Obligation to prove decennial possession prior to protected area creation for titling in a Forest ReserveDeber de demostrar posesión decenal previa a la creación del área silvestre protegida para titular en Reserva Forestal

**III.-** This Tribunal has repeatedly held that "... A Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired through usucapion (usucapión), in compliance with the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner (posesión a título de dueño), 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 (titulante), aside from lacking a recorded or recordable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the property has not been previously recorded in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to prevent double registry inscription over the same property, or to protect third parties with better right than the title applicant, the Law requires notification to certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Possessory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to treat as parties and therefore to personally notify them from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners (colindantes), since the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them... it is ordered to notify the co-owners or co-owners (condueños or condóminos). Likewise, to safeguard the interests of the State, it is ordered that the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario be treated as parties, for the protection of property subject to the public domain, and of state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law commands that all interested parties, who may have a legitimate interest in the proceeding, be summoned through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial). (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).- The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in its article 7, as well as the Forestry Laws (Leyes Forestales), have sought to protect forest resources from human action, subjecting them to diverse forms of forest management (manejo forestal). Although the titling of such areas has been permitted, which once declared as conservation areas become part of the State's Forest Heritage, compliance with other more qualified requirements is demanded. This leads us, directly, to the concept of ecological possession (posesión ecológica), and to the criterion of the ecological function of forest property (función ecológica de la propiedad forestal). In reiterated rulings, both of the First Chamber of Cassation (Sala Primera de Casación), and of this Superior Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Agrario) itself, the principles that must govern to resolve this type of agro-environmental situations have been established. Our country has been a pioneer in the construction of the institutes of agrarian possession (posesión agraria) and ecological possession. The jurisprudence itself has recognized and developed these institutes, as well as the life cycle of agrarian possession and, recently, ecological possession (within the broader criterion of the ecological function of forest property). The same Jurisprudence has sought to distinguish the entrepreneurial property and possession where an activity directed at cultivating the forest is exercised, from that where an extractive activity is simply carried out, or else, a merely conservational one. In these latter cases, one would be in the presence of a forest property or possession (posesión forestal) (without enterprise). It is precisely in these cases where the Forestry Law comes to establish an entire legal regime for the protection of forest resources, sometimes subjecting the owner obligatorily to the forestry regime (régimen forestal) and in other cases voluntarily. In this way, in forest possession the de facto power is exercised over a property of forest vocation or mostly destined to protect forest resources, without aims of exploitation or, dedicating it to the simple extraction of timber species, through management plans (planes de manejo) to achieve the natural regeneration of the forest. In either case, there would be no development of a plant or animal biological cycle, nor would man assume any risk. That is why the law does not protect, on the contrary it represses, possession through which the forest resources of protected areas are destroyed. Furthermore, it denies the possibility of acquiring possession rights over lands of the national reserves when a harmful action has been exercised against the forest resources. Today, part of the agrarian doctrine affirms the existence of a Forestry Law (Derecho forestal), with characteristics of an organic and complete system, where the institutes of forest property and possession occupy an important place. In Costa Rica, forest property, and also forest possession as a real right derived from the former, or conceived independently, begins to take shape from the Fiscal Code of 1885, which establishes an entire chapter regarding forests whose regulations tend toward their conservation. Subsequently, Ley de Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 of January 6, 1939 incorporates said principles. Then the Ley de Tierras y Colonización in its article 7 expands the national reserves for the protection of such resources.- **VII.** The special legislation regarding the protection of forest property and possession has three stages in our country. The first stage of forest property is framed by Law No. 4465 of November 35, 1969. The second opens through a better-conceived regulation through Law No. 7032 of April 7, 1986, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional. The last operates with the promulgation of Ley Forestal No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, recently amended, by Law No. 7575 of February 13, 1996 (published in scope 21 of La Gaceta No. 72 of Tuesday, April 16, 1996). In them, diverse forest property regimes are contained, and it limits the use and exploitation of resources by private individuals. It is not possible to acquire ownership over lands with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) if one does not demonstrate having protected the forest resource. Its constitutional basis is found in the second paragraph of article 45 of the Constitution. Through limitations of social interest, the institute of property and forest possession is protected. This is not equal to civil possession, nor to agrarian possession; it is a property for conservation, and therefore the possessory acts performed on it must have that purpose.- **VIII.** Forest possession has had its legal regime in the aforementioned Forestry Laws. It falls upon a specific good: lands covered with forests or of forest aptitude (aptitud forestal). The owner or possessor of such goods has the obligation to conserve the forest resources and cannot exploit them economically except under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law. For the legal resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of forest possession, that special legal regime and the principles of Forestry Law must be applied. The Forestry Law establishes as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, according to the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources (Article 1). All lands of forest aptitude and the forests of the country, whether state-owned or reduced to private domain, are subject to the purposes of the law. The forestry regime is the set of provisions, among others, of a legal, economic, and technical nature, established by the law, its regulations, and other norms, that regulate the conservation, renewal, exploitation, and development of the country's forests and lands of forest aptitude. Therefore, to acquire forest property by usucapion, the exercise of forest possession is required. Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, amended by the Forestry Law, established, before its amendment: "Article 7.- When the property referred to in the information is comprised within a zone declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone, the title applicant must demonstrate having exercised decennial possession (posesión decenal) at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree in which the respective wilderness area was created. Properties that are outside these areas and that have forests, may only be titled if the promoter demonstrates having possessed them for ten years or more and having protected said natural resource, on the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated with fences or firebreaks (carriles)." In other words, the de facto power in forest possession falls upon the natural resource "forests" or "lands of forest aptitude", and the possessory acts must be directed toward their protection and conservation. Only if that is demonstrated could lands be acquired or inscribed in favor of said possessors. Otherwise, they would become part of the natural heritage of the state (article 13 of the new Forestry Law), with an unseizable and inalienable character, and their possession shall not give rise to any right in favor of private individuals (article 14 of the new Forestry Law).- **IX.** The Agrarian Tribunal (Tribunal Agrario) had interpreted article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before being amended by the new Forestry Law, in the sense of requiring a personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this sense Votos No. 169 of 9 hours 40 minutes of March 22, 1991 and No. 251 of 14 hours of April 17, 1991)...". However, that interpretation of article 7 of the Forestry Law was challenged as "unconstitutional" by the title applicant herein, and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Voto No. 4587-97 (published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 188 of October 1, 1997) declared, in what is relevant, the following: "The action is partially granted and, consequently, the interpretation of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by Ley Forestal No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which, to title lands comprised in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protective zones, personal possession is required ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating the protected wilderness area, and which does not favor, in these cases, possession transmitted by previous possessors. This ruling is declaratory and its effects retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith...". In such a way that current possessors may take advantage of the transmitted possession... **X.** Law No. 7575 also maintained the restrictions in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in order to title lands comprised in protected areas. In this regard, the current numeral provides: "Article 7.- When the property referred to in the information is comprised within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree in which that wilderness area was created." (Bold is ours). That is, the legislator's intention is that those areas have been maintained protected, conserved during all this time, even before the creation of the Reserves and protected areas...". (Resolution of 14:50 hours of February 20, 1998 which corresponds to Voto No. 113).

**IV.-** In this case, the appellant claims that having exercised possession personally for more than ten years, he did not even require the presentation of witnesses, since the only thing required is to provide the public document through which he acquired his right. On this aspect, he is correct, but in this case we are facing a special situation regulated differently for lands that are within protected wilderness areas, as is the case of the Los Santos Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Los Santos), where the title applicant is obliged to demonstrate a decennial possession prior to the creation of the protected wilderness area, which in this case occurred through Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A of November 12, nineteen seventy-five, that is, he should have demonstrated a possession of at least from November 12, 1965, which in this case, according to what the a quo held, has not been demonstrated, for which reason he rejected the present possessory information proceeding, considering said possession has not occurred. It is not a matter in this case of whether or not the witnesses should be presented as the appellant seems to understand it, but rather of demonstrating the possession before the creation, which in the opinion of this Tribunal has not been proven. Even evaluating the documentary evidence of the transmission of a decennial possession from Mr. Virgilio Fonseca Ceciliano, this takes us back to the year nineteen seventy-seven, a date by which the Los Santos Forest Reserve was even already decreed, which exists as such as of November 12, 1975, that is, it was already subject to being public domain by which he should have demonstrated a possession of at least from November 12, nineteen sixty-five, which has not occurred. For the reasons set forth above, the appellant is not correct, because even though it is true she may utilize the possession exercised by the previous transferors, even so, she failed to demonstrate the decennial possession before the declaration of the Protected Wilderness Area, hence on such grievance, what was resolved must be upheld.

**V.-** Regarding the grievances referring to having exercised the proper use of the soils and that the Ministry of Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente) endorsed the map, this is not sufficient reason to claim that she should not have to comply with the requirements set out; also note that in said endorsement it is clearly indicated that the property is within the Los Santos Forest Reserve created by Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A of November 12, 1975 (see map on folio 16)." They contain various forest property regimes and limit the use and exploitation of resources by private individuals. It is not possible to acquire ownership of lands with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) unless it is demonstrated that the forest resource has been protected. Its constitutional basis is found in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitution. Through limitations of social interest, the institution of property and forest possession (posesión forestal) is protected. This is not the same as civil or agrarian possession; it is a property meant for conservation, and therefore the possessory acts carried out on it must have that purpose.- **VIII.** Forest possession has had its legal regime in the aforementioned Forestry Laws. It applies to a specific asset: lands covered by forests or of forest aptitude (aptitud forestal). The owner or possessor of such assets has the obligation to conserve the forest resources and cannot exploit them economically except under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law. For the legal resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of forest possession, that special legal regime and the principles of Forestry Law must be applied. The Forestry Law establishes as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's **forest resources**, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources (Article 1). All **lands of forest aptitude** and **forests** in the country, whether state-owned or reduced to private domain, are subject to the purposes of the law. The **forest regime (régimen forestal)** is the set of provisions, among others, of a legal, economic, and technical nature, established by the law, its regulations, and other norms, that regulate the conservation, renewal, exploitation, and development of the country's **forests and lands of forest aptitude**. Therefore, to acquire forest property by usucapión, the exercise of forest possession is required. Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, amended by the Forestry Law, established, before its reform: "Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is included within an area declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protected zone, **the title applicant must demonstrate having exercised decennial possession for at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree in which the respective wilderness area was created.** Farms that are outside these areas and that **have forests**, may only be titled if the applicant demonstrates having possessed them for ten years or more and **having protected said natural resource**, on the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated with fences or lanes." In other terms, the de facto power in forest possession falls upon the natural resource "forests" or "lands of forest aptitude," and the possessory acts must be aimed at their protection and conservation. Only if this is demonstrated could lands be acquired or registered in favor of said possessors. Otherwise, they would become part of the natural heritage of the state (Article 13 of the new Forestry Law), with an unattachable and inalienable character, and their possession shall not give rise to any right in favor of private individuals (Article 14 of the new Forestry Law).- **IX.** The Agrarian Tribunal had interpreted Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, before being amended by the new Forestry Law, in the sense of requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in that regard Votos No. 169 of 9:40 a.m. on March 22, 1991 and No. 251 of 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 1991)...". However, that interpretation of Article 7 of the Forestry Law was challenged as "unconstitutional" by the title applicant here, and the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 4587-97 (published in the Judicial Bulletin No. 188 dated October 1, 1997) declared, in the relevant part, the following: "The action is partially granted and, consequently, it is declared that the interpretation of Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment produced by Forestry Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which, to title lands included in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves or protected zones, personal possession is required ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating the protected wilderness area, and that the possession transmitted by previous possessors is not favored in these cases. This judgment is declaratory and its effects are retroactive, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith...". In such a way that current possessors can take advantage of the transmitted possession...**X.** Forestry Law No. 7575 also maintained the restrictions in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, in order to be able to title lands included in protected areas. In that regard, the current provision states: "Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is included within a protected wilderness area, whatever its management category, **the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree in which that wilderness area was created.**" (The bold is ours). That is, the legislator's intention is that these areas have been maintained protected, conserved throughout this entire time, even before the creation of the Reserves and protected areas...". (Resolution of 2:50 p.m. on February 20, 1998 corresponding to Voto No. 113).

**IV.-** In this case, the appellant claims that having exercised possession personally for over ten years, they did not even require the presentation of witnesses, since the only requirement is to provide the public document through which they acquired their right. On that aspect, they are correct, but in this case, we are faced with a special situation regulated differently for lands located within protected wilderness areas, as is the case with the Los Santos Forest Reserve, where the title applicant is obligated to demonstrate a decennial possession prior to the creation of the protected wilderness area, which in this case occurred through Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A of November 12, nineteen seventy-five, that is, they had to demonstrate possession since at least November 12, 1965, which in this case, as the lower court determined, has not been demonstrated, and therefore it rejected this possessory information proceeding, considering that said possession has not occurred. This is not a case of whether or not witnesses should be presented, as the appellant seems to understand it, but rather of demonstrating the possession before the creation, which in the judgment of this Tribunal has not been proven. Even evaluating the documentary evidence of the transmission of a decennial possession by Mr. Virgilio Fonseca Ceciliano, this takes us back to the year nineteen seventy-seven, a date for which the Los Santos Forest Reserve was already decreed, existing as such since November 12, 1975, that is, the land was already subject to public domain, so they had to demonstrate possession since at least November 12, nineteen sixty-five, which has not occurred. For the reasons set forth above, the appellant is not correct, for even though it is true they can use the possession exercised by previous transferors, they still did not manage to prove the decennial possession before the declaration of the Protected Wilderness Area, hence on that grievance the ruling must be confirmed.

**V.-** Regarding the grievances referring to having exercised proper land use and that the Ministry of Environment approved the map, this is not sufficient reason to claim they should not have to comply with the stated requirements; note also that in said approval it is clearly indicated that the property is located within the Los Santos Forest Reserve created by Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A of November 12, 1975 (see map at folio 16)." They contain various forest property regimes and limit the use and exploitation of resources by private individuals. It is not possible to acquire ownership of land with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) unless the protection of the forest resource is demonstrated. Its constitutional foundation is found in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitution. Through limitations of social interest, the institution of forest property and possession is protected. This is not the same as civil or agrarian property; it is a property for conservation, and therefore the possessory acts carried out on it must have that purpose.- **VIII.** Forest possession has had its legal regime in the aforementioned Forestry Laws. It falls upon a specific asset: lands covered by forests or having forest aptitude (aptitud forestal). The owner or possessor of such assets has the obligation to conserve the forest resources and cannot exploit them economically except under the restrictions or limitations imposed by law. For the legal resolution of conflicts arising from the exercise of forest possession, that special legal regime and the principles of Forestry Law must be applied. The Forestry Law establishes as an essential function and priority of the State to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources (recursos forestales), in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources (Article 1). All lands of forest aptitude (terrenos de aptitud forestal) and the forests (bosques) of the country, whether state-owned or reduced to private ownership, are subject to the purposes of the law. The forest regime (régimen forestal) is the set of provisions, among others, of a legal, economic, and technical nature, established by the law, its regulations, and other norms, that regulate the conservation, renewal, exploitation, and development of the country's forests and lands of forest aptitude (bosques y terrenos de aptitud forestal). Therefore, to acquire forest property by adverse possession (usucapión), the exercise of forest possession is required. Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, amended by the Forestry Law, established, before its amendment: "Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is included within an area declared a national park, biological reserve, forest reserve, or protective zone, the title applicant must demonstrate having exercised decennial possession at least ten years prior to the effective date of the respective law or decree creating the respective wilderness area. Properties outside these areas that have forests may only be titled if the applicant demonstrates having possessed them for ten years or more and having protected said natural resource, on the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated with fences or lanes." In other terms, the de facto power in forest possession falls upon the natural resource "forests" or "lands of forest aptitude," and the possessory acts must be directed toward their protection and conservation. Only if this is demonstrated could lands be acquired or registered in favor of such possessors. Otherwise, they would become part of the state's natural heritage (Article 13 of the new Forestry Law), being unseizable and inalienable, and their possession shall not give rise to any right in favor of private individuals (Article 14 of the new Forestry Law).- **IX.** The Agrarian Tribunal had interpreted Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, before being amended by the new Forestry Law, as requiring personal possession, exercised ten years prior to the creation of the forest reserve or protected area (See in this regard Rulings No. 169 of 9:40 a.m. on March 22, 1991, and No. 251 of 2:00 p.m. on April 17, 1991)...". However, that interpretation of Article 7 of the Forestry Law was challenged as "unconstitutional" by the applicant herein, and the Constitutional Chamber, in Ruling No. 4587-97 (published in Judicial Bulletin No. 188 dated October 1, 1997), declared, as relevant, the following: "The action is partially granted and, consequently, the interpretation of Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law No. 139 of July 14, 1941, whose text corresponds to the amendment made by Forestry Law No. 7174 of June 28, 1990, is unconstitutional, according to which, to title lands included in national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, or protective zones, personal possession is required with ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating the protected wilderness area, and that it does not favor, in these cases, possession transmitted by previous possessors. This judgment is declaratory and its effects are retroactive, without prejudice to good faith acquired rights...". Such that current possessors can benefit from transmitted possession... **X.** Forestry Law No. 7575 also maintained the restrictions in the Possessory Information Law for titling lands included in protected areas. In this regard, the current provision states: "Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is included within a protected wilderness area, whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of legal rights over decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating that wilderness area." (Emphasis added). That is, the legislator's intention is that these areas have been kept protected, conserved during all this time, even before the creation of the Reserves and protected areas...". (Resolution of 2:50 p.m. on February 20, 1998, corresponding to Ruling No. 113).

**IV.-** In this case, the appellant claims that having exercised possession personally for more than ten years, they did not even require the presentation of witnesses, since all that is required is to provide the public document through which they acquired their right. On this point, they are correct, but in this case, we are dealing with a special situation regulated differently for lands located within protected wilderness areas, as is the case of the Los Santos Forest Reserve, where the title applicant is obligated to demonstrate decennial possession prior to the creation of the protected wilderness area, which in this case occurred through Executive Decree 5389-A of November 12, nineteen seventy-five; that is, they must have demonstrated possession from at least November 12, 1965, which in this case, according to what the lower court held, has not been demonstrated, and thus it rejected the present possessory information proceeding, considering that such possession has not occurred. This is not a case about whether or not witnesses should be presented, as the appellant seems to understand, but rather about demonstrating possession before the creation, which in this Tribunal's opinion has not been proven. Even weighing the documentary evidence of the transmission of decennial possession from Mr. Virgilio Fonseca Ceciliano, that takes us back to nineteen seventy-seven, a date by which the Los Santos Forest Reserve was already decreed, existing as such as of November 12, 1975; that is, it was already subject to public domain, so possession from at least November 12, nineteen sixty-five had to be demonstrated, which has not occurred. For the reasons set forth above, the appellant is not correct, because although it is true that they may use the possession exercised by previous transferors, even so, they failed to demonstrate decennial possession before the declaration of the Protected Wilderness Area, and therefore, regarding this grievance, the decision must be upheld.

**V.-** As for the grievances claiming that conforming use of the soils has been exercised and that the Ministry of the Environment approved the map, this is not sufficient reason to claim that they should not comply with the stated requirements; furthermore, note that in said approval it is clearly indicated that the property is located within the Los Santos Forest Reserve, created by Executive Decree 5389-A of November 12, 1975 (see map on folio 16).”

“III.- Este Tribunal de forma reiterada ha considerado 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 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... 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).- La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, en su artículo 7, así como las Leyes Forestales han procurado proteger los recursos forestales de la acción humana, sometiéndolos a diversas formas de manejo forestal. Aunque se ha permitido la titulación de dichas áreas, que ya declaradas como áreas de conservación pasan a formar parte del Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, se exige el cumplimiento de otros requisitos más calificados. Eso nos conduce, directamente al concepto de posesión ecológica, y al criterio de la función ecológica de la propiedad forestal. En reiteradas sentencias, tanto de la Sala Primera de Casación, como del mismo Tribunal Superior Agrario, se han establecido los principios que deben regir para resolver éste tipo de situaciones agro-ambientales. Nuestro país ha sido pionero en la construcción de los institutos de la posesión agraria y la posesión ecológica. La misma jurisprudencia ha reconocido y desarrollado estos institutos, así como el ciclo de vida de la posesión agraria y, recientemente de la posesión ecológica (dentro del más amplio criterio de la función ecológica de la propiedad forestal). La misma Jurisprudencia ha querido distinguir la propiedad y posesión empresarial donde se ejercita una actividad dirigida al cultivo del bosque, de aquella donde simplemente se realiza una actividad extractiva o bien, meramente conservativa. En estos últimos casos se estaría en presencia de una propiedad o posesión forestal (sin empresa). Precisamente es en estos casos donde la Ley Forestal viene a establecer todo un régimen jurídico para la protección de los recursos forestales, sometiendo algunas veces al propietario en forma obligatoria al régimen forestal y en otros casos en forma voluntaria. De esa forma, en la posesión forestal el poder de hecho se ejerce sobre un bien de vocación forestal o en su mayor parte destinado a proteger los recursos forestales, sin miras a su explotación o bien, dedicándolo a la simple extracción de especies maderables, a través de planes de manejo para lograr la regeneración natural del bosque. En uno y otro caso no existiría el desarrollo de un ciclo biológico vegetal o animal, ni asumiría el hombre ningún riesgo. Es por eso que la ley no tutela, al contrario reprime, la posesión a través de la cual se destruyan los recursos forestales de áreas protegidas. Además niega la posibilidad de adquirir derechos de posesión sobre tierras de las reservas nacionales cuando se ha ejercido una acción dañina en contra de los recursos forestales. Hoy, parte de la doctrina agrarista afirma la existencia de un Derecho forestal, con particularidades de sistema orgánico y completo, donde ocupan un lugar importante los institutos de la propiedad y posesión forestal. En Costa Rica la propiedad forestal, y también la posesión forestal como derecho real derivado de aquella, o bien concebido en forma independiente, se comienza a perfilar desde el Código Fiscal de 1885, que establece todo un capítulo en cuanto a bosques cuyas regulaciones tienden a su conservación. Posteriormente la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos No. 13 del 6 de enero de 1939 incorpora dichos principios. Luego la Ley de Tierras y Colonización en su artículo 7 amplía las reservas nacionales para la protección de tales recursos.-VII. La legislación especial en cuanto a la tutela de la propiedad y posesión forestales tiene tres etapas en nuestro país. La primera etapa de la propiedad forestal se enmarca con la Ley No. 4465 del 35 de noviembre de 1969. La segunda se abre a través de una normativa mejor concebida a través de la Ley No. 7032 del 7 de abril de 1986, la cual fue posteriormente declarada inconstitucional. La última opera con la promulgación de la Ley Forestal No. 7174 del 28 de junio de 1990, reformada recientemente, por Ley No. 7575 del 13 de febrero de 1996 (publicada en el alcance 21 de La Gaceta No. 72 del martes 16 de abril de 1996). En ellas, se contienen diversos regímenes de propiedad forestal, y limita el uso y aprovechamiento de los recursos por los particulares. No es posible adquirir la titularidad sobre terrenos con cobertura boscosa si no se demuestra haber protegido el recurso forestal. Su fundamento constitucional se encuentra en el párrafo segundo del artículo 45 de la Constitución. A través de limitaciones de interés social se protege el instituto de la propiedad y la posesión forestal. Esta no es igual a la civil, ni a la agraria, se trata de una propiedad para conservar, y por tanto los actos posesorios que en ella se realicen deben tener esa finalidad.- VIII. La posesión forestal ha tenido su régimen jurídico en las Leyes Forestales mencionadas. Recae sobre un bien específico: los terrenos cubiertos de bosques o de aptitud forestal. El propietario o poseedor de tales bienes tiene la obligación de conservar los recursos forestales y no los puede aprovechar económicamente sino bajo las restricciones o limitaciones impuestas por la ley. Para la solución jurídica de conflictos que nazcan del ejercicio de la posesión forestal, se debe aplicar ese régimen jurídico especial y los principios del Derecho forestal. La Ley Forestal establece como función esencial y prioridad del Estado, velar por la protección, la conservación, el aprovechamiento, la industrialización, la administración y el fomento de los recursos forestales del país, de acuerdo con el principio de uso racional de los recursos naturales renovables.(Artículo 1). Todos los terrenos de aptitud forestal y los bosques del país, ya sea estatales o que estén reducidos a dominio particular, quedan sometidos a los fines de la ley. El régimen forestal es el conjunto de disposiciones, entre otras, de carácter jurídico, económico y técnico, establecidas por la ley, su reglamento y demás normas, que regulen la conservación, la renovación, el aprovechamiento y el desarrollo de los bosques y terrenos de aptitud forestal del país. Por ello, para adquirir la propiedad forestal por usucapión, se requiere el ejercicio de la posesión forestal. El artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones posesorias, reformado por la Ley Forestal, establecía, antes de su reforma: "Artículo 7.- Cuando el inmueble a que se refiere la información esté comprendido dentro de una zona declarada parque nacional, reserva biológico, reserva forestal o zona protectora, el titulante tendrá que demostrar haber ejercido la posesión decenal con por lo menos diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la respectiva ley o decreto en que se creó la respectiva área silvestre. Las fincas que estén fuera de esas áreas y que tengan bosques, solo podrán ser tituladas si el promovente demuestra haberlas poseído por diez años o más y haber protegido dicho recurso natural, en el entendido de que el inmueble tendrá que estar debidamente deslindado con cercas o carriles." En otros términos, el poder de hecho en la posesión forestal recae sobre el recurso natural "bosques" o "terrenos de aptitud forestal", y los actos posesorios deben ir encaminados a su protección y conservación. Sólo si se demuestra eso podría adquirirse o inscribirse terrenos a favor de dichos poseedores. De lo contrario, quedarían formando parte del patrimonio natural del estado (artículo 13 de la nueva Ley Forestal), con carácter inembargable e inalienable, y su posesión no causará ningún derecho a favor de los particulares (artículo 14 de la nueva Ley Forestal).- IX. El Tribunal Agrario, había interpretado el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, antes de ser reformado por la nueva Ley Forestal, en el sentido de exigir una posesión personal, ejercida con diez años de antelación a la creación de la reserva forestal o área protegida (Véase en tal sentido los Votos No. 169 de las 9 horas 40 minutos del 22 de marzo de 1991 y No. 251 de las 14 horas del 17 de abril de 1991)...". Sin embargo, esa interpretación del artículo 7 de la Ley Forestal, fue cuestionada de "inconstitucional", por la aquí titulante, y la Sala Constitucional, en Voto No. 4587-97 (publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 188 de fecha 1 de octubre de 1997) declaró, en lo que interesa, lo siguiente: "Se declara parcialmente con lugar la acción y, en consecuencia, que es inconstitucional la interpretación del artículo 7 de la Ley de informaciones Posesorias No. 139 del 14 de julio de 1941, cuyo texto corresponde a la reforma producida por la Ley Forestal No. 7174 del 28 de junio de 1990, de acuerdo con la cual para titular terrenos comprendidos en parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, reservas forestales o zonas protectoras, se requiere posesión personal con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto que crea el área silvestre protegida, y que no favorece en estos casos la posesión transmitida por anteriores poseedores. Esta sentencia es declarativa y sus efectos retroactivos, sin perjuicio de derechos adquiridos de buena fe...". De manera tal que los poseedores actuales pueden aprovechar la posesión trasmitida...X. La Ley Forestal No. 7575, también mantuvo las restricciones en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, para poder titular terrenos comprendidos en áreas protegidas. Al respecto dispone el actual numeral: "Artículo 7.-Cuando el inmueble al que se refiera la información esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre."(La negrita es nuestra). Es decir, la intención del legislador es que esas áreas se hayan mantenido protegidas, conservadas durante todo este tiempo, incluso antes de la creación de las Reservas y áreas protegidas...". (Resolución de las 14:50 horas del 20 de febrero de 1998 que responde al Voto No. 113).

IV.- En este caso reclama el apelante que al haber ejercido la posesión en forma personal por más de diez años ni siquiera requería la presentación de testigos, pues lo único que se exige es aportar el documento público mediante el cual adquirió su derecho. Sobre tal aspecto lleva razón, pero en este caso estamos ante una situación especial regulada de manera distinta para los terrenos que se encuentren dentro de áreas silvestres protegidas como lo es el caso de la Reserva Forestal Los Santos, en donde el titulante está en la obligación de demostrar una posesión decenal previa a la creación del área silvestre protegida, la cual en este caso se dio mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A del 12 de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y cinco, es decir debió de demostrar una posesión de al menos desde 12 de noviembre de 1965, lo cual en este caso según lo tuvo el a quo no se ha demostrado por lo que rechazó la presente diligencia de información posesoria, al considerar dicha posesión no se ha dado. No se trata en este caso en que se deba o no presentar los testigos como parece entenderlo la apelante, sino más bien de demostrar la posesión antes de la creación, lo cual a criterio de este Tribunal no se ha probado. Aún valorando la documental de la transmisión de una posesión decenal de parte del señor Virgilio Fonseca Ceciliano, ello nos retrotrae al año de mil novecientos setenta y siete, fecha para la cual incluso ya estaba decretada La Reserva Forestal Los Santos la cual existe como tal a partir de 12 de noviembre de 1975, es decir ya estaba afecto a la demanialidad por lo que debió demostrar una posesión de al menos desde 12 de noviembre de mil novecientos sesenta y cinco, lo cual no ha ocurrido. Por las razones anteriormente expuestas no lleva razón la recurrente, pues si bien es cierto puede utilizar la posesión ejercida por los anteriores transmitentes, aún así no logró demostrar la posesión decenal antes de la declaratoria del Area Silvestre Protegida, de ahí sobre tal agravio deba confirmarse lo resuelto.

V.- En Cuanto a los agravios referidos a que se ha ejercido el uso conforme de los suelos y de que el Ministerio del Ambiente visó el plano ello no es motivo suficiente como para pretender no debe cumplir con los requisitos expuestos, nótese además que en dicho visado se indica claramente que el el inmueble se encuentra dentro de la Reserva Forestal Los Santos creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 5389-A de 12 de noviembre de 1975 (ver plano a folio 16).”