Denial of Possessory Information for Lack of Soil Study and Insufficient Just TitleRechazo de información posesoria por falta de estudio de suelos y justo título insuficiente

“III.- Regarding this type of proceeding, this Tribunal has repeatedly determined that the “Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial activity proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired through usucapion (usucapión), thereby fulfilling the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The title applicant, apart from lacking a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the property has not been previously registered in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid a double registry entry over the same asset, or to protect third parties with a better right than the title applicant, the Law requires notifying certain parties. It also established an opposition proceeding within the Possessory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels prejudiced by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore to personally notify them from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners, as the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. It is also ordered to notify co-owners (condueños) or co-owners in condominium (condóminos). Likewise, to safeguard the State's interests, it is ordered that the Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario be considered parties, for the protection of property subject to public domain, and of State Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law commands summoning all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin, who may have a legitimate interest in the proceeding. (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (see Voto Nº 755 of 9:45 a.m. on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries (fences, lanes, etc.) is also required. The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the farm is dedicated to ranching; identity card or respective identification document of the title applicant; the cadastral map; updated certification from the Public Registry clarifying whether other properties have been titled by the applicant and their size; updated certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy regarding whether or not the land is within any protected area. Current legislation on soils requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its capability (conforming land-use study (estudio conforme de uso del suelo)). The judge is also obliged, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity for this purpose (articles 50 of the Organic Law of the Environment, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3 and 17 of the Ley de Aguas N°276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Ley Forestal Nº 7575 of February 5, 1996 and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997). Tribunal Agrario, Voto N° 943 of 3:40 p.m. on December 6, 2004.- IV.- Regarding the first grievance, the appellant is not correct. The legislator has stipulated, through the requirement of a proper land-use study (estudio de uso adecuado del suelo), the obligation for possessors to exercise sustainable agrarian possession, a requirement that is mandatory in every possessory information, regardless of whether the land to be titled is located in a protected area or not. A possessory information could not be approved if it has not been demonstrated that possession has been carried out by protecting and making sustainable and rational use of the soil, since the ecological function of property is an integral part of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment enshrined in our Political Constitution, under the terms of numerals 45 and 50 of the Magna Carta. The lower court (ad quo) rejected the proceedings due to the fact that the soil study had not been approved. Regarding the soil study, as the alleged possession was not exercised in accordance with numeral 58 of the Regulation of the Law on the Use, Management and Conservation of Soils, and rather, these possessory acts degrade said natural resource, this Tribunal considers the decision rendered in the appealed judgment to be correct, and this first grievance must be rejected.- V.- Regarding the second grievance, the appellant is also not correct. The requirements to acquire a property through common agrarian usucapion (usucapión agraria común) are, in addition to sustainable agrarian possession developed publicly, peacefully, continuously, and in the capacity of owner; just title (justo título) and good faith.- Just title is understood as the cause of acquisition of possession, which, according to Voto 4587-97 of the Constitutional Chamber, may be original or derived. In either case, the applicant bears the burden of proving how they effectively acquired possession. While in the original form, possession presumes the title, the cause of the unilateral taking of possession must be evidenced by suitable proof. But it could not be presumed that possession was acquired in a derived manner in cases where the applicant himself claims it is derived, that is, that he acquired it through an inter vivos or mortis causa legal transaction. In the case at hand, the applicant, in his initial filing and as a sworn statement, claims that he has acquired possession of the land subject to these proceedings in a derived form (folio 15).- To prove the cause of acquisition (just title), he provides documentary evidence consisting of a deed granted before Notary Olman Vargas Cubero at ten o'clock on April twenty-second, 1987 (folio 3), in which the previous possessor and transferor of the applicant’s possession, Porfirio Cordero Valverde, acquires by sale from Joel Mora Borbón the possession exercised over thirty-five hectares of the tract of land subject to these proceedings. Secondly, the applicant also provides public deed number one hundred fourteen granted before notary Jorge Sánchez Sibaja, in which, at ten o'clock on February sixth, 1998, Porfirio Cordero Valverde sold to the applicant and to Mr. Oldemar Blanco Badilla the possession of an unregistered right measuring approximately thirty-five hectares "both parties waiving any excess or deficiency in the measurement." (Folio 2).- Subsequently, at folio 5, another deed was provided in which Mr. Oldemar sells half of the possessed land (which in correct arithmetic corresponds to seventeen hectares and five thousand square meters) to the applicant, leaving him as the sole possessor thereof. The problem is that, as the lower court considered, the cause or just title of acquisition of the remaining seventy-two hectares by the applicant has not been demonstrated, since there is no coherence between the area acquired through said deeds (thirty-five hectares), in contrast to the area described in cadastral map number SJ-736498-2001 which describes practically seventy-five hectares more. In this regard, the lower court is correct. The witnesses presented during the proceeding refer to the area possessed, but not to the manner in which the applicant acquired said excess. There is no evidence in this regard, as it is not possible to determine how he acquired possession of said areas (just title). The applicant claims that he acquired it in a derived form but could not prove his claim, which excludes the possibility that it was in an original form. If the applicant intends to assert a possession derived from his transferors, because he himself does not accumulate ten-year possession (since he acquired from Mr. Porfirio in 1998, remaining as sole possessor in the year two thousand), in this type of cases it is important to assess the documentary evidence presented, especially if the witnesses are silent regarding the mode or cause of acquisition of the derived possession claimed by the applicant, who bears the burden of proof. In the case at hand, the document presented as evidence indicates that the acquired land is thirty-five hectares, much less than what is intended to be registered based on the new map submitted. The reasons on which the appellant bases his grievance are neither admissible nor credible, as the margin of error between what was acquired and what is claimed is too large; the difference of seventy-two hectares is more than double what was believed to have been acquired from Mr. Porfirio, especially since the document stated "the parties waiving any excess or deficiency in the measurement." The difference of seventy-two hectares is abysmal to be considered an error due to the land being unregistered, which is why the given measurement was not approximate because the difference is too large. In this regard, a similar case resolved through VOTO Nº 472- F-04 of two twenty in the afternoon on June thirtieth, two thousand four, can be consulted.- Therefore, regarding the appealed issue, the appealed judgment must be confirmed.” A possessory information could not be approved if it has not been demonstrated that the land has been possessed while protecting it and giving it sustainable and rational use, since the ecological function of property is an integral part of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment enshrined in our Political Constitution, pursuant to Articles 45 and 50 of the Magna Carta. The lower court (ad quo) rejected the proceedings due to the fact that the soil study was not approved. Regarding the soil study, since the alleged possession was not exercised in accordance with Article 58 of the Regulation to the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils, and rather that these possessory acts degrade said natural resource, this Court considers the decision set forth in the appealed judgment to be correct, and this first grievance must be rejected.- **V.-** Regarding the second grievance, the appellant is also not in the right. The requirements to be able to acquire a property through a common agrarian usucaption (usucapión agraria común) are, in addition to the sustainable agrarian possession developed publicly, peacefully, continuously, and in the capacity of owner; the just title (justo título) and good faith.- Just title is understood as the cause of acquisition of the possession, which, according to Voto 4587-97 of the Constitutional Chamber, can be original or derivative. In either case, the petitioner has the burden of proof to demonstrate how the possession was effectively acquired. Although in an original form, possession presumes title, the cause of taking unilateral possession must be evidenced with suitable evidence. But it cannot be presumed that possession is acquired in a derivative form in cases where the petitioner himself maintains that it is derivative, that is, that he acquired it through an inter vivos or mortis causa legal transaction. In the case at hand, the petitioner, in his initial brief and under oath, alleges that he has acquired in a derivative form the possession over the land subject to these proceedings (folio 15).- To prove the cause of acquisition (just title), he provides documentary evidence consisting of a deed granted before Notary Olman Vargas Cubero at ten o'clock on the twenty-second of April 1987 (folio 3), in which the previous possessor and transferor of the petitioner's possession, Porfirio Cordero Valverde, acquires by sale from Joel Mora Borbón the possession exercised over thirty-five hectares of the property subject to these proceedings. Secondly, the petitioner also provides public deed number one hundred fourteen granted before Notary Jorge Sánchez Sibaja, in which, at ten o'clock on the sixth of February of the year 1998, Porfirio Cordero Valverde sold to the petitioner and Mr. Oldemar Blanco Badilla the possession of an unregistered right measuring approximately thirty-five hectares "both parties waiving any excess or defect in the measurement." (Folio 2).- Subsequently, at folio 5, another deed was provided in which Mr. Oldemar sells half of the possessed land (which in correct arithmetic corresponds to seventeen hectares and five thousand square meters) to the petitioner, leaving him as the sole possessor thereof. The problem is that, as the lower court considered, the cause or just title of the petitioner's acquisition of the remaining seventy-two hectares has not been demonstrated, since there is no coherence between the area acquired through said deeds (thirty-five hectares), as opposed to the area described in cadastral map number SJ-736498-2001 which describes practically seventy-five hectares more. In this sense, the lower court is correct. The witnesses examined in the process refer to the area possessed, but not to the form in which the petitioner acquired said surplus. There is no evidence in this sense, since it is not possible to determine how he acquired possession over said areas (just title). The petitioner alleges that he acquired it derivatively but was unable to prove his claim, which excludes that it was in an original form. If the petitioner seeks to assert a possession derived from his transferors, because by himself he does not accumulate a ten-year possession (since he acquired from Mr. Porfirio in 1998, becoming the sole possessor in the year two thousand), in these types of cases it is important to assess the documentary evidence presented, especially if the witnesses are silent regarding the mode or cause of acquisition of the derivative possession alleged by the petitioner, upon whom the burden of proof falls. In the case at hand, the document presented as evidence indicates that the land acquired is thirty-five hectares, much less than what is sought to be registered based on the new map presented. The reasons on which the appellant bases his grievance are not admissible, nor credible, since the margin of error between what was acquired and what is claimed is far too large; the difference of seventy-two hectares is twice what he believed to have acquired from Mr. Porfirio, especially when it was recorded in the document "the parties waiving any excess or defect in the measurement." The difference of seventy-two hectares is abysmal to consider it an error for being a land without registration, therefore the given measurement was not approximate because the difference between one and the other is too great. In this regard, a similar case resolved through VOTO Nº 472-F-04 of fourteen hours twenty minutes of the thirtieth of June of two thousand four can be consulted.- For that reason, in the appealed matter, the appealed judgment must be confirmed.” Possessory information could not be approved if it has not been demonstrated that the land has been possessed while protecting and giving it sustainable and rational use (uso sostenible y racional), given that the ecological function (función ecológica) of property is an integral part of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado) enshrined in our Political Constitution, pursuant to numerals 45 and 50 of the Magna Carta. The ad quo rejected the proceedings due to the fact that the soil study (estudio de suelos) had not been approved. Regarding the soil study, since the alleged possession had not been exercised in accordance with numeral 58 of the Regulation to the Law on the Use, Management and Conservation of Soils, and rather those possessory acts degraded said natural resource, this Tribunal considers the decision put forth in the appealed judgment to be correct, and this first grievance must be rejected.- V.- Regarding the second grievance, the appellant is also not correct. The requirements to be able to acquire a property through common agrarian usucapion (usucapión agraria común), are, in addition to sustainable agrarian possession (posesión agraria sostenible) exercised publicly, peacefully, continuously, and in the capacity of owner; just title (justo título) and good faith (buena fe).- Just title is understood as the cause of acquisition of possession, which, according to Voto 4587-97 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), can be original (originaria) or derivative (derivada). In either case, the petitioner bears the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) to demonstrate how they effectively acquired possession. Although in an original form, possession presumes the title, the cause of the unilateral taking of possession must be evidenced with suitable proof. But it could not be presumed that possession is acquired in a derivative form in cases where the petitioner himself maintains that it is derivative, that is, that he acquired it through an inter vivos or mortis causa legal transaction. In the case at hand, the petitioner, in his initial brief and in the capacity of a sworn statement, alleges that he has acquired possession of the land subject to these proceedings in a derivative form (folio 15).- To prove the cause of acquisition (just title) he provides documentary evidence consisting of a deed (escritura) granted before Notary Olman Vargas Cubero at ten o'clock on the twenty-second of April of 1987 (folio 3), in which the previous possessor and transferor of the possession to the petitioner, Porfirio Cordero Valverde, acquires by sale from Joel Mora Borbón the possession exercised over thirty-five hectares of the property subject to these proceedings. Secondly, the petitioner also provides public deed number one hundred fourteen granted before notary Jorge Sánchez Sibaja, in which, at ten o'clock on the sixth of February of the year 1998, Porfirio Cordero Valverde sold to the petitioner and to Mr. Oldemar Blanco Badilla the possession of an unregistered right measuring approximately thirty-five hectares "both parties waiving any excess or shortfall in the measurement." (Folio 2).- Then, at folio 5, another deed was provided in which Mr. Oldemar sells the half of the possessed land (which in correct arithmetic corresponds to seventeen hectares five thousand square meters) to the petitioner, leaving him as the sole possessor thereof. The problem is that, as the ad quo considered, the cause or just title of acquisition by the petitioner of the remaining seventy-two hectares has not been demonstrated, since there is no coherence between the area acquired through said deeds (thirty-five hectares), in contrast to the area described in cadastral survey (plano catastrado) number SJ-736498-2001 which describes practically seventy-five other hectares. In this sense, the ad quo is correct. The witnesses examined in the proceeding make reference to the possessed area, but not to the manner in which the petitioner acquired said surplus. There is no evidence in this sense, as it is not possible to determine how he acquired possession over said areas (just title). The petitioner alleges that he acquired it in a derivative form, but could not prove his claim, which excludes that it was in an original form. If the petitioner intends to assert a possession derivative from his transferors, because by himself he does not accrue a ten-year possession (since he acquired from Mr. Porfirio in the year 1998, becoming the sole possessor in the year two thousand), in this type of case it is important to assess the documentary evidence presented, especially if the witnesses are remiss in referring to the mode or cause of acquisition of the derivative possession alleged by the petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. In the case at hand, the document presented as evidence indicates that the acquired land is thirty-five hectares, much less than what is intended to be registered based on the new survey presented. The reasons on which the appellant bases his grievance are not acceptable, nor credible, as the margin of error between what was acquired and what is alleged is too large; the difference of seventy-two hectares is two times greater than what was believed to have been acquired from Mr. Porfirio, especially considering it was recorded in the document "the parties waiving any excess or shortfall in the measurement." The difference of seventy-two hectares is abysmal to consider it an error because it involves an unregistered land, therefore the given measurement was not approximate because the difference between one and the other is too great. In this regard, a similar case resolved through VOTO Nº 472-F-04 of fourteen hours and twenty minutes of the thirtieth of June of two thousand four can be consulted.- Therefore, in what is appealed, the appealed judgment must be confirmed.”

“III.- Sobre este tipo de procesos, este Tribunal ha determinado en forma reiterada, que la “Información Posesoria es un trámite de actividad judicial no contenciosa para la formalización de un título registrable sobre un derecho de propiedad que se ha llegado a adquirir por la usucapión, cumpliendo para ello con los requisitos legales correspondientes. Se exige demostrar la posesión a título de dueño, en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida (artículos 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil). El titulante, aparte de carecer de título inscrito o inscribible en el Registro Público, debe manifestar expresamente que la finca no ha sido inscrita en el Registro Público anteriormente. Por razones de interés público, y para evitar una doble inscripción registral sobre un mismo bien, o bien, para tutelar a terceros de mejor derecho que el titulante, la Ley exige notificar a ciertos sujetos. También estableció un trámite de oposición dentro de la Información Posesoria, en caso de que alguno de los interesados se sienta perjudicado por la titulación (artículo 8). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ordena al Juez tener como partes y por tanto notificarles personalmente desde el inicio de las diligencias, a los colindantes, ello por cuanto la titulación podría abarcar parte de las tierras que les pertenecen. También se ordena notificar a los condueños o condóminos. Igualmente, en resguardo de los intereses del Estado, se ordena tener como parte a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para el resguardo de la propiedad sujeta al dominio público, y de la Propiedad Agraria estatal (artículo 5). Finalmente, la Ley manda a citar a todos los interesados, mediante la publicación de un Edicto en el Boletín Judicial, que puedan tener un interés legítimo en el proceso. (Ver numeral 5 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (ver Voto Nº 755 de las 9:45 horas del 13 de noviembre del 2003). Se exige también la existencia de linderos bien señalados (cercas, carriles, etc.). Deben aportarse los siguientes documentos: marca de ganado si la finca se dedica a ganadería; cédula de identidad o documento de identificación respectivo del titulante; el plano catastrado; certificación actualizada del Registro Público que aclare si se han titulado otras fincas por el promovente y cual es su medida; certificación actualizada del Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía sobre si está o no comprendido el terreno dentro de alguna área protegida. La legislación vigente sobre suelos exige se demuestre el uso del terreno conforme a su aptitud (estudio conforme de uso del suelo). También está obligado el juez, para velar por la protección del recurso hídrico con fines de utilidad pública, de existir nacientes o fuentes de agua, a solicitar el informe respectivo del ente competente para ello (artículos 50 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, inciso 14 del numeral 121 de la Constitución Política, 1, 3 y 17 de la Ley de Aguas N°276 de 27 de agosto de 1942, 33 de la Ley Forestal vigente Nº 7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996 y Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26237-MINAE de 19 de junio de 1997). Tribunal Agrario, Voto N° 943 de las 15:40 horas del 6 de diciembre del 2004.- IV.- En cuanto al primer agravio, no lleva razón el recurrente. El legislador ha estipulado con el requisito del estudio de uso adecuado del suelo el obligar a los poseedores a ejercer una posesión agraria sostenible, requisito que es exigible en toda información posesoria, independientemente si el terreno a titular se encuentra en área protegida o no. No podría aprobarse una información posesoria si no se ha demostrado que se ha poseído protegiendo y dando un uso sostenible y racional del suelo, ya que la función ecológica de la propiedad es parte integral del derecho fundamental al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado consagrado en nuestra Constitución Política, al tenor de los numerales 45 y 50 de la Carta Magna. El ad quo rechazó las diligencias por el hecho de no haberse aprobado el estudio de suelos. En cuanto al del estudio de suelos, al no haberse ejercido la posesión alegada de conformidad con el numeral 58 del Reglamento de la Ley sobre el Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, siendo más bien que dichos actos posesorios degradan dicho recurso natural, considera este Tribunal correcta la decisión esgrimida en la sentencia recurrida, debiéndose rechazar este primer agravio.- V.- En lo referente al segundo agravio, tampoco goza de razón el recurrente. Los requisitos para poder adquirir un inmueble a través de una usucapión agraria común, son, además de la posesión agraria sostenible desarrollada en forma pública, pacífica, continua y en calidad de dueño; el justo título y la buena fe.- Con justo título se entiende la causa de adquisición de la posesión, la cual, de acuerdo con el Voto 4587-97 de la Sala Constitucional, puede ser originaria o derivada. En uno u otro caso, el promovente tiene la carga de la prueba de demostrar cómo efectivamente adquirió la posesión. Si bien en forma originaria, la posesión hace presumir el título, la causa de toma unilateral de posesión debe ser evidenciada con prueba idónea. Pero no podría presumirse que la posesión se adquiere en forma derivada en los casos que el mismo promovente sostiene que es derivada, es decir, que la adquirió mediante un negocio jurídico intervivos o mortis causa. En el caso que nos ocupa, el promovente, en su escrito inicial y en carácter de declaración jurada, aduce que ha adquirido en forma derivada la posesión sobre el terreno objeto de estas diligencias (folio 15).- Para probar la causa de adquisición (justo título) aporta prueba documental consistente en escritura otorgada ante el Notario Olman Vargas Cubero a las diez horas del veintidós de abril de 1987 (folio 3), en la cual el anterior poseedor y transmitente de la posesión del promovente, Porfirio Cordero Valverde, adquiere por venta de Joel Mora Borbón la posesión ejercida sobre treinta y cinco hectáreas del fundo objeto de estas diligencias. En segundo término, aporta también el promovente la escritura pública número ciento catorce otorgada ante el notario Jorge Sánchez Sibaja, en la cual, a las diez horas del seis de febrero del año 1998, Porfirio Cordero Valverde vendió al promovente y al señor Oldemar Blanco Badilla la posesión de un derecho sin inscribir que mide aproximadamente treinta y cinco hectáreas "renunciando ambas partes a cualquier exceso o defecto en la medida". (Folio 2).- Luego, a folio 5, se aportó otra escritura en la cual don Oldemar vende la mitad del terreno poseído (lo cual en correcta aritmética corresponde a diecisiete hectáreas cinco mil metros cuadrados) al promovente, quedando como único poseedor de la misma. El problema es que, como lo consideró el ad quo, no se ha demostrado la causa o justo título de adquisición del promovente de las setenta y dos hectáreas sobrantes, ya que no existe coherencia entre el área adquirida mediante dichas escrituras (treinta y cinco hectáreas), ello en contraposición del área descrita en el plano catastrado número SJ-736498-2001 que describe prácticamente setenta y cinco hectáreas demás. En este sentido lleva razón el ad quo. Los testigos evacuados en el proceso hacen referencia sobre el área poseída, pero no a la forma en que adquirió el promovente dicho sobrante. No hay prueba en este sentido pues no se logra determinar cómo adquirió la posesión sobre dichas áreas (justo título). El promovente alega que la adquirió en forma derivada pero no pudo demostrar su dicho, lo cual excluye que haya sido en forma originaria. Si la parte promovente pretende hacer valer una posesión derivada de sus transmitentes, porque por sí mismo no suma una posesión decenal (ya que adquirió de don Porfirio en el año 1998 quedando como único poseedor en el año dos mil), en este tipo de casos es importante valorar la prueba documental presentada, máxime si los testigos son omisos en referirse al modo o causa de adquisición de la posesión derivada alegada por el promovente, a quien corresponde la carga de la prueba. En el caso que nos ocupa el documento presentado como prueba indica que el terreno adquirido es treinta y cinco hectáreas, mucho menor de lo que se pretende inscribir con base en el nuevo plano presentado. Las razones en las cuales fundamenta su agravio el recurrente no es de recibo, ni creíbles, ya que el margen de error entre lo adquirido y lo alegado es demasiado grande; la diferencia de setenta y dos hectáreas es dos veces mayor a lo que se creía haber adquirido de don Porfirio, máxime se consignó en el documento "renunciando las partes al exceso o defecto en la medida". La diferencia de setenta y dos hectáreas es abismal como para considerarlo un error por tratarse de un terreno sin inscribir, por ello la medida dada no fue aproximada porque entre una y otra es demasiada la diferencia. Al respecto, se puede consultar un caso similar resuelto mediante el VOTO Nº 472- F-04 de las catorce horas veinte minutos del treinta de junio del dos mil cuatro.- Por ello, en lo apelado, deberá confirmarse la sentencia recurrida.”