as a fundamental right, and it constitutes the most important instrument for access to property. 'Labor is the foundation of agrarian usucapion.' In Costa Rica, agrarian doctrine has constructed, through said principles, the Institute of Agrarian Usucapion: 'Agrarian Usucapion conceived as an institute through which the principle of access to property is developed for everyone who works the land achieving rational and effective production needs - as the sole means of making labor the source of the right of property - to discard a series of elements that appear in civil law as requirements for possession suitable for usucapion, such as just title and good faith, but creating other requirements, less conceptual and more factual, that substitute the former, giving possession a more active character than that which civil law acknowledges. By virtue of the foregoing, the time period for prescription is reduced (from 10 years, required in almost all Agrarian Reform laws) but not based on security, but rather on labor and production.' ([Nombre4]. La posesión agraria, San José, Costa Rica, Librería Barrabás, 2nd. ed., 1991, page 155). For this reason, various requirements are established for agrarian usucapion: 1.- The animus must be projected through the effective exercise of agrarian possessory acts, the agrarian fund becoming the habitual dwelling of the possessor; but it is reflected more intensely through the economic appropriation of the profits obtained through his cultivation labor; it is presumed that whoever works the land in this manner is always a possessor in the capacity of owner. 2.- The just title in agrarian possession ad-usucapionem is constituted by agrarian labor, for it is through it that ownership of the land is acquired. 'On the other hand, the non-requirement of just title means that usucapion may occur contra-tabulas, that is, against a registered title in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. By virtue of the considerations made regarding just title in the theory of agrarian possession, it can be said that agrarian usucapion, since it does not take into account the prior relationship that may exist between the possessor and the transferor, is a truly original mode of acquisition.' (Meza Lázarus, op. cit., page 158). 3.- Good faith in agrarian possession ad-usucapionem: In agrarian usucapion, there is no categorization of possession as good or bad faith, since Agrarian Law is not so interested in the attitude of the possessor, but above all in his productive agrarian activity; 'In Agrarian Law, the existence of this requirement cannot be conceived by virtue of the fact that it is linked to the just title that is discarded as a requirement of possession suitable for usucapion. Agrarian possession has a personal character in which its foundation turns out to be labor. Since the existence of a title and its validity are not necessary, the requirement of special good faith in agrarian possession lacks any reason to exist.' (Meza Lázarus, op.cit., pages 160-161). VIII.- Special agrarian legislation in Costa Rica has gradually eliminated the requirement of just title and good faith in Usucapion, to the point that the non-requirement of those prerequisites has become the rule, and the exception is established in civil venue (Article 853 of the Civil Code). Thus, the Law of Possessory Informations No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its reforms, in Article 1 establishes: 'The possessor of real property who lacks an inscribed or inscribable title in the Public Registry may request that one be granted to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. For that purpose, he must demonstrate possession for more than ten years under the conditions indicated in Article 856 of the Civil Code...' Observe that the norm only requires the requirements common to all usucapion and makes no reference to Article 853 as a requirement for a translative title of ownership and good faith. Subparagraph e) of the same article confirms the above, when it says that the applicant must indicate '...the domicile of the person from whom he acquired his right, if applicable, indicating whether he is related to said person as well as the cause and date of the acquisition.', meaning that the acquisition may be derivative - in which case the acquisition document must indeed be presented -, or original whose cause may be the possession itself through agrarian labor. Nor does the norm refer to good faith as a requirement for usucapion. ....But where Agrarian Usucapion of lands is expressly consecrated, as understood by doctrine and jurisprudence, is in the Law of Lands and Colonization No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and its reforms, Articles 92 and 101. The first of these provisions establishes, insofar as relevant: 'For the purposes of this law, a possessor in precarious status shall be understood to be anyone who, out of necessity, carries out stable and effective acts of possession, as owner, peacefully, publicly, and uninterruptedly, for more than one year, and with the purpose of placing it in conditions of production for his subsistence or that of his family, over land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. Possessors in precarious status who have had ten-year possession under the conditions stated in the preceding paragraph may register their right in accordance with the provisions of this law and through the possessory information procedure....' This norm acquires great importance for Costa Rican Agrarian Law, because in its first paragraph, precarious possession of lands is consecrated as a typical institute of Agrarian Law, as a modality of agrarian possession, as well as the specific principles that must govern said institute: It consists in the de facto power that a person deploys over a good of a productive nature - registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry -, with the aim of carrying out stable and effective acts of possession on it that are directly aimed at placing it in conditions of production for the purpose of obtaining products, whether animals or plants, to satisfy his own needs or those of his family. In precarious possession of lands, food necessity and agrarian labor prevail; it is for this reason that the subjective and objective requirements are special: on the one hand, the simple intention to possess is not required; rather, one possesses out of necessity, directly and personally, to satisfy the fundamental alimentary needs of the family group; moreover, the consideration of whether good or bad faith exists is dispensed with, because the precarious possessor in fact knows that the productive good over which he exercises the agrarian activity is registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry; on the other hand, the translative title of ownership is not required (Article 101 of the Law of Lands and Colonization), for the just title is constituted by agrarian labor. The most important consequence for Costa Rican Agrarian Law that can be derived from the figure of precarious possession of lands is that this institute constitutes a means of access to productive goods, and therefore to the ownership right over them with the passage of time: agrarian usucapion. (See the vote of this Tribunal, No. 554 of 15 hours 10 minutes on August 23, 1991). (Superior Agrarian Tribunal, No. 111 of 13:50 hours on February 16, 1994). VI.- In the present case, the appellant is correct in her grievances. The Judge is obligated in this special subject matter to analyze the evidence under criteria of free assessment, with broader faculties than in other subject matters, and furthermore, to apply the special legal norms according to each factual situation that arises. Also, when analyzing the probative element and issuing a ruling on the case, equity and legal criteria must be indicated, as was noted in the preceding recital (Article 54 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction). In the instant case, this Tribunal considers that the lower court erred in the analysis of the probative elements, which were studied solely in light of the criteria of the Civil Code, without considering the special provisions of the Law of Lands and Colonization, under the principle that the judge knows the law (iura novit curia), and without taking into account the defendant party's abandonment (with respect to the evidence) in the exercise of its property or the assertion of its rights. (...) Indeed, from the evidence presented in the proceeding, it is evident that the plaintiff, now her Estate, demonstrated the requirements necessary to achieve AGRARIAN SPECIAL USUCAPION, contained in Articles 92 and 101 of the Law of Lands and Colonization." VIII.- Agrarian special usucapion is a typical and exclusive institute of Agrarian law; for this reason it is affirmed: "It is significant that the permanence or occupation must be qualified by possessory acts that demonstrate that during the indicated period of time, the legal obligations contemplated in Article 19 of the Agrarian Reform Law were fulfilled, as essential elements of the social function, which every owner of rural parcels must comply with. Thus, civil possession is not enough; it must be agrarian... The law has adopted the characteristic features of legitimate possession to place them as the prerequisites for the action of agrarian special usucapion, but with the understanding, for example, that the last condition, that is, that the occupation be with the intention of owner, this occupation was de facto, and not by the inversion of title referred to in Article 1.961 of the Civil Code" (DUQUE CORREDOR, Román, Agrarian Procedural Law, 1986, Ch. VI "Agrarian special usucapion", pages 109-124). This institute has also, as has been seen, been regulated in other countries such as Brazil and Italy ([Nombre5]. Usucapione Speciale Agraria, In. Dizionari del Diritto Privato, Diritto Agrario, 1983, p. 875-897), and that tendency responds to the rights consecrated within the concept of the Social and Democratic State of Law, and its existence obeys the need to guarantee access to land ownership for whoever fulfills the economic, environmental, and social function of productive goods. This principle, derived from Article 45 of the Political Constitution and developed by the Law of Lands and Colonization, finds its reason for being in the values of social justice and national solidarity, as well as sustainable development and rational exploitation of the land, contained in numerals 50, 69, and 74 of the same Constitution. The Constitutional Chamber itself has indicated: "With respect to agrarian property, it must be stated that when the social function of property is recognized, the right of property is configured as a right-duty, in which there is a specific way of exercising the faculties of ownership, and obligations are imposed on the holder, such as the productive use of the land" (Constitutional Chamber, No. 4587-97 of 15:45 hours on August 5, 1997). This thesis, sustained by our highest jurisdictional body, and whose jurisprudence is binding, does have legal and doctrinal support.

From a legal standpoint, the Law of Lands and Colonization (Ley de Tierras y Colonización), in Articles 1 and 2, requires compliance with the social function of property, and from Article 141 et seq., it establishes the possibility of decreeing expropriation in the face of non-compliance with the social function of property. Moreover, from Article 92 of the Law of Lands and Colonization, other possibilities are also established for resolving conflicts of precarious occupation of lands on already registered properties. That is to say, it is not possible to make an isolated reading of the norms of the Civil Code, without relating them to the large number of special Laws (such as the Ley Forestal, the Ley de Suelos, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and the Ley de Biodiversidad, among others), which in some way condition the exercise of the right of property as a power-duty. Indeed, the Law of Lands and Colonization provides that land ownership must be promoted for the gradual increase of its productivity (Article 1), guarantees access for every individual to the ownership of economically exploitable lands (Article 2), and to denounce non-compliance with the social function of property (Article 6). It establishes a special regime of precarious possession (Articles 92 et seq.), since possessors who acquire a ten-year possession, under the conditions set forth therein, are subject to the provisions of Article 101 of the same law: "The parcels regarding which the exception of positive prescription must be admitted as appropriate shall not be included in the appraisal nor paid for. Those possessed in a continuous, public, and peaceful manner for more than ten years shall be in this case, whether the possession was exercised directly by the occupant or by their transferors. That is, for the purposes of the positive prescription dealt with in this article, the translative deed of ownership required by the Civil Code shall not be necessary....Once said possession is declared by the Courts, the respective parcels shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the corresponding compensation...". The underlining is not from the original, and it evidently presupposes the total inertia and abandonment by the owner of the land property, as well as the waiver of their claim through judicial means, for more than ten years. It also presupposes the agricultural activity of the adverse possessor (usucapiente), under conditions of necessity, to satisfy their own requirements and those of their family. In addition to the foregoing, see that the norm is clear in indicating that positive prescription is judicially declared, and this is admissible by way of action as well as exception. Hence, it is not necessary in all cases to exhaust administrative channels when the adverse possession (usucapión) under said conditions is already consolidated with the passage of time, as the First Chamber of Cassation (Sala Primera de Casación) has indicated in some of its rulings, because that would be to ignore the possibility of resolving this type of disputes through the jurisdictional channel, applying substantive agrarian law, and particularly, the institute of special agrarian adverse possession (usucapión especial agraria).

XI.- Article 320 of the Civil Code provides: "The action for recovery of possession (acción reivindicatoria) may be directed against anyone who possesses as owner and subsists as long as another has not acquired ownership of the thing by prescription." On the other hand, Article 479 of the same legal body indicates: "The owner who lacks a registered title of ownership may register their right, first justifying their possession for more than ten years, in the manner indicated by the corresponding legislation." Pursuant to these provisions, and the regulatory norms of special agrarian adverse possession, the present case must be resolved. The grievances of the defendant and counterclaimant are receivable, since in the sub judice, all the conditions are met to accept the exception of positive prescription filed by the defendant, to declare the counterclaim with merit, and to reject the action for recovery of possession of the plaintiff, which would not survive upon the acceptance of the prescription.

Regarding the action for recovery of possession, let us see whether or not the prerequisites for its admissibility are produced: a.- Active legal standing: in this case, the plaintiff, [Nombre6], alleges registered title over the property inscribed in the Partido de Limón, at the Folio Real registration number CED1, and represented by the cadastral map number L-0387416-80, indicating that he has exercised ownership and agricultural possession over it and has dedicated it to agricultural and livestock production. b.- Regarding passive legal standing, he alleges that the defendant entered in June 1988 in a clandestine and violent manner, moving from one place to another, being an illegitimate possessor. c.- Regarding the identity of the good, he maintains that the claimed good is the same one possessed illegitimately by the defendant.

To demonstrate the facts of the claim, he provides documentary evidence and offered a list of 9 witnesses. However, the evidence provided by the plaintiff does not lead to demonstrating the prerequisites of the action for recovery of possession. Quite the contrary, from it emerges a mere registered title over the claimed farm (see certification on folios 291 to 295), and its cadastral representation in Plano Catastrado N° L-387416-80, provided as a simple copy in the agrarian process. There is no other element of proof demonstrating that the plaintiff, before being dispossessed, exercised an agricultural activity of a business type. The witness evidence was abandoned as it was not presented at the oral hearing. While a series of documents related to agrarian activities are provided (folios 110 to 251), they refer to a different legal entity, namely, "Esposa & Hijos Farghuarson S.A".

On the other hand, from the analysis of the case records, it emerges that the plaintiff filed the conflict of precarious possession on May 14, 1998, before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (see folios 95 to 98), arguing in his initial brief that the occupation of his farm occurred in June 1988. In reality, as will be seen further on, those properties were occupied between 1985 and 1986, and several evictions occurred, not documented in this process, between 1986 and 1987; however, the defendant remained in occupation and possession of the property now claimed, for more than ten years, fulfilling the necessary conditions for adverse possession. That is, when the conflict of precarious occupation of lands was raised before the Institute (Instituto), more than ten years of agricultural possession by the defendant had already elapsed. The Juzgado Agrario, in a resolution at 7:10 a.m. on November 23, 2001, deemed the administrative channel exhausted (folio 256), which, in any case, was unnecessary, since, as stated, more than ten years had already elapsed since the conflict was raised. Furthermore, with the notification of this ordinary agrarian claim as late as August 16, 2002 (folio 279), the interruption of positive prescription could not occur, because the special agrarian adverse possession had already been consolidated ipso jure (de pleno derecho) since 1998, and by invoking the defendant of the exception of positive prescription, he would not be renouncing it, but rather requesting the declaration of his real right of property acquired in an original manner by the passage of time.

The judicial and administrative inactivity of the registered owner, manifest in an evident abandonment of the protective actions he could have exercised during a prolonged ten-year period, is evident. The degree of uncertainty and legal insecurity that this can produce for an agrarian possessor who behaves as owner for more than ten years is patent, and therefore, the agrarian legal system seeks to provide a just solution to this type of situation, giving priority to whoever fulfills the social function of property over goods of a productive nature. Consequently, regarding active and passive legal standing, these are prerequisites that are not met, since the registered owner abandoned his right of property for a period exceeding ten years, raised the conflict of precarious occupation of lands before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario in 1998, and the ordinary agricultural recovery action in 2000, with notification occurring until 2002, when the special agrarian adverse possession had already operated. Hence, the action for recovery of possession is not admissible, and the exception of positive prescription filed by the defendant [Nombre7] must be accepted regarding the claim.

X.- The conditions of special agricultural adverse possession in this specific case: Article 92 of the Law of Lands and Colonization (Ley de tierras y Colonización) requires a ten-year agricultural possession that is quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted, to satisfy the food needs of the possessor and their family, which presupposes the exercise of the social function of property and the creation of a small family agricultural enterprise. The evidence gathered in the oral hearing, both testimonial, confessional, and the judicial inspection, analyzed in light of the provisions of Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, that is, under the principle of free assessment of evidence, allows the Tribunal to conclude that the substantive prerequisites for accepting the special agrarian adverse possession are met, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, since the judge must apply the special agrarian norm, according to each specific case, with prevalence over the general regulations of the Civil Code.

From the evidence, it emerges that around 1985, the occupation by the defendant occurred over a part of the plaintiff's farm, which was abandoned and without any delimitation. Although both the plaintiff and the defendant accept that there were at least three evictions, the witnesses indicate that this occurred between 1986 and 1987, but the defendant does not know by whom or whom they were evicted, and despite this, he has remained since 1988 in continuous and stable agrarian possession of that property. Let us see: Witness [Nombre8] says: "I have known the land in conflict since the year eighty, at that time it was scrubland and brushwood, it had no fences or tracks... later was when I found out that Mr. [Nombre7] was the one who lived on this land. On one or two occasions I saw that the defendant was evicted from the land. From the year ninety was when I found out that the Farghuarsons claimed (sic) ownership of this land. The fences and the pasture on the farm, who has planted them is the defendant [Nombre7], I have seen him. The livestock on the farm belongs to the defendant... on the farm there are timber trees, this because I managed to see them in the part where I arrived. the house and the shed on the farm were built by Mr. [Nombre7]..." (folios 361-362). As can be observed, it is the defendant who has performed properly agrarian possessory acts, such as building fences, maintaining livestock, constructing a house and a corral, all for more than fifteen years. The foregoing is ratified by [Nombre10], when he states: "I have known the parcel in conflict since the year eighty-six, at that time it was mountain, it had no fences or tracks. The land began to change until the defendant entered and began to clear brush, and plant fruit trees, timber trees, and pasture. the fences that the parcel has were made by [Nombre7], I saw it. The constructions on the parcel were also made by the defendant. [Nombre7] entered the land in the year eighty-six, when I found out he was already on the land. [Nombre7] entered the land because he had nowhere to live, he was a banana worker. Between the year eighty-six and for a period of a year and a half afterward, the defendant was evicted on two occasions... The defendant sawed wood to make the house, and I saw sawn wood before making the house, I don't know if it was to sell it... The defendant has about eight head of cattle on the farm..." (folio 363). From this statement, new elements emerge related to the precarious possession of lands, specifically, that the defendant was a banana worker, and out of a state of necessity, since he had nowhere to live, he entered the property registered in the name of the plaintiff, and developed an entire agricultural activity of vegetable cultivation and animal raising there, thereby fulfilling the social function of property. The statement of [Nombre7], brother of the defendant, is also coincident, who states "...I have known the parcel in conflict since the year eighty-six, at that time it was mountain, it had no fences or tracks. At that time, no owner of the land was known. The defendant entered the land in conflict in the year eighty-six, he began to clear it and plant pasture. the fences and the constructions on the farm were made by the defendant. Between the year eighty-six and eighty-seven, the defendant was evicted three times... On the farm, wood has only been extracted to make the house. Currently, no wood is extracted from the farm. The fruit trees, fences, and constructions on the parcel were made by the defendant... The paddocks on the parcel have been existing for about ten and eleven years. The defendant has eight head of cattle on the parcel..." (folios 365 to 366). All the foregoing coincides with what was observed in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) conducted by the lower court (a-quo) on August 17, 2004 (folio 357), where it was verified that the parcel possessed by the defendant [Nombre7] geographically coincides with portion I of the farm described in Plano Catastrado number L-387416-80, based on which that diligence was carried out, verifying that the referenced parcel is duly fenced with three and four strands of wire, with living and dead posts, and is described as follows: "The nature of it is pasture except for the sector located about 150 meters from a ravine located in the back part, which is also pasture, but there is a large quantity of timber trees of pilón and anonillo. After the ravine, one continued approximately eighty meters towards the back... The delimitation of the bottom, that is, the one located between vertex six and four, has a fence of two strands of wire with dead posts. Then one continued along the line from vertex four to three, which is a fence of dead posts and natural trees with four and five strands, where the plaintiff indicates is the boundary of the farm. From the vertex that one returns along the boundary, there is a fence of living and dead posts with four and five strands. Upon reaching vertex three, there is a wooden house of four by five with a cement floor and zinc roof. Adjacent to this, there is a small shed of four by four with a zinc roof and dirt floor, there is a well with an electric pump. Adjacent to this, there are seven pejibaye trees, there is an enclosure for pigs with concrete boards, inside the paddock there were nine cows, two calves, and a young bull... There are also breadfruit, nance, mango, water apple, guaba trees, coconut palms, and pipas, of which there are three..." (folio 357). From all this, it is concluded that the defendant has converted a farm that was abandoned and undelimited into a productive land, developing an activity of cattle raising and cultivation of fruit trees, as well as conservation of timber species, both for his own subsistence and that of his family, an activity that has been continuous and uninterrupted for more than ten years, and from approximately 1988 onwards. By virtue of the foregoing, there is no impediment to judicially declare the special agricultural adverse possession in favor of the defendant, as will be stated further on, just as this Tribunal has been resolving in repeated judicial rulings (Among others, consult rulings number 554-91, 111-94, 145-F-05, 580-F-05, 952-F-05, and 732-F-06). A ruling on other grievances of the appellant is omitted, being considered unnecessary, since the substantive aspects and evidentiary assessment have already been analyzed pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, and not under the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica), invoked by the claimant.

X.- In a case similar to the one now before us, more recently, the Tribunal Agrario reiterated the possibility that in this venue, the special agrarian adverse possession be declared if the administrative procedure has been exhausted and the Institute has not made any pronouncement, provided that the substantive requirements demanded by the Law of Lands and Colonization are met: "VII. The appellant is correct in that the positive prescription must be declared in their favor. In the sub judice, according to the testimonial evidence evacuated in the case records offered by the plaintiff party (since the defendant corporation did not appear at the evidence reception hearing), as well as from the judicial inspection carried out for this purpose (folio 169 and 179) and sworn declarations of [Nombre11], [Nombre12], [Nombre13], [Nombre14], and [Nombre15] (folio 102), interpreted under the principle of FREE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE (LIBRE VALORACION DE LA PRUEBA), as permitted by Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, it is inferred that the plaintiff has possessed as owner the land object of this litigation, in a stable, effective, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, with the aim of putting it into production for his subsistence and that of his family. That possession began under title of owner approximately between nineteen eighty-seven and nineteen eighty-nine, thus holding a period exceeding ten years when he files his claim. Also, that this possession was deployed through stable and effective possessory acts, consisting of the planting of different crops, fruit trees, the construction and exploitation of a pigsty, and the inhabitation of a house located there, reflecting an agricultural activity for subsistence for himself and his family, without having any other means of livelihood... XI. As developed in the cited jurisprudential precedent, which this Tribunal adopts, in the case of special agricultural adverse possession, it is not necessary for the requirements of good faith and the translative deed of ownership originating from a "non domino" to concur, as required in Articles 853 and 854 of the Civil Code, hence it becomes unnecessary to analyze whether the appealed judgment correctly assessed the requirement of good faith, much less whether it has operated in the specific case. Only the requirements established in Article 92 of the Law of Lands and Colonization must be applied, namely, "anyone who out of necessity performs stable and effective acts of possession, as owner, in a peaceful, public, and uninterrupted manner, for more than one year, and with the purpose of putting it in conditions of production for their subsistence or that of their family, on a land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry," and the requirement of ten years of possession contemplated in Article 92 in fine and Article 101 first paragraph of the law in question. Hence, the appellant is correct that the special agricultural adverse possession has been configured in their favor, and consequently, the extinction of the right of property of the defendant corporation, who despite having had the farm registered in its name since 1983 (certification on folio 2), has never exercised possession, made any claim to the plaintiff or his family, nor attempted to establish an action for recovery of the good before the present action. Neither is it alleged in the statement of defense that the plaintiff and his family possess by mere tolerance; no indication or explanation is given of the reason why possession has not been exercised, which reveals a kind of renunciation of their right all this time. These social realities in the agrarian field, like that of the present case, justify the existence and application of Articles 92 and 101 of the Law of Lands and Colonization, in order to grant legal security in land tenure, in accordance with the principle established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution that "The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth," and equity as a principle of Agrarian Law regulated in Article 69 of our Carta Magna. For greater abundance, Article XXIII of the "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man," approved at the Ninth International American Conference, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948, as a manifestation of the Human Rights of the first and second generation, provides: "Every person has the right to private property corresponding to the essential needs of a decent life, which contributes to maintaining the dignity of the person and the home." Under this understanding, the application of the institute of special agricultural adverse possession to the sub judice is reasonable, proportional, and in accordance with the law.

XII.Although the defendant party alleged in its statement of defense that the plaintiff did not go to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario for a declaration of their condition of precarious possession, and did not exhaust the administrative procedure (folio 57), it is not correct, nor does it change the prerequisites based on which this instance resolves. The foregoing is because, precisely as a result of the exception of failure to exhaust administrative channels filed by the defendant (folio 58), the court, in a resolution at 3:45 p.m. on November 4, two thousand three (folio 102 to 106), warned the party to exhaust administrative channels, based precisely on Article 94 of the Law of Lands and Colonization, so that on December 19, two thousand three, the plaintiff raised the conflict of precarious possession of lands before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, which was initiated on January 16, two thousand four, and more than three months elapsed from the receipt of the request without that entity ruling on the matter (folio 114 to 142). Likewise, given that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did not resolve within the three-month period established in Article 94, in a resolution at 2:10 p.m. on May 6, two thousand four, the court of first instance deemed the administrative channel exhausted (folio 143). Under this understanding, having deemed the administrative channel exhausted due to the Administration's omission, and based on the provisions of that same Article 94 cited, logically it must be understood that it will be in the judicial venue, in the face of administrative inertia, where it is analyzed whether or not the plaintiff holds the condition of precarious possessor, with administrative action being precluded for all purposes. A different interpretation would flagrantly violate the constitutional principle of ACCESS TO JUSTICE, since the spirit and purpose of Article 92 of the law so many times cited would be significantly reduced in the face of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario's omission to rule on the matter within the legal term. For greater abundance, it must also be set forth that this administrative procedure has as its primary purpose that this entity, having verified the precariousness of the occupant, tries to solve the conflict through a direct purchase from the registered owner, but it never excludes the possibility that, in the judicial venue, the condition of precarious possessor be analyzed as a substantive prerequisite of the special agricultural adverse possession, just as all the other elements comprising it are verified in that venue... (Tribunal Agrario, Sección II, N° 732-F-06, of July 11, 2006). In the case now before us, see that the defendant and counterclaimant also proved to be a humble person, a banana laborer, who had nowhere to live, which is why he entered the plaintiff's property, putting it into conditions of agrarian production, complying with the social function of property. The judicial and administrative actions undertaken by the plaintiff occurred ten years after the exercise of stable and effective agrarian possessory acts by the defendant, when the special agrarian adverse possession had already been consolidated, and the provisions of Article 101 of the Law of Lands and Colonization are fully applicable, in the sense that when positive prescription is judicially declared or accepted, the Institute has no obligation to intervene or pay for those parcels to the owner, since the acquisition of a new real right in favor of the adverse possessor has already operated, from whom neither just title nor good faith is required, as demanded by the civil legal system for cases of ordinary adverse possession.

XI.- By virtue of all the foregoing, the appropriate course is to REVOKE in all its aspects the appealed judgment. In its place, it is resolved: The exception of positive prescription, understood as special agrarian adverse possession, filed by [Nombre7], is accepted, and consequently, the ordinary agricultural action for recovery of possession (acción reivindicatoria) by [Nombre6] against [Nombre7] is declared WITHOUT MERIT in all its aspects, and a ruling on the other exceptions is omitted as unnecessary. Regarding the COUNTERCLAIM, it is partially accepted as follows: 1.- It is declared that Mr. [Nombre7] has possessed for more than ten years, under title of owner, in a continuous, public, and peaceful manner, to satisfy his own needs and those of his family, portion I of the property described in Plano Catastrado Number L-387416-80, which according to said map is described as follows: land of scrubland (tacotales) and mountain, currently pasture, fruit trees, and mountain, bordering on the north with Cimarrones Fruit Company, on the south with [Dirección1], on the East with Esposa e Hijos [Nombre6], and on the West with [Nombre16], measuring 12 hectares, two thousand forty-five square meters with eighty-seven square decimeters. 2.- That said property, possessed by [Nombre7], is registered in the name of the counterclaim defendant [Nombre6], in the Registro Público de la Propiedad, Partido de Limón, at the Folio real registration number CED2.- 3.- That having acquired by positive prescription or special agrarian adverse possession portion I of the referenced registered property, the registration of said property must be partially canceled in the name of [Nombre6], solely regarding portion I of the previously indicated map, and the Registro Público de la Propiedad must proceed to register the referenced property in the name of Mr. [Nombre7], of legal age, married once, peasant, identity card number CED3-, and for its registration, the counterclaimant must proceed to survey an independent map of said property. As for what is not granted, the remaining claims of the counterclaim are rejected. The personal and procedural costs of this ordinary process are charged to the losing plaintiff." The most specialized doctrine on this matter attributes the following characteristics to this action: a) Real in nature: It can be brought against anyone who possesses the thing without right; b) Recuperatory or restitutory: Its basic objective is to obtain material possession of the asset; c) It is a condemnatory action: a judgment favorable to the plaintiff will impose a specific behavior on the defendant. The reivindicatory action (acción reivindicatoria) constitutes the most forceful procedural remedy against the most radical aggression that an owner can suffer, which is the dispossession of the thing that belongs to him.-(See [Nombre1], Roberto, "La acción reinvidicatoria" In Derecho Agrario Costarricense, San José, Costa Rica, Ilanud, 1992, page 69). There are three prerequisites for the validity of the reivindicatory action: 1). Active legal standing (Legitimación activa), according to which the titleholder must hold the status of owner, it being noted that the owner must be the proprietor; 2) passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva); according to which the possessor, or defendant, must exercise his possessory acts as an illegitimate possessor and 3) identity of the thing, between the asset claimed by the owner and the one illegitimately possessed by the defendant or possessor." (Sala Primera de la Corte, No 230 of sixteen hours of twenty July nineteen ninety).

**VI.-** **FOUNDATION OF USUCAPION (USUCAPIÓN)**: In general terms, the most authoritative doctrine has defined this institution and explained its foundation as follows: *"Usucapion (or positive prescription) is the acquisition of ownership or another real right capable of possession, by the continued possession thereof for the time and under the conditions set by law. Thus, the person acquiring by usucapion (usucapiente), during this time and under these conditions, appears, figures, acts, or has been behaving as the holder of the right in question (if it is the right of property, as the owner of the thing in question; if it is of usufruct, as if he were the usufructuary thereof). And that right that really did not belong to him, becomes his by virtue of having been appearing as if it corresponded to him. Through usucapion, the state of fact that is prolonged in time is converted into the state of Law. The foundation of usucapion lies in the idea (accurate or not, but embraced by our law) that, for the sake of transactional security, it is, in principle, advisable that, after a certain time, the person who, although the rights do not belong to him, flaunts them as his own, without contradiction from the interested party, becomes the holder of certain rights... what matters is something objective, that the holder has not used the right, even if he later demonstrates ad nauseam that he wanted to preserve it. Now, the expression presumption of abandonment can be accepted as reflecting the foundation of usucapion in the sense that, if the right is not used, it is normally presumable that it was abandoned, and on that normal presumability of abandonment, usucapion has been established by law, which, operating in accordance with the id quod plerumque accidit, sets as a rule that others may acquire, by using them as if they were their own, the rights that their holders have presumably abandoned... Usucapion is an original mode (modo originario) of acquiring the right acquired by usucapion, insofar as the acquisition is not based on any prior right, that is, the person acquiring by usucapion does not make it his own because the one who had it transfers it to him (causality relationship), but rather he becomes the holder thereof -regardless of whether another person was the holder before- because he has been behaving as such. And it is as a consequence of a new right, incompatible with the previous one, being established over the thing, that the one who previously held it over the same thing loses his own. The person acquiring by usucapion acquires without anything in exchange. If it were an acquisition through an act, this would, therefore, be gratuitous in nature (a título gratuito). but in any case, the person acquiring by usucapion acquires *gratuitously"*.([Nombre2], Manuel. La usucapión, Madrid, 2004, pp. 13-16). And it is also appropriate to cite doctrine originated in light of the French Civil Code of 1884, which highlights the social utility of usucapion, a utility that remains valid today: *"The ancients said that prescription is the patroness of the human race, and the Statement of Purpose of the title On Prescription says that it is, of all the institutions of civil law, the most necessary for social order. Nothing could be truer. The proof of ownership would be impossible if usucapion did not exist. How have I become an owner? Because I acquired the thing by purchase, by gift, or by succession; but I could only acquire ownership if the previous possessor held it with this title. The same problem and in the same terms arises for all successive possessors of the thing, and if a single one in the series was not an owner, all those who followed him will not be either. Prescription removes this difficulty, which would be insoluble; a certain number of years of possession are sufficient. It can also be supposed that the acquisition title of the current possessor or of one of his closer predecessors has been lost or is unknown. Then prescription comes to the aid of the possessor. Usucapion plays, therefore, a considerable social role. Without it, no patrimony would be safe from unforeseen claims (reivindicaciones). It is true that under certain conditions, usucapion may favor a possessor without title and in bad faith; it will then cover a spoliation. But this fact is rare and would be even rarer if the owner, dispossessed by the effect of usucapion, were not negligent. Why has he remained for such a long time without performing possessory acts over his thing and without claiming it? He is given sufficient time to know of the usucapion that is occurring against him and to protest. The results contrary to equity, which one runs the risk of producing in this way, cannot be compared with the decisive advantages that usucapion provides every day."* (PLANIOL Y RIPERT. Derecho Civil, Clásicos del Derecho, Harla, 1997, p. 465).

**VII.-** **OF THE SPECIAL AGRARIAN USUCAPION (USUCAPION ESPECIAL [Nombre3])**: It is important to note a jurisprudential precedent of this Court by virtue of which the prerequisites and foundations of this institution as a form of acquiring agrarian property (propiedad agraria) are analyzed. Thus, in VOTO Nº 145-F-05 of eleven hours thirty minutes of nine March two thousand five, it was established: *" (...) In the case at hand, we are faced with an ordinary agrarian proceeding of USUCAPION (USUCAPIÓN), which, from its legal classification, corresponds rather to a SPECIAL AGRARIAN USUCAPION (USUCAPION ESPECIAL AGRARIA), derived from precarious possession (posesión precaria) of lands, and not simply the common usucapion. As we shall see, the special provisions of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización are applicable and not only those of the Civil Code, because in this case, the general rules are modified by the special ones of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización. Regarding usucapion, this Tribunal several years ago made the distinction between usucapion derived from the Civil Code and the special agrarian one, which is indicated in the following recitals: “V.- The Tribunal has no doubt whatsoever, given the abundant documentary and testimonial evidence, that the plaintiffs meet each and every one of the requirements that both doctrine and jurisprudence have established to acquire, through the institution of positive agrarian prescription (prescripción positiva agraria), the three real properties that are the subject of this debate. This is the result, not only of an assessment of the evidence brought to the proceeding, "conscientiously and without strict subjection to the rules of common law (derecho común)" (Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), but also the result of interpretation in accordance with article 10 of the Preliminary Title of our Civil Code, which establishes: "The rules shall be interpreted according to the proper sense of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative antecedents, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose.", and furthermore, what is provided in article 11 of the same legal body, when stating: "Equity shall be weighed in the application of the rules..." And then, the **foundations of equity and law** of the second instance ruling are set forth (cited Article 54). VI.- It is imperative to refer to the Institution of Agrarian Usucapion (Usucapión [Nombre3]) -heritage of Agrarian Law (Derecho Agrario)-, and to its particularities in our Legislation. It could be affirmed, without fear of mistakes, that the **AGRARIAN USUCAPION (USUCAPIÓN [Nombre3])** is a typical institution of Agrarian Law, even independent of those already traditionally known, such as agrarian property, agrarian possession (posesión agraria), contracts, and the agrarian enterprise; this does not prevent that, as a reflection of the same legal system, there are elements of confluence among them. Furthermore, evidently, this institution acquires differential features from the typical CIVIL USUCAPION (USUCAPIÓN CIVIL). One of the effects of possession is USUCAPION: an original mode -since it is not based on any prior right and there is no transmission- of acquisition, not only of property, but of any other possible real right (article 853, first paragraph of the Civil Code) through the continuous exercise of possessory acts during a certain time, and complying with the other requirements demanded by law, both common to possession and special in the case of civil usucapion of real property. The requirements common to all possession apt for usucapion are: **1. Possession as owner or holder of the real right**, requiring that the possessor behave as if he were the owner or holder of the real right in question, "as owner" as our law says (article 856 of the Civil Code); **2. Peaceful possession**, defined negatively as that in which there has been no violence, understood as an actual and imminent force, both physical and moral -threats-, because possession maintained with violence is not useful for prescription, except from the moment the violence ceases (Article 857 of the Civil Code); **3. Public possession**, using or enjoying the thing in a visible manner, without concealment or secretly, allowing anyone with an interest in interrupting the prescription to know of it (Article 858 of the Civil Code), possession taken clandestinely is only valid for prescription from the moment that circumstance is known to the dispossessed person (article 279, subsection 2 of the Civil Code). **4. Uninterrupted possession**, that is, exercised continuously, repeatedly, and maintained; it ceases to be continuous the moment the possessor stops exercising possessory acts over the asset or stops having the effective possibility of performing such acts (article 856 of the Civil Code); possession can be naturally interrupted when the possessor is deprived of the possession of the thing or the enjoyment of the right for one year, unless he recovers one or the other judicially (article 875 of the Civil Code), since the right to possess prescribes by the possession of one year (article 860 of the Civil Code), but it can also be civilly interrupted by recognition made in favor of the owner, or by judicial summons duly notified to the debtor (article 876 of the Civil Code) and its effect is to render useless for usucapion all the time previously elapsed (article 878 of the Civil Code). Our legislation establishes as special requirements in ordinary usucapion -apart from possession with the characteristics indicated- the "title transferring ownership (título traslativo de dominio)" and "good faith (buena fé)" (article 853 of the Civil Code): **5. The title transferring ownership or just title (justo título)**, is not a document of acquisition of ownership, but refers to the fact sufficient to have produced the acquisition of the right in question, so it is rather confused with the acquisitive cause; if it concerns easements (servidumbres), movable property, or the right to possess "...the fact of possession makes the title presumed, unless proven otherwise" (article 854 of the Civil Code). The title or just title must be suitable -to acquire the object of possession-, true -that the acquisitive cause exists-, and valid. … **6.-Good faith**: Good faith concerns the personal conviction of the subject regarding his legitimacy; one must speak of belief and not of intention; said belief is generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith in possession fulfills the objective of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor (acquisition of fruits, payment of improvements and right of retention, non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing, etc. (articles 327 and 328 of the Civil Code). While for general good faith -as a requirement of possession- it is necessarily the ignorance or error as to the existence of a defect that invalidates the title or mode of acquisition, in the good faith necessary for usucapion -which also includes the former- the belief that the transferor of the title is the owner of the transferred thing or has the power to make such transfer is also necessary. **VII.-** Among the principles of Agrarian Law is the **social function of property (función social de la propiedad)**, through its means it seeks to guarantee "access" to property for people who lack it or possess it insufficiently, and also the equitable distribution of products, guaranteeing the food supply for the entire population and greater social justice in the countryside. One of the premises by which property fulfills its social function lies in the need to give the land its natural economic destination: the exercise of agrarian activities of raising animals or cultivating plants on assets of a productive nature and agricultural, forestry, or livestock suitability. In Comparative Agrarian Law, most legislations seek the ideal owner; to this end, they have enshrined the **Agrarian Usucapion (Usucapión [Nombre3]) or Usucapio pro-labore**. In Brazil, the Usucapio Pro-Labore Law, number 6969 of 10 December 1981, established: "Anyone who, not being a rural or urban owner, possesses as his own, for five uninterrupted years without opposition, a continuous rural area, not exceeding 25 hectares, making it productive with his work and having his home there, acquires the ownership thereof, independently of just title and good faith, and may request the judge to so declare in a judgment, which will serve as title in the Real Property Registry". In Italy, by Law number 346 of 10 May 1976, agrarian usucapion is regulated as a special means of acquiring property. In Peruvian Agrarian Law, the figure of agrarian usucapion (usucapión [Nombre3]) is regulated by the Texto Unico y Concordado of Decreto Ley 17716 (Ley de Reforma [Nombre3] Peruana), article 8 final paragraph which establishes: "He who has possessed for himself, rustic lands in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraphs of a continuous nature and for the term of 5 years, acquires them by prescription and may bring an action before the Fuero Privativo Agrario to be declared owner. The reivindicatory action and other real actions prescribe in the same term." In Venezuela, the Ley Orgánica de Tribunales y Procedimientos Agrarios, in its article 14, introduces the figure of agrarian usucapion, establishing a term of ten years. In Costa Rica, the Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 of 14 October 1961, established not only a special concept of agrarian possession, the precarious possession of lands, but also established the special agrarian usucapion, eliminating as requirements just title and good faith, demanding the exercise of agrarian activities for the subsistence of the possessor and that of his family. The **principle of Agrarian Law** that gives foundation to the existence of the **Agrarian Usucapion (Usucapión [Nombre3])** is that **"the land must belong to he who works it"**, thereby exalting agrarian work as a fundamental right, and it constitutes the most important instrument for access to property. "Work is the foundation of agrarian usucapion". In Costa Rica, the agrarian law doctrine has constructed, through these principles, the Institution of Agrarian Usucapion: "The **Agrarian Usucapion (Usucapión [Nombre3])** conceived as an institution through which the principle of access to property for everyone who works the land, achieving rational and effective production, is developed - needs as the only means of turning work into the source of property rights- to discard a series of elements that appear in civil law as requirements for possession apt for usucapion, such as just title and good faith, but creating other requirements, less conceptual and more factual, that replace the previous ones, giving the possession a more active character than that which civil law gathers. By virtue of the foregoing, the time to prescribe is reduced (from 10 years, required in almost all Agrarian Reform laws) but taking as its foundation not security, but work and production."( **[Nombre4] ,.** *La posesión [Nombre3]*, San José, Costa Rica, Librería Barrabás, 2nd. ed., 1991, page 155). Therefore, various **requirements in Agrarian Usucapion are established: 1.- The animus**, must be projected through the effective exercise of agrarian possessory acts, turning the agrarian estate into the habitual home of the possessor; but it is reflected more intensely through the economic appropriation of the earnings obtained through his cultivation work; it is presumed that whoever works the land in this way is always a possessor as owner. **2.-The just title in agrarian possession (posesión [Nombre3]) ad-usucapionem**, is constituted by agrarian work, because it is through it that ownership of the land is acquired. "On the other hand, the non-requirement of just title gives rise to the possibility that usucapion may occur contra-tábulas, that is, against a title registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. By virtue of the considerations regarding just title that are made in the theory of agrarian possession, it can be said that agrarian usucapion, by not taking into account the prior relationship that may exist between the possessor and the transferor, is a truly original mode of acquisition." ( **Meza Lázarus**, *op. cit.* , page 158). **3.- Good faith in agrarian possession (posesión [Nombre3]) ad-usucapionem:** In agrarian usucapion, the categorization of possession in good or bad faith does not exist, since Agrarian Law is not so much interested in the attitude of the possessor, but above all in his productive agrarian activity; "In Agrarian Law, the existence of this requirement cannot be conceived by virtue of the fact that it is linked to the just title, which is discarded as a requirement of possession apt for usucapion. The agrarian possession (posesión [Nombre3]) takes on a personal character in which its foundation turns out to be work. Since the existence of a title and its validity is not necessary, the requirement of special good faith in agrarian possession (posesión [Nombre3]) lacks any reason for being."( **Meza Lázarus**, *op.cit.* , page 160-161). **VIII.-** The special agrarian legislation in Costa Rica has gradually eliminated the requirement of just title and good faith in Usucapion, to such an extent that the non-requirement of these requirements has become the rule, and the exception is established in the civil sphere (article 853 of the Civil Code). Thus, the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias N°. 139 of 14 July 1941 and its amendments, in article 1 establishes: "The possessor of real property who lacks a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry may request that one be granted to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. For this purpose, he must demonstrate **possession for more than ten years with the conditions indicated in article 856 of the Civil Code**..." Note that the rule only requires the requirements common to all usucapion, and does not refer to article 853 as a requirement for the title transferring ownership and good faith. Subsection e) of the same article confirms the above, when it states that the applicant must indicate "...the domicile of the person from whom he acquired his right **in his case**, indicating if he is related to that person as well as **the cause** and date of the acquisition.", that is, that the acquisition can be derivative -in which case the acquisition document must be presented-, or original, the cause of which can be the possession itself through agrarian work. The rule also does not refer to good faith as a requirement for usucapion. ….But where the **Agrarian Usucapion (Usucapión [Nombre3])** of lands is expressly enshrined, as understood by doctrine and jurisprudence, is in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 of 14 October 1961 and its amendments, articles 92 and 101. The first of the provisions establishes, regarding what is relevant: "For the purposes of this law, it shall be understood that a **precarious possessor** is anyone who **out of necessity** performs stable and effective **acts of possession**, **as owner**, peacefully, publicly, and uninterruptedly, for more than one year, and with the purpose of **putting it in conditions of production for his subsistence or that of his family**, on a land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. Precarious possessors who have **ten-year possession** under the conditions stated in the preceding paragraph, may register their right in accordance with the provisions of this law and through the possessory information procedure...." This rule acquires great importance for Costa Rican Agrarian Law, because in its first paragraph, **precarious possession of lands (posesión precaria de tierras)** is enshrined as a typical institution of Agrarian Law, as a modality of agrarian possession, as well as the specific principles that must govern this institution: It consists of the de facto power, which a person exercises over an asset of a productive nature -registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry-, with the object of performing stable and effective acts of possession on it that are directly aimed at putting it in conditions of production in order to obtain products, whether animal or vegetable, to satisfy his own needs or those of his family. In precarious possession of lands, food necessity and agrarian work prevail; that is why the subjective and objective requirements are special; on the one hand, the simple intention to possess (ánimo de poseer) is not required, but one possesses out of necessity directly and personally, to satisfy fundamental food needs of the family group; moreover, the consideration of whether there is good or bad faith is dispensed with, since the precarious possessor in fact knows that the productive asset over which he exercises the agrarian activity is registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry; on the other hand, the title transferring ownership is not required (article 101 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización) because the just title is constituted by agrarian work. The most important consequence for Costa Rican Agrarian Law, which can be derived from the figure of precarious possession of lands, is that this institution constitutes a means of access to productive assets, and therefore to the right of property over these with the passage of time: **agrarian usucapion (usucapión [Nombre3])**. (See the vote of this Tribunal, N° 554 of 15 hours 10 minutes of 23 August 1991).* (Superior Agrarian Tribunal, No. 111, 1:50 p.m., February 16, 1994). VI.- In the present case, the appellant is correct in her grievances. The Judge is obligated in this special matter to analyze the evidence with criteria of free assessment, with broader powers than in other matters, and furthermore, to apply the special legal norms, according to each factual situation that arises. In addition, when analyzing the evidentiary element and ruling on the case, criteria of equity and law must be indicated, as stated in the preceding recital (Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law). In the instant case, the Tribunal considers that the lower court erred in analyzing the evidentiary elements, which were studied solely in light of the criteria of the Civil Code, without considering the special provisions of the Land and Colonization Law, by virtue of the principle that the judge knows the law (iura novit curia), and without taking into account the abandonment by the defendant (regarding the evidence) in the exercise of their property or the claim of their rights. (...) Indeed, from the evidence provided to the process, it is inferred that the plaintiff, now her Estate, demonstrated the necessary requirements to achieve the SPECIAL AGRARIAN ADVERSE POSSESSION, contained in Articles 92 and 101 of the Land and Colonization Law." VIII.- Special agrarian adverse possession is a typical and exclusive institution of Agrarian law, for which it is affirmed: "It is significant that the permanence or occupation must be qualified through possessory acts that demonstrate that during the indicated period of time, the legal obligations contemplated in Article 19 of the Agrarian Reform Law were fulfilled, as essential elements of the social function, which every owner of rural properties must fulfill. Civil possession is not sufficient, but rather agrarian possession... The law has accepted the characteristic notes of legitimate possession to place them as prerequisites for the action of special agrarian adverse possession, but on the understanding, for example, that the last condition, that is, that the occupation be with the intent of an owner, this has been de facto, and not by the inversion of title referred to in Article 1961 of the Civil Code" (DUQUE CORREDOR, Román, Derecho procesal agrario, 1986, Chapter VI "La usucapión especial [Name3]", pages 109-124). This institution, also, as has been seen, has been regulated in other countries such as Brazil and Italy ([Name5], . Usucapione Speciale [Name3], En. Dizionari del Diritto Privato, Diritto Agrario, 1983, p. 875-897), and that tendency responds to the rights enshrined within the concept of a Social and Democratic State of Law, and its existence is due to the need to guarantee access to land ownership for those who fulfill the economic, environmental, and social function of productive assets. This principle derived from Article 45 of the Political Constitution and developed by the Land and Colonization Law, finds its reason for being in the values of social justice and national solidarity, as well as sustainable development and rational exploitation of the land contained in numerals 50, 69, and 74 of the same Constitution. The Constitutional Chamber itself has indicated “Regarding property [Name3], it must be indicated that when the social function of property is recognized, the right to property is configured as a right-duty, in which there is a specific way of exercising the powers of ownership, and obligations such as the productive use of the land are imposed on the owner” (Constitutional Chamber, No. 4587-97, 3:45 p.m., August 5, 1997). This thesis, sustained by our highest jurisdictional body, and whose jurisprudence is binding, does have legal and doctrinal support. From the legal point of view, the Land and Colonization Law, in Articles 1 and 2, requires the fulfillment of the social function of property, and from Article 141 onwards establishes the possibility of decreeing expropriation, in the face of non-compliance with the social function of property. Furthermore, from Article 92 of the Land and Colonization Law, other possibilities are also established to resolve conflicts of precarious occupation of land on already registered properties. That is to say, it is not possible to make an isolated reading of the norms of the Civil Code, without relating them to the large number of special Laws (such as the Forest Law, the Soil Law, the Organic Environmental Law, and the Biodiversity Law, among others), which in some way condition the exercise of the right to property as a power-duty. Indeed, the Land and Colonization Law provides that land ownership must be promoted for the gradual increase of its productivity (Article 1), guarantees the access of every individual to the ownership of economically exploitable lands (Article 2), and to denounce the non-compliance with the social function of property (Article 6). It establishes a special regime of precarious possession (Articles 92 and following), since the possessors who acquire a ten-year possession, under the conditions set forth therein, are subject to the provisions of Article 101 of the same: "The parcels regarding which the exception of positive prescription must be admitted as admissible shall not be included in the appraisal nor paid for. Those possessed in a continuous, public, and peaceful manner for more than ten years shall be in this case, whether the possession has been exercised directly by the occupant or by their transferors. That is, for the purposes of the positive prescription that this article deals with, the translative title of ownership that the Civil Code requires shall not be necessary.... Once said possession is declared by the Tribunals, the respective parcels shall not be taken into account for the effects of the corresponding indemnification...". The underlined portion is not in the original, and evidently presupposes the total inertia and abandonment by the owner of the land ownership, as well as the renunciation of their claim in court, for more than ten years. It also presupposes the [Name3] activity of the adverse possessor, in conditions of necessity, to satisfy their own needs and those of their family. In addition to the above, see that the norm is clear in the sense of indicating that positive prescription is judicially declared, and this is admissible both by way of action and by way of exception. Hence, it is not necessary in all cases to exhaust the administrative channel when the adverse possession under said conditions is already consolidated with the passage of time, as the First Chamber of Cassation has indicated in some of its rulings, since that would be to ignore the possibility of resolving this type of controversy in the jurisdictional channel, applying substantive agrarian law, and particularly, the institution of special agrarian adverse possession.

XI.- Article 320 of the Civil Code provides: "The reivindication action may be directed against anyone who possesses as an owner and subsists as long as another has not acquired ownership of the thing by prescription". On the other hand, Article 479 of the same legal body indicates: "The owner who lacks a registered title of ownership may register their right, after previously justifying their possession for more than ten years, in the manner indicated by the corresponding legislation." Pursuant to said provisions, and the regulatory norms of special agrarian adverse possession, the present case must be resolved. The grievances of the defendant and counterclaimant are well-received, since in the sub judice, all the conditions are met to uphold the exception of positive prescription filed by the defendant, declare the counterclaim with merit, and reject the plaintiff's reivindication action, which would not subsist upon upholding the prescription. Regarding the reivindication action, let us see whether or not the prerequisites for its admissibility occur: a.- Active legitimation: in this case the plaintiff, [Name6], claims registered title over the property registered in the Party of Limón, at Folio Real registration number CED1, and represented by cadastral map number L-0387416-80, indicating that he has exercised ownership and possession [Name3] therein and has dedicated it to agricultural and livestock production. b.- Regarding passive legitimation, he claims that the defendant entered in June 1988 in a clandestine and violent manner, moving from one place to another, being an illegitimate possessor. c.- Regarding the identity of the asset, he maintains that the claimed asset is the same one illegitimately possessed by the defendant. To prove the facts of the claim, he provides documentary evidence and offered a list of 9 witnesses. However, the evidence provided by the plaintiff does not lead to proving the prerequisites of the reivindication action. Quite the contrary, a mere registered title over the claimed property emerges from it (see certification on folios 291 to 295), and its cadastral representation in Map No. L-387416-80, provided as a simple copy to the agrarian process. There is no other evidentiary element demonstrating that the plaintiff, before being dispossessed, was carrying out a business-type [Name3] activity. The witness evidence was abandoned as it was not presented at the oral hearing. Although a series of documents related to agrarian activities are provided (folios 110 to 251), they refer to another different legal entity, namely, "Esposa & Hijos Farghuarson S.A". On the other hand, from the analysis of the case file, it is inferred that the plaintiff filed the precarious possession conflict on May 14, 1998, before the Institute of Agrarian Development (see folios 95 to 98), arguing in his initial brief that the occupation of his property occurred in June 1988. In reality, as will be seen later, those properties were occupied between 1985 and 1986, and several evictions occurred, not documented in this process, between 1986 and 1987; however, the defendant remained in occupation and possession of the property now claimed for more than ten years, fulfilling the necessary conditions for adverse possession. That is, when the conflict of precarious occupation of lands was filed before the Institute, more than ten years of [Name3] possession by the defendant had already elapsed. The Agrarian Court, in a ruling at 7:10 a.m. on November 23, 2001, considered the administrative channel exhausted (folio 256), which, in any case, was unnecessary, since, as was said, more than ten years had elapsed since the conflict was filed. Furthermore, with the notification of this ordinary agrarian lawsuit, up to August 16, 2002 (folio 279), the interruption of the positive prescription could not occur, because the special agrarian adverse possession had already been consolidated by operation of law (ipso iure) since 1998, and when the defendant invoked the exception of positive prescription, he would not be renouncing it, but rather requesting the declaration of his real property right acquired in an original form by the passage of time. The judicial and administrative inactivity of the registered owner, manifested in an evident abandonment of the protective actions he could have exercised during a prolonged period of ten years, is evident. The degree of legal uncertainty and insecurity that this can produce for an agrarian possessor who behaves as an owner for more than ten years is patent, and for this reason, the agrarian legal system seeks to provide a fair solution to this type of situation, giving priority to whoever fulfills the social function of property over assets of a productive nature. Consequently, regarding active and passive legitimation, they are prerequisites that are not met, since the registered owner abandoned his property right for a period exceeding ten years, filed the conflict of precarious occupation of lands before the Institute of Agrarian Development in 1998 and the ordinary [Name3] reivindication lawsuit in 2000, with notification occurring only in 2002, when the special agrarian adverse possession had already taken effect. Hence, the reivindication action is not admissible, and the exception of positive prescription filed by the defendant [Name7] must be upheld regarding the claim.

X.- The conditions of the special [Name3] adverse possession in this specific case: Article 92 of the Land and Colonization Law requires a ten-year, quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted [Name3] possession, to satisfy the food needs of the possessor and their family, which presupposes the exercise of the social function of property and the creation of a small family [Name3] enterprise. The evidence gathered in the oral hearing, including witness testimony, admissions, and judicial inspection, analyzed in light of the provisions of Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, that is, under the principle of free assessment of evidence, allows the Tribunal to conclude that the substantive prerequisites are met to uphold the special agrarian adverse possession, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, since the judge must apply the special agrarian norm, according to each specific case, with prevalence over the general regulations of the Civil Code. From the evidence, it is inferred that approximately in 1985, the occupation by the defendant occurred over a part of the plaintiff's property, which was abandoned and without any delimitation. Although both the plaintiff and the defendant accept that at least three evictions existed, the witnesses indicate that this occurred between 1986 and 1987, but the defendant does not know by whom or who evicted him, and despite this, he has remained since 1988 in continuous and stable agrarian possession of that property. Let us see: Witness [Name8] says: "I have known the land in conflict since the eighties, at that time it was wasteland and weed lots, it had no fences or lanes... later was when I found out that Mr. [Name7] was the one who lived on this land. I saw on one or two occasions that the defendant was evicted from the land. As of the nineties was when I found out that the Farguharson claimed this land as owners. The fences and the pasture that are on the property were planted by the defendant [Name7], I have seen him. The livestock that is on the property belongs to the defendant [Name9], the property has timber trees, this because I managed to see them in the part where I arrived. The house and the shed that are on the property were built by Mr. [Name7]..." (folios 361-362). As can be observed, it is the defendant who has performed properly agrarian possessory acts, such as making fences, maintaining livestock, building a house and a corral, all for more than fifteen years. The foregoing is ratified by [Name10], by stating: "I have known the parcel in conflict since the eighties, at that time it was mountains, it had no fences or lanes. The land began to change until the defendant entered and began to clear brush and plant fruit trees, timber trees, and replant pasture. The fences that the parcel has were made by [Name7], I saw him. The constructions that are on the parcel were also made by the defendant. [Name7] entered the land in the eighty-six, when I found out he was already on the land. [Name7] entered the land because he had nowhere to live, he was a banana employee. Between eighty-six and for a period of a year and a half later, the defendant was evicted on two occasions... The defendant sawed lumber to make the house and I saw sawn lumber before making the house, I don't know if it was to sell it... The defendant has like eight head of cattle on the property..." (folio 363). From this declaration, new elements related to the precarious possession of lands emerge, namely, that the defendant was a banana employee, and due to a state of necessity, since he had nowhere to live, he entered the property registered in the plaintiff's name, and developed there a whole [Name3] activity of cultivating vegetables and raising animals, thus fulfilling the social function of property. The declaration of [Name7], the defendant's brother, is also coincident, who states "... I have known the parcel in conflict since the eighty-six, at that time it was mountains, it had no fences or lanes. At that time no owner was known for the land. The defendant entered the land in conflict in eighty-six, began to clear brush and plant pasture. The fences and the constructions that are on the property were made by the defendant. Between eighty-six and eighty-seven, the defendant was evicted three times... On the property, wood has only been taken out to make the house. Wood is not currently taken out on the property. The fruit trees, fences, and constructions that are on the parcel were made by the defendant... The paddocks that are on the parcel have been there for about ten and eleven years. The defendant has eight head of cattle on the parcel..." (folios 365 to 366). All of the above coincides with what was observed in the judicial inspection carried out by the lower court on August 17, 2004 (folio 357), in which it was verified that the parcel possessed by the defendant [Name7] geographically coincides with portion I of the property described in Cadastral Map number L-387416-80, based on which said diligence was carried out, verifying that the referred parcel is duly fenced with three and four strands of wire, with live and dead posts, and is described as follows: "The nature of the same is pasture with the exception of the sector located about 150 meters from a stream (quebrada) that is located in the back part, which is also pasture, but there is a large quantity of timber trees of pilón and anonillo. After the stream, we continued approximately eighty meters in the direction of the back... The delimitation of the back, that is, the one located between vertex six and four, has a fence with two strands of wire with dead posts. Then we continued along the line from vertex four to three, which is a fence of dead posts and natural trees with four and five strands, where the plaintiff indicates is the boundary of the property. From the vertex that returns along the boundary line, there is a fence of live and dead posts with four and five strands. Upon reaching vertex three, there is a wooden house of four by five with a cement floor and zinc roof. Adjacent to this, there is a small shed of four by four with a zinc roof and dirt floor, there is a well with an electric pump. Adjacent to this, there are seven pejibaye palm trees, there is an enclosure for pigs with concrete side panels, inside the pasture were nine cows, two calves, and one young bull... There are also breadfruit, nance, mango, water apple, guaba trees, coconut palms, and pipa palms which are three..." (folio 357). From all of this, it is concluded that the defendant has converted a property that was abandoned and without delimitation, into a productive land, developing an activity of cattle raising and cultivation of fruit trees, as well as the conservation of timber species, both for his own subsistence and that of his family, an activity that has been continuous and uninterrupted for more than ten years, and from approximately 1988. By virtue of the foregoing, there is no impediment to judicially declare the special [Name3] adverse possession in favor of the defendant, as will be stated further below, just as this Tribunal has been deciding in reiterated judicial rulings (Among others, consult rulings number 554-91, 111-94, 145-F-05, 580-F-05, 952-F-05, and 732-F-06). A ruling on other grievances of the appellant is omitted, as it is considered unnecessary, since the substantive aspects and the evidentiary assessment have already been analyzed pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, and not according to the rules of sound criticism, invoked by the claimant.

X.- In a case similar to the one that now occupies us, more recently the Agrarian Tribunal reiterated the possibility that in this venue the special agrarian adverse possession may be declared, if the administrative procedure has been exhausted and the Institute has not made any type of pronouncement, as long as the substantive requirements demanded by the Land and Colonization Law are met: "VII. The appellant is right in that the positive prescription should be declared in his favor. In the sub judice, according to the witness evidence provided in the case file by the plaintiff party (since the defendant corporation did not appear at the evidence reception hearing), as well as from the judicial inspection carried out to that effect (folio 169 and 179) and sworn statements of [Name11], [Name12], [Name13], [Name14], and [Name15] (folio 102), interpreted under the principle of FREE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE, as permitted by Article 54 of the [Name3] Jurisdiction Law, it is inferred that the plaintiff has possessed the land object of this litigation as an owner, in a stable, effective, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, with the aim of putting it into production for his subsistence and that of his family. This possession began as owner approximately between nineteen eighty-seven and nineteen eighty-nine, thus holding a period exceeding ten years when he files his lawsuit. Also that this possession was deployed through stable and effective possessory acts, consisting of planting different crops, fruit trees, making and operating a pigsty, and inhabiting a house located there, reflecting a [Name3] activity for his subsistence and that of his family, without having another means of livelihood... XI. Just as is developed in the cited jurisprudential antecedent, which this Tribunal adopts, in the case of special [Name3] adverse possession, it is not necessary that the requirements of good faith and the translative title of ownership from a "non domino" concur, as required in Articles 853 and 854 of the Civil Code, hence it becomes unnecessary to analyze whether the requirement of good faith was correctly assessed in the appealed judgment, much less whether it has taken effect in the specific case. Only the requirements established in Article 92 of the Land and Colonization Law must be applied, namely, "anyone who, out of necessity, performs stable and effective possessory acts, as owner, in a peaceful, public, and uninterrupted manner, for more than one year, and with the purpose of putting it in conditions of production for his subsistence or that of his family, on land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry", and the requirement of ten years of possession contemplated in Article 92 in fine and 101, first paragraph, of the aforementioned law. Hence, the appellant is correct that the special [Name3] adverse possession has been configured in his favor, and consequently, the extinction of the property right of the defendant corporation, which despite having registered the property in its name since 1983 (certification on folio 2), has never exercised possession, made any claim to the plaintiff or his family, nor attempted to establish a recovery action for the asset before the present action. Nor is it alleged in the response to the claim that the plaintiff and his family possess by mere tolerance, the reason why possession has not been exercised is not indicated or explained, evidencing a kind of renunciation of its right all this time. These social realities in the agrarian field, like that of the present case, justify the existence and application of Articles 92 and 101 of the Land and Colonization Law, in order to grant legal security in land tenure, in accordance with the principle established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution that "The State shall procure the greatest well-being to all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth", and equity as a principle of Agrarian Law regulated in Article 69 of our Magna Carta. More abundantly, Article XXIII of the "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man", approved at the Ninth International American Conference, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948, as a manifestation of Human Rights of the first and second generation, provides: "Every person has a right to private property corresponding to the essential needs of a decent life, that contributes to maintaining the dignity of the person and of the home". Under this intelligence, the application of the institution of special [Name3] adverse possession to the sub judice is reasonable, proportional, and adjusted to law. XII. Although the defendant party alleged in its response to the claim that the plaintiff did not go to the Institute of Agrarian Development to have his condition of precarious possession declared, and did not exhaust the administrative procedure (folio 57), this is not correct, nor does it change the assumptions based on which this instance is resolved.

The foregoing because, precisely as a result of the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (excepción de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) raised by the defendant (folio 58), the court, in a resolution issued at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on November fourth, two thousand three (folios 102 to 106), cautioned the party to exhaust administrative remedies, based precisely on Article 94 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, so that on December nineteenth, two thousand three, the plaintiff filed before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario a precarious possession of land conflict, which was initiated on January sixteenth, two thousand four, and more than three months elapsed from the receipt of the filing without that entity issuing a ruling on the matter (folios 114 to 142). Likewise, given that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did not resolve the matter within the three-month period established by Article 94, in a resolution issued at fourteen hours ten minutes on May sixth, two thousand four, the trial court deemed the administrative remedies exhausted (se tuvo por agotada la vía administrativa) (folio 143). Under this understanding, having deemed the administrative remedies exhausted due to the Administration's omission, and based on the provisions of that same Article 94 cited, it must logically be understood that it will be in the judicial venue, given the administrative inertia, where it will be analyzed whether or not the plaintiff holds the status of precarious possessor, the administrative proceeding being precluded for all purposes (quedando precluida la actuación administrativa para todos los efectos). A different interpretation would flagrantly violate the constitutional principle of ACCESS TO JUSTICE, since the spirit and purpose of Article 92 of the law cited so many times would be significantly diminished by the omission of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario to rule on the matter within the legal deadline. Furthermore, it must also be stated that this administrative procedure has as its primary purpose that this entity, having verified the precariousness of the occupant, attempts to resolve the conflict through a direct purchase from the registered owner, but it never excludes the possibility that the status of precarious possessor be analyzed in the judicial venue as a substantive prerequisite of the special agrarian usucapion (usucapión especial) [Name3], just as all the other elements that comprise it are verified in that venue....(Agrarian Tribunal, Section II, N° 732-F-06, of July 11, 2006). In the case at hand, note also that the defendant and counterclaimant proved to be a humble person, a banana laborer, and had nowhere to live, which is why he entered the plaintiff's property, putting it into agricultural production condition, fulfilling the social function of property. The judicial and administrative actions undertaken by the plaintiff occurred ten years after the exercise of stable and effective agrarian possessory acts by the defendant, when he had already consolidated the special agrarian usucapion, with the provisions of Article 101 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización being fully applicable, in the sense that when positive prescription is judicially declared or accepted, the Institute has no obligation to intervene or to pay for those parcels to the owner, since the acquisition of a new real right in favor of the usucapient has already occurred, from whom neither just title nor good faith are required, as demanded by the civil legal system for cases of ordinary usucapion.

**XI.-** By virtue of all the foregoing, the appropriate course is to REVOKE in all its aspects the appealed judgment. In its place, it is resolved: The defense of positive prescription, understood as special agrarian usucapion, raised by [Name7] is accepted, and consequently the ordinary claim [Name3] for reivindication by [Name6] against [Name7] is declared WITHOUT MERIT in all its aspects, and a ruling on the other defenses is omitted as unnecessary. Regarding the COUNTERCLAIM, it is partially accepted in the following manner: 1.- It is declared that Mr. [Name7] has possessed for more than ten years, as owner, in a continuous, public, and peaceful manner, to satisfy his own needs and those of his family, Portion I, of the property described in Cadastral Survey Number L-387416-80, which according to said survey is described as follows: land of brushland and mountain, currently pasture, fruit trees and mountain, bordering to the north with Cimarrones Fruit Company, to the south with [Address1], to the east with Esposa e Hijos [Name6], and to the west with [Name16], measuring 12 hectares, two thousand forty-five square meters and eighty-seven square decimeters. 2.- That said property, possessed by [Name7], is registered in the name of the counter-defendant [Name6], in the Public Registry of Property, Partido de Limón, at real folio registration number CED2.- 3.- That having acquired by positive prescription or special agrarian usucapion, Portion I, of the aforementioned registered property, the registration of said property in the name of [Name6] shall be partially canceled, only as to Portion I of the survey indicated above, and the Public Registry of Property must proceed to register the aforementioned property in the name of Mr. [Name7], of legal age, married once, peasant, identity card number CED3, for which registration the counterclaimant must proceed to produce an independent survey of said property. In what was not granted, the remaining claims of the counterclaim are dismissed. The personal and procedural costs of this ordinary proceeding are to be borne by the losing plaintiff." Prescription removes this difficulty, which would be insoluble; a certain number of years of possession suffices. It can also be supposed that the title of acquisition of the current possessor or of one of their closest predecessors has been lost or is unknown. Prescription then comes to the aid of the possessor. Usucapion (usucapión) thus plays a considerable social role. Without it, no patrimony would be safe from unforeseen claims. It is true that under certain conditions usucapion can favor a possessor without title and in bad faith; it will then cover a despoliation. But this fact is rare and would be even rarer if the owner, dispossessed by the effect of usucapion, were not negligent. Why has he remained so long without performing possessory acts over his thing and without reclaiming it? He is allowed sufficient time to know of the usucapion that is occurring against him and to protest. The results contrary to equity, which one thereby runs the risk of producing, cannot be compared with the decisive advantages that usucapion procures every day." (PLANIOL Y RIPERT. Civil Law, Classics of Law, Harla, 1997, p. 465). **VII.-** **REGARDING SPECIAL AGRARIAN USUCAPION [Name3]**: It is important to note a jurisprudential precedent of this Tribunal by virtue of which the prerequisites and foundations of this institute as a form of acquisition of agrarian property are analyzed. Thus, in VOTO Nº 145-F-05 of eleven thirty hours on the ninth of March two thousand five, it was established: " (...) In the case at hand, we are facing an ordinary agrarian process of USUCAPIÓN, which from its legal classification, responds rather to a SPECIAL AGRARIAN USUCAPION, derived from a precarious possession (posesión precaria) of lands, and not simply to common usucapion. As we shall see, the special provisions of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización are applicable and not only those of the Civil Code, because in this case, the general rules are modified by the special ones of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización. Regarding usucapion, this Tribunal several years ago made the distinction between usucapion derived from the Civil Code and special agrarian usucapion, which is indicated in the following considerations: "*V.- The Tribunal has not the slightest doubt, with the abundant documentary and testimonial evidence, that the actors meet each and every one of the requirements that both doctrine and jurisprudence have established to acquire, through the institute of positive agrarian prescription, the three properties that are the subject of this debate. This is the product, not only of an assessment of the evidence brought to the process, 'in conscience and without strict subjection to the rules of common law' (Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), but it is also the product of the interpretation according to Article 10 of the Preliminary Title of our Civil Code, which establishes 'The rules shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative antecedents and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose.', and also the provisions of Article 11 of the same legal body, by providing: 'Equity shall be weighed in the application of the rules...' And next, the *equity and law* grounds for the second instance judgment are given (Article 54 cited). VI.- It is imperative to refer to the Institute of Usucapion [Name3] -patrimony of Agrarian Law-, and to its particularities in our Legislation. It could be affirmed, without fear of mistake, that *USUCAPIÓN [Name3]*, is a typical institute of Agrarian Law, independent even of those traditionally known, such as agrarian property, agrarian possession, contracts and the agrarian enterprise; this does not prevent, because it is a reflection of the same normative system, there being elements of confluence between them. Furthermore, evidently, this institute acquires differential features from the typical CIVIL USUCAPIÓN. One of the effects of possession is USUCAPIÓN: an original mode -since it is not based on any previous right and there is no transmission- of acquisition, not only of property, but of any other possible real right (article 853 first paragraph of the Civil Code) through the continuous exercise of possessory acts for a certain time, and complying with the other requirements demanded by law both common to possession, and special in the case of civil usucapion of real property. The common requirements for all possession suitable for usucapion are: *1. Possession in the capacity of owner or holder of the real right*, requiring that the possessor behave as if they were the owner or holder of the real right in question, 'in the capacity of owner' as our law says (article 856 of the Civil Code); *2. Peaceful possession*, defined negatively as that in which there has been no violence, understood as an actual and imminent force both physical and moral -threats-, because possession maintained with violence is not useful for prescription, except from when the violence ceases (Article 857 of the Civil Code); *3. Public possession*, using or enjoying the thing in a visible manner, without concealment or hidden, preventing anyone with an interest in interrupting the prescription from knowing of it (Article 858 of the Civil Code), possession taken clandestinely can only be valid for prescription from when that circumstance is known to the dispossessed (article 279 subsection 2 of the Civil Code). *4. Uninterrupted possession*, that is, exercised continuously, repeatedly and maintained, it ceases to be continuous at the moment the possessor ceases to exercise possessory acts over the asset or ceases to have the effective possibility of performing said acts (article 856 of the Civil Code); possession can be interrupted naturally, when the possessor is deprived of the possession of the thing or the enjoyment of the right for one year, unless they recover it judicially (article 875 of the Civil Code), given that the right to possess prescribes by the possession of one year (article 860 of the Civil Code), but it can also be interrupted civilly by the acknowledgment made in favor of the owner, or by the judicial summons duly notified to the debtor (article 876 of the Civil Code) and its effect is to render useless for the usucapion all the time previously elapsed (article 878 of the Civil Code). Our legislation establishes as special requirements in ordinary usucapion -apart from possession with the characteristics indicated- the 'transferor title of ownership' and 'good faith' (article 853 of the Civil Code): *5. The transferor title of ownership or just title*, is not a document of acquisition of ownership, but refers to the fact sufficient to have produced the acquisition of the right in question, thus it is more closely confused with the acquisitional cause, whether it concerns easements, movable assets, or the right to possess '...the fact of possession presumes the title, as long as the contrary is not proven' (article 854 of the Civil Code). The title or just title must be suitable -to acquire the object of possession-, true -that the acquisitional cause exists- and valid. …*6.-Good Faith*: Good faith concerns the personal conviction of the subject about their legitimacy; one must speak of belief and not of intention, said belief is generated by virtue of ignorance or error; in possession, good faith fulfills the objective of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor (acquisition of fruits, payment for improvements and right of retention, non-responsibility for the loss or deterioration of the thing, etc. (articles 327 and 328 of the Civil Code). While for general good faith -as a requirement of possession- ignorance or error is necessary regarding the existence of a defect invalidating the title or mode of acquisition, in the good faith necessary for usucapion -which also includes the former- the belief is also necessary that the transferor of the title is the owner of the thing transferred or has the power to carry out such transmission *VII.-* Among the principles of Agrarian Law, is the *social function of property*, through its means it seeks to guarantee the 'access' to property for people who lack it or possess it insufficiently, and furthermore the equitable distribution of products, guaranteeing the feeding of the entire population and greater social justice in the countryside. One of the assumptions by which property fulfills its social function lies in the necessity of giving the land its natural economic destination: the exercise of agrarian activities of animal breeding or plant cultivation on goods of productive nature and agricultural, forest or livestock aptitude. In Comparative Agrarian Law, most legislations seek to find the ideal owner; to this end they have enshrined *Usucapion [Name3] or Usucapio pro-labore*. In Brazil, the Law of Usucapio Pro-Labore, number 6969 of December 10, 1981, established: 'Anyone who, not being a rural or urban owner, possesses as their own, for five uninterrupted years without opposition, a continuous rural area, not exceeding 25 hectares, *making it productive with their work and having their dwelling therein*, acquires the ownership of the same, *independently of the just title and good faith*, and may request the judge to declare it as such in a judgment, which shall serve as title in the Property Registry.' In Italy, by Law number 346 of May 10, 1976, agrarian usucapion is regulated as a particular means of acquiring property. In Peruvian Agrarian Law, the figure of usucapion [Name3] is regulated by the Texto Unico y Concordado of Decreto Ley 17716 (Peruvian Law of [Name3] Reform), article 8 final paragraph which establishes: 'He who has possessed for himself, rural lands in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraphs continuously and for the term of 5 years, acquires them by prescription and may file suit before the Exclusive Agrarian Court to be declared the owner. The recovery action and other real actions prescribe in the same term.' In Venezuela, the Organic Law of Agrarian Courts and Procedures, in its article 14 introduces the figure of agrarian usucapion, establishing a term of ten years. In Costa Rica, the Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 of October 14, 1961, established not only a special concept of agrarian possession, the precarious possession of lands, but also established the special agrarian usucapion, eliminating as requirements the just title and good faith, demanding the exercise of agrarian activities for the subsistence of the possessor and their family. The *principle of Agrarian Law*, which gives foundation to the existence of *Usucapion [Name3]*, is that *'the land must belong to the one who works it'*, thereby exalting agrarian work as a fundamental right, and it constitutes the most important instrument for access to property. 'Work is the foundation of agrarian usucapion.' In Costa Rica, the agrarian doctrine has constructed through said principles the Institute of Agrarian Usucapion: '*Usucapion [Name3]* conceived as an institute through which the principle of access to property for all who work the land achieving rational and effective production is developed needs -as the only means of turning work into a source of the right of property- to discard a series of elements that appear in civil law as requirements of possession suitable for usucapion such as those of just title and good faith, but creating other requirements, less conceptual and more factual, which substitute the former giving possession a more acting character than that recognized by civil law. By virtue of the foregoing, the time to prescribe is reduced (from 10 years, required in almost all Agrarian Reform laws) but not taking security as its foundation, but rather work and production.' (*[Name4], .* *La posesión [Name3]*, San José, Costa Rica, Librería Barrabás, 2nd ed., 1991, page 155). Therefore, various *requirements in Agrarian Usucapion* are established: *1.- The animus*, must be projected through the effective exercise of agrarian possessory acts, the agrarian holding becoming the habitual dwelling of the possessor; but it is reflected more intensely through the economic appropriation of the earnings obtained through their cultivation work; it is presumed that whoever works the land in that way is always a possessor in the capacity of owner. *2.-The just title in [Name3] possession ad-usucapionem*, is constituted by agrarian work, because it is through it that property of the land is acquired. 'On the other hand, the non-requirement of the just title gives rise to usucapion being able to be presented contra-tábulas, that is, against a title registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. By virtue of the considerations that regarding just title are made in the theory of agrarian possession, it can be said that agrarian usucapion, by not taking into account the previous relationship that may exist between the possessor and the transferor, is a truly original mode of acquisition.' (*Meza Lázarus*, *op. cit.*, page 158). *3.- Good faith in [Name3] possession ad-usucapionem:* In agrarian usucapion, the categorization of possession in good or bad faith does not exist, because Agrarian Law is not as interested in the attitude of the possessor, but above all in their productive agrarian activity; 'In Agrarian Law the existence of this requirement cannot be conceived by virtue of the fact that it is linked to the just title which is discarded as a requirement of possession suitable for usucapion. The [Name3] possession has a personal character in which its foundation turns out to be work. Since the existence of a title and its validity is not necessary, the requirement of special good faith in [Name3] possession lacks all reason for being.' (*Meza Lázarus*, *op.cit.*, page 160-161). *VIII.-* The special legislation [Name3] in Costa Rica has gradually eliminated the requirement of the just title and good faith in Usucapion, to such a point that the non-requirement of these requirements has become the rule, and the exception is established in civil law (article 853 of the Civil Code). Thus, the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias N°. 139 of July 14, 1941 and its amendments, in article 1 establishes: 'The possessor of real property who lacks an inscribed or inscribable title in the Public Registry may request that they be granted one, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. To that effect, they must demonstrate *possession for more than ten years with the conditions indicated in article 856 of the Civil Code*...' Note that the rule only requires the common requirements for all usucapion, and makes no reference to article 853 regarding the requirement of the transferor title of ownership and good faith. Subsection e) of the same article confirms the above, when it says that the applicant must indicate '...the domicile of the person from whom they acquired their right *in the respective case*, indicating if kinship binds them to that person as well as *the cause* and date of the acquisition.', that is, that the acquisition can be derivative -in which case the acquisition document must be presented-, or original whose cause may be the possession itself through agrarian work. Nor does the rule refer to good faith as a requirement for usucapion. ….But where the *Agrarian Usucapion [Name3]* of lands is expressly enshrined, as doctrine and jurisprudence have understood it, is in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 of October 14, 1961 and its amendments, articles 92 and 101. The first of the provisions establishes, as far as is relevant: 'For the purposes of this law, it shall be understood that a *precarious possessor (poseedor en precario)* is anyone who *out of necessity* performs stable and effective *acts of possession*, *as owner*, in a peaceful, public, and uninterrupted manner, for more than one year, and with the purpose of *putting it into conditions of production for their subsistence or that of their family*, on land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry. Precarious possessors who have *decennial possession* under the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, may register their right in accordance with what is established in this law and through the procedure of possessory information....' This rule acquires great importance for Costa Rican Agrarian Law, because in its first paragraph the *precarious possession of lands (posesión precaria de tierras)* is enshrined as a typical institute of Agrarian law, as a modality of agrarian possession, as well as the specific principles that must govern said institute: It consists of the de facto power that a person deploys over a good of productive nature -registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry-, with the object of performing upon it stable and effective acts of possession that are directly aimed at putting it into conditions of production in order to obtain products, whether animal or vegetable, to satisfy their own needs or those of their family. In the precarious possession of lands, alimentary necessity and agrarian work prevail; it is for this reason that the subjective and objective requirements are special; on one hand, the simple intention to possess is not required, but rather one possesses out of necessity directly and personally, to satisfy fundamental alimentary needs of the family group; moreover, the consideration of whether there is good or bad faith is dispensed with, given that the precarious possessor in fact knows that the productive good over which they exercise [Name3] activity is registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry; on the other hand, the transferor title of ownership is not required (article 101 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización) because the just title is constituted by agrarian work. The most important consequence for Costa Rican Agrarian Law, which can be derived from the figure of the precarious possession of lands, is that this institute constitutes a means of access to productive goods, and thus to the right of property over them with the passage of time: the *agrarian usucapion [Name3]*. (See the judgment of this Tribunal, N° 554 of 15 hours 10 minutes on August 23, 1991). (Superior Agrarian Tribunal N° 111 of 13:50 hours on February 16, 1994). **VI.-** In the present case, the appellant is correct in their grievances. The Judge is obligated in this special matter, to analyze the evidence with criteria of free assessment, with broader powers than in other matters, and furthermore, to apply the special legal rules, according to each factual situation that arises. Also, when analyzing the evidentiary element and ruling on the case, criteria of equity and law must be indicated, as noted in the previous consideration (article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria). In the instant case, the Tribunal considers that the lower court erred in the analysis of the evidentiary elements, which were studied in the light of the Civil Code criteria, solely, without considering the special provisions of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, by virtue of the principle that the court knows the law (*iura novit curia*), and without taking into account the abandonment by the responding party (regarding the evidence) in the exercise of their property or the claim of their rights. (...) Indeed, from the evidence provided to the process, it is deduced that the plaintiff, today their Successorship, demonstrated the necessary requirements to achieve SPECIAL AGRARIAN USUCAPIÓN, contained in articles 92 and 101 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización." **VIII.-** The special agrarian usucapion is a typical and exclusive institute of Agrarian law, hence it is affirmed: "It is significant that the permanence or occupation must be qualified by possessory acts that demonstrate that during the indicated period of time the legal obligations contemplated in article 19 of the Ley de Reforma Agraria were fulfilled, as essential elements of the social function, which every owner of rural properties must comply with. It is not enough, therefore, civil possession, but rather agrarian possession...The law has embraced the characteristic notes of legitimate possession to place them as prerequisites for the action of special agrarian usucapion, but on the understanding, for example, that the last condition, that is, that *the occupation be with the intention of owner, this must have been de facto, and not by the inversion of the title referred to in article 1,961 of the Civil Code*" (DUQUE CORREDOR, Román, Procedural Agrarian Law, 1986, Chap. VI "The *usucapión especial [Name3]*", pages 109-124). This institute, also, as has been seen, has been regulated in other countries such as Brazil and Italy ([Name5], . *Usucapione Speciale [Name3]*, In. Dizionari del Diritto Privato, Diritto Agrario, 1983, p. 875-897), and that trend responds to the rights enshrined within the concept of the Social and Democratic State of Law, and its existence obeys the necessity of guaranteeing access to land ownership for those who fulfill the economic, environmental, and social function of productive goods. This principle derived from article 45 of the Political Constitution and developed by the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, finds its reason for being in the values of social justice and national solidarity, as well as sustainable development and rational exploitation of the land contained in numerals 50, 69, and 74 of the same Constitution. The Constitutional Chamber itself has indicated "*Regarding [Name3] property, it must be indicated that when the social function of property is recognized, the right of property is configured as a right-duty, in which there is a specific form of exercising the faculties of ownership, and obligations such as the productive utilization of the land are imposed on the holder*" (Constitutional Chamber, N° 4587-97 of 15:45 hours on August 5, 1997). This thesis, sustained by our highest jurisdictional body, and whose jurisprudence is binding, indeed has legal and doctrinal support. From the legal point of view, the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, in articles 1 and 2 demands the fulfillment of the social function of property, and from article 141 onward establishes the possibility of decreeing expropriation, in the face of non-compliance with the social function of property. Furthermore, starting from article 92 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, other possibilities are also established to resolve conflicts of precarious land occupation on already registered properties. That is to say, it is not possible to make an isolated reading of the Civil Code rules, without relating them to the large quantity of special Laws (such as the Ley Forestal, the Ley de Suelos, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and the Ley de Biodiversidad, among others), which in some way condition the exercise of the right of property as a power-duty.

Indeed, the Land and Colonization Law provides that land ownership must be promoted for the gradual increase of its productivity (article 1), guarantees every individual access to the ownership of economically exploitable lands (article 2), and to report the non-fulfillment of the social function of property (article 6). It establishes a special regime of precarious possession (precario) (articles 92 and following), since possessors who acquire ten-year possession, under the conditions set forth therein, are subject to the provisions of article 101 of the same law: "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The parcels regarding which the exception of adverse possession (prescripción positiva) must be admitted as proceeding shall not be included in the appraisal nor paid for. Those possessed continuously, publicly, and peacefully for more than ten years shall be in this case, whether the possession has been exercised directly by the occupant or by their transferors. That is to say, for the purposes of the adverse possession dealt with in this article, the deed transferring ownership required by the Civil Code shall not be necessary</span><span style="font-family:Arial">....Once such possession is declared by the Courts, the respective parcels shall not be taken into account for the purposes of the corresponding compensation...". The underlined portion is not from the original, and it evidently presupposes the total inertia and abandonment by the owner of the land property, as well as the waiver of their claim in the judicial route, for more than ten years. It also presupposes the agrarian activity of the usucapient, under conditions of necessity, to satisfy their own needs and those of their family. Besides the foregoing, note that the rule is clear in indicating that adverse possession, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">is declared judicially</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, and this is admissible by way of action as well as exception. Hence, it is not necessary in all cases to exhaust the administrative route when the usucapion (usucapión) under said conditions is already consolidated with the passage of time, as the First Chamber of Cassation has indicated in some of its rulings, because that would mean disregarding the possibility of resolving this type of disputes in the jurisdictional route, applying substantive agrarian law, and particularly, the institute of special agrarian usucapion (usucapión especial agraria). </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">XI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Article 320 of the Civil Code provides: "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The action for recovery of possession (acción reivindicatoria) may be directed against anyone who possesses as owner and subsists as long as another has not acquired ownership of the thing by adverse possession</span><span style="font-family:Arial">". On the other hand, article 479 of the same legal body indicates: "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The owner who lacks a registered title of ownership may register their right, previously justifying their possession for more than ten years, in the manner indicated by the corresponding legislation</span><span style="font-family:Arial">." Pursuant to said provisions, and the rules regulating special agrarian usucapion, this case must be resolved. The grievances of the defendant and counter-claimant are admissible, since in the sub judice, all the conditions are present to admit the exception of adverse possession filed by the defendant, to declare the counterclaim with merit, and to reject the action for recovery of possession of the plaintiff, which would not subsist upon the admission of the adverse possession. Regarding the action for recovery of possession, let us see whether or not the prerequisites for its proceeding occur: a.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Active standing (legitimación activa)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">: in this case the plaintiff, [Nombre6]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, alleges registered ownership over the property inscribed in the Partido de Limón, at Folio Real registration number CED1, and represented by cadastral map number L-0387416-80, indicating that he has exercised ownership and agrarian possession over it and has dedicated it to agricultural and livestock production. b.- Regarding </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">passive standing (legitimación pasiva)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, he alleges that the defendant entered in June 1988 in a clandestine and violent manner, moving from one place to another, being an illegitimate possessor. c.- Regarding the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">identity of the property (identidad del bien)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, he maintains that the claimed property is the same one possessed illegitimately by the defendant. To demonstrate the facts of the claim, he provides documentary evidence, and offered a list of 9 witnesses. However, the evidence provided by the plaintiff does not lead to demonstrating the prerequisites of the action for recovery of possession. Quite the contrary, from it emerges a mere registered ownership over the claimed farm (see certification on pages 291 to 295), and its cadastral representation in Map N° L-387416-80, provided as a simple copy to the agrarian process. There is no other element of proof demonstrating that the plaintiff, before being dispossessed, exercised an agrarian activity of a business nature. The testimonial evidence was abandoned as it was not presented at the oral hearing. Although a series of documents related to agrarian activities are provided (pages 110 to 251), they refer to another different legal entity, namely, "Esposa &amp; Hijos Farghuarson S.A". On the other hand, from the analysis of the case file, it emerges that the plaintiff filed the precarious possession conflict on May 14, 1998, before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (see pages 95 to 98), arguing in his initial writing that the occupation of his farm occurred in June 1988. In reality, as will be seen later, those properties were occupied between 1985 and 1986, and several evictions occurred, not documented in this process, between 1986 and 1987; however, the defendant remained in occupation and possession of the property now claimed for more than ten years, fulfilling the necessary conditions for usucapion. That is to say, when the conflict of precarious occupation of lands was filed before the Institute, more than ten years of agrarian possession by the defendant had already elapsed. The Agrarian Court, in a ruling at 7:10 a.m. on November 23, 2001, deemed the administrative route exhausted (page 256), which, in any case, was unnecessary because, as stated, more than ten years had already elapsed since the conflict was filed. Even more, with the notification of this ordinary agrarian claim, until August 16, 2002 (page 279), the interruption of adverse possession could not occur, because the special agrarian usucapion had already been consolidated by operation of law (ipso iure), since 1998, and by invoking the exception of adverse possession, the defendant would not be waiving it, but on the contrary requesting the declaration of his real property right acquired originally by the passage of time. The judicial and administrative inactivity of the registered owner, manifested in an evident abandonment of the protective actions he could have exercised during a prolonged period of ten years, is evident. The degree of uncertainty and legal insecurity that this can produce for an agrarian possessor who behaves as owner for more than ten years is patent, and for this reason, the agrarian legal order seeks to provide a fair solution to this type of situation, giving priority to whoever fulfills the social function of property, over goods of a productive nature. Consequently, regarding active and passive standing, these are prerequisites that are not met, since the registered owner abandoned his property right for a period exceeding ten years, filed the conflict of precarious occupation of lands before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario in 1998, and the ordinary agrarian action for recovery of possession in 2000, being notified until 2002, when the special agrarian usucapion had already operated. Hence, the action for recovery of possession is not proceeding, and the exception of adverse possession filed by the defendant [Nombre7] must be admitted, regarding the claim.

</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">X.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The conditions of the special agrarian usucapion in this specific case: Article 92 of the Land and Colonization Law requires ten-year agrarian possession, quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted, to satisfy one's own and family's food needs, which presupposes the exercise of the social function of property and the creation of a small family agrarian enterprise. The evidence gathered in the oral hearing, both testimonial, confession, and the judicial inspection, analyzed in light of the provisions of article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, that is to say under the principle of free assessment of evidence, allows the Court to conclude that the substantive prerequisites are met to admit the special agrarian usucapion, by virtue of the principle iura novit curia, since the judge must apply the special agrarian norm, according to each specific case, with prevalence over the general rules of the Civil Code. From the evidence, it emerges that approximately in 1985, the defendant's occupation occurred, over a part of the plaintiff's farm, which was abandoned and without any delimitation. Although both the plaintiff and the defendant accept that there were at least three evictions, the witnesses indicate that this occurred between 1986 and 1987, but the defendant does not know by whom or who were evicted and despite that he remained since 1988, in the continuous and stable agrarian possession of that property. Let us see: Witness [Nombre8]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">says: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"I have known the land in conflict since the year eighty, at that time they were scrublands and thickets, they had no fences or access tracks...it was later when I found out that Mr. [Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">was the one living on this land. I saw on one or two occasions that the defendant was evicted from the land. As of the year ninety, I found out that the Farghuarsons claimed (sic) this land as owners. The fences and the pasture that are on the farm, who has planted them is the defendant [Nombre7], I have seen it. The cattle that is on the farm belongs to the defendant [Nombre9] on the farm there are timber trees, this because I managed to see them in the part where I arrived. the house and the shed that are on the farm were built by Mr. [Nombre7]..." (pages 361-362). </span><span style="font-family:Arial">As can be observed, it is the defendant who has exercised properly agrarian possessory acts, such as making fences, maintaining cattle, building a house and a corral, all for more than fifteen years. The above is ratified by [Nombre10]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, when stating: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"I have known the plot in conflict since the year eighty-six, at that time it was mountain, it had no fences or access tracks. The land began to change until the defendant entered and began to clear brush and plant fruit trees, timber trees, and pasture. the fences that the plot has were made by [Nombre7], I saw it. The constructions that are on the plot were also made by the defendant. [Nombre7] entered the land in the year eighty-six, when I found out he was already on the land. [Nombre7] entered the land because he had nowhere to live, he was a banana worker. Between the year eighty-six and for a period of a year and a half afterward, the defendant was evicted on two occasions...The defendant sawed wood to make the house and I saw sawn wood before building the house, I do not know if it was to sell it...The defendant has about eight head of cattle on the </span><span style="font-family:Arial">farm..." (page 363). From this declaration, new elements related to the precarious possession of lands emerge, namely, that the defendant was a banana worker, and due to a state of necessity, since he had nowhere to live, he entered the property registered in the plaintiff's name, and developed in it an entire agrarian activity of cultivating vegetables and raising animals, thus fulfilling the social function of property. Also coinciding is the declaration of [Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, brother of the defendant, who states </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">"...I have known the plot in conflict since the year eighty-six, at that time it was mountain, it had no fences or access tracks. At that time, no owner was known for the land. The defendant entered the land in conflict in the year eighty-six, began to clear brush and plant pasture. the fences and the constructions that are on the farm were made by the defendant. Between the year eighty-six to eighty-seven, the defendant was evicted three times...On the farm, wood has only been extracted to make the house. Wood is not currently extracted from the farm. The fruit trees, fences, and constructions that are on the plot were made by the defendant...The pastures that are on the plot have existed for about ten and eleven years. The defendant has eight head of cattle on the plot..." (pages 365 to 366). </span><span style="font-family:Arial">All of the above coincides with what was observed in the judicial inspection carried out by the lower court on August 17, 2004 (page 357), in which it was verified that the plot possessed by the defendant [Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">geographically coincides with portion I of the farm described in Cadastral Map number L-387416-80, based on which said diligence was carried out, verifying that the referred plot is duly fenced with three and four strands of wire, with living and dead posts, and is described as follows: "Its nature is pasture with the exception of the sector located about 150 meters from a ravine located at the back part which is also pasture but there is a large quantity of timber trees of pilón and anonillo. After the ravine, it continued approximately eighty meters toward the bottom...The delimitation of the bottom, that is the one located between vertex six and four, has a fence with two strands of wire with dead posts. Then it continued along the line from vertex four to three which is a fence of dead posts and natural trees with four and five strands, where the plaintiff indicates that it is the boundary of the farm. From the vertex returning along the boundary there is a fence of living and dead posts with four and five strands. Upon reaching vertex three, there is a wooden house of four by five with a cement floor and zinc roof. Adjacent to this, there is a small shed of four by four with a zinc roof and dirt floor, there is a well with an electric pump. Adjacent to this, there are seven pejibaye palm trees, there is an enclosure for pigs made of planks, inside the pasture there were nine cows, two calves, and a young bull...There are also breadfruit, nance, mango, water apple, guaba trees, coconut palms and pipa palms of which there are three..." (page 357). From all of this, it is concluded that the defendant has converted a farm that was abandoned and undelimited into productive land, developing an activity of cattle raising and cultivation of fruit trees, as well as conservation of timber species, both for his own subsistence and that of his family, an activity that has been continuous and uninterrupted for more than ten years, and from approximately 1988. By virtue of the foregoing, there is no impediment to judicially declare the special agrarian usucapion in favor of the defendant, as will be indicated later, just as this Court has been resolving in repeated judicial rulings (Among others, consult votes number 554-91, 111-94, 145-F-05, 580-F-05, 952-F-05 and 732-F-06). A ruling on other grievances of the appellant is omitted, being considered unnecessary, since the substantive aspects and the evidentiary assessment have already been analyzed pursuant to the provisions of article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, and not the rules of sound criticism, invoked by the claimant. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">X.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> In a case similar to the one now before us, more recently the Agrarian Court reiterated the possibility that special agrarian usucapion be declared in this venue, if the administrative procedure has been exhausted and the Institute has not made any type of pronouncement, provided that the substantive requirements demanded by the Land and Colonization Law are met:</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">"VII. The appellant is correct in that adverse possession must be declared in his favor. In the sub judice, according to the testimonial evidence evacuated in the case file offered by the plaintiff party (</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">since the defendant company did not appear at the evidentiary hearing</span><span style="font-family:Arial">), as well as the judicial inspection carried out for this purpose (page 169 and 179) and sworn statements of [Nombre11]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, [Nombre12]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, [Nombre13] , [Nombre14]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">and [Nombre15]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(page 102), interpreted under the principle of FREE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">as permitted by article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, it is inferred that the plaintiff has possessed as owner the land object of this litigation, in a stable, effective, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, with the purpose of making it productive for his subsistence and that of his family. That possession began with ownership intent approximately between the year nineteen eighty-seven and nineteen eighty-nine, thus holding a period exceeding ten years when he filed his claim. Likewise, that possession was deployed through stable and effective possessory acts, consisting of planting different crops, fruit trees, making and operating a pigsty, and dwelling in a house located there, reflecting an agrarian activity for his own subsistence and that of his family, without having other means of livelihood... </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">XI. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">As developed in the cited jurisprudential precedent, which this Court adopts, in the case of special agrarian usucapion, it is not necessary for the requirements of good faith and the deed transferring ownership from a "non domino" to concur, as required in articles 853 and 854 of the Civil Code, hence it becomes unnecessary to analyze whether the appealed judgment correctly assessed the requirement of good faith, much less whether it has operated in the specific case. Only the requirements established in article 92 of the Land and Colonization Law must be applied, namely, "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">anyone who, out of necessity, performs stable and effective possessory acts, as owner, in a peaceful, public, and uninterrupted manner, for more than one year, and with the purpose of putting it in conditions of production for their subsistence or that of their family, on land duly registered in the name of a third party in the Public Registry</span><span style="font-family:Arial">", and the ten-year possession requirement contemplated in article 92 in fine and 101 first paragraph of the aforementioned law. Hence, the appellant is correct that the special agrarian usucapion has been configured in his favor, and consequently the extinction of the property right of the defendant company, which despite having the farm registered in its name since 1983 (certification on page 2), has never exercised possession, made any claim to the plaintiff or his family, nor attempted to establish an action to recover the property before the present action. Nor is it alleged in the response to the claim that the plaintiff and his family possess by mere tolerance, nor is the reason why possession has not been exercised indicated or explained, which evidences a kind of waiver of its right for all this time. Those social realities in the agrarian field, such as that of the present case, justify the existence and application of articles 92 and 101 of the Land and Colonization Law, in order to provide legal security in land tenure, in accordance with the principle established in article 50 of the Political Constitution that "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth</span><span style="font-family:Arial">", and equity as a principle of Agrarian Law regulated in article 69 of our Magna Carta. For greater abundance, Article XXIII of the "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man</span><span style="font-family:Arial">", approved at the Ninth International American Conference, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948, as a manifestation of first and second generation Human Rights, provides: "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Every person has the right to private property corresponding to the essential needs of a decent life, which contributes to maintaining the dignity of the person and the home</span><span style="font-family:Arial">". Under this understanding, the application of the institute of special agrarian usucapion to the sub judice is reasonable, proportional, and in accordance with the law. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">XII. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Although the defendant party alleged in its response to the claim that the plaintiff did not go to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario for his precarious possession condition to be declared, and did not exhaust the administrative procedure (page 57), this is not correct, nor does it change the assumptions based on which this instance resolves. The foregoing because precisely as a result of the exception of failure to exhaust the administrative route filed by the defendant (page 58), the court, in a ruling at 3:45 p.m. on November 4, 2003 (pages 102 to 106), warned the party to exhaust the route, based precisely on article 94 of the Land and Colonization Law, so that on December 19, 2003, the plaintiff filed the precarious land possession conflict before the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, which was commenced on January 16, 2004, and more than three months elapsed from the receipt of the filing without that entity pronouncing on it (pages 114 to 142). Likewise, given that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario did not resolve within the three-month period established by article 94, in a ruling at 2:10 p.m. on May 6, 2004, the court of first instance </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">deemed the administrative route exhausted</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (page 143). Under this understanding, having deemed the administrative route exhausted due to the Administration's omission, and based on the provisions of that same article 94 cited, it must logically be understood that it will be in the judicial route, given the administrative inertia, where it is analyzed whether the plaintiff holds the condition of precarious possessor or not, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the administrative action being precluded for all purposes</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. A different interpretation would flagrantly violate the constitutional principle of ACCESS TO JUSTICE, since the spirit and purpose of article 92 of the law so often cited would be significantly reduced by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario's omission to pronounce on it within the statutory period. For greater abundance, it must also be stated that this administrative procedure has as its primary purpose that this entity, once the precarity of the occupant is verified, tries to solve the conflict through a direct purchase from the registered owner, but it never excludes the possibility that the condition of precarious possessor be analyzed in the judicial route as a substantive prerequisite of special agrarian usucapion, just as all the other elements that compose it are verified in that route....(Agrarian Court, Section II, N° 732-F-06, of July 11, 2006). In the case before us, note that the defendant and counter-claimant also proved to be a humble person, a banana laborer, and had nowhere to live, which is why he entered the plaintiff's property, putting it in conditions of agrarian production, fulfilling the social function of property. The judicial and administrative actions undertaken by the plaintiff occurred ten years after the exercise of stable and effective agrarian possessory acts by the defendant, when the special agrarian usucapion had already been consolidated, the provisions of article 101 of the Land and Colonization Law being fully applicable, in the sense that when adverse possession is declared or admitted judicially, the Institute has no obligation to intervene or to pay for those parcels to the owner, since the acquisition of a new real right has already operated in favor of the usucapient, from whom neither just title nor good faith are required as demanded by the civil legal order for cases of common usucapion.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">XI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> By virtue of all the foregoing, it is appropriate to REVOKE the appealed judgment in all its aspects. In its place, it is resolved: The exception of adverse possession, understood as special agrarian usucapion, filed by [Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">is admitted, and consequently the ordinary agrarian action for recovery of possession of [Nombre6]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">against [Nombre7] is declared WITHOUT MERIT in all its aspects, and a ruling on the other exceptions is omitted as unnecessary. Regarding the COUNTERCLAIM, it is partially admitted as follows: 1.- It is declared that Mr. [Nombre7]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">has possessed for more than ten years, with ownership intent, in a continuous, public, and peaceful manner, to satisfy his own needs and those of his family, portion I of the property described in Cadastral Map Number L-387416-80, which according to said map is described as follows: land of thickets and mountain, currently pasture, fruit trees and mountain, bordering to the north with Cimarrones Fruit Company, to the south with [Dirección1] , to the East with Esposa e Hijos [Nombre6] and to the west with [Nombre16]</span><span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial">, measuring 12 hectares, two thousand forty-five square meters and eighty-seven square decimeters.</span> 2. That the said property, possessed by [Nombre7], is registered in the name of the counter-defendant [Nombre6], in the Public Registry of Property, Partido de Limón, under the Real Folio registration number CED2.- 3. That having acquired by positive prescription or special agrarian usucapion (usucapión especial agraria), Portion I of the said registered property, the registration of said property in the name of [Nombre6] must be partially canceled, solely with respect to Portion I of the aforementioned survey plan, and the Public Registry of Property must proceed to register it in the name of Mr. [Nombre7], of legal age, married once, farmer (campesino), identity card number CED3, and for such registration, the counter-plaintiff must proceed to prepare an independent survey plan (plano independiente) of said property. Regarding what is not granted, the remaining claims of the counterclaim are dismissed. The personal and procedural costs (costas personales y procesales) of this ordinary proceeding are borne by the losing plaintiff."

"V.- De previo a entrar a analizar los agravios del recurrente, conviene realizar un análisis de las acciones protectoras de los derechos reales agrarios, a fin de determinar si el caso ha sido resuelto conforme a derecho. Estas acciones mantienen un paralelismo respecto a las acciones protectoras de otros derechos reales, tales como la posesión, el usufructo y la servidumbre, las cuales adquieren otras denominaciones, dependiendo del fin perseguido. Veamos: 1. Para recuperar la posesión el titular del Derecho de propiedad, cuenta con la acción reivindicatoria, mientras que quien ostenta el Derecho de posesión pero por haber sido desposeído cuenta con la conocida "acción publiciana" o de mejor derecho de posesión; 2. También, cuando el propietario no pretende recuperar la posesión pero si obtener la declaratoria de su derecho con efectos erga omnes cuenta con la acción declarativa o de certeza; 3. Igualmente puede negar el derecho real de otra persona que se lo atribuye para sí, conocida como acción negatoria. Estas dos últimas, es lógico pensar que también son procedentes en tratándose del Derecho de posesión como derecho real que necesita ser protegido, así el poseedor que se ve perturbado en su Derecho de posesión (ya no en la posesión como mero hecho caso en el cual podría ejercitar la acción interdictal), puede pedir en vía ordinaria que se declare que es a él a quien le asiste el derecho, y también negar a otra persona un derecho que se está atribuyendo indebidamente y que no le pertenece (acción declarativa y negatoria).- LA ACCION REIVINDICATORIA Y LA ACCION PUBLICIANA: "La acción reivindicatoria es una acción de naturaleza real, con efectos erga omnes, cuya finalidad esencial es la restitución de la cosa mueble o inmueble a su propietario legítimo, y de la cual ha sido despojado por un tercero quien la posee ilegítimamente. Es la "actio in re" por excelencia. Con esta acción el propietario ejercita el "ius possidendi" ínsito en su derecho de dominio. La doctrina más especializada en esta materia atribuye a esta acción las siguientes características: a) De naturaleza real: O que puede ejercitarse contra cualquiera que posea la cosa sin derecho; b) En recuperatoria o restitutoria: Su objetivo básico es obtener la posesión material del bien; c) Es de condena: la sentencia favorable al actor impondrá un determinado comportamiento al demandado. La acción reivindicatoria constituye el más enérgico remedio procesal frente a la agresión más radical que puede sufrir el propietario y que es el despojo de la cosa que le pertenece.-( Ver [Nombre1] , Roberto, "La acción reinvidicatoria" En Derecho Agrario Costarricense, San José, Costa Rica, Ilanud, 1992, página 69). Son tres los presupuestos de validez de la acción reivindicatoria: 1). Legitimación activa, según la cual el titular debe ostentar la calidad de propietario señalándose que el propietario debe ser el dueño; 2) legitimación pasiva; según la cual el poseedor, o demandado, debe ejercer sus actos posesorios como poseedor ilegítimo y 3) identidad de la cosa, entre el bien reclamado por el propietario y el poseído ilegítimanete por el demandado o poseedor." ( Sala Primera de la Corte, No 230 de las dieciséis horas del veinte de julio de mil novecientos noventa). VI.- FUNDAMENTO DE LA USUCAPIÓN: En términos generales, la doctrina más autorizada ha definido este instituto y explicado su fundamento así: "Usucapión (o prescripción positiva) es la adquisición del dominio u otro derecho real poseíble, por la posesión continuada del mismo durante el tiempo y con las condiciones que fija la ley. De modo, pues, que el usucapiente, durante este tiempo y con esas condiciones, aparece, figura, actúa o viene comportándose como titular del derecho de que se trata (si es del de propiedad, como dueño de la cosa que sea; si del de usufructo, como si fuese usufructuario de la misma). Y ese derecho que realmente no le pertenecía, se convierte en suyo en virtud de que ha venido apareciendo como si le correspondiese. Por la usucapión el estado de hecho que se prolonga en el tiempo, se convierte en el estado de Derecho. El fundamento de la usucapión se halla en la idea (acertada o no, pero acogida por nuestra ley) de que, en aras de la seguridad del tráfico, es, en principio, aconsejable que, al cabo de determinado tiempo, se convierta en titular de ciertos derechos quien, aunque no le pertenezcan, los ostenta como suyos, sin contradicción del interesado...lo que importa es algo objetivo, que el titular no haya utilizado el derecho, aunque demuestre después hasta la saciedad que quería conservarlo. Ahora bien, la expresión presunción de abandono puede aceptarse que recoja el fundamento de la usucapión en el sentido de que, si no se usa el derecho, es presumible normalmente que se abandonó, y sobre esa normal presumibilidad del abandono se ha establecido por la ley la usucapión, que operando a tenor del id quod plerumque accidit fija como regla que los demás puedan adquirir usándolos, como si fuesen suyos, los derechos que sus titulares han abandonado presumiblemente... La usucapión es un modo originario de adquirir el derecho usucapido, en cuanto que la adquisición no se basa en derecho anterior alguno, es decir el usucapiente no lo hace suyo porque el que lo tenía se lo transfiera (relación de causalidad), sino que se convierte en titular del mismo -con independencia de que antes lo fuese otra persona- porque ha venido comportándose como tal. Y es como consecuencia de que un nuevo derecho, incompatible con el anterior, se establece sobre la cosa, por lo que pierde el suyo quien antes lo tuviera sobre la misma. El usucapiente adquiere sin nada a cambio. Si fuera adquisición mediante un acto, este sería, pues, a título gratuito. pero de cualquier modo el usucapiente adquiere gratuitamente".([Nombre2], Manuel. La usucapión, Madrid, 2004, págs13-16). Y es propicio citar también doctrina originada a la luz del Código Civil francés de 1884, que pone de manifiesto la utilidad social de la usucapión, utilidad que hoy se mantiene vigente: "Los antiguos decían que la prescripción es la patrona del género humano, y la Exposición de motivos del título De la prescripción, dice que es de todas las instituciones del derecho civil, la más necesaria para el orden social. Nada más verdadero. La prueba de la propiedad sería imposible si la usucapión no existiera. ¿Cómo he llegado a ser propietario? Porque adquirí la cosa por compra, por donación o por sucesión; pero sólo he podido adquirir la propiedad si el poseedor anterior la tenía con este título. El mismo problema y en los mismos términos se plantea para todos los poseedores sucesivos de la cosa, y si uno solo en la serie no ha sido propietario, todos los que le han seguido no lo serán tampoco. La prescripción suprime esta dificultad, que sería insoluble; cierto número de años de posesión bastan. Se puede suponer también que el título de adquisición del poseedor actual o de uno de sus antecesores más cercanos se ha perdido o es desconocido. Entonces la prescripción viene en ayuda del poseedor. La usucapión juega, pues, un papel social considerable. Sin ella ningún patrimonio estará al abrigo de las reivindicaciones imprevistas. Es verdad que en ciertas condiciones la usucapión puede favorecer a un poseedor sin título y de mala fe; cubrirá entonces una expoliación. Pero este hecho es raro y sería más raro aún cuando el propietario, despojado por efecto de la usucapión, no sea negligente. Porqué ha permanecido tan largo tiempo sin efectuar actos posesorios sobre su cosa y sin reclamarla? Se le deja un plazo suficiente para conocer la usucapión que se produce en su contra y para protestar. Los resultados contrarios a la equidad, que de esta manera se corre el riesgo de producir, no puede compararse con las ventajas decisibas que la usucapión procura todos los días." (PLANIOL Y RIPERT. Derecho Civil, Clásicos del Derecho, Harla, 1997, p. 465). VII.- DE LA USUCAPION ESPECIAL [Nombre3]: Resulta importante señalar un antecedente jurisprudencial de este Tribunal en virtud del cual se analizan los presupuestos y fundamentos de este instituto como forma de adquisición de la propiedad agraria. Es así como en el VOTO Nº 145-F-05 de las once horas treinta minutos del nueve de marzo del dos mil cinco se estableció: " (...) En el caso de marras, estamos frente a un proceso ordinario agrario de USUCAPIÓN, que desde su calificación jurídica, responde más bien a una USUCAPION ESPECIAL AGRARIA, derivada de una posesión precaria de tierras, y no simplemente a la usucapión común. Como veremos, son aplicables las disposiciones especiales de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización y no solamente las del Código Civil, pues en este caso, las normas generales son modificadas por las especiales de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización. En cuanto a la usucapión, este Tribunal hace varios años hizo la distinción entre la usucapión derivada del Código Civil y la especial agraria, lo cual se indica en los próximos considerandos: “V.- No le queda al Tribunal la menor duda, con la abundante prueba documental y testimonial, que los actores reúnen todos y cada uno de los requisitos que tanto la doctrina como la jurisprudencia han establecido para adquirir, mediante el instituto de prescripción positiva agraria, los tres inmuebles que son objeto de este debate. Ello es producto, no solo de una valoración de la prueba traída al proceso, "a conciencia y sin sujeción estricta a las normas de derecho común" (Artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), sino que también es producto de la interpretación conforme al artículo 10 del Título Preliminar de nuestro Código Civil, que establece "Las normas se interpretarán 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 finalidad de ellas.", y además lo dispuesto en el artículo 11 del mismo cuerpo legal, al disponer: "La equidad abrá de ponderarse en la aplicación de las normas..." Y seguidamente, se pasan a dar los fundamentos de equidad y de derecho del fallo de segunda instancia (Artículo 54 citado). VI.- Resulta imperativo, referirse al Instituto de la Usucapión [Nombre3] -patrimonio del Derecho Agrario-, y a sus particularidades en nuestra Legislación. Podría afirmarse, sin temor a equívocos, que la USUCAPIÓN [Nombre3], es un instituto típico del Derecho Agrario, independiente incluso de los tradicionalmente ya conocidos, como lo son la propiedad agraria, la posesión agraria, los contratos y la empresa agraria; ello no obsta que, por ser reflejo de un mismo sistema normativo, existan elementos de confluencia entre los mismos. Además, en forma evidente, este instituto adquiere rasgos diferenciales de la típica USUCAPIÓN CIVIL. Uno de los efectos de la posesión es la USUCAPIÓN: modo originario -pues no se basa en derecho anterior alguno y no existe transmisión- de adquisición, no sólo de la propiedad, sino de cualquier otro derecho real posible (artículo 853 párrafo primero del Código Civil) a través del ejercicio continuo de actos posesorios durante un cierto tiempo, y cumpliendo con los demás requisitos exigidos por ley tanto comunes a la posesión, como especiales en el caso de la usucapión civil de inmuebles. Los requisitos comunes a toda posesión apta para la usucapión son: 1. La posesión en concepto de dueño o titular del derecho real, exigiéndose que el poseedor se comporte como si fuera el dueño o titular del derecho real que se trate, "en calidad de propietario" como dice nuestra ley (artículo 856 del Código Civil); 2. La posesión pacífica, definida en forma negativa como aquella en la que no ha existido violencia, entendida esta como una fuerza actual e inminente tanto física como moral -amenazas-, pues la posesión mantenida con violencia no es útil para la prescripción, sino desde que cesa la violencia (Artículo 857 del Código Civil); 3. La posesión pública, utilizando o disfrutando la cosa de manera visible, sin ocultamiento o a escondidas, evitando que quien tenga interés en interrumpir la prescripción pueda conocerla (Artículo 858 del Código Civil), la posesión tomada clandestinamente solo puede ser válida para prescripción desde que esa circunstancia conste al despojado (artículo 279 inciso 2 del Código Civil). 4. Posesión no interrumpida, es decir, ejercida de manera continua, reiterada y mantenida, deja de ser continua en el momento en que el poseedor deja de ejercitar actos posesorios sobre el bien o deja de tener la posibilidad efectiva de realizar dichos actos (artículo 856 del Código Civil) puede interrumpirse naturalmente la posesión, cuando el poseedor es privado de la posesión de la cosa o del goce del derecho durante un año, a menos que recobre uno u otro judicialmente (artículo 875 del Código Civil), por cuanto el derecho de poseer prescribe por la posesión de un año (artículo 860 del Código Civil), pero también puede interrumpirse civilmente por el reconocimiento hecho a favor del dueño, o por el emplazamiento judicial debidamente notificado al deudor (artículo 876 del Código Civil) y su efecto es inutilizar para la usucapión todo el tiempo corrido anteriormente (artículo 878 del Código Civil). Nuestra legislación establece como requisitos especiales en la usucapión ordinaria -aparte de la posesión con las características señaladas- el "título traslativo de dominio" y la "buena fé" (artículo 853 del Código civil): 5. El título traslativo de dominio o justo título, no es un documento de adquisición del dominio, sino que se refiere al hecho suficiente para haber producido la adquisición del derecho de que se trate, por lo que se confunde más bien con la causa adquisitiva, si se trata de servidumbres, de bienes muebles, o del derecho de poseer "...el hecho de la posesión hace presumir el título, mientras no se pruebe lo contrario" (artículo 854 del Código Civil). El título o justo título, debe ser idóneo -para adquirir el objeto de posesión-, verdadero -que la causa adquisiva exista- y válido. …6.-La buena fé: La buena fé atañe a la convicción personal del sujeto sobre su legitimidad; debe hablarse de creencia y no de intención, dicha creencia se genera en virtud de ignorancia o error; la buena fé cumple en la posesión el objetivo de garantizar ciertos derechos al poseedor (adquisición de frutos, pago de mejoras y derecho de retención, la no responsabilidad por la pérdida o el deterioro de la cosa, etc. (artículos 327 y 328 del Código Civil). En tanto para la buena fé general -como requisito de la posesión- es necesariamente la ignorancia o el error en cuanto a la existencia de un vicio que invalida el título o modo de adquirir, en la buena fé necesaria para la usucapión -que además comprende la primera- se hace necesario también la creencia de que el transmitente del título es propietario de la cosa trasmitida o bien tiene el poder de realizar tal trasmisión VII.- Entre los principios del Derecho Agrario, se encuentran la función social de la propiedad, a través de su medio procura garantizar el "acceso" a la propiedad a las personas que carecen de ella o la poseen en forma insuficiente, y además la distribución equitativa de los productos, garantizando la alimentación de toda la población y una mayor justicia social en el campo. Uno de los presupuestos por los cuales la propiedad cumple su función social, radica en la necesidad de dar a la tierra su destinación económica natural: el ejercicio de actividades agrarias de cría de animales o cultivo de vegetales en bienes de naturaleza productiva y aptitud agrícola, forestal o pecuaria. En Derecho Agrario Comparado, la mayor parte de las legislaciones, procuran buscar el propietario idóneo, para ello han consagrado la Usucapión [Nombre3] o Usucapio pro-labore. En Brasil, la Ley de Usucapio Pro-Labore, número 6969 de 10 de diciembre de 1981 estableció: "Todo aquel que no siendo propietario rural ni urbano, posee como suya, por cinco años ininterrumpidos sin oposición, una área rural en forma continua, que no exceda de 25 hectáreas, tornándola productiva con su trabajo y teniendo en ella su morada, adquiere el dominio de la misma, independientemente del justo título y la buena fé, pudiendo requerir al juez para que así lo declare en sentencia, la cual servirá de título en el Registro de Inmuebles". En Italia, por Ley número 346 de 10 de mayo de 1976, se regula la usucapión agraria, como medio particular de adquisición de la propiedad. En el Derecho agrario peruano, la figura de la usucapión [Nombre3] es regulada por el Texto Unico y Concordado del Decreto Ley 17716 (Ley de Reforma [Nombre3] Peruana), artículo 8 párrafo final que establece: "El que ha poseído para sí, tierras rústicas en la forma en que se ha indicado en los acápites precedentes de modo continuo y durante el término de 5 años, las adquiere por prescripción y puede entablar juicio ante el Fuero Privativo Agrario para que se declare dueño. La acción reivindicatoria y demás acciones reales prescriben en igual término". En Venezuela, la ley Orgánica de Tribunales y Procedimientos Agrarios, en su artículo 14 introduce la figura de la usucapión agraria, estableciendo como plazo diez años. En Costa Rica, la Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 de 14 de octubre de 1961, estableció, no solo un concepto especial de posesión agraria, la posesión precaria de tierras, sino que además estableció la usucapión especial agraria, eliminando como requisitos el justo título y la buena fé, exigiendo el ejercicio de actividades agrarias para la subsistencia del poseedor y la de su familia El principio del Derecho Agrario, que da fundamento a la existencia de la Usucapión [Nombre3], es que "la tierra ha de ser de quien la trabaja", con ello se exalta el trabajo agrario como un derecho fundamental, y se constituye en el instrumento más importante para el acceso a la propiedad. "El trabajo es el fundamento de la usucapión agraria". En Costa Rica, la doctrina agrarista ha construído a través de dichos principios el Instituto de la Usucapión Agraria: "La Usucapión [Nombre3] concebida como instituto por el cual se desarrollan el principio de acceso a la propiedad de todo aquel que trabaja la tierra logrando una producción racional y efectiva necesita -como único medio de tornar el trabajo en fuente del derecho de propiedad- desechar una serie de elementos que aparecen en el derecho civil como requisitos de la posesión apta para la usucapión como lo son los de justo título y buena fé, pero, creando otros requisitos, menos conceptuales y más fácticos, que sustituyen a los anteriores dándole a la posesión un carácter más actuante que el que recoge el derecho civil. En virtud de lo anterior se reduce el tiempo para prescribir (de 10 años, exigidos en la casi totalidad de leyes de Reforma Agraria) pero no tomando como fundamento de ello a la seguridad, sino, al trabajo y la producción."([Nombre4] , . La posesión [Nombre3], San José, Costa Rica, Librería Barrabás, 2a. ed., 1991, página 155). Por ello se establecen diversos requisitos en la Usucapión agraria: 1.- El animus, debe proyectarse a través del ejercicio efectivo de actos posesorios agrarios, convirtiéndose el fundo agrario en la morada habitual del poseedor; pero se refleja más intensamente a través de la apropiación económica de las ganancias obtenidas a través de su trabajo de cultivación; se presume que quien trabaja la tierra de esa forma es siempre poseedor a título de dueño. 2.-El justo título en la posesión [Nombre3] ad-usucapionem, lo constituye el trabajo agrario, pues es a través de él que se adquiere la propiedad de la tierra. "Por otra parte, la no exigencia del justo título da lugar a que la usucapión pueda presentarse contra-tábulas, es decir, en contra de un título inscrito a nombre de un tercero en el Registro Público. En virtud de las consideraciones que sobre justo título son hechas en la teoría de la posesión agraria, puede decirse que, la usucapión agraria, al no tomar en cuenta la relación anterior que pueda existir entre el poseedor y el transmitente, es un modo de adquisición verdaderamente originario." (Meza Lázarus, op. cit., página 158). 3.- La buena fe en la posesión [Nombre3] ad-usucapionem: En la usucapión agraria, no existe la categorización de la posesión de buena o mala fé, pues al Derecho Agrario no le interesa tanto la actitud del poseedor, sino sobre todo su actividad productiva agraria; "En el Derecho Agrario no puede concebirse la existencia de este requisito en virtud de que el mismo se encuentra ligado al justo título que es desechado como requisito de la posesión apta para la usucapión. La posesión [Nombre3] reviste un carácter de personal en la que su fundamento resulta ser el trabajo. Al no ser necesaria la existencia de un título y su validez, carece de toda razón de ser el requisito de la buena fé especial en la posesión [Nombre3]."(Meza Lázarus, op.cit., página 160-161). VIII.- La legislación especial [Nombre3] en Costa Rica, paulatinamente ha eliminado la exigencia del justo título y de la buena fé en la Usucapión, a tal punto que la no exigencia de esos requisitos, se ha convertido en la regla, y la excepción es establecida en sede civil (artículo 853 del Código Civil). Así, la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias N°. 139 de 14 de julio de 1941 y sus reformas, en el artículo 1 establece: "El poseedor de bienes raíces que careciere de título inscrito o inscribible en el Registro Público podrá solicitar que se le otorgue, de acuerdo con las disposiciones de la presente Ley. Para ese efecto deberá demostrar posesión por más de diez años con las condiciones que señala el artículo 856 del Código Civil..." Véase que la norma únicamente exige los requisitos comunes a toda usucapión, y no hace referencia al artículo 853 como exigencia del título traslativo de dominio y de la buena fé. El inciso e) del mismo artículo, confirma lo anterior, cuando dice que el titulante debe indicar "...el domicilio de la persona de quien adquirió su derecho en su caso, indicando si lo liga parentesco con ella así como la causa y fecha de la adquisición.", es decir, que la adquisición puede ser derivada -caso en el cual sí hay que presentar el documento de adquisición-, u originaria cuya causa puede ser la posesión misma a través del trabajo agrario. Tampoco se refiere la norma a la buena fé como requisito para la usucapión. ….Pero donde está consagrada expresamente la Usucapión [Nombre3] de tierras, según lo ha entendido la doctrina y la jurisprudencia, es en la Ley de Tierras y Colonización N° 2825 del 14 de octubre de l961 y sus reformas, artículos 92 y 101. La primera de las disposiciones establece en lo que interesa: " Para los efectos de esta ley se entenderá que es poseedor en precario todo aquél que por necesidad realice actos de posesión estableces y efectivos, como dueño, en forma pacífica, pública e ininterrumpida, por más de un año, y con el propósito de ponerlo en condiciones de producción para su subsistencia o la de su familia, sobre un terreno debidamente inscrito a nombre de un tercero en el Registro Público. Los poseedores en precario que tengan posesión decenal en las condiciones enunciadas en el párrafo anterior, podrán inscribir su derecho de acuerdo con lo establecido en esta ley y por el procedimiento de información posesoria...." Esta norma, adquiere gran importancia para el Derecho Agrario costarricense, porque en su primer párrafo se consagra como instituto típico del Derecho agrario, la posesión precaria de tierras como modalidad de la posesión agraria, así como los principios específicos que deben regir dicho instituto: Consiste en el poder de hecho, que despliega una persona sobre un bien de naturaleza productiva -inscrito a nombre de un tercero en el Registro Público-, con el objeto de realizar sobre él actos de posesión estables y efectivos que van directamente encaminados a ponerlo en condiciones de producción con el fin de obtener productos, sean animales o vegetales, para satisfacer necesidades propias o las de su familia. En la posesión precaria de tierras prevalecen la necesidad alimentaria y el trabajo agrario, es por ello que los requisitos subjetivos y objetivos son especiales; por un lado, no se requiere el simple ánimo de poseer, sino que se posee por necesidad en forma directa y personal, para satisfacer necesidades alimentarias fundamentales del grupo familiar, además, se prescinde la consideración de si existe buena o mala fé, por cuanto el poseedor en prendario (sic) de hecho sabe que el bien productivo sobre el cual ejerce la actividad [Nombre3] está inscrito a nombre de un tercero en el Registro Público; por otra parte, no se exige el título traslativo de dominio (artículo 101 de la ley de Tierras y Colonización) pues el justo título lo constituye el trabajo agrario. La consecuencia más importante para el Derecho Agrario costarricense, que se puede derivar de la figura de la posesión precaria de tierras, es que éste instituto constituye un medio de acceso a los bienes productivos, y por ende al derecho de propiedad sobre éstos con el transcurso del tiempo: la usucapión [Nombre3]. (Ver el voto de este Tribunal, N° 554 de las 15 horas 10 minutos del 23 de agosto de 1991). (Tribunal Superior Agrario N° 111 de 13:50 horas del 16 de febrero de 1994). VI.- En el presente caso, lleva razón la recurrente en sus agravios. El Juez está obligado en esta materia especial, a analizar la prueba con criterios de libre valoración, con facultades más amplias que en otras materias, y además, a aplicar las normas jurídicas especiales, de acuerdo a cada situación fáctica que se presente. Además, al analizar el elemento probatorio y fallar sobre el caso, deben indicarse criterios de equidad y de derecho, según se señaló en el considerando anterior (artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria). En la especie, considera el Tribunal que el a-quo erró en el análisis de los elementos probatorios, los cuales fueron estudiados a la luz de los criterios del Código Civil, únicamente, sin considerar las disposiciones especiales de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, en virtud del principio de que el juez conoce el derecho (iura novit curia), y sin tomar en cuenta el abandono de la parte demandada (en cuanto a la prueba) en el ejercicio de su propiedad o el reclamo de sus derechos. (...) Efectivamente, de la prueba aportada al proceso, se desprende que la actora, hoy su Sucesión, demostró los requisitos necesarios para lograr la USUCAPIÓN ESPECIAL AGRARIA, contenida en el artículo 92 y 101 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización." VIII.- La usucapión especial agraria, es un instituto típico y exclusivo del Derecho agrario, por ello se afirma: "Es significativo que la permanencia u ocupación tiene que ser calificada mediante actos posesorios que demuestren que durante el período de tiempo señalado se cumplieron con las obligaciones legales que contempla el artículo 19 de la Ley de Reforma Agraria, como elementos esenciales de la función social, los cuales debe cumplir todo propietario de predios rurales. No basta, pues, la posesión civil, sino agraria...La ley ha acogido las notas características de la posesión legítima para colocarlas como presupuestos de la acción de usucapión especial agraria, pero en el entendido, por ejemplo, que la última condición, o sea, que la ocupación sea con ánimo de dueño, ésta lo haya sido de hecho, y no por la inversión del título a que se refiere el artículo 1.961 del Código Civil" (DUQUE CORREDOR, Román, Derecho procesal agrario, 1986, Cap. VI "La usucapión especial [Nombre3]", páginas 109-124). Este instituto, también, como se ha visto, ha sido regulado en otros países como Brasil e Italia ([Nombre5], . Usucapione Speciale [Nombre3], En. Dizionari del Diritto Privato, Diritto Agrario, 1983, p. 875-897), y esa tendencia responde a los derechos consagrados dentro del concepto de Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho, y su existencia obedece a la necesidad de garantizar el acceso a la propiedad de la tierra a quien cumple la función económica, ambiental y social de los bienes productivos. Ese principio derivado del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política y desarrollado por la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, encuentra razón de ser en los valores de justicia social y solidaridad nacional, así como de desarrollo sostenible y explotación racional de la tierra contenidos en los numerales 50, 69 y 74 de la misma Constitución. La propia Sala Constitucional ha indicado “En cuanto a la propiedad [Nombre3] debe indicarse que cuando se reconoce la función social de la propiedad, el derecho de propiedad se configura como un derecho-deber, en el que existe una forma específica de ejercer las facultades del dominio, y se imponen al titular obligaciones como la utilización productiva de la tierra” (Sala Constitucional, N° 4587-97 de las 15:45 horas del 5 de agosto de 1997). Esta tesis, sostenida por nuestro máximo órgano jurisdiccional, y cuya jurisprudencia es vinculante, sí tiene un respaldo legal y doctrinal. Desde el punto de vista legal, la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, en los artículos 1 y 2 exige el cumplimiento de la función social de la propiedad, y a partir del artículo 141 y siguientes establecen la posibilidad de decretar la expropiación, frente al incumplimiento de la función social de la propiedad. Además, a partir del artículo 92 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, también se establecen otras posibilidades para resolver conflictos de ocupación precaria de tierras en propiedades ya inscritas. Ese decir, no es posible hacer una lectura aislada de las normas del Código Civil, sin relacionarlas con la gran cantidad de Leyes especiales (tales como la Ley Forestal, la Ley de Suelos, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y la Ley de Biodiversidad, entre otras), que de alguna manera condicionan el ejercicio del derecho de propiedad como poder-deber. En efecto, la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, dispone que la propiedad de la tierra se debe promover para el aumento gradual de su productividad (artículo 1), garantiza el acceso de todo individuo al acceso a la propiedad de tierras económicamente explotables (artículo 2), y a denunciar el incumplimiento de la función social de la propiedad (artículo 6). Establece un régimen especial de la posesión en precario (artículos 92 y siguientes), pues los poeedores que adquieran una posesión decenal, en las condiciones ahí fijadas, quedan sujetos a lo dispuesto en el artículo 101 de la misma: "No se incluirán en el avalúo ni se pagarán, las parcelas respecto de las cuales deba admitirse como procedente la excepción de prescripción positiva. Estarán en este caso aquellas poseídas en forma contínua, pública y pacífica por más de diez años, ya sea que la posesión haya sido ejercida directamente por el ocupante o por sus transmitentes. Es decir, para los efectos de la prescripción positiva de que este artículo trata, no será necesario el título traslativo de dominio que exige el Código Civil....Declarada por los Tribunales dicha posesión las parcelas respectivas no se tomarán en cuenta para los efectos de la indemnización correspondiente...". Lo subrayado no es del original, y presupone evidentemente, la inercia total y el abandono por parte del propietario de la propiedad de la tierra, así como la renuncia a su reclamo en la vía judicial, por más de diez años. También presupone la actividad [Nombre3] del usucapiente, en condiciones de necesidad, para satisfacer las exigencias propias y de su familia. Amén de lo anterior, véase que la norma es clara en el sentido de indicar que la prescripción positiva, se declara judicialmente, y ello es admisible por la vía de acción como de excepción. De ahí que no resulte necesario en todos los casos agotar la vía administrativa cuando la usucapión en dichas condiciones ya está consolidada con el transcurso del tiempo, como lo ha indicado la Sala Primera de Casación en algunas de sus sentencias, pues ello sería desconocer la posibilidad de resolver en la vía jurisdiccional este tipo de controversias, aplicando el derecho sustantivo agrario, y particularmente, el instituto de la usucapión especial agraria. XI.- Dispone el artículo 320 del Código Civil: "La acción reivindicatoria puede dirigirse contra todo el que posea como dueño y subsiste mientras otro no haya adquirido la propiedad de la cosa por prescripción". Por otra parte, el artículo 479 del mismo cuerpo legal indica: "El propietario que carezca de título inscrito de dominio podrá inscribir su derecho, justificando de previo su posesión por más de diez años, en la forma indicada por la legislación correpondiente." Al tenor de dichas disposiciónes, y de las normas reguladoras de la usucapión especial agraria, debe resolverse el presente caso. Los agravios de la parte demandada y contrademandante son de recibo, pues en el subjúdice, se dan todas las condiciones para acoger la excepción de prescripción positiva interpuesta por el demandado, declarar con lugar la contrademanda, y rechazar la acción reivindicatoria del actor, que no subsistiría al acogerse la prescripción. En cuanto a la acción reivindicatoria, veamos si se producen o no los presupuestos para su procedencia: a.- La legitimación activa: en este caso el actor, [Nombre6] , aduce la titularidad registral sobre la finca inscrita en el Partido de Limón, al Folio Real matrícula CED1, y representada por el plano catastrado número L-0387416-80, indicando que ha ejercido en ella la propiedad y posesión [Nombre3] y la ha dedicado a la producción agrícola y pecuaria. b.- En cuanto a la legitimación pasiva, aduce que el demandado ingresó en junio de 1988 en forma clandestina y violenta, desplazándose de un lugar a otro, siendo un poseedor ilegítimo. c.- Sobre la identidad del bien, sostiene, el bien reclamado es el mismo poseído en forma ilegítima por el demandado. Para demostrar los hechos de la demanda, aporta prueba documental, y ofreció una lista de 9 testigos. Sin embargo, la prueba aportada por el actor no conduce a demostrar los prespuestos de la acción reivindicatoria. Todo lo contrario, de ella se desprende una mera titularidad registral sobre el fundo reclamado (ver certificación de folios 291 a 295), y su representación catastral en el Plano N° L-387416-80, aportado como copia simple al proceso agrario. No hay ningún otro elemento de prueba, donde se demuestre que el actor, antes de ser despojado ejercía una actividad [Nombre3] de tipo empresarial. La testimonial fue abandonada pues no fue presentada al juicio verbal. Si bien se aportan una serie de documentos relacionados con actividades agrarias (folios 110 a 251), ellas se refieren a otra persona jurídica diferente, a saber, "Esposa & Hijos Farghuarson S.A". Por otra parte, del análisis de los autos, se desprende que el actor, presentó el conflicto de posesión en precario el 14 de mayo de 1998 ante el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (ver folios 95 a 98), argumentando en su escrito incial que la ocupación de su finca ocurrió en junio de 1988. En realidad, como se verá más adelante, esos inmuebles fueron ocupados entre los años de 1985 y 1986, y ocurrieron varios desalojos, no documentados en este proceso, entre 1986 y 1987, sin embargo el demandado se mantuvo en ocupación y posesión del inmueble ahora reclamado, por más de diez años, cumpliendo las condiciones necesarias para la usucapión. Es decir, cuando se plantea el conflicto de ocupación precaria de tierras ante el Instituto, ya habían transcurrido más de diez años de posesión [Nombre3] por parte del demandado. El Juzgado Agrario, en resolución de las 7:10 horas del 23 de noviembre del 2001, tuvo por agotada la vía administrativa (folio 256), lo cual, en todo caso era innecesario, pues como se dijo, ya habían transcurrido más de diez años desde que se planteó el conflicto. Aún más, con la notificación de esta demanda ordinaria agraria, hasta el 16 de agosto del 2002 (folio 279), no podía producirse la interrupción de la prescripción positiva, porque ya se había consolidado de pleno derecho (ipso iure), la usucapión especial agraria, desde 1998, y al invocar el demandado la excepción de prescripción positiva, no estaría renunciando a ella, sino por el contrario pidiendo la declaratoria de su derecho real de propiedad adquirido en forma originaria por el transcurso del tiempo. La inactividad judicial y administrativa del propietario registral, manifiesta en un abandono evidente de las acciones protectoras que podía ejercer durante un prolongado plazo de diez años, resulta evidente. El grado de incerteza e inseguridad jurídica que ello puede producir a un poseedor agrario que se comporta como dueño durante más de diez años, es patente, y por ello, el ordenamiento jurídico agrario busca dar una solución justa a este tipo de situaciones, dando prioridad a quien cumpla la función social de la propiedad, sobre bienes de naturaleza productiva. En consecuencia, en cuanto a la legitimación activa y la pasiva, son presupuestos que no se cumplen, toda vez que el propietario registral abandonó su derecho de propiedad por un plazo superior a los diez años, planteó el conflicto de ocupación precaria de tierras ante el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario en 1998 y la demanda ordinaria [Nombre3] reivindicatoria en el 2000, notificándose hasta el 2002, cuando ya había operado la usucapión especial agraria. De ahí que no resulte procedente la acción reivindicatoria, debiendo acogerse, en cuanto a la demanda, la excepción de prescripción positiva interpuesta por el demandado [Nombre7] . X.- Las condiciones de la usucapión especial [Nombre3] en este caso concreto: El artículo 92 de la Ley de tierras y Colonización exige una posesión [Nombre3] decenal, quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida, para satisfacer necesidades alimentarias propias y de la familia, lo que presupone el ejercicio de la función social de la propiedad y la creación de una pequeña empresa [Nombre3] familiar. La prueba recabada en el juicio verbal, tanto testimonial, confesional, como el reconocimiento judicial, analizada a la luz de lo dispuesto en el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, es decir bajo el principio de libre valoración probatoria, permite concluir al Tribunal que se cumplen los presupuestos de fondo para acoger la usucapión especial agraria, en virtud del principio iura novit curia, pues el juzgador debe aplicar la norma especial agraria, conforme a cada caso concreto, con prevalecia sobre la normativa general del Código Civil. De la prueba se desprende que en 1985 aproximadamente, ocurrió la ocupación del demandado, sobre una parte del fundo del actor, la cual se encontraba abandonada, y sin delimitación alguna. Si bien tanto el actor como el demandado aceptan que existieron al menos tres desalojos, los testigos indican que ello ocurrió entre 1986 y 1987, pero el demandado desconoce por quién o quienes fueron desalojados y pese a ello él se mantuvo desde 1988, en la posesión agraria, contínua y estable de ese inmueble. Veamos: El testigo [Nombre8] dice: "Conozco el terreno en conflicto desde el año ochenta, para ese entonces eran charrales y tacotales, no tenían cercas ni carriles...después fue cuando me di cuenta que el señor [Nombre7] era quien vivía en este terreno. Yo como en una o dos ocasiones vi que el demandado lo desalojaron del terreno. A partir del año noventa fue cuando me enteré que los Farguharson reclamabn (sic) como dueños este terreno. Las cercas y el pasto que hay en la finca quien los ha sembrado es el demandado [Nombre7], yo lo he visto. El ganado que está en la finca es del demandado [Nombre9] la finca hay árboles maderables, esto porque los alcancé a ver en la parte donde llegué. la casa y el galerón que hay en la finca los construyó el señor [Nombre7]..." (folios 361-362). Como se puede observar, es el demandado quien ha ejercido actos posesorios propiamente agrarios, tales como hechura de cercas, mantenimiento de ganado, construcción de una casa y un corral, todo desde hace más de quince años. Lo anterior lo ratifica [Nombre10] , al afirmar: "Conozco la parcela en conflicto desde el año ochenta y seis, para ese entonces era de montaña, no tenía cercas ni carriles. El terreno empezó a cambiar hasta que entró el demandado y empezó a chapear y sembrar árboles frutales, maderables y repasto. las cercas que tiene la parcela las hizo [Nombre7], yo lo ví. Las construcciones que hay en la parcela también las hizo el demandado. [Nombre7] ingresó al terreno en el año ochenta y seis, cuando yo me di cuenta ya él estaba en el terreno. [Nombre7] ingresó al terreno porque no tenía donde vivir, era un empleado bananero. Entre el año ochenta y seis y por un período de año y medio después al demandado lo desalojaron en dos ocasiones...El demandado aserró madera para hacer la casa y ví madera aserrada antes de hacer la casa, no se si era para venderlo...El demandado tiene como ocho reces en la finca..." (folio 363) De esta declaración se desprenden nuevos elementos relacionados con la posesión precaria de tierras, a saber, que el demandado era un empleado bananero, y por un estado de necesidad, pues no tenía donde vivir, se introdujo en el inmueble inscrito a nombre del actor, y desarrolló en él toda una actividad [Nombre3] de cultivo de vegetales y crianza de animales, cumpliendo así la función social de la propiedad. También es coincidente la declaración de [Nombre7] , hermano del demandado, quien afirma "...Conozco la parcela en conflicto desde el año ochenta y seis, para ese entonces era de montaña, no tenía cercas ni carriles. Para ese entonces no se le conocía dueño al terreno. El demandado entró en el año ochenta y seis al terreno en conflicto, empezó a chapearlo y sembrar pasto. las cercas y las construcciones que hay en la finca, las hizo el demandado. Entre el año ochenta y seis a ochenta y siete el demandado fue desalojado tres veces...En la finca únicamente se ha sacado madera para hacer la casa. En la finca actualmente no se saca madera. Los árboles frutales, cercas y construcciones que hay en la parcela, fueron hechas por el demandado...Los potreros que hay en la parcela tienen como diez y once años de existir. El demandado tiene ocho reces en la parcela..." (folios 365 a 366). Todo lo anterior, coincide con lo observado en el reconocimiento judicial practicado por el a-quo el 17 de agosto del 2004 (folio 357), en donde se constató, que la parcela poseída por el demandado [Nombre7] , coincide geográficamente, con la porción I, de la finca descrita en el Plano Catastrado número L-387416-80, con base en el cual se practicó esa diligencia, constatándose que la referida parcela está debidamente cercada a tres y cuatro hilos de alambre, con postes vivos y muertos, y se describe así. "La naturaleza de la misma es de potrero a excepción del sector ubicado a unos 150 metros de una quebrada que se ubica en la parte del fondo la cual también es potrero pero hay una gran cantidad de árboles maderables de pilón y anonillo. Luego de la quebrada se continuó aproximadamente unos ochenta metros en dirección al fondo...La delimitación del fondo, es decir la ubicada entre el vértice seis y cuatro, tiene cerca a dos hilos de alambre con postes muertos. Luego se continuó en la línea del vértice cuatro al tres lo cual es cerca de postes muertos y árboles naturales a cuatro y cinco hilos, donde indica el actor que es el límite de la finca. Del vértice que se regresa por el lindero hay una cerca de postes vivos y muertos a cuatro y cinco hilos. Al llegar al vértice tres, hay una casa de madera de cuatro por cinco con piso de cemento y techo de zinc. Contiguo a esta hay un pequeño galerón de cuatro por cuatro con techo de zinc y piso de tierra, hay un poso con bomba eléctrica. Contiguo a este hay siete árboles de pejiballe, hay un encierro para cerdos con costillones, dentro del potrero se encontraban nueve vacas, dos terneros y un torete...Existe también árboles de fruta de pan, nance, mango, manzana de agua, guaba, palos de cocos y pipas los cuales son tres..." (folio 357). De todo ello se concluye, el demandado ha convertido un fundo que estaba abandonado y sin delimitar, en un terreno productivo, desarrollando una actividad de cría de ganado y cultivo de árboles frutales, así como de conservación de especies maderables, tanto para la subsistencia suya como de su familia, actividad que ha sido contínua e ininterrumpida por más de diez años, y a partir de 1988 aproximadamente. En virtud de lo expuesto, no existe ningún impedimento para declarar judicialmente la usucapión especial [Nombre3] a favor del demandado, conforme se dirá más adelante, tal y como ha venido resolviendo este Tribunal en reiterados fallos judiciales (Entre otros, consúltense los votos número 554-91, 111-94, 145-F-05, 580-F-05, 952-F-05 y 732-F-06). Se omite pronunciamiento sobre otros agravios del recurrente, al considerarse innecesario, pues ya fueron analizados los aspectos de fondo y de valoración probatoria al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, y no de las reglas de la sana crítica, invocadas por el reclamante. X.- En un caso similar al que ahora nos ocupa, más recientemente el Tribunal agrario reinteró la posibilidad de que en esta sede sea declarada la usucapión especial agraria, si se ha agotado el procedimiento administrativo y el Instituto no ha realizado ningún tipo de pronunciamiento, siempre y cuando se reúnan los requisitos de fondo exigidos por la Ley de Tierras y Colonización: "VII. Lleva razón el recurrente en cuanto deba declararse a su favor la prescripción positiva. En el subjúdice, de acuerdo a la prueba testimonial evacuada en autos ofrecida por la parte actora (toda vez la sociedad demandada no se presentó a la audiencia de recepción de prueba), así como del reconocimiento judicial practicado al efecto (folio 169 y 179) y declaraciones juradas de [Nombre11] , [Nombre12] , [Nombre13] , [Nombre14] y [Nombre15] (folio 102), interpretados bajo el principio de LIBRE VALORACION DE LA PRUEBA, según lo permite el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción [Nombre3], se infiere el actor ha poseido como dueño el terreno objeto de este litigio, en forma estable, efectiva, pública, pacífica e initerrumpida, con el fin de ponerlo a producir para su subsistencia y la de su familia. Esa posesión inició a título de dueño aproximadamente entre el año mil novecientos ochenta y siete y mil novecientos ochenta y nueve, ostentando entonces un periodo superior a los diez años cuando plantea su demanda. Asimismo que esa posesión fue desplegada a través de actos posesorios estables y efectivos, consistentes en siembra de diferentes cultivos, árboles frutales, hechura y explotación de una porqueriza y habitación de una casa allí ubicada, reflejando una actividad [Nombre3] para subsistencia suya y de su familia, sin que contara con otro medio de vida... XI. Tal y como se desarrolla en el antecedente jurisprudencial citado, el cual hace suyo este Tribunal, en el caso de la usucapion especial [Nombre3] no es necesario que concurran los requisitos de la buena fe y el título traslativo de dominio proveniente de un "non domino", como se exige en los artículos 853 y 854 del código Civil, de ahí que devenga en innecesario analizar si en la sentencia recurrida se apreció corectamente el requisito de la buena fe, ni mucho menos sin en el caso concreto ha operado. Solamente deben aplicarse los requisitos establecidos en el articulo 92 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, a saber, "todo aquel que por necesidad relice actos de posesión estables y efectivos, como dueño, en forma pacífica, pública e ininterrumpida, por más de un año, y con el propósito de ponerlo en condiciones de producción para su subsistencia o la de su familia, sobre un terreno debidamente inscrito a nombre de un tercero en el Registro Público", y el requisito de los diez años de posesión contemplado en el artículo 92 in fine y 101 párrafo primero de la ley de marras. De ahí que lleve razón el recurrente que se ha configurado la usucapion especial [Nombre3] a su favor, y en consecuencia la extinción del derecho de propiedad de la sociedad demandada, quien a pesar de tener inscrito a su nombre el fundo desde el año 1983 (certificación a folio 2), nunca ha ejercido la posesión, efectuado reclamo alguno al actor o a su familia, ni pretendido establecer una acción recuperatoria del bien. antes de la presente acción. Tampoco se alega en la contestación de la demanda que el actor y su familia posean por mera tolerancia, no se indica o explica el motivo por el cual no se ha ejercido la posesión, lo que evidencia una especie de renuncia todo este tiempo a su derecho. Esas realidades sociales en el campo agrario, como la del presente caso, justifican la existencia y aplicación de los artículos 92 y 101 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, a fin de otorgar seguridad jurídica en la tenencia de la tierra, acorde con el principio establecido en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política de que "El Estado procurará el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producciòn y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza", y la equidad como un principio del Derecho Agrario regulado en el artículo 69 de nuestra Carta Magna. A mayor abundamiento, el artículo XXIII de la "Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre", aprobada en la Novena Conferencia Internacional Americana, Bogotá, Colombia, 1948, como una manifestaciòn de los Derechos Humanos de la primera y segunda generación, dispone: "Toda persona tiene derecho a la propiedad privada correspondiente a las necesidades esenciales de una vida decorosa, que contribuya a mantener la dignidad de la persona y del hogar". Bajo esta inteligencia, resulta razonable, proporcional y ajustado a derecho, la aplicaciòn del instituto de la usucapion especial [Nombre3] al subjúdice. XII. Si bien la parte demandada alegó en su contestación a la demanda, que el actor no acudió al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario para que se declarara su condición de posesión en precario, y no agotó el procedimiento administrativo (folio 57), éste no lleva razón, ni cambia los presupuestos con base en los cuales se resuelve en esta instancia. Lo anterior porque a raíz precisamente de la excepción de falta de agotamiento de la vía aministrativa interpuesta por la accionada (folio 58), el juzgado en resolución de las quince horas y cuarenta y cinco minutos del cuatro de noviembre del dos mil tres (folio 102 al 106) previno a la parte el agotamiento de la vía, con base precisamente en el artículo 94 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, de manera que en fecha diecinueve de diciembre del dos mil tres, el actor planteó ante el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario el conflicto de posesión precaria de tierras, al cual se le dio inicio el dieciséis de enero del dos mil cuatro y transcurrieron más de tres meses desde el recibo de la gestión sin que esa entidad se pronunciara al respecto( folio 114 al 142). Asimismo dado que el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario no resolvió dentro del plazo de los tres meses que establece el artículo 94, en resolución de las catorce horas y diez minutos del seis de mayo del dos mil cuatro el juzgado de primera instancia se tuvo por agotada la vía administrativa (folio 143). Bajo esta inteligencia, al haberse tenido por agotada la vía administrativa por la omisión de la Administración, y con base en lo dispuesto en ese mismo artículo 94 que se cita, lógicamente debe entenderse que será en la vía judicial, ante la inercia administrativa, donde se analice si el accionante ostenta o no la condición de poseedor en precario, quedando precluida la actuación administrativa para todos los efectos. Una interpretación distinta atentaría en forma flagrante contra el principio constitucional de ACCESO A LA JUSTICIA, ya que el espiritu y finalidad del artículo 92 de la ley tantas veces citada, se vería significativamente reducido ante la omisión del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario de pronunciarse al respecto dentro del plazo de ley. A mayor abundamiento, debe también exponerse que ese procedimiento administrativo tiene como fin primordial el que esa entidad, constatada la precariedad del ocupante, trate de solucionar el conflicto a través de una compra directa al propietario registral, pero nunca excluye la posibilidad de que en vía judicial se analice como presupuesto de fondo de la usucapion especial [Nombre3] la condición de poseedor en precario, tal y como se constata en esa vía todos los demás elementos que la componen....(Tribunal agrario, Sección II, N° 732-F-06, del 11 de julio del 2006). En el caso que nos ocupa, véase que también el demandado y contrademandante demostró ser una persona humilde, un peón bananero, y no tenía donde vivir, razón por la cual ingresó al inmueble del actor, poniéndolo en condiciones de producción agraria, cumpliendo con la función social de la propiedad. Las acciones judiciales y administrativas emprendidas por el actor ocurrieron diez años después del ejercicio de actos posesorios agrarios, estables y efectivos por parte del demandado, cuando ya había consolidado la usucapión especial agraria, siendo aplicable plenamente lo dispuesto en el artículo 101 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, en el sentido de que cuando se declara o acoge judicialmente la prescripción positiva, el Instituto no tiene la obligación de intervenir o de pagar esas parcelas al propietario, pues ya ha operado la adquisición de un derecho real nuevo a favor del usucapiente, a quien no se le exige ni el justo título ni la buena fé exigidas por el ordenamiento civil para los casos de usucapión común. XI.- En virtud de todo lo expuesto, lo procedente es REVOCAR en todos sus extremos la sentencia recurrida. En su lugar se resuelve: Se acoge la excepción de prescripción positiva, entendida como usucapión especial agraria, interpuesta por [Nombre7] , y en consecuencia se declara SIN LUGAR en todos sus extremos la demanda ordinaria [Nombre3] de reivindicación de [Nombre6] en contra de [Nombre7] , y se omite pronunciamiento sobre las demás excepciones por innecesario. En cuanto a la CONTRADEMANDA, se acoge parcialmente del siguiente modo: 1.- Se declara que el señor [Nombre7] ha poseído por más de diez años, a título de dueño, en forma contínua, pública y pacífica, para satisfacer necesidades propias y de su familia, la porción I, del inmueble descrito en el Plano Catastrado Número L-387416-80, la cual según dicho plano se describe así: terreno de tacotales y montaña, actualmente de potrero, árboles frutales y montaña, lindante al norte con Cimarrones Fruit Company, al sur con [Dirección1] , al Este con Esposa e Hijos [Nombre6] y al oeste con [Nombre16] , mide 12 hectáreas dos mil cuarenta y cinco metros con ochenta y siete decímetros cuadrados. 2.- Que dicho inmueble, poseído por [Nombre7] , está inscrito a nombre del contrademandado [Nombre6] , en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, Partido de Limón, al Folio real matrícula número CED2.- 3.- Que al haber adquirido por prescripción positiva o usucapión especial agraria, la porción I, del referido inmueble inscrito, deberá cancelarse parcialmente la inscripción de dicho inmueble, a nombre de [Nombre6] , únicamente en cuanto a la porción I del plano anteriormente indicado, debiendo proceder el Registro Público de la Propiedad, a inscribir a nombre del señor [Nombre7] , mayor, casado una vez, campesino, cédula de identidad CED3 - , el referido inmueble, para cuya inscripción, deberá el contrademandante, proceder a levantar un plano independiente de dicho inmueble. En lo no concedido, se rechazan las restantes pretensiones de la contrademanda. Son las costas personales y procesales de este proceso ordinario a cargo de la actora perdidosa."