Nullity of deed that included maritime-terrestrial zone as private propertyNulidad de escritura que incorporó zona marítimo terrestre como propiedad privada

IV.ON THE OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. The State considers that deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, started on folio 37 front of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, must be partially annulled, because it updated boundaries including the maritime-terrestrial zone as private property, 2) Consequently, the registration entry for properties of the Partido de Puntarenas, No. 79664-000 and 78676-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., must be cancelled for including the 150 meters of restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone; the registration of cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante must also be annulled, and as a consequence of the foregoing, the illegal constructions located in the restricted zone on property No. 79664-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A., must be demolished, with the cost of demolition borne by said corporation, 3) At the same time, it requests that the defendants who currently hold material possession (posesión material) of the properties in dispute be ordered to pay the damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) caused by the illegal withholding (detención ilegal) of the public domain.

V.BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE. Regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, Article 9 of the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre defines this zone as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, whatever their nature, measured horizontally from the lines of the ordinary high tide (pleamar ordinaria) and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It includes the islands, islets, and maritime rocks, as well as all land with natural formation that rises above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Isla del Coco is excepted, which shall be under the direct domain and possession of the State, and those other islands whose domain or administration is determined in said law or in special laws. Regarding the zones that make up the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, according to numeral 10 of the same Law, it can be stated that it is composed of two sections: 1) The public zone, which is the strip of fifty meters wide from the ordinary high tide and the areas that are uncovered during low tide, as well as the islets, rocks, and other small areas and natural formations that rise out of the sea. Likewise, as stated in canon 11 of the cited Law, the zone occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and estuaries of the national territory constitutes the public zone, whatever its extension. 2) The restricted zone, constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters or by the other lands in the case of islands, and over which, as will be seen, concessions (concesiones) may be granted. As Article 1 of the aforementioned Law indicates, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the National Heritage, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. This has allowed for the precise affirmation of the public domain (demanial) and public character of said zone and, as a consequence thereof, its imprescriptibility, inalienability, and non-waivability, as well as the fact that it is outside the commerce of persons. It is because of this character as a public domain property that the lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be subject to possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias) and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means, (see Articles 7 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). However, the fact that it is a public domain property does not mean that private individuals, in a situation of special subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the contrary: as will be elaborated below, by means of a concession (in the restricted zone), private individuals can utilize the maritime-terrestrial zone. It is important to highlight that, according to Article 12 of the aforementioned Law, in the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is prohibited, without the due legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna, to demarcate with fences, lanes, or in any other form, to erect buildings or installations, to cut trees, extract products, or carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. Administration and stewardship of the maritime-terrestrial zone: As already indicated, the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. However, it is clear that pursuant to the already cited Ley 6043, competencies of different organs and entities converge over this zone. In this sense, it is possible to distinguish jurisdictional areas that involve, as far as this process is concerned, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Municipalities, and Procuraduría General de la República.

VI.ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT. This Tribunal considers that the conduct challenged by the State's representation -namely: a) Partially deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, started on folio 37 front of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, in that it updated boundaries including the maritime-terrestrial zone as private property, b) The registration entry of property No. 79664 sequence zero zero zero and 78676 sequence zero zero zero, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., c) The registration of cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, and d) The illegality of the constructions located within the public zone, which is the strip of fifty meters wide from the ordinary high tide on property No.

79664-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons. The property subject to the proceeding is a public domain asset (bien demanial) that forms part of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). In accordance with official letter No. DGT-182-12, dated March 26, 2012, from the Department of Geodesy and Topography of the IGN, visible on folio 255, official letters No. 062-2010 and other notes signed by the Municipal Council of Cóbano de Puntarenas, visible on folios 69 to 76, and the technical studies issued by the Cadastral Georeferencing Unit of the Technical Cadastral Department of the Real Property Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) visible on folios 257 to 274, confirmed in the trial hearing by the official Guillermo Rodríguez Rodríguez, of that Department, expert opinion rendered by the Surveyor Luis Ángel González Alfaro, visible on folios 295-399, confirmed in the oral and public trial hearing held by this Court on May 9, 2013, this Tribunal has deemed it accredited, that the land registered in the name of the companies Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, of the Partido de Puntarenas, and which are farm No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000, <u>are located within the area of the maritime terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano of the canton of Puntarenas.</u> It should be noted that this circumstance was evident since Mr. Aníbal Rojas González registered, on March 21, 1951, through the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) procedure, farm number 9345-00 of the Partido de Puntarenas. In that first registration, the civil judge indicated that the farm bordered on the south with the maritime mile, that is, it respected the maritime terrestrial zone, did not include it, which is reflected in Cadastral Map No. 6-10879-1994; therefore, there is no doubt for this Tribunal that the properties registered under real folio registration numbers No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, constitute a public domain asset (bien de dominio público) and therefore, unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable, which forms part of the restricted area (zona restringida) of the maritime terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas. In this case, it has been accredited through the admitted documentary evidence, which is what appears in the judicial file and the bundle identified as file of the Municipality of Cóbano number 237 of the year 87, that the properties registered under real folio registration numbers No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, are located in the restricted area (zona restringida) of the maritime terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas, <i>(see folios 257-274 and 295-399 of the judicial file)</i>, a reason why, and in accordance with the rules previously indicated, it was also not possible for the defendant companies to have legally acquired those lands, through deeds granted between private parties. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that properties No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, <u>form part of the maritime terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas,</u> pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). By reason of the foregoing, it is improper that the farms of the Partido de Puntarenas No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 were registered in the Real Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble) in the name of the defendant companies, because it is a public domain asset (bien demanial) that forms part of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). Consequently, there is a titling of a public domain asset in favor of private parties, which is substantially contrary to the legal system. By reason of the foregoing, properties No. 79664-000, No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, and cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, for being substantially non-conforming with the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Law of Public Administration; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43 and 55 of the Regulation of the Public Registry. In conclusion of the foregoing and adjusted to the provisions of Articles 456 and 472 subsection 2) of the Civil Code, as requested by the State, the partial cancellation is ordered of deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, starting on folio 37 front of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, insofar as it updated boundaries including the maritime terrestrial zone as private property, the registration entry of farm No. 79664-000 and 78676-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, as well as the registration entry of cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante.

**VII. ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS.** Upon an ex officio review, this Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the State has sufficient active standing to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, since it is the owner of the public domain asset (bien de dominio público) subject to this proceeding, and to whom it falls to exercise actions aimed at protecting, recovering, overseeing, and safeguarding the assets that form part of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 of the Political Constitution, 1 and 4 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone; 3.i of the Organic Law of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A, Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, and Arnoldo Rojas Vargas, as provided in Article 12, subsection 3) of the cited Code, given that the properties subject to the proceeding were titled in favor of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A; on the other hand, the interest is maintained, as long as the contested conduct continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution that protects it, since in the case of recovery and safeguarding of public domain assets (bienes de dominio público), no statute of limitations or lapse periods apply, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of assets. This is expressly established by Articles 1 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone, and Article 34, subsection 2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right, to petition for the annulment of the contested acts; besides the foregoing, we must say, that from the body of evidence, both expert and documentary, sufficient elements of conviction emerge to conclude with the required degree of certainty that, in its core, the factual hypothesis presented by the State. Corollary of the foregoing, the lawsuit filed by the State against Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A, Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, and Arnoldo Rojas Vargas is granted; the partial nullity is decreed of deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, starting on folio 37 front of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, insofar as it updated boundaries including the maritime terrestrial zone as private property, for including the 150 meters of the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the maritime terrestrial zone, the cancellation of the registration entry of farm No. 79664-000 and 78676-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, for illegally including the 150 meters of the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the maritime terrestrial zone, the registration of cadastral map number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, and consequently, the constructions located in the **public zone (zona pública)** must be demolished, but not the constructions that are in the so-called **restricted zone (zona restringida)** , constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred and fifty meters, over which, concessions or use permits may be granted by the local Municipality; in the present case, with the party statement given by Mr. Konstantinos Tzavaras, he related to the Tribunal, how he and his brother of Greek nationality, came to Costa Rica, and invested their financial savings in the tourism activity, and to carry out the constructions he requested the respective permits from the representative of the District Council of Cóbano de Puntarenas; this party evidence the State did not discredit, and neither did the District Council of Cóbano, although it was joined as an interested third party, even failed to attend the trial hearing to assert any right in that restricted zone; for this reason, this Tribunal, dismisses the State's claim for the demolition of the constructions that the company Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, may have carried out within that restricted area.

**VIII. Regarding the payment of damages.** The State requests that the defendants who currently hold material possession of the assets in dispute, be condemned to pay the damages caused by the illegal detention of the public domain. Regarding the damages, it depends on the evidence provided, which will be analyzed in accordance with the principle of sound criticism (sana crítica), doctrine of Article 82 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, in relation to canons 317 and 318 of the Civil Procedure Code, norms that indicate, the different means of proof, which are broad so that the parties can comply with the legal requirement of demonstrating the facts they affirm. The foregoing implies, that it is not enough to allege a series of facts, but they must also be demonstrated in a clear, precise, and concordant manner, so that they can be accepted. For the judge, the evidence will be that which demonstrates what really happened, it is the search for the truth of the facts, in order to give them a legal qualification. In this understanding, the obligation to prove the damages falls on the State. The compensation for damages, shall only comprise those which, as an immediate and direct consequence of the failure to fulfill the obligation, may have been caused, or must necessarily be compensated. The damage produced must be recognized as certain and effective, that is, whose existence is duly accredited; furthermore, the damage must be effective, concrete, and assessable. Both doctrine and jurisprudence in this regard have dealt with analyzing the characteristics and requirements that a damage must meet to be capable of generating liability. Thus, by effective, we understand a damage that is certain, which implies that it may be current or future (if this is verifiable through the rules of science or technique, or the elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience) and not one that is eventual or simply possible. In the present case, we are talking about a possible damage that may have been caused by the illegal detention of the public domain; for this Tribunal, the State did not manage during the proceeding to prove those damages with any useful evidence; its effort focused on determining that the registry acts that gave rise to the registration of those properties were null, as this Collegiate Body effectively declared; in relation to the economic emoluments claimed, these have no legal or technical support that they have been caused, or could be presumed by the mere say-so of the state representation; therefore, as they are not accredited through the rules of science or technique, they are uncertain and unverifiable facts, and must therefore be rejected." Now, the fact that it is a public domain asset does not mean that private individuals, in a situation of special subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the contrary: as will be expanded upon below, by means of a concession, (in the restricted zone) private individuals may utilize the maritime-terrestrial zone. It is important to emphasize that, pursuant to Article 12 of the aforementioned Law, in the maritime-terrestrial zone it is prohibited, without the proper legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna, to demarcate with fences, lanes, or in any other manner, to erect buildings or installations, to cut trees, to extract products, or to carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. Administration and stewardship of the maritime-terrestrial zone: As already indicated, the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. However, it is clear that pursuant to the aforementioned Ley 6043, the competencies of different agencies and entities converge over this zone. In this regard, it is possible to distinguish areas of competence that involve, as concerns this proceeding, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, the Municipalities, and the Procuraduría General de la República.

**VI. ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT.** This Tribunal considers that the conduct challenged by the State's representation—namely: **a)** Partially, Deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, entered at folio 37, front, of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, insofar as it updated boundaries, including the maritime-terrestrial zone as private property; **b)** The registration entry (asiento de inscripción) of property (finca) No. 79664, sequence zero zero zero, and 78676, sequence zero zero zero, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A.; **c)** The registration of cadastral plan (plano catastrado) number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante; and **d)** The illegality of the constructions located within the public zone, which is the strip of fifty meters in width measured from the ordinary high-water mark on property No. 79664-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A.—are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons. The real property (inmueble) subject to this proceeding is a demanial asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and of the State's Natural Heritage. According to official communication (oficio) No. DGT-182-12, dated March 26, 2012, from the Department of Geodesy and Topography of the IGN, visible at folio 255, official communications No. 062-2010 and other notes issued by the Concejo Municipal de Cóbano de Puntarenas, visible at folios 69 to 76, and the technical studies issued by the Cadastral Georeferencing Unit of the Technical Cadastral Department of the Registro Inmobiliario, visible at folios 257 to 274, confirmed at the trial hearing by official Guillermo Rodríguez Rodríguez, of that Department, the expert opinion rendered by Surveyor (Topógrafo) Luis Ángel González Alfaro, visible at folios 295-399, confirmed at the oral and public trial hearing held by this Panel on May 9, 2013, this Tribunal has deemed it established that the land registered in the name of the companies Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., of the Partido de Puntarenas, being property No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000, *are located within the area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano in the canton of Puntarenas.* It is worth highlighting that this circumstance was evident since Mr. Aníbal Rojas González registered property number 9345-00 of the Partido de Puntarenas on March 21, 1951, through the Información Posesoria procedure. In that first registration, the civil judge indicated that the property bordered the nautical mile to the south, meaning, it respected the maritime-terrestrial zone, and did not include it, which is reflected in Cadastral Plan No. 6-10879-1994. There is no doubt, therefore, for this Tribunal that the real properties registered under the real folio registration numbers (matrícula del folio real) No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, constitute a public domain asset and, therefore, are unseizable (inembargable), imprescriptible, and inalienable, forming part of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas. In this case, it has been established through the admitted documentary evidence, which is that contained in the judicial file and the dossier identified as file of the Municipalidad de Cóbano number 237 of the year 87, that the real properties registered under real folio registration numbers No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, are located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas, *(see folios 257-274 and 295-399 of the judicial file)*, a reason for which, and in accordance with the previously cited rules, it was also not possible for the defendant companies to have been able to acquire those lands in a legal manner, through deeds granted between private individuals. For all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that real properties No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, referenced to cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, *form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the district of Cóbano de Puntarenas,* pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Consequently, the registration in the Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, in the name of the defendant companies, of properties of the Partido de Puntarenas No. 79664-000 and No. 78676-000 is improper, because they constitute a demanial asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone. As a result, there exists a titling (titulación) of a public domain asset in favor of private individuals, which is substantially contrary to the legal system. Consequently, real properties No. 79664-000, No. 78676-000 of the Partido de Puntarenas, and cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are substantially discordant with the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Código Civil; 27 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público; and 34, 43, and 55 of the Reglamento del Registro Público. In conclusion of the foregoing, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 456 and 472, subsection 2) of the Código Civil, as requested by the State, the partial cancellation is ordered of Deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, entered at folio 37, front, of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, insofar as it updated boundaries, including the maritime-terrestrial zone as private property, the registration entry of property No. 79664-000 and 78676-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., as well as the registration entry of cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante.

**VII. ON THE SUBSTANTIVE PREREQUISITES.** From an ex officio review, this Tribunal reaches the conclusion that the State possesses sufficient active standing to participate in this proceeding pursuant to Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since it is the owner of the public domain asset subject to this proceeding, and is responsible for bringing actions aimed at protecting, recovering through replevin (reivindicar), overseeing, and stewarding assets that form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 of the Constitución Política, 1 and 4 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 3.i of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A., Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A., Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., and Arnoldo Rojas Vargas, as provided by Article 12, subsection 3) of the cited Code, given that the real properties subject to the proceeding were titled in favor of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A.; on the other hand, the interest is maintained, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution that protects it, since, in the case of the recovery and stewardship of public domain assets, no limitation periods for prescription or expiry apply, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of asset. Articles 1 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre and Article 34, subsection 2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo expressly establish this. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right to petition for the annulment of the challenged acts. In addition to the foregoing, we must state that from the body of evidence, both expert and documentary, sufficient elements of conviction emerge to conclude, with the required degree of certainty, that, in its core, the factual hypothesis presented by the State is established. As a corollary of the foregoing, the claim filed by the State against Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A., Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A., Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., and Arnoldo Rojas Vargas is declared with merit. The partial nullity is decreed of Deed No. 29 of March 7, 1988, entered at folio 37, front, of volume 16 of the protocol of Notary Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, insofar as it updated boundaries, including the maritime-terrestrial zone as private property, for including the 150 meters of the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone; the cancellation of the registration entry of property No. 79664-000 and 78676-000, in the name of Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. and Inversiones Fiorelta S.A., for illegally including the 150 meters of the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone; the registration of cadastral plan number P-36289-1992 in the name of Oscar Alfaro Escalante; and, in consequence, the constructions located in the **public zone** must be demolished, but not the constructions found in the so-called **restricted zone**, constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters, over which concessions or use permits may be granted by the local Municipalidad. In the present case, with the party-witness declaration (declaración de parte) given by Mr. Konstantinos Tzavaras, who related to the Tribunal how he and his brother, of Greek nationality, came to Costa Rica and invested their economic savings in tourism activity, and that in order to carry out the constructions, he requested the respective permits from the representative of the Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano de Puntarenas. The State did not discredit this party evidence, nor did the Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano, although it was joined as an interested third party, even attend the trial hearing to assert any right over that restricted zone; therefore, this Tribunal declares without merit the State's claim for the demolition of the constructions that the company Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A. may have performed within that restricted area.

**VIII. In relation to the payment of damages and losses (daños y perjuicios).** The State requests that the defendants who currently hold the material possession of the assets in dispute be ordered to pay the damages and losses caused by the illegal detention of the public domain. Regarding damages and losses, this depends on the evidence provided, which will be analyzed in accordance with the principle of sound critical judgment (sana crítica), doctrine of Article 82 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in relation to canons 317 and 318 of the Código Procesal Civil, rules that indicate the different means of proof, which are ample so that the parties can meet the legal requirement of demonstrating the facts they assert. The foregoing implies that it is not enough to allege a series of facts; they must also be demonstrated in a clear, precise, and concordant manner so that they can be accepted. For the judge, evidence will be that which demonstrates what truly happened; it is the search for the truth of the facts, in order to then give them a legal qualification. In this understanding, the State has the obligation to prove the damages and losses. Compensation for damages and losses will only comprise those that have been caused, or must necessarily be compensated, as an immediate and direct consequence of the failure to fulfill the obligation. The damage produced must be recognized as certain and effective, that is, its existence must be duly proven; moreover, the damage must be effective, concrete, and assessable. Both doctrine and jurisprudence in this regard have dealt with analyzing the characteristics and requirements that damage must have to be capable of generating liability. Thus, by effective, we understand damage that is certain, which implies that it can be current or future (if this is verifiable through the rules of science or technique, or through elementary principles of justice, logic, or convenience) and not one that is merely eventual or simply possible. In the present case, we are speaking of possible damage that may have been caused by the illegal detention of the public domain. For this Tribunal, the State did not manage, during the proceeding, to prove those damages and losses with any serviceable evidence; its work focused on determining that the registry acts that gave rise to the registration of those real properties were null, as this Collegiate Body effectively declared. In relation to the economic emoluments claimed, these have no legal or technical support that they were caused, nor could they be presumed by the mere assertion of the state representation; therefore, by not being proven through the rules of science or technique, they are uncertain and unverifiable facts, and must be rejected.”

“IV. SOBRE EL OBJETO DEL PROCESO. El Estado estima que debe anularse parcial la escritura No. 29 del 7 de marzo de 1988, iniciada al folio 37 frente del tomo 16 del protocolo del Notario Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, por cuanto actualizó linderos incluyendo la zona marítima terrestre como propiedad privada, 2) En consecuencia debe cancelarse el asiento de inscripción de las fincas del Partido de Puntarenas, No. 79664-000 y 78676-000, a nombre de los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, por incluir los 150 metros de zona restringida de la zona marítima terrestre, se anule también la inscripción del plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, y como consecuencia de lo anterior, las construcciones ilegales ubicadas en la zona restringida en la fina No. 79664-000, a nombre de Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, deben ser demolidas. Con el costo del derribo a cargo de dicha sociedad anónima, 3) A la vez, solicita que los demandados que en la actualidad ostenten la posesión material de los bienes en discusión sean condenados a pagar los daños y perjuicios ocasionados por la detención ilegal del dominio público.

V.BREVES CONSIDERACIONES SOBRE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. En cuanto a la zona marítima terrestre, el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, define esta zona como la franja de doscientos metros de ancho a todo lo largo de los litorales atlántico y pacífico de la República, cualquiera que sea su naturaleza, medidos horizontalmente a partir de las líneas de la pleamar ordinaria y los terrenos y rocas que deje el mar en descubierto en la marea baja. Comprende las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos así como toda tierra con formación natural que sobresalga del nivel del océano dentro del mar territorial de la República. Se exceptúa la Isla del Coco que estará bajo el dominio y posesión directa del Estado y aquéllas otras islas cuyo dominio o administración se determinen en dicha ley o en leyes especiales. En relación a las zonas que integran la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, conforme al numeral 10 de la misma Ley, puede indicarse que se componen de dos secciones: 1) La zona pública, que es la franja de cincuenta metros de ancho a contar de la pleamar ordinaria y las áreas que quedan al descubierto durante la marea baja, así como los islotes, peñascos y demás área pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalgan del mar. Asimismo, según lo indica el canon 11 de la citada Ley, constituye zona pública, sea cual fuere su extensión, la zona ocupada por todos los manglares de los litorales continentales e insulares y esteros del territorio nacional. 2) La zona restringida, constituida por la franja de los ciento cincuenta metros restantes o por los demás terrenos en casos de islas, y sobre la cual, como se verá, pueden otorgarse concesiones. Tal y como lo señala el artículo 1 de la mencionada Ley, la zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del Patrimonio Nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Ello ha permitido afirmar con toda precisión el carácter demanial y público de dicha zona y como consecuencia de ello, su imprescriptibilidad, irrenunciabilidad, inalienabilidad, así como que se encuentre fuera del comercio de las personas. Es por ese carácter de bien demanial, que los terrenos ubicados en la zona marítimo terrestre no podrán ser objeto de informaciones posesorias y los particulares no podrán apropiarse de ellos ni legalizarlos a su nombre, por ese u otro medio, (ver artículos 7 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 y 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). Ahora bien, el hecho que se trate de un bien de dominio público no significa que los particulares, en una situación de sujeción especial, no puedan hacer uso de aquélla, más bien todo lo contrario: como se ampliará más adelante, mediante una concesión, (en la zona restringida) los particulares pueden aprovechar la zona marítima terrestre. Es importante destacar que, conforme al artículo 12 de la Ley de marras, en la zona marítimo terrestre es prohibido sin la debida autorización legal, explotar la flora y la fauna existentes deslindar con cercas, carriles o en cualquier otra forma, levantar edificaciones o instalaciones, cortar árboles extraer productos o realizar cualquier otro tipo de desarrollo, actividad u ocupación. Administración y tutela de la zona marítima terrestre: Como ya se indicó, la zona marítima terrestre pertenece al Estado. Sin embargo, es claro que conforme a la ya citada Ley 6043, sobre esta zona confluyen competencias de distintos órganos y entes. En este sentido, es posible distinguir ámbitos competenciales que involucran, en lo que este proceso atañe, al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Municipalidades, Procuraduría General de la República.

VI.SOBRE EL EXAMEN DE VALIDEZ DE LAS CONDUCTAS IMPUGNADAS. Este Tribunal considera que las conductas impugnadas por la representación del Estado -a saber: a) Parcialmente la escritura No. 29 del 7 de marzo de 1988, iniciada al folio 37 frente del tomo 16 del protocolo del Notario Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, en cuanto actualizó linderos incluyendo la zona marítima terrestre como propiedad privada, b) El asiento de inscripción de la finca No. 79664 secuencia cero cero cero y 78676 secuencia cero cero cero, a nombre de los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, c) La inscripción del plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, y d) La ilegalidad de las construcciones que se ubican dentro de la zona pública, que es la franja de cincuenta metros de ancho a contar de la pleamar ordinaria en la fina No. 79664-000, a nombre de Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, resultan sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, por las siguientes razones. El inmueble objeto del proceso, es un bien demanial que forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. De conformidad con el oficio No. DGT-182-12, fecha 26 de marzo del 2012, del Departamento de Geodesia y Topografía del IGN, visible a folio 255, oficios No. 062-2010 y demás notas suscritas por el Concejo Municipal de Cóbano de Puntarenas, visibles a folios 69 al 76 y los estudios técnicos emitidos por la Unidad de Georreferenciación Catastral Departamento Catastral Técnico del Registro Inmobiliario visible a folios 257 al 274, confirmado en la audiencia de juicio por el funcionario Guillermo Rodríguez Rodríguez, de ese Departamento, experticia rendida por el Topógrafo Luis Ángel González Alfaro, visible a folios 295-399, confirmada en la audiencia del juicio oral y público llevada a cabo por este Colegio el día 9 de mayo del 2013, este Tribunal ha tenido por acreditado, que el terreno inscrito a nombre de las empresas los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, del Partido de Puntarenas, y que son las finca No. 79664-000 y No. 78676-000, se encuentran ubicadas dentro del área de la zona marítimo terrestre del distrito de Cóbano del cantón de Puntarenas. Cabe resaltar que dicha circunstancia, era patente desde que el señor Aníbal Rojas González, inscribió el 21 de marzo de 1951, a través del procedimiento de Información Posesoria la finca número 9345-00 del Partido de Puntarenas. En esa primera inscripción el juez civil indicó que la finca limitaba al sur con la milla marítima, es decir, respetó la zona marítima terrestre, no la incluyó, lo que se refleja en el plano Catastrado No. 6-10879-1994, no cabe duda entonces a este Tribunal que los inmuebles inscritos bajo matrícula del folio real No. 79664-000 y No. 78676-000 del Partido de Puntarenas, referenciado al plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, constituye un bien de dominio público y por ende, inembargable, imprescriptible e inalienable, que forma parte del área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre del distrito de Cóbano de Puntarenas. En este caso, se ha acreditado a través de la prueba documental admitida que es la que consta en el expediente judicial y el legajo que se identifica como expediente de la Municipalidad de Cóbano número 237 del año 87, que los inmuebles inscritos bajo matrícula del folio real No. 79664-000 y No. 78676-000 del Partido de Puntarenas, referenciado al plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, se encuentra ubicado en el área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre del distrito de Cóbano de Puntarenas, (ver folios 257-274 y 295-399 del expediente judicial), razón por la cual, y de conformidad con las normas antes indicadas, tampoco era posible que las empresas demandadas hayan podido adquirir esos terrenos en forma legal, a través de escrituras otorgadas entre privados. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal estima que los inmuebles No. 79664-000 y No. 78676-000 del Partido de Puntarenas, referenciado al plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, forman parte de la zona marítimo terrestre del distrito de Cóbano de Puntarenas, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. En razón de lo anterior, resulta improcedente que se haya inscrito en el Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, a nombre de las empresas demandadas, las fincas del Partido de Puntarenas No. 79664-000 y No. 78676-000, porque se trata de un bien demanial que forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre. En consecuencia, existe una titulación de un bien de dominio público a favor de particulares, que resulta sustancialmente contraria al ordenamiento jurídico. En razón de lo anterior, los inmuebles No. 79664-000, No. 78676-000 del Partido de Puntarenas, y plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, por resultar sustancialmente disconformes con lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 y 860 del Código Civil; 27 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público y 34, 43 y 55 del Reglamento del Registro Público. En conclusión de lo anterior y ajustado a lo dispuesto en los artículos 456 y 472 inciso 2) del Código Civil, como lo solicit ó el Estado, se ordena parcialmente la cancelación de la escritura No. 29 del 7 de marzo de 1988, iniciada al folio 37 frente del tomo 16 del protocolo del Notario Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, por cuanto actualizó linderos incluyendo la zona marítima terrestre como propiedad privada, el asiento de inscripción de la finca No. 79664-000 y 78676-000, a nombre de los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, así como el asiento de inscripción del plano catastrado número P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante.

VII.SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS DE FONDO. De una revisión oficiosa, este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que el Estado cuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este proceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que es el titular del bien de dominio público objeto de este proceso, y a quién le corresponde ejercer las acciones tendentes a proteger, reivindicar, fiscalizar y tutelar los bienes que forman parte de la zona marítimo terrestre, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 50 de la Constitución Política, 1 y 4 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 3.i de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República. Además, la acción se dirige correctamente contra Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A, Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, y Arnoldo Rojas Vargas, tal y como lo dispone el artículo 12 inciso 3) del citado Código, dado que los inmuebles objeto del proceso, fueron titulados a favor de los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A; por otra parte, el interés, se mantiene, en el tanto la conducta impugnada sigue surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica de la demandante y requiere de una resolución jurisdiccional que la ampare, ya que tratándose de recuperación y tutela de bienes de dominio público, no corren plazos de prescripción ni caducidad, siendo que las acciones con las que cuenta el Estado para su efectiva recuperación son imprescriptibles. Ello es así por las características particulares de este tipo de bienes. Así lo establecen expresamente los artículos 1 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, y el artículo 34 inciso 2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Finalmente, encuentra este órgano colegiado que no existe falta de derecho, para peticionar la anulación de los actos impugnados, amén de lo anterior, hemos de decir, que del elenco probatorio tanto pericial, como documental, emergen elementos de convicción suficientes para concluir con el grado de certeza requerido de que, en lo medular, la hipótesis fáctica presentada por el Estado. Colorario de lo Griegos de Montezuma S.A, Inversiones Carmen Ramona S.A, Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, y Arnoldo Rojas Vargas, se decreta la nulidad en forma parcial de la escritura No. 29 del 7 de marzo de 1988, iniciada al folio 37 frente del tomo 16 del protocolo del Notario Jorge Roberto Calderón Arias, en cuanto actualizó linderos incluyendo la zona marítima terrestre como propiedad privada, por incluir los 150 metros de zona restringida de la zona marítima terrestre, la cancelación del asiento de inscripción de la finca No. 79664-000 y 78676-000, a nombre de los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, e Inversiones Fiorelta S.A, por incluir ilegalmente los 150 metros de zona restringida de la zona marítima terrestre, la inscripción del plano catastrado numero P-36289-1992 a nombre de Oscar Alfaro Escalante, y en consecuencias las construcciones ubicadas en la zona pública deben ser demolidas, no así las construcciones que se encuentren en la denominada zona restringida , constituida por la franja de los ciento cincuenta metros restantes, sobre la cual, pueden otorgarse concesiones o permisos de uso por parte de la Municipalidad local, en el caso presente con la declaración de parte que rindió el señor Konstantinos Tzavaras, relató al Tribunal, como él y su hermano de nacionalidad Griega, vinieron a Costa Rica, e invirtieron sus ahorros económicos en la actividad del turismo, y para llevar a cabo la construcciones él solicitó los permisos respectivos al representante del Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano de Puntarenas, esa prueba de parte el Estado no la desacreditó y tampoco el Concejo de Distrito de Cóbano, aunque fue integrado como tercero interesado, ni siquiera acudió a la audiencia de juicio para hacer valer algún derecho en esa zona restringida, por ello es que este Tribunal, declara sin lugar la pretensión del Estado, del derribo de las construcciones que hubiera realizado la empresa Los Griegos de Montezuma S.A, dentro de esa área restringida.

VIII.En relación al pago de los daños y perjuicios. Solicita el Estado que los demandados que en la actualidad ostenten la posesión material de los bienes en discusión, sean condenados a pagar los daños y perjuicios ocasionados por la detención ilegal del dominio público. Sobre los daños y perjuicios, depende de las pruebas que se aporten, las cuales se analizarán conforme con el principio de la sana crítica, doctrina del artículo 82 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en relación en el canon 317 y 318 del Código Procesal Civil, normas que indican, los diferentes medios de prueba, los cuales son amplios para que las partes puedan cumplir con la exigencia legal de demostrar los hechos que afirman. Lo anterior implica, que no basta con alegar una serie de hechos, sino también deben ser demostrados en forma clara, precisa y concordante, para que puedan ser acogidas. Para el juez, la prueba será aquello que demuestra lo que en verdad sucedió, es la búsqueda de la verdad de los hechos, para así darles una calificación jurídica. En ese entendido la obligación de acreditar los daños y perjuicios la tiene el Estado. La indemnización de daños y perjuicios, sólo comprenderán los que, como consecuencia inmediata y directa de la falta de cumplimiento de la obligación, se hayan causado, o deban necesariamente indemnizarse. El daño producido debe reconocerse como cierto y efectivo, es decir, cuya existencia se encuentre debidamente acreditada, además el daño debe ser efectivo, concreto y evaluable. Tanto la doctrina como la jurisprudencia al respecto se han ocupado de analizar las características y requisitos que debe revestir un daño para ser susceptible de generar responsabilidad. Así las cosas, por efectivo, entendamos un daño que sea cierto, lo que implica que puede ser actual o futuro (si ello es constatable a través de las reglas de la ciencia o de la técnica, o de los principios elementales de la justicia, lógica o conveniencia) y no uno que sea eventual o simplemente posible. En el presente caso estamos hablando de un posible daño que se haya causado por detención ilegal del dominio público, para este Tribunal, el Estado no logró durante el proceso acreditar esos daños y perjuicios con alguna prueba servible, su labor se centró en determinar que los actos registrales que dieron pie a la inscripción de esos inmueble eran nulos como efectivamente lo declaró este Órgano colegiado, en relación con los emolumentos económicos reclamados, estos no tienen sustento legal o técnico que se hayan causado, o se podría presumir por el simple dicho de la representación estatal, por ello al no acreditarse a través de las reglas de la ciencia o de la técnica, resultan hechos inciertos y no constatables, por lo que deben rechazarse.”