Inadmissibility of titling by possessory information for land with a lake fed by a public-domain streamImprocedencia de titulación por información posesoria de terreno con lago alimentado por quebrada de dominio público

IV[...]. At its core, it showed disagreement for the following reasons: 1º It alleges that the arguments put forth by the trial court judge to reject the request for land titling lack validity and violate the right to property enshrined in articles 45 and 50 of the Political Constitution. According to it, the sole reason given for dismissing the Possessory Information is that it was not proven that its transferor had authorization or a concession to create the lagoon (laguna) that exists on the property, a situation that at most could generate a criminal investigation to determine whether a crime exists or not, but in no way relates to the right to property, since on the contrary, there would be greater certainty that resources are protected if the titling of the asset is authorized, if what the judge intends is to protect the lagoon in question. Under this reasoning, it adds, it would be impossible for its represented party or for any other person to title that tract of land (fundo), which violates the constitutionally enshrined right to property. 2º It argues that in this case reference has been made to the existence of a lagoon, but no distinction has been made between it and a lake (lago) in order to verify which regulations are applicable, which, it says, are different depending on the type. What happened in the initial petition, in the soil study, and when the topographer prepared the map, is that without further study it was concluded that there was a lagoon present, since people observing stagnant waters conclude it is a lagoon, but in this case it is not so. It cites the definition of lakes and lagoons offered by the Diccionario Didáctico de Ecología, published by the Universidad de Costa Rica in 2005, noting that a lagoon is *"a body of fresh water enclosed in a shallow basin (between 1 and 12 meters deep); its bottom is illuminated, its bathymetric profile is very flat, with occasional thermal stratification. It presents vegetation along and across its profile and with abundant biological productivity. It is a eutrophic system, and in some cases can rapidly transform into a dystrophic one, in which productivity severely declines as a consequence of the excessive amount of autochthonous or allochthonous organic material. It is a lentic-type water body."*; while a lake is a *"body of fresh water enclosed and of a more or less deep basin (some can be more than a thousand meters deep); it can be endorheic or exorheic; with an abrupt or very steep slope, aphotic (without light) at its bottom. In temperate zones it presents a defined thermal stratification, with epilimnion, and thermocline, generally dimictic. It possesses vegetation only on the shores and low biological production; almost always oligotrophic. It is a lentic-type water body, hence its sensitivity to contamination is high."* It adds that in the Ley de Agua they are classified differently, as public domain and as private domain. In this case, it indicates, it is a lagoon (laguna) or pond (charco), a circumstance that was clarified in the document on pages 158 to 159 and confirmed by the Cantonal Water Inspector of the Municipalidad de San Carlos, but this was not analyzed by the judge. The engineer Juan Carlos Romero Gutiérrez, who is an expert hired by its represented party, and in turn, Director of the Environmental Management Area of the Cooperativa de Electrificación Rural de San Carlos -COOPELESCA R.L.- and a professional with extensive knowledge of the matter, reached the same conclusion. Hence, pursuant to article 4 of the Ley de Aguas, the lagoon or pond does not require any type of permit or concession, as they are private domain waters, in which case the owner prior to its represented party did not require such a permit or concession; furthermore, although article 1 of that law states that lagoons are public domain, it clarifies that this applies only to those that communicate directly with the sea, a situation in which the lagoon that is in the area to be titled is not found.-

V.The appellant is correct in stating that the distinction between lagoons and lakes is not simple. It is necessary to resort to technical definitions. The environmental regulations do not offer concrete definitions. In the first place, the Ley de Aguas provides in its article 1 that public domain waters include, among others, those of the lagoons (lagunas) and estuaries (esteros) of the beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea and those of inland lakes of natural formation that are directly linked to constant currents. Subsequently, article 2 of that same law indicates that such waters are national property and the domain over them is not lost nor has been lost when, through the execution of artificial works or prior uses, the natural characteristics are altered or have been altered, except for waters that are used by virtue of contracts granted by the State, which shall be subject to the conditions authorized in the respective concession. For its part, numeral 3 provides that the following are likewise national property, among others: the beds of lakes, lagoons, and estuaries of national property and the lands gained from currents, lakes, lagoons, or estuaries by works executed with State authorization. Meanwhile, article 4 indicates that the following are private domain waters and belong to the person who owns the land: among others, lagoons or ponds formed on lands of their respective domain, provided that the case is not the one provided for in Section II of article 1, that is, the waters of the lagoons and estuaries of the beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea. That same law provides in article 90 that the male and female owners of lagoons or swampy or waterlogged lands (terrenos pantanosos o encharcadizos), who wish to drain or clean them, may extract from public lands, with prior corresponding authorization from the local authority, the earth and stone indispensable for the embankment and other works; and article 91 provides that when a lagoon or swampy or waterlogged land is declared unhealthy by whomever is responsible, its drainage or sanitation is mandatory, and if it is privately owned, the resolution shall be made known to the owners so that they arrange the drainage or cleaning within the deadline indicated to them. For its part, numeral 39 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indicates that coastal lagoons (lagunas costeras) are part of marine and coastal resources. In this case, the intent is to title a property located in Florencia de San Carlos measuring 1 hectare 4735.46 square meters, intended for paddocks (potreros), which has a lake within the area, according to the cadastral map A-1135039-2007 (page 1º). The cited nature of the tract of land coincides with that cited in the document whereby the transfer of possessory rights by [Name1] in favor of Arlem S.A. was recorded, on June 19, 2004 (page 7); however, the initial petition indicates the tract of land is intended for agriculture and the possessory acts have consisted of planting cassava and fruit trees, and furthermore, the existence of pastures is cited (page 15). For its part, the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria certified that on the property, the conforming use of the land for the activity being carried out has been exercised according to the approved methodology, recommending maintaining forest restoration in sector A, either with the natural forest regeneration technique or by means of reforestation with native species of the area; and maintaining the natural cover of sector C to prevent the physical, chemical, and biological degradation of the soil (pages 54 and 55). The sector where the lake in question is located is identified in the study as "C", which is currently a green and ornamental zone (page 56). In this proceeding, no judicial inspection was conducted by the judge because the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias does not require such evidence for properties measuring less than 30 hectares, so the previous information could not be verified; however, since that report comes from an authority specialized in land use, conservation, and maintenance, such data are considered valid and shared at this instance. From the testimonial evidence, it follows that the promoting company destines the property to "reforestation with oak trees and bait (sic), and a lake was also built" as indicated by the witness [Name2] (page 69); that when the previous possessor owned the tract of land, for 25 years before transferring it to the proponent, it "had an artificial lake, a bamboo plantation, and forest timber trees."; and upon transferring it to the applicant, the latter has been using it for "reforestation and cassava cultivation," according to the witness [Name3] (page 70). The witness [Name4] also referred to the construction of "an artificial lake" and the planting of fruit trees (page 71). Regarding the nature of the cited lake, the Department of Waters of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -hereinafter MINAET- stated: *"The lagoon, located on map A-1135039-2007, according to case number CED1, corresponding to the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) promoted by Arlem S.A.; it is fed by an Unnamed creek (quebrada) of a permanent nature and public domain; at the same time, its formation cannot be determined whether natural or artificial, it is presumed that the channel was enlarged to form a lagoon. After consulting the Cartography and the National Registry of Water Use and Channel Concessions, no permit has been issued for said work, making it illegal. Therefore, it is determined that it is a channel of a public domain creek."* (page 113). A report issued on July 6, 2009, by the Cantonal Water Inspector of the Municipalidad de San Carlos, engineer Alberto Trumena Miranda Guzman, was also provided in the proceeding, concluding: *"The existing waters on the mentioned property will be used by the owners, as long as there are no complaints regarding it, nor do they harm the integrity of the public or third parties, which is evidenced by the absence of complaints about it."* (page 139). In the opinion of this Tribunal, the opinion issued by the Department of Waters of MINAET loses objectivity by concluding based on a "presumption" that the river channel was enlarged to form the lagoon; however, both the representative of the proponent and the statements of the witnesses are consistent that it is a lake that was formed artificially, which would obviously require a level of manipulation of the waters of the creek in question to achieve that formation. The second report cited, issued by the Cantonal Water Inspector, seems quite subjective since it is evident that the fact that there are no complaints does not necessarily imply that the use and exploitation being given to the waters is legally correct. The truth is that, in this case, since there exists on the tract of land a lake (lago) or a lagoon (laguna), whatever its nature, fed by waters from a creek that crosses the tract of land to be titled, the channel of this creek and of the enlarged area is public domain, as is also its protection zone (zona de protección), constituted on flat lands as 10 meters in urban zones and 15 in rural zones, or 50 meters on broken terrain, on both sides of the streams, measured horizontally, as provided in articles 33 and 34 of the Ley Forestal. Regardless of whether or not a criminal act exists on the part of the transferor of the proponent, the truth is that in this case, in the map that serves as the basis for the proceeding, the area in question was not excluded, and this area cannot be added to the land sought to be titled by Arlem S.A. It is necessary to exclude said sector from the area to be titled by preparing a new cadastral map that proportionally reduces the protective zone of the creek in question and the cited lake. For this purpose, the Tribunal considers that the proponent should be granted the prudential period of two months from the finality of this resolution, under warning that in case of non-compliance, a final decision will be issued based on the evidence contained in the case file. Therefore, the judgment issued was handed down prematurely, as the Court should not have issued it until it verified that the sector corresponding to the protection zone of the creek crossing the tract of land and the formed lake is respected.-

**“IV**[…]. On the merits, the appellant expressed disagreement for the following reasons: 1º She alleges that the arguments put forward by the trial judge to reject the application for titling of the property lack validity and violate the right to property enshrined in Articles 45 and 50 of the Political Constitution. According to her, the sole reason given to dismiss the Possessory Information is that it was not proven that her transferor had authorization or a concession to make the lagoon (laguna) that exists on the property, a situation that at most could give rise to a criminal investigation to determine whether a crime exists or not, but in no way relates to the right to property, since on the contrary, there would be greater certainty that the resources are protected if the titling of the property is authorized, if what the judge intends is to protect the referenced lagoon. Under that line of reasoning, she adds, it would be impossible for her client or for any other person to title that property, which violates the constitutionally enshrined right to property. 2º She argues that in this case, reference has been made to the existence of a lagoon, but no distinction has been drawn between it and a lake in order to verify which regulations are applicable, which, according to her, differ depending on the type involved. What occurred in the initial filing, in the soil study, and when the surveyor prepared the plat was that, without further study, it was concluded that a lagoon was present, because when people observe stagnant waters they conclude it is a lagoon, but that is not the case here. She cites the definition of lakes and lagoons offered by the Diccionario Didáctico de Ecología, published by the Universidad de Costa Rica in 2005, noting that a lagoon is *“a body of fresh water enclosed in a shallow basin (between 1 and 12 meters deep); its bottom is illuminated, its bathymetric profile is very flat, with occasional thermal stratification. It presents vegetation along the length and breadth of its profile and with abundant biological productivity. It is a eutrophic system, and in some cases can rapidly transform into a dystrophic one, in which productivity severely declines as a consequence of an excessive amount of autochthonous or allochthonous organic material. It is a body of water of the lentic type.”;* while a lake is a *“body of fresh water enclosed and with a more or less deep basin (some can reach over a thousand meters deep); it can be endorheic or exorheic; with an abrupt or very steep slope, aphotic (without light) at its bottom. In temperate zones, it presents a defined thermal stratification, with an epilimnion and a thermocline that is generally dimictic. It possesses vegetation only on its shores and has low biological production; almost always oligotrophic. It is a body of water of the lentic type, for which reason its sensitivity to contamination is high.”* She adds that in the Ley de Aguas, they are classified differently, as public domain and as private domain. In this case, she indicates, it is a lagoon or pond (charco), a circumstance that was clarified in the filing on folios 158 to 159 and confirmed by the Cantonal Water Inspector of the Municipalidad de San Carlos, but this was not analyzed by the judge. Engineer Juan Carlos Romero Gutiérrez, an expert hired by her client, who is also the Director of the Environmental Management Area of the Cooperativa de Electrificación Rural de San Carlos -COOPELESCA R.L.- and a professional with extensive knowledge of the subject, reached the same conclusion. Hence, pursuant to Article 4 of the Ley de Aguas, the lagoon or pond does not require any type of permit or concession, as these are privately owned waters, in which case the owner prior to her client did not require such a permit or concession; furthermore, although Article 1 of that law states that lagoons are public domain, it clarifies that this applies only to those that communicate directly with the sea, a situation that does not apply to the lagoon on the area to be titled.- **V.** The appellant is correct in asserting that the distinction between lagoons and lakes is not simple. It is necessary to resort to technical definitions. Environmental regulations do not provide concrete definitions. Firstly, the Ley de Aguas provides in its Article 1 that public domain waters include, among others, those of the lagoons and estuaries (esteros) of beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea, and those of naturally formed interior lakes that are directly linked to constant watercourses. Subsequently, Article 2 of that same law states that such waters are national property and ownership over them is not lost, nor has it been lost, when the natural characteristics are altered or have been altered by the execution of artificial works or prior uses, except for waters utilized under contracts granted by the State, which shall be subject to the conditions authorized in the respective concession. For its part, Article 3 provides that the following are equally national property: among others, the beds (vasos) of nationally owned lakes, lagoons, and estuaries, and lands gained from watercourses, lakes, lagoons, or estuaries by works executed with State authorization. Meanwhile, Article 4 states that the following are private domain waters and belong to the person who owns the land: among others, lagoons or ponds formed on lands of their respective domain, provided it is not the case provided for in Section II of Article 1, i.e., the waters of lagoons and estuaries of beaches that communicate permanently or intermittently with the sea. That same law provides in Article 90 that owners of lagoons or swampy or waterlogged lands who wish to drain or clean them may extract, from public lands with prior corresponding authorization from the local authority, the earth and stone indispensable for the embankment and other works; and Article 91 provides that when a lagoon or swampy or waterlogged land is declared unhealthy by the appropriate party, its drainage or cleaning is mandatory, and if it is privately owned, the owners shall be notified of the ruling so they may arrange for drainage or cleaning within the period indicated to them. For its part, Article 39 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indicates that coastal lagoons are part of marine and coastal resources. In this case, the intention is to title a property located in Florencia de San Carlos, measuring 1 hectare and 4735.46 square meters, destined for pastures, which contains a lake within the area, according to cadastral plan A-1135039-2007 (folio 1). The cited nature of the property coincides with that cited in the document by which the transfer of possessory rights by [Name1] in favor of Arlem S.A. on June 19, 2004, was recorded (folio 7); however, the initial filing indicates that the property is destined for agriculture and the possessory acts have consisted of planting yucca and fruit trees, and also cites the existence of pastures (folio 15). For its part, the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria certified that the property has been subjected to conforming land use for the activity conducted according to the approved methodology, recommending the maintenance of forest restoration (restauración forestal) in sector A, either through natural forest regeneration techniques or through reforestation with native species of the zone; and the maintenance of the natural cover of sector C to prevent the physical, chemical, and biological degradation of the soil (folios 54 and 55). The sector where the referenced lake is located is identified in the study as "C," which is currently a green zone with ornamentals (folio 56). A judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) was not conducted by the judge in the proceeding because the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias does not require such evidence for properties measuring less than 30 hectares, so the preceding information could not be verified; however, since that report comes from an authority specialized in the use, conservation, and maintenance of soils, such data are deemed valid and are shared by this instance. From the testimonial evidence, it appears that the petitioning company uses the property for “the reforestation of oak and 'cebo' (sic) trees, and a lake was also built,” as stated by witness [Name2] (folio 69); that when the previous possessor had the property, for 25 years before transferring it to the petitioner, “he had an artificial lake, a bamboo plantation, and forest timber trees”; and upon transferring it to the title applicant, she has been using it for “reforestation and yucca cultivation,” according to witness [Name3] (folio 70). Witness [Name4] also referred to the construction of “an artificial lake” and the planting of fruit trees (folio 71). Regarding the nature of the cited lake, the Water Department of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones —hereinafter MINAET— indicated: *“The lagoon, located on plan A-1135039-2007, according to case number CED1, which corresponds to the Possessory Information petitioned by Arlem S.A.; is fed by an unnamed stream (quebrada), of a permanent nature, within the public domain; at the same time, its formation cannot be determined as natural or artificial; the stream bed is presumed to have been widened to form the lagoon. Upon consulting the Cartography and the National Registry of Water Use and Stream Concessions, no permit has been issued for said work, rendering it illegal. Therefore, it is determined that it is the bed of a public domain stream.”* (folio 113). Also provided in the proceeding was a report issued on July 6, 2009, by the Cantonal Water Inspector of the Municipalidad de San Carlos, Engineer Alberto Trumena Miranda Guzman, concluding: *“The waters existing on the mentioned property will be used by the owners, as long as there are no complaints regarding this matter, and they do not harm public integrity or third parties, this being proven by the absence of complaints in this regard.”* (folio 139). In the opinion of this Tribunal, the opinion issued by the Water Department of MINAET loses objectivity by concluding based on a *“presumption”* that the stream bed was widened to form the lagoon; however, both the petitioner's representative and the declarations of the witnesses coincide that it is an artificially formed lake, which would obviously require a level of manipulation of the waters of the referenced stream to achieve that formation. The second cited report, issued by the Cantonal Water Inspector, seems quite subjective because it is evident that the fact that no complaints exist does not necessarily imply that the use and exploitation being given to the waters is legally correct. The truth is, in this case, given the existence on the property of a lake or lagoon, whatever its nature, fed by waters from a stream that crosses the property to be titled, the bed of said stream and the widened area is public domain, as is its protection zone (zona de protección), constituted on flat terrain by 10 meters in urban zones and 15 in rural zones, or 50 meters on broken terrain, on both sides of the watercourses, measured horizontally, as provided by Articles 33 and 34 of the Ley Forestal. Regardless of whether or not a criminal act was committed by the petitioner's transferor, the truth is that in this case, the referenced area was not excluded from the plan serving as the basis for the proceeding, and this area could not be added to the land intended to be titled by Arlem S.A. It is necessary to exclude said sector from the area to be titled by preparing a new cadastral plan that proportionally reduces the protection zone (zona protectora) of the referenced stream and the cited lake. To this end, this Tribunal considers that the petitioner should be granted a reasonable period of two months from the finality of this resolution, under warning that if she fails to comply, a decision on the merits will be issued based on the evidence on record. Therefore, the issued judgment was issued prematurely, since the Court should not have issued it until it verified that the sector corresponding to the protection zone of the stream that crosses the property and the lake that was formed is respected.—”

“IV[…]. En lo medular, se mostró inconforme por lo siguiente: 1º Alega que los argumentos expuestos por el juez de primera instancia para rechazar la solicitud de titulación del inmueble carecen de validez y vulneran el derecho de propiedad consagrado en los artículos 45 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Según dice, el único motivo expuesto para desestimar la Información Posesoria es que no se acreditó que su transmitente hubiera tenido autorización o concesión para hacer la laguna que existe en el inmueble, situación que a lo sumo podría generar una investigación penal para determinar si existe un delito o no, pero de ninguna forma tiene relación con el derecho de propiedad, puesto que por el contrario, existiría más certeza de que se protegen los recursos si se autoriza la titulación del bien, si lo que el juez pretende es proteger la laguna en referencia. Bajo esa tesitura, agrega, sería imposible para su representada o para cualquier otra persona, titular ese fundo, lo cual viola el derecho de propiedad consagrado constitucionalmente. 2º Aduce que en este caso se ha hecho referencia a la existencia de una laguna, pero no se ha hecho la diferencia entre ésta y un lago como para verificar cuál es la normativa aplicable, que se según dice, es diferente dependiendo del tipo que sea. Lo acontecido en el escrito inicial, en el estudio de suelos y al momento de hacer el plano por parte del topógrafo, es que sin mayor estudio se concluyó, se estaba en presencia de una laguna, pues las personas cuando observan aguas estancadas concluyen, se trata de una laguna, pero en este caso no es así. Cita la definición que de lagos y lagunas ofrece el Diccionario Didáctico de Ecología, editado por la Universidad de Costa Rica en 2005, señalando que una laguna es "un cuerpo de agua dulce encerrado, en una cuenca poco profunda (entre 1 y 12 metros de hondura); su fondo es iluminado, su perfil batimétrico es muy plano, con estratificación térmica ocasional. Presenta vegetación a lo largo y ancho de su perfil y con productividad biológica abundante. Es un sistema eutrópico, y en algunos casos puede transformarse con rapidez en uno distrófico, en el cual la productividad decae severamente a consecuencia de la excesiva cantidad de material orgánico autóctono o alóctono. Es un cuerpo de agua de tipo léntico."; mientras que un lago es un "cuerpo de agua dulce encerrado y de cuenca más o menos profunda (algunos pueden llegar a tener más de mil metros de hondura); puede ser endorreico, o exorreico; de talud abrupto o muy inclinado, afótico (sin luz) en su fondo. En zonas templadas presenta una estratificación términa definida, con epilimnio, y termoclima por lo general dimítico. Posee vegetación, únicamente en las orillas y una producción biológica baja; casi siempre con oligotróficos. Es un cuerpo de agua de tipo léntico, por lo que su sensibilidad a la contaminación es alta." Agrega, en la Ley de Agua se califica de diferente forma, como de dominio público y como de dominio privado. En este caso indica, se trata de una laguna o charco, circunstancia que fue aclarada en escrito de folio 158 a 159 y confirmada por el Inspector Cantonal de Aguas de la Municipalidad de San Carlos, pero ello no fue analizado por el juzgador. A esa misma conclusión llegó el ingeniero Juan Carlos Romero Gutiérrez, quien es un experto contratado por su representada, a su vez, Director del Área de Gestión Ambiental de la Cooperativa de Electrificación Rural de San Carlos -COOPELESCA R.L.- y es un profesional de amplio conocimiento de la materia. De ahí que, conforme al artículo 4 de la Ley de Aguas, la laguna o charco no requiere ningún tipo de permiso o concesión, pues son aguas de dominio privado, en cuyo caso el propietario anterior a su representada no requería de tal permiso o concesión; además, aunque el artículo 1º de esa ley señala las lagunas son de dominio público, aclara que sólo aquellas que se comuniquen directamente con el mar, situación en la que no se encuentra la laguna que está en el área a titular.-

V.Lleva razón el recurrente al afirmar que la distinción entre lagunas y lagos no es simple. Es preciso recurrir a definiciones técnicas. La normativa ambiental no ofrece definiciones concretas. En primer orden, la Ley de Aguas dispone en su artículo 1º que son aguas de dominio público, entre otras, las de las lagunas y esteros de las playas que se comuniquen permanente o intermitentemente con el mar y las de los lagos interiores de formación natural que estén ligados directamente a corrientes constantes. Posteriormente, el artículo 2 de esa misma ley señala que tales aguas, son de propiedad nacional y el dominio sobre ellas no se pierde ni se ha perdido cuando por ejecución de obras artificiales o de aprovechamientos anteriores se alteren o hayan alterado las características naturales, exceptúanse las aguas que se aprovechan en virtud de contratos otorgados por el Estado, las cuales se sujetarán a las condiciones autorizadas en la respectiva concesión. Por su parte, el numeral 3º dispone que son igualmente de propiedad nacional, entre otras, los vasos de los lagos, lagunas y esteros de propiedad nacional y los terrenos ganados a las corrientes, lagos, lagunas o esteros, por obras ejecutadas con autorización del Estado. Por su parte, el artículo 4º señala, son aguas de dominio privado y pertenecen a a persona dueña del terreno: entre otras, las lagunas o charcos formados en terrenos de su respectivo dominio, siempre que no se esté en el caso previsto en la Sección II del artículo 1º, es decir, las aguas de las lagunas y esteros de las playas que se comuniquen permanente o intermitentemente con el mar. Esa misma ley dispone en el artículo 90 que los dueños y las dueñas de lagunas o terrenos pantanosos o encharcadizos, que quieran desecarlos o sanearlos, podrán extraer de los terrenos públicos, previa la correspondiente autorización de la autoridad local, la tierra y piedra indispensable para el terraplén y demás obras; y el 91 dispone, cuando se declare, por quien corresponda, insalubre una laguna o terreno pantanoso o encharcadizo, procede forzosamente su desecación o saneamiento, y si fuere de propiedad privada se hará saber a los dueños la resolución para que dispongan el desagüe o saneamiento en el plazo que se les señale. Por su parte, el numeral 39 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente indica, las lagunas costeras son parte de los recursos marinos y costeros. En este caso, se pretende titular un inmueble ubicado en Florencia de San Carlos con una medida de 1 hectárea 4735,46 metros cuadrados, destinado a potreros, el cual tiene un lago dentro del área, según el plano catastrado A-1135039-2007 (folio 1º). La naturaleza del fundo citada, coincide con la citada en el documento mediante el cual se hizo constar el traspaso de los derechos posesorios por parte de [Nombre1] a favor de Arlem S.A., el 19 de junio de 2004 (folio 7); no obstante, en el escrito inicial se indica, el fundo se destina a la agricultura y los actos posesorios han consistido en la siembra de yuca, árboles frutales y además, se cita la existencia de pastos (folio 15). Por su parte, el Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria certificó que en el inmueble se ha ejercido el uso conforme del suelo para la actividad que se realiza de acuerdo a la metodología aprobada, recomendándose mantener la restauración forestal en el sector A, ya sea con la técnica de regeneración forestal natural o por medio de la reforestación con especies nativas de la zona; y mantener la cobertura natural del sector C para evitar la degradación física, química y biológica del suelo (folios 54 y 55). El sector donde se localiza el lago en referencia, se identifica en el estudio como "C", el cual en la actualidad es de zona verde y ornamentales (folio 56). En el proceso no se realizó reconocimiento judicial por parte del juzgador debido a que la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias no exige dicha prueba para los inmueble con una medida inferior a 30 hectáreas, así que no pudo precisarse la información anterior; sin embargo, proviniendo ese informe de una autoridad especializada en el uso, la conservación y el mantenimiento de los suelos, tales datos son tenidos por válidos y compartidos en esta instancia. De la prueba testimonial se desprende que la sociedad promovente destina el inmueble a "la reforestación de árboles de roble y cebo (sic), además se construyó un lago" conforme lo señaló la testigo [Nombre2] (folio 69); que cuando el anterior poseedor tenía el fundo, durante 25 años antes de transmitirlo a la promovente, "tenía un lago artificial, una plantación de bambú y árboles maderables de bosque."; y al transmitirlo a la titulante, ésta lo ha estado destinando a "la reforestación y al cultivo de yuca", según el testigo [Nombre3] (folio 70). La testigo [Nombre4] también hizo referencia a la construcción de "un lago artificial" y la siembra de árboles frutales (folio 71). En relación con la naturaleza del lago citado, el Departamento de Aguas del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones -en adelante MINAET- indicó: "La laguna, ubicada en el plano, A-1135039-2007, según causa, número CED1, que corresponde a Información Posesoria, promovida por Arlem S.A.; la misma es alimentada por una quebrada, Sin Nombre, de carácter permanente de dominio público; a la vez, su formación no se puede determinar si es natural o artificial, se presume que el cause fue ampliado para darle formación de laguna. Consultada la Cartografía, el Registro Nacional de Concesiones de Aprovechamiento de Agua y Causes, no se ha extendido ningún permiso para dicha obra, lo que la misma es ilegal. Por lo tanto se determina que se trata de un cause de una quebrada de dominio público." (folio 113). Al proceso también se aportó un informe emitido el 6 de julio de 2009 por el Inspector Cantonal de Aguas de la Municipalidad de San Carlos, ingeniero Alberto Trumena Miranda Guzman, en el que se concluye: "Las aguas existentes en el predio en mención serán utilizadas por los dueños, mientras no existan denuncias al respecto, ni dañen la integridad al público o terceros, quedando por demostrado al no existir denuncias al respecto." (folio 139). En criterio de este Tribunal, el criterio emitido por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAET pierde objetividad al concluir con base en una "presunción" de que el cause del río fue ampliado para formar la laguna; sin embargo, tanto el representante de la promovente como las declaraciones de los testigos y las testigas son coincidentes en que se trata de un lago que se formó artificialmente, lo cual obviamente requeriría un nivel de manipulación de las aguas de la quebrada en referencia para poder lograr esa formación. El segundo informe citado, emitido por el Inspector Cantonal de Aguas parece bastante subjetivo pues es evidente, el hecho de que no existan denuncias, no necesariamente implica que el uso y aprovechamiento que se esté dando a las aguas sea el legalmente correcto. Lo cierto es que, en este caso, al existir en el fundo un lago o una laguna, cualquiera sea su naturaleza, alimentado por aguas de una quebrada que atraviesa el fundo a titular, el cause de ésta y del área ampliada, es de dominio público, como lo es también su zona de protección, constituida en terrenos planos por 10 metros en zona urbana y 15 en zona rural, o de 50 metros en terrenos quebrados, a ambos lados de las corrientes, medidos de forma horizontal, conforme lo disponen los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley Forestal. Independientemente de estarse o no en presencia de un acto delictivo por parte del transmitente de la promovente, lo cierto es que en este caso, en el plano que sirve de base al proceso, no fue excluida el área en referencia, la cual no podría sumarse al terreno pretendido titular por parte de Arlem S.A. Es preciso excluir dicho sector del área a titular mediante la elaboración de un nuevo plano catastrado que disminuya proporcionalmente la zona protectora de la quebrada en referencia y del lago citado. Para tal efecto, estima el Tribunal debe concederse a la promovente el plazo prudencial de dos meses a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, bajo apercibimiento en caso de incumplimiento de emitir resolución de fondo con las pruebas constantes en autos. Por ende, la sentencia emitida fue dictada en forma anticipada, pues el Juzgado no debió dictarla hasta tanto no verificara que se respete el sector que corresponde a la zona protectora de la quebrada que atraviesa el fundo y del lago que se formó.-“