Public Domain of Parks and Their Link to a Healthy EnvironmentDominio público de parques y su vínculo con el ambiente sano

**IV.** **ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND PRIVATE DOMAIN ASSETS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS.** In judgment number 019-2009-SVII handed down at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the twelfth of February two thousand nine, the Seventh Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, considered regarding the **concept of assets of the public domain and private domain of public administrations** that: *"(...) The State and other public entities possess two types of assets: public and private. Article 261 of the Civil Code provides: "Public things are those which, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those of which all may avail themselves because they are dedicated to public use. All other things are private and subject to individual property, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who for this purpose, as civil persons, are no different from any other person." The foregoing must be related to Article 121, subsection 4) of the Political Constitution, which establishes as a power of the Legislative Assembly to decree the alienation or the application to public uses of the Nation's own assets." Assets of the public domain are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable (inembargables), and consequently outside the commerce of men. On the subject, the Constitutional Chamber has stated: / "II.- THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE LEGAL MEANS FOR INTEGRATING IT.- Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime distinct from that governing the private domain, which, besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for purposes of public utility and which manifests itself in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them. Doctrine recognizes the public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets, demanial assets (bienes demaniales), public things, public assets, or public domain assets (bienes demaniales). On this concept, the Chamber stated (sic) in its Judgment No. 2306-91 of 14:45 hours on the sixth day of November nineteen ninety-one the following: / "The public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest. They are the so-called dominical assets, demanial assets (bienes demaniales), assets or public things or public assets, which do not belong individually to private persons and which are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is to say, affected by their own nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, are affected to the service they render, and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Characteristic features of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable (inembargables), cannot be mortgaged nor be subject to encumbrances in the terms of Civil Law, and the administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover the domain... Consequently, the national regime of public domain assets, such as the roads of the Capital City, whether municipal or national streets, sidewalks, parks and other public places, places them outside the commerce of men..."* (see in a similar vein, judgment number 035-2009-SVII handed down by the Seventh Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, at fourteen hours forty minutes on the thirteenth of March two thousand nine). At this point, it is worth highlighting that the private domain assets of the Administration not affected to a public purpose **shall be attachable** (article 169.1.a of the CPCA). On the contrary, assets of public ownership destined for common use and enjoyment **shall not be attachable**, nor those directly linked to the provision of public services of an essential nature, or that are indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of public purposes or services (articles 261 of the Civil Code and 170 of the CPCA). Now, regarding the **means of affecting to the public domain,** the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered in judgment number 2003-6926 of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on the fifteenth of July two thousand three, that in accordance with the provisions of Article 261 of the Civil Code, *"...to consider an asset as belonging to the public domain (demanial) requires the existence of a law that affects it to the fulfillment of a public purpose, or that the thing itself is considered of public use, like a street, a bridge, a park among others..."*. Pursuant to the foregoing, it follows that **a formal and material law is required to affect an asset to a public purpose, that is, to a public use or service.** In this sense, it is important to emphasize that in accordance with the provisions of Article 170 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, the assets must be directly linked to the provision of the public services to which they are destined, or they must be indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of those purposes or services. Now, there are assets which, by virtue of their nature and special characteristics (for example: streets –Ley de Caminos Públicos-, forests –Ley Forestal-, parks –Ley de Planificación Urbana and Ley de Construcciones, among others), the legislator has dedicated or destined for public use, so that everyone may avail themselves of them. In this sense, it should be remembered that not every public domain asset (bien demanial) is destined for public use, given that –as in the case of the maritime-terrestrial zone or mining exploitation, among other cases–, the Public Administrations grant concessions for private use of assets that form part of the public domain (demanio público), within certain limits and conditions. Now, the **principle of inmatriculation (inmatriculación) of public domain assets (bienes demaniales),** constitutes one of the aspects that characterize public domain assets and according to which, even if the lands have not been registered in the real estate registry with that character, they possess a material publicity derived from *"...the appearance of the lands on official –public– plans, in national or municipal cadastres, or in archives, museums or libraries, together with the reliable proof of effective public use, makes affectation the principal characteristic..."* (judgment number 1996-3145 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at nine hours twenty-seven minutes on the twenty-eighth of June nineteen ninety-six). Consequently, the principle of registry inmatriculation (inmatriculación registral) implies that the existence and publicity of public domain assets occurs *"...with autonomy from the Registry, without the registered titleholder being able to allege ignorance as a means to distort it and counteract the affectation. The principles of inalienability and imprescriptibility that characterize the public domain prevent the figure of the registered third party from being wielded against it to consolidate private property illicitly removed from that regime (...) In the face of the public domain, private detentations lack any preclusive value, however prolonged they may be in time and even if they appear protected by entries in the Property Registry. The condition of a public domain and public use asset affects third parties, even if such quality does not appear from the Property Registry. These are assets that, by their nature, do not need registry inscription."* (...)" (judgment number 868-2001 handed down by the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, at ten hours fifteen minutes on the sixteenth of October two thousand one). Finally, in order to guarantee that public domain assets (bienes demaniales) fulfill the public purpose to which they have been destined by express or presumed affectation, and as a consequence of the characteristics of inalienability and imprescriptibility inherent to them, Public Administrations have the obligation to exercise the administrative and jurisdictional actions provided for by the legal system, in order to protect and preserve public domain assets, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 121, subsection 14 in relation to Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 261 and 263 of the Civil Code; 14 of the Ley Forestal; 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Ley de Control Interno; 37 of the Ley de Construcciones; 110 and following of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos –among others–. Therefore, for the exercise of actions aimed at their recovery and protection, no periods of prescription or expiry run, given that the means available to Public Administrations for their effective recovery are imprescriptible, as established in Articles 34, subsection 2 and 40 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code.

**V.- ON PARKS AND THEIR INCORPORATION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** A public asset may be natural or artificial, depending on whether it concerns assets declared public by the legislator, considering them in the state in which nature presents or offers them (a river, for example), or assets declared public by the legislator but whose creation or existence depends on a human act (the construction of a street or a public park). Now, in accordance with Article 37 of the Ley de Construcciones, parks, gardens, and public promenades are freely accessible to all the country's inhabitants and "*... In general, it is prohibited to use gardens, lawns, etc., for a purpose different from that for which they were created". In this sense, paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana establishes that "...the municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks or other open spaces of general use is constituted by that same use and its inscription in the Property Registry may be dispensed with, if it appears on the Official Map...". For its part, Article 43 of that same law provides that "The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complete it, shall constitute a special reliable registry regarding the ownership or affectation to the public domain of the lands or spaces already dedicated to public uses...". From the norms partially transcribed above and the parameters established in Article 261 of the Civil Code, it follows that parks constitute public domain assets, whose essential purpose, according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, is to provide individuals with green areas for recreation, as a way to guarantee them the enjoyment of spaces that allow them to have a good quality of life and therefore, to fully develop as human beings in freedom. At this point, it is worth emphasizing that if we assume that the express or presumed affectation to a public service or use constitutes the determining factor for the public domain nature (demanialidad) of an asset, then situations of dissociation between the ownership and the affectation of that asset may occur, such as: when there are parks, squares, or gardens, whose public use can be reliably demonstrated through official maps or other means, even when the ownership of the property is private. In such cases, even if the land has not been inscribed in the registry as a public domain asset, it is presumed, in accordance with the principle of inmatriculation (in-matriculación), that it constitutes an asset of public domain nature (naturaleza demanial) insofar as it is proven that, due to its special characteristics, it has been destined by the legislator for public use and enjoyment."* Finally, in order to guarantee that public domain assets (bienes demaniales) fulfill the public purpose to which they have been destined by express or presumed designation (afectación), and as a consequence of the characteristics of inalienability and imprescriptibility inherent to them, **the Public Administrations have the obligation to exercise the administrative and jurisdictional actions provided for by the legal system, in order to protect and conserve the assets of the public domain**, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 121 subsection 14 in relation to 11 and 50 of the Constitución Política; 261 and 263 of the Código Civil; 14 of the Ley Forestal; 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Ley de Control Interno; 37 of the Ley de Construcciones; 110 and following of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos –among others–. Therefore, **for the exercise of actions aimed at their recovery and protection**, **no statutes of limitation (prescripción) or expiration (caducidad) periods run**, it being the case that the means available to the Public Administrations for their effective recovery are imprescriptible, as established in Articles 34 subsection 2 and 40 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

**Vo.- ON PARKS AND THEIR INCORPORATION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** A public asset can be natural or artificial, depending on whether it involves assets declared public by the legislator considering them in the state that nature presents or offers them (a river, for example), or assets declared public by the legislator but whose creation or existence depends on a human act (construction of a street or a public park). Now then, in accordance with Article 37 of the Ley de Construcciones, parks, gardens, and public promenades are freely accessible to all inhabitants of the country and "... *In general, making use of gardens, lawns, etc., for a purpose different from that for which they were created is prohibited*". In that sense, paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana establishes that *“...the municipal domain over the areas of streets, squares, gardens, parks or other open spaces of general use, is constituted by that very use and its registration in the Registro de la Propiedad may be dispensed with, if it appears on the Mapa Oficial...”*. For its part, Article 43 of that same law provides that *“The Mapa Oficial, together with the plans or the cadastre that completes it, shall constitute a special, reliable registry regarding the ownership or designation (afectación) to the public domain of the lands or spaces already given over to public uses...”.* From the norms partially transcribed above and the parameters established in Article 261 of the Código Civil, it follows that parks constitute assets of the public domain, whose essential purpose, according to the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitución Política, is to grant persons green areas for recreation, as a way of guaranteeing them the enjoyment of spaces that allow them to have a good quality of life and, therefore, to develop fully as human beings in freedom. At this point it is worth highlighting that if we start from the premise that the express or presumed designation (afectación) to a service or to a public use constitutes the factor that determines or not the public domain status (demanialidad) of an asset, then it is possible that scenarios of dissociation between ownership and designation (afectación) of that asset may arise, such as: when there exist parks, squares, or gardens, whose public use can be reliably demonstrated through official maps or other means, even when the ownership of the property is private. In such scenarios, even if the land has not been registered in the registry as an asset of the public domain, it is presumed, in accordance with the in-matriculation principle (principio de in-matriculación), that it constitutes a public domain asset (bien demanial) insofar as it is proven that, due to its special characteristics, it has been destined by the legislator for public use and enjoyment.” In this regard, it bears recalling that not all public-domain (demanial) property is destined for public use, since—as in the case of the maritime-terrestrial zone or mining exploitation, among other scenarios—Public Administrations grant concessions for private use of assets that form part of the public domain (demanio público), within certain limits and conditions. That said, the **principle of first registration (inmatriculación) of public-domain assets (bienes demaniales),** constitutes one of the aspects that characterize public-domain property and pursuant to which, even when the lands have not been registered in the real property registry with that character, they possess a material publicity derived from *“…the appearance of the lands on official—public—maps, in national or municipal cadasters, or in archives, museums or libraries, together with reliable proof of effective public use, means that the dedication (afectación) is the principal characteristic...”* (judgment number 1996-3145 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at nine hours twenty-seven minutes on the twenty-eighth of June of nineteen ninety-six). Consequently, the principle of registry first registration (inmatriculación registral) implies that the existence and publicity of public-domain property occurs “*...autonomously from the Registry, without it being possible for the registered titleholder to claim ignorance as a means to distort it and counteract the dedication. The principles of inalienability and imprescriptibility that characterize the public domain prevent the figure of the third-party registry purchaser from being invoked against it in order to consolidate private property illicitly removed from that regime (...) **In the face of the public domain, private detentations lack barring value (valor obstativo), however prolonged they may be over time and even if they appear protected by entries in the Property Registry. The condition of being a public-domain and public-use asset affects third parties, even if such quality does not appear from the Property Registry.** These are assets that, by their nature, do not require registry inscription.*”* (judgment number 868-2001 issued by the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, at ten hours fifteen minutes on the sixteenth of October of two thousand one). Finally, in order to guarantee that public-domain assets (bienes demaniales) fulfill the public purpose to which they have been destined by express or presumed dedication, and as a consequence of the characteristics of inalienability and imprescriptibility inherent to them, **Public Administrations have the obligation to bring the administrative and jurisdictional actions provided for by the legal system, in order to protect and conserve public-domain property**, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Articles 121 subparagraph 14 in relation to 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 261 and 263 of the Civil Code; 14 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal); 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Internal Control Law; 37 of the Constructions Law; 110 and following of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets—among others. Therefore, **no limitation or expiration periods run for the bringing of actions aimed at their recovery and protection**, as the means available to Public Administrations for their effective recovery are imprescriptible, as established by Articles 34 subparagraph 2 and 40 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code.

**V.- ON PARKS AND THEIR INCORPORATION INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** A public good can be natural or artificial, depending on whether it involves goods declared public by the legislator considering them in the state in which nature presents or offers them (a river, for example), or goods declared public by the legislator but whose creation or existence depends on a human act (the construction of a street or a public park). Now, in accordance with Article 37 of the Constructions Law, parks, gardens, and public promenades are freely accessible to all inhabitants of the country and "... *In general, it is prohibited to make use of gardens, lawns, etc., different from that for which they were created*)." In that sense, paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Urban Planning Law establishes that *“...municipal domain over areas of streets, plazas, gardens, parks, or other open spaces of general use is constituted by that same use, and its registration in the Property Registry may be dispensed with if it appears on the Official Map...”*. For its part, Article 43 of that same law provides that *“The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadaster that completes it, shall constitute a special reliable registry regarding ownership or dedication to the public domain of lands or spaces already given over to public uses...”*. From the norms partially transcribed above and the parameters established in Article 261 of the Civil Code, it follows that **parks constitute public-domain property, whose essential purpose, according to the provisions set forth in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, is to grant people green areas for recreation, as a way of guaranteeing them the enjoyment of spaces that allow them to have a good quality of life and, therefore, to develop fully as human beings in freedom**. On this point, it is worth emphasizing that if we start from the premise that express or presumed dedication to a public service or public use constitutes the factor that determines whether or not an asset has public-domain status (demanialidad), then it is possible that scenarios of dissociation between ownership and dedication of that asset may arise, such as, for example: when there exist parks, plazas, or gardens whose public use can be reliably demonstrated through official maps or other means, even when the ownership of the property is private. **In such scenarios, even if the land has not been registered in the registry as a public-domain asset, it is presumed, in accordance with the principle of first registration, that it constitutes a public-domain asset (bien demanial) insofar as it is demonstrated that, due to its special characteristics, it has been destined by the legislator for public use and enjoyment.”**

“ IVo.- SOBRE LOS BIENES DE DOMINIO PÚBLICO Y PRIVADO DE LAS ADMINISTRACIONES PÚBLICAS. En sentencia número 019-2009-SVII dictada a las trece horas treinta minutos del doce de febrero del dos mil nueve, la Sección Sétima del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, consideró respecto al concepto de bienes de dominio público y privado de las administraciones públicas que: "(...) El Estado y las demás entidades públicas, poseen dos tipos de bienes: públicos y privados. El artículo 261 del Código Civil dispone: “Son cosas públicas las que, por ley, están destinadas de un modo permanente a cualquier servicio de utilidad general, y aquellas de que todos pueden aprovecharse por estar entregadas al uso público. Todas las demás cosas son privadas y objeto de propiedad particular, aunque pertenezcan al Estado a los Municipios, quienes para el caso, como personas civiles, no se diferencian de cualquier otra persona ”. Lo anterior debe relacionarse con el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política, que establece como atribución de la Asamblea Legislativa, decretar la enajenación o la aplicación a usos públicos de los bienes propios de la Nación”. Los bienes de dominio público se caracterizan por ser inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables, en consecuencia fuera del comercio de los hombres. Sobre el tema, la Sala Constitucional ha expresado: / “II.- EL CONCEPTO DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO Y DE LOS MEDIOS JURÍDICOS PARA INTEGRARLO.- Por dominio público se entiende el conjunto de bienes sujeto a un régimen jurídico especial y distinto al que rige el dominio privado, que además de pertenecer o estar bajo la administración de personas jurídicas públicas, están afectados o destinados a fines de utilidad pública y que se manifiesta en el uso directo o indirecto que toda persona pueda hacer de ellos. La doctrina reconoce el dominio público bajo diferentes acepciones, como bienes dominicales, bienes dominicales, cosas públicas, bienes públicos o bienes demaniales. Sobre este concepto la Sala ha expresó (sic) en su Sentencia No. 2306-91 de las 14:45 horas del seis de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y uno lo siguiente: / “El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público. Son los llamados bienes dominicales, bienes demaniales, bienes o cosas públicas o bienes públicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres. Es decir, afectados por su propia naturaleza y vocación. En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa. Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio...En consecuencia, el régimen patrio de los bienes de dominio público, como las vías de la Ciudad Capital, sean calles municipales o nacionales, aceras, parques y demás sitios públicos, los coloca fuera del comercio de los hombres...” (ver en sentido similar, la sentencia número 035-2009-SVII dictada por la Sección Sétima del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, a las catorce horas cuarenta minutos del trece de marzo del dos mil nueve). En este punto cabe destacar, que serán embargables los bienes de dominio privado de la Administración que no se encuentren afectos a un fin público (artículo 169.1.a del CPCA). Por el contrario, no serán embargables los bienes de titularidad pública destinados al uso y aprovechamiento común, como tampoco aquellos vinculados directamente con la presentación de servicios públicos de naturaleza esencial, o bien, que resulten indispensables o insustituibles para el cumplimiento de fines o servicios públicos (artículos 261 del Código Civil y 170 del CPCA). Ahora bien, en cuanto al medio de afectación al dominio público, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia consideró en sentencia número 2003-6926 de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del quince de julio del dos mil tres, que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 261 del Código Civil, “...para considerar un bien como demanial se requiere la existencia de una ley que lo afecte al cumplimiento de un fin público, o bien que la cosa en sí misma sea considerada de uso público, como una calle, un puente, un parque entre otros...”. De conformidad con lo expuesto, se desprende que se requiere de una ley formal y material para afectar un bien a una finalidad pública, es decir, a un uso o servicio público. En ese sentido, cabe resaltar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 170 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, los bienes deberán estar directamente vinculados con la prestación de los servicios públicos a los que están destinados, o bien, deberán ser indispensables o insustituibles para el cumplimiento de esos fines o servicios. Ahora bien, existen bienes que en virtud de su naturaleza y especiales características (por ejemplo: las calles –Ley de Caminos Públicos-, los bosques –Ley Forestal-, los parques –Ley de Planificación Urbana y Ley de Construcciones, entre otros), el legislador los ha entregado o destinado al uso público, a fin de que todos puedan aprovecharse de ellos. En este sentido, cabe recordar que no todo bien demanial está destinado a un uso público, puesto que –como en el caso de la zona marítimo terrestre o la explotación minera, entre otros supuestos-, las Administraciones Públicas otorgan concesiones para un uso privado de bienes que conforman el demanio público, dentro de ciertos límites y condiciones. Ahora bien, el principio de inmatriculación de los bienes demaniales, constituye uno de los aspectos que caracterizan a los bienes de dominio público y conforme al cual, aún y cuando los terrenos no se hayan inscrito en el registro inmobiliario con ese carácter, cuentan con una publicidad material derivada de “...la aparición de los terrenos en planos oficiales –públicos-, en catastros nacionales o municipales, o en archivos, museos o bibliotecas, junto con la prueba fehaciente del uso público efectivo, hace que la afectación sea la principal característica...” (sentencia número 1996-3145 dictada por a Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia a las nueve horas veintisiete minutos del veintiocho de junio de mil novecientos noventa y seis). En consecuencia, el principio de inmatriculación registral implica que la existencia y publicidad de los bienes de dominio público se de “... con autonomía del Registro, sin que sea dable al titular registral alegar desconocimiento como medio para desvirtuarlo y contrarrestar la afectación. Los principios de inalienabilidad e imprescriptibilidad que caracterizan el dominio público impiden que en su contra pueda esgrimirse la figura del tercero registral para consolidar la propiedad privada ilícitamente sustraída de ese régimen (...) Frente al dominio público, las detentaciones privadas adolecen de valor obstativo, por prolongadas que sean en el tiempo y aunque aparezcan amparadas por asientos del Registro de la Propiedad. La condición de bien de dominio público y uso público afecta a tercero, aunque tal cualidad no resulte del Registro de la Propiedad. Se trata de bienes que, por su naturaleza, no necesitan de la inscripción registral.(...)" (sentencia número 868-2001 dictada por la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, a las diez horas quince minutos del dieciséis de octubre del dos mil uno). Por último, a efecto de garantizar que los bienes demaniales cumplan la finalidad pública a la que han sido destinados por afectación expresa o presunta, y como consecuencia de las características de inalienabilidad e imprescriptibilidad que les son inherentes, las Administraciones Públicas tienen la obligación de ejercer las acciones administrativas y jurisdiccionales previstas por el ordenamiento jurídico, a fin de proteger y conservar los bienes de dominio público, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 121 inciso 14 en relación con el 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 261 y 263 del Código Civil; 14 de la Ley Forestal; 7, 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley de Control Interno; 37 de la Ley de Construcciones; 110 y siguientes de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos –entre otros-. Por ende, para el ejercicio de las acciones tendentes a su recuperación y tutela, no corren plazos de prescripción ni caducidad, siendo que los medios con los que cuentan las Administraciones Públicas para su efectiva recuperación son imprescriptibles, tal y como lo establecen los artículos 34 inciso 2 y 40 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.

Vo.- SOBRE LOS PARQUES Y SU INCORPORACIÓN AL DOMINIO PÚBLICO COMO UNA MANIFESTACIÓN DEL DERECHO A UN AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO. Un bien público puede ser natural o artificial, según se trate de bienes declarados públicos por el legislador considerándolos en el estado en que la naturaleza los presenta u ofrece (un río por ejemplo), o de bienes declarados públicos por el legislador pero cuya creación o existencia depende de un hecho humano (construcción de una calle o un parque público). Ahora bien, de conformidad con el artículo 37 de la Ley de Construcciones, los parques, jardines y paseos públicos son de libre acceso a todos los habitantes del país y "... En general, se prohíbe hacer uso de los jardines, prados, etc., diferente de aquél para el que fueron creados)". En ese sentido, el párrafo 1º del artículo 44 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, establece que “...el dominio municipal sobre las áreas de calles, plazas, jardines, parques u otros espacios abiertos de uso general, se constituye por ese mismo uso y puede prescindirse de su inscripción en el Registro de la Propiedad, si consta en el Mapa Oficial...”. Por su parte, el artículo 43 de esa misma ley, dispone que “El Mapa Oficial, junto con los planos o el catastro que lo complete, constituirá registro especial fehaciente sobre propiedad u afectación a dominio público de los terrenos o espacios ya entregados a usos públicos...”. De las normas parcialmente transcritas con anterioridad y de los parámetros establecidos en el artículo 261 del Código Civil, se desprende que los parques constituyen bienes de dominio público, cuya finalidad esencial al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, es la de otorgar a las personas áreas verdes de esparcimiento, como una forma de garantizarles el disfrute de espacios que les permitan tener una buena calidad de vida y por ende, desarrollarse plenamente como seres humanos en libertad. En este punto cabe resaltar, que si partimos de que la afectación expresa o presunta a un servicio o a un uso público, constituye el factor que determina o no la demanialidad de un bien, entonces es posible que puedan presentarse supuestos de disociación entre la titularidad y afectación de aquel, como por ejemplo: cuando existan parques, plazas o jardines, cuyo uso público pueda ser demostrada fehacientemente a través de mapas oficiales u otros medios, aún y cuando la titularidad del inmueble sea de carácter privado. En dichos supuestos, aunque el terreno no haya sido inscrito en el registro como un bien de dominio público, se presume conforme al principio de in-matriculación, que constituye un bien de naturaleza demanial en el tanto se compruebe que por sus especiales características ha sido destinado por el legislador a un uso y aprovechamiento público.”