Eviction and demolition in the public zone of the maritime terrestrial zoneDesalojo y demolición en zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre

“III.- On the dweller (poblador) and the occupant (ocupante) in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre). The Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone 6043, of March 2, 1977 (published in Alcance 35 of the Diario Oficial La Gaceta 52 of March 16, 1977, and in force as of this last date, hereinafter LZMT) establishes in article 12, generally regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, that “it is prohibited, without the proper legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna, demarcate with fences, tracks, or in any other manner, erect buildings or installations, cut trees, extract products, or carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation.” And specifically regarding the public zone, it determines in numeral 20: “Except for the exceptions established by law, the public zone may not be the object of occupation under any title nor in any case. No one may claim any right over it. It shall be dedicated to public use and especially to the free transit of persons. The entities and authorities indicated in article 18 must issue and enforce the necessary provisions to guarantee the free and safe transit of persons and the public use of this zone.” The exceptions to which this numeral 20 of the LZMT refers are: A) Those sections that due to their geographical configuration, their topography, or their special conditions, cannot be utilized for public use, in which case their development is authorized by the respective municipality and the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, provided they are not alienated and a zone of free transit is established that facilitates the public use and enjoyment of beaches, cliffs, and estuaries, and the safety of pedestrians is guaranteed (article 21 LZMT). B) The infrastructure and construction works approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, and the respective municipality, considering the public use to which they are destined, or if it involves the establishment and operation of state tourist facilities of notable convenience for the country (article 22 LZMT). And C) The cases contained in laws that regulate special aspects of the maritime-terrestrial zone, for example, the case contained in Law 7744, on Concession and Operation of Tourist Marinas and Docks of December 19, 1997 (published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta 26, of February 6, 1998). However, it is convenient to specify that Law 6043, on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone and its Regulation (Reglamento) (issued by Decreto 7841-P, of December 16, 1977, published in Alcance 16, of the Diario Oficial La Gaceta 20, of January 27, 1978, and in force as of this last date; hereinafter RLZMT) establish two categories of natural persons who exercise acts of occupation in the maritime-terrestrial zone: dweller (poblador) and occupant (ocupante). The figure of the dweller (poblador) is regulated in articles 70 of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT; that of the occupant (ocupante) is found in articles 44 and Transitorio VII of the LZMT. Article 70 of the LZMT reads: “The dwellers (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with more than ten years of residence in it, according to information from the authority of the local Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural) or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant’s domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots provided that it is their only property. However, they must subject themselves to the planning of the zone, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements in accordance with this law. In any case, the public zone must be respected”. Numeral 75 of the RLZMT indicates: “ The dwellers (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with more than ten years of continuous residence in it, according to information from the authority of the local Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural) or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant’s domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots provided that it is their only property, and may be relocated in accordance with the planning of the zone, upon prior compensation for improvements. In any case, the public zone must be respected. When the period of residence is less than ten years, the dwellers (pobladores) may request a concession (concesión) over the property, provided that no part of the public zone is included. If there are improvements in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation if the improvements are located in the restricted zone (zona restringida). Those who, not being dwellers (pobladores), have constructed or built in the restricted zone on illegally possessed properties, shall not have the right to payment for improvements. However, they may request a concession (concesión) over the property and, if it is granted to them, they shall not be charged for the use, and enjoyment of those improvements. The requests for concessions (concesiones) made by the occupants (ocupantes) of the maritime-terrestrial zone shall have priority over the others.” The article 44 of the LZMT reads: “ The concessions (concesiones) shall be granted in accordance with the principle that first in time is first in right. However, the regulation of this law may establish an order of priorities considering the nature of the exploitation and its greater public convenience; but under equal conditions, preference shall be given to the occupant (ocupante) of the land who has possessed it quietly, publicly, and peacefully in a continuous manner.” And Transitorio VII of the LZMT states: “The municipalities with jurisdiction over the maritime-terrestrial zone shall collect the canon (canon) that this law establishes for the occupants (ocupantes) thereof. The collection shall be made in accordance with the use and with the current appraisal of the Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. This authorization shall be provisional in nature, until the development plan for the respective zone comes into effect, and it does not produce any right whatsoever for the occupants (ocupantes) with respect to a concession (concesión).”. From a reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements that any person must meet to hold the status of dweller (poblador) is concluded: a) a continuous possession of at least 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT –March 16, 1977–, that is, a possession that began at least in 1967; b) being born before 1949, to be of legal age at the start of the 10 years of the indicated possession; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of other land, e) having a report from the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) or a certification from the Civil Registry, to serve as proof of the possession in question. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements to hold such status are: i) a possession of less than 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, a possession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of other land, e) having a report from the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) or a certification from the Civil Registry that serves as proof of the possession in question. In this way, unless a special legal provision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone before the effectiveness of the LZMT and are neither dwellers (pobladores) nor occupants (ocupantes), and 2) entered after March 16, 1977, are in a situation of illegal occupation. Upon reconciling articles 70, 44 and Transitorio VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with numerals 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that the dwellers (pobladores) and the occupants (ocupantes) are not within the exception cases provided for in the latter article (that is, the 20 iusidem), so it must be understood that the recognitions granted by the LZMT are reduced to the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone (zona pública). The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by Public Defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal is therefore resolved, in the sense that with respect to the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction (desalojo) of dwellers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions used by them is indeed appropriate when they do not have a permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables them to exercise such possession, and b) that eviction (desalojo) and that destruction of the constructions may be suspended for 24 months as provided for in articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073, of Protection for Occupants of Zones Classified as Special of September 19, 2012, published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012 Alcance 163 (on which relevant elements are set forth in Considerando V infra).

IV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, it is necessary to consider that although it is true that the Trial Court of Puntarenas indicates as a proven fact on folio 134, for the purposes of issuing the acquittal, that her possession has been carried out “at least since April 23, 2007”, the same Court acknowledges that her possession is of 40 to 50 years, as deduced from the evidence evaluated, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza (digital file c0100130530150339.vgz counter 15:19:34). In consideration of such acknowledgment of possession, which has not been challenged and is final, it can be concluded that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of the requirements to be considered a dweller (pobladora): being born before 1949 and thus having capacity for the exercise of possession; to this effect, note that she was born on December 29, 1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore, the category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of dweller (poblador)) is the one that is appropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño. Let us recall, insofar as it is relevant, that numeral 75 of the RLZMT indicates that: “…When the period of residence is less than ten years, the dwellers (pobladores) may request a concession (concesión) over the property, provided that no part of the public zone is included. If there are improvements in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation if the improvements are located in the restricted zone (zona restringida).”. In the first place, although it is true that the legislator uses the term “dwellers (pobladores)”, in this scenario described in this paragraph of numeral 75, it must be understood that it refers to “occupants (ocupantes)” given the context of the entire article. In the second place, it has been established as proven and final that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone (zona pública) without having any permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables her to do so, which obliges the reading of subsection e) of numeral 73 of the RLZMT: “When there are constructions, buildings, or installations erected illegally in the public zone, the municipality must destroy them, demolish them, or remove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this regulation.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT states that the administrative authorities of the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities, as soon as they have knowledge of any contravention of the provisions of article 12 of the LZMT must proceed with the eviction (desalojo) of the offenders, as well as the destruction or demolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the stated considerations, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction (desalojo) of dwellers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions made is indeed appropriate; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant (ocupante) of a construction located in the public zone (zona pública) without having a permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables her to do so, therefore, in her case, her eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of such construction is indeed appropriate so that the public zone (zona pública) occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.

V.Planning (Ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Law 9073, of Protection for Occupants of Zones Classified as Special, of September 19, 2012, (published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163), states in its articles 1 and 7 the following: “For a period of twenty-four months, the eviction (desalojo) of persons, demolition of works, suspension of activities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone and natural heritage of the State shall be suspended.”; and “During the term of this moratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the planning (ordenamiento) of the zones referred to in this law.”. These numerals have been the basis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the Appellate Court of San Ramón determined the appropriateness of granting a term of twenty-four months of moratorium, during which the execution of the eviction (desalojo) of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the construction inhabited by her in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone is suspended. However, this Law 9073, not only regulates the granting of that moratorium, but also seeks the planning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Cóbano, the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the period of twenty-four months, set by articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073, they carry out the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. To this effect, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination processes, to comply with the planning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone in question. The corresponding notification of this cassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated public entities comply with the provisions of this Chamber.

VI.- Due to the considerations set forth, the appeal of cassation, formulated by public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, on behalf of Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction (desalojo) of dwellers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions made in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone does indeed proceed, when they do not have a permit or concession (concesión) that legally enables them to exercise such possession. The following are maintained intact: a) the eviction (desalojo) order of Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the destruction order of the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. in the capacity of occupant (ocupante) in the public zone (zona pública) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the suspension for twenty-four months of the eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of the indicated construction. The Mayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that within the period of twenty-four months, set by articles 1 and 7 of Law 9073 of Protection for Occupants of Zones Classified as Special, they carry out in a coordinated manner the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone, under the warning that failure to comply with this decision will entail the commission of the crime of disobedience to authority.” The charge shall be made in accordance with the use and with the current appraisal of the Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. This authorization shall be provisional in nature, until the development plan for the respective zone enters into force, and it does not produce any right for the occupants with regard to a concession.” From the reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements that every person must meet to hold the status of settler (poblador) is concluded: a) continuous possession (posesión) of at least 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT – March 16, 1977 –, that is, possession that began at least in 1967; b) being born before 1949, in order to have reached the age of majority at the start of the 10 years of indicated possession; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another plot of land, e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Registry, which serve as proof of the aforementioned possession. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements to hold such status are: i) possession of less than 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, possession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another plot of land, e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Registry that serve as proof of the aforementioned possession. Thus, unless a special legal provision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone before the LZMT came into force and are neither settlers (pobladores) nor occupants (ocupantes), and 2) entered after March 16, 1977, find themselves in a situation of illegal occupation. Upon harmonizing Articles 70, 44, and Transitory VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with numerals 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) are not found in the exception cases provided for in the latter article (that is, Article 20 ibidem), so it must be understood that the recognitions granted by the LZMT are reduced to the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone. The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by the Public Defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal is therefore considered resolved, in the sense that regarding the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions used by them does proceed when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession, and b) that eviction and that destruction of the constructions may be suspended for 24 months as provided for in Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales of September 19, 2012, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Scope 163 (regarding which relevant elements are set forth in Considerando V below).   **IV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño**. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, it is necessary to consider that although it is true that the Trial Court of Puntarenas indicates as a proven fact on folio 134, for purposes of issuing the acquittal, that her possession is carried out “*at least since April 23, 2007*”, the same Court recognizes that her possession is of 40 to 50 years, according to what it derives from the evidence produced, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza (digital file c0100130530150339.vgz counter 15:19:34). In consideration of such possessory recognition, which has not been challenged and is final, it is possible to conclude that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of the requirements to be considered a settler (pobladora): being born before 1949 and thus having the capacity for possessory exercise; in this regard, note that she was born on December 29, 1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore, the category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of settler (poblador)) is the one that is appropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño. Let us recall, as relevant, that numeral 75 of the RLZMT indicates that: “…When the period of residence is less than ten years, the settlers (pobladores) may request a concession over the property, provided that no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation if the improvements are located in the restricted zone.” In the first place, although it is true that the legislator uses the term “settlers (pobladores)”, in this scenario described in this paragraph of numeral 75 it must be understood that it refers to “occupants (ocupantes)” given the context of the entire article. In the second place, it has been proven and is final that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone without having any permit or concession that legally enables her to do so, which obliges a reading of subsection e) of numeral 73 of the RLZMT: “*When there are constructions, buildings, or installations illegally erected in the public zone, the municipality must destroy, demolish, or remove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this regulation*.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT indicates that the administrative authorities of the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities, as soon as they have notice of any contravention to the provisions of article 12 of the LZMT must proceed with the eviction (desalojo) of the offenders, as well as the destruction or demolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the considerations set forth, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions carried out does proceed; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant (ocupante) of a construction located in the public zone without having a permit or concession that legally enables her to do so, therefore in her case her eviction (desalojo) and the destruction of such construction do proceed so that the public zone occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.

**V. Planning (Ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone**. Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, of September 19, 2012, (published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Scope 163), states in its articles 1 and 7 the following: “*For a period of twenty-four months, the eviction of persons, demolition of works, suspension of activities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone, and natural heritage of the State shall be suspended.*”; and “*During the term of this moratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the planning (ordenamiento) of the zones referred to in this law.*”. These numerals have been the basis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the Appellate Court of San Ramón determined the appropriateness of granting a twenty-four-month moratorium period, during which the execution of the eviction (desalojo) of Mrs. Gerardo Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the construction inhabited by her in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is suspended. However, this Ley 9073 not only regulates the granting of that moratorium, it also seeks the planning (ordenamiento) of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period set by Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, they carry out the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. To this end, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination processes, to comply with the planning (ordenamiento) of the aforementioned maritime-terrestrial zone. The corresponding notification of this cassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated public entities comply with what is ordered by this Chamber.

**VI.-** For the considerations set forth, the cassation appeal filed by the public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, in favor of Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The allegation of contradictory precedents formulated by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction (desalojo) of settlers (pobladores) and occupants (ocupantes) and the destruction of the constructions carried out in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone does proceed, when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession. The following are kept intact: a) the eviction order (orden de desalojo) for Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the destruction order for the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. as an occupant (ocupante) in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the twenty-four-month suspension of the indicated eviction (desalojo) and destruction of the construction. The Mayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that within the twenty-four-month period, set by Articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, they carry out in a coordinated manner the planning (ordenamiento) of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone under the warning that failure to comply with this decision will entail the commission of the crime of disobedience to authority.” However, they must be subject to the zoning plan for the area, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements (mejoras) in accordance with this law. In all cases, the public zone (zona pública) must be respected.” Article 75 of the RLZMT states: “ Inhabitants (pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), Costa Rican by birth, with more than ten years of continuous residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Assistance Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Register regarding the applicant’s domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots provided it is their only property, and may be relocated in accordance with the zoning plan for the area, upon prior indemnification for improvements. In all cases, the public zone must be respected. When the period of residence is less than ten years, the inhabitants may apply for a concession (concesión) over the property, provided no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation, shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation shall apply if the improvements are located in the restricted zone (zona restringida). Those who, not being inhabitants, have constructed or built in the restricted zone on illegally possessed properties shall have no right to payment for improvements. However, they may apply for a concession over the property, and, if granted, they shall not be charged for the use and enjoyment of those improvements. Concession applications made by occupants (ocupantes) of the maritime-terrestrial zone shall have priority over others.” Article 44 of the LZMT reads: “ Concessions shall be granted in accordance with the principle of first in time, first in right. However, the regulation of this law may establish an order of priorities based on the nature of the exploitation and its greater public convenience; but under equal conditions, preference shall be given to the occupant of the land who has possessed it quietly, publicly, and peacefully on a continuous basis.” And Transitory Provision VII of the LZMT states: “Municipalities with jurisdiction in the maritime-terrestrial zone shall charge the fee established by this law to the occupants thereof. The charge shall be made in accordance with the use and the current appraisal by the Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. This authorization shall be provisional, until the development plan for the respective zone comes into force, and does not confer any right upon the occupants with respect to a concession.” From a reading of the transcribed norms, the existence of requirements that every person must meet to hold the status of inhabitant (poblador) is concluded: a) continuous possession of at least 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT –March 16, 1977–, that is, possession that began at least from 1967; b) being born before 1949, in order to have reached the age of majority upon commencing the indicated 10 years of possession; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another property; e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Register, serving as proof of said possession. In relation to the category of occupant (ocupante), the requirements to hold such status are: i) possession of less than 10 years prior to the entry into force of the LZMT (March 16, 1977), that is, possession that began after 1967; b) being born before 1959; c) being Costa Rican by birth; d) not being the owner of another property; e) having a report from the Fuerza Pública or a certification from the Civil Register serving as proof of said possession. Thus, unless a special legal provision applies, persons who 1) entered the maritime-terrestrial zone before the LZMT came into force and are neither inhabitants nor occupants, and 2) entered after March 16, 1977, find themselves in a situation of illegal occupation. By harmonizing articles 70, 44 and Transitory Provision VII of the LZMT and 75 of the RLZMT with articles 12 and 20 of the LZMT, it is concluded that inhabitants and occupants are not within the cases of exception provided for in the latter article (that is, article 20 ibidem), and therefore it must be understood that the recognitions granted by the LZMT are limited to the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, and not to the public zone. The plea of contradictory precedent made by the Public Defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal is therefore resolved in the sense that with respect to the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone a) the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions used by them is indeed proper when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession, and b) such eviction and destruction of constructions may be suspended for 24 months as provided in articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales of September 19, 2012, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163 (relevant elements concerning which are set forth in Considerando V below).

**IV.- Specific situation of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño**. In the particular case of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño, it is necessary to consider that although the Trial Court of Puntarenas states as a proven fact, on page 134, for purposes of issuing the acquittal, that her possession has been carried out “at least since April 23, 2007”, the same Court acknowledges that her possession has lasted 40 to 50 years, as it derives from the evidence presented, especially the testimony of Jorge Pérez Espinoza (digital file c0100130530150339.vgz, counter 15:19:34). In light of such possessory acknowledgment, which has not been challenged and is final, it is possible to conclude that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño does not meet one of the requirements to be considered an inhabitant (poblador): being born before 1949 and thus having the capacity for possessory exercise; note in this regard that she was born on December 29, 1951 (folio 23, identification of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño). Therefore, the category of occupant (ocupante) (and not that of inhabitant) is the one appropriate to analyze for this case of Mrs. Espinoza Briceño. Let us recall, as relevant, that article 75 of the RLZMT indicates that: “...When the period of residence is less than ten years, the inhabitants may apply for a concession over the property, provided no part of the public zone is included. If improvements exist in the public zone, the provisions of subsection e), article 73 of the regulation, shall apply, and the provisions of article 74 of the regulation shall apply if the improvements are located in the restricted zone.” First, while it is true the legislator uses the term “inhabitants” (pobladores), in this scenario described in this paragraph of article 75, it must be understood that it refers to “occupants” (ocupantes) given the context of the entire article. Second, it has been proven and stands firm that Mrs. Espinoza Briceño inhabits a construction located in the public zone without having any permit or concession legally enabling her to do so, which compels the reading of subsection e) of article 73 of the RLZMT: “When there are constructions, buildings, or installations erected illegally in the public zone, the municipality must destroy, demolish, or remove them, following the procedure established in article 22 of this regulation.”, and article 22 of the RLZMT states that the administrative authorities of the corresponding jurisdiction, as well as the respective municipalities, as soon as they become aware of any contravention of the provisions of article 12 of the LZMT, must proceed with the eviction of offenders, as well as the destruction or demolition of the constructions that have been carried out. From the considerations set forth, it is concluded, in general, that in the case of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions carried out is proper; and, in particular, that Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño is an occupant of a construction located in the public zone without a permit or concession legally enabling her to do so, and therefore, in her case, her eviction and the destruction of such construction are proper so that the public zone occupied by her recovers its state prior to the invasion.

**V. Zoning of the maritime-terrestrial zone**. Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, of September 19, 2012 (published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta 206, of October 25, 2012, Alcance 163), states in its articles 1 and 7 the following: “For a period of twenty-four months, the eviction of persons, demolition of works, and suspension of activities and projects in the maritime-terrestrial zone, border zone, and State natural heritage shall be suspended.”; and “During the effectiveness of this moratorium, the State must take the necessary measures for the zoning (ordenamiento) of the zones referred to in this law.” These articles have been the basis upon which the Trial Court of Puntarenas and the Court of Appeals of San Ramón determined the propriety of granting a twenty-four-month moratorium period, during which the execution of the eviction of Mrs. Gerarda Espinoza Briceño and the destruction of the construction inhabited by her in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is suspended. However, this Ley 9073 not only regulates the granting of said moratorium, it also seeks the zoning of the maritime-terrestrial zone. Therefore, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period established by articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073, they carry out the zoning of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone. For that purpose, the Mayor and the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are warned of their obligation to carry out all inter-institutional coordination processes to comply with the zoning of the aforementioned maritime-terrestrial zone. The corresponding notification of this cassation judgment is ordered so that the indicated public entities comply with what is ordered by this Chamber.

**VI.-** For the considerations set forth, the appeal for cassation filed by the public defender Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal, on behalf of Mrs. G.E.B., is declared without merit. The plea of contradictory precedent made by the Public Defender is resolved in the sense that the eviction of inhabitants and occupants and the destruction of the constructions carried out in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is proper when they lack a permit or concession that legally enables them to exercise such possession. The following remain intact: a) the eviction order against Mrs. G.E.B. from the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, b) the order for the destruction of the construction inhabited by Mrs. G.E.B. in her capacity as occupant of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, c) the twenty-four-month suspension of the indicated eviction and destruction of the construction. The Mayor and the members of the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Cóbano, the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and the Executive President and the members of the Board of Directors of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo are ordered to execute the necessary actions so that, within the twenty-four-month period established by articles 1 and 7 of Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, they carry out, in a coordinated manner, the zoning of the corresponding maritime-terrestrial zone, under the warning that failure to comply with this decision shall entail the commission of the crime of disobedience to authority.”

“III.- Del poblador y del ocupante en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre. La Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre 6043, de 02 de marzo de 1977 (publicada en el Alcance 35 del Diario Oficial La Gaceta 52 de 16 de marzo de 1977, y vigente a partir de ésta última fecha, en adelante LZMT) establece en el artículo 12, en general sobre la zona marítimo terrestre, que “es prohibido, sin la debida autorización legal, cualquier otra forma, levantar edificaciones o instalaciones, cortar árboles, extraer productos o realizar cualquier otro tipo de desarrollo, actividad u ocupación.”. Y en forma específica sobre la zona pública determina en el numeral 20: “Salvo las excepciones establecidas por la ley, la zona pública no puede ser objeto de ocupación bajo ningún título ni en ningún caso. Nadie podrá alegar derecho alguno sobre ella. Estará dedicada al uso público y en especial al libre tránsito de las personas. Las entidades y autoridades que indica el artículo 18 deberán dictar y hacer cumplir las disposiciones necesarias para garantizar el libre y seguro tránsito de las personas y el uso público de esta zona.”. Las excepciones a las que se refiere este numeral 20 de la LZMT son: A) Aquellas secciones que por su configuración geográfica, su topografía o sus condiciones especiales, no pueden aprovecharse para uso público, en cuyo caso se autoriza su desarrollo por la municipalidad respectiva y el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, siempre que no se enajenen y se establezca una zona de libre tránsito que facilite el uso y disfrute públicos de las playas, riscos y esteros y se garantice la seguridad de los peatones (artículo 21 LZMT). B) Las obras de infraestructura y construcción que aprueben el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, y la respectiva municipalidad, atendiendo al uso público a que se destinen, o que se trate del establecimiento y operación de instalaciones turísticas estatales de notoria conveniencia para el país (artículo 22 LZMT). Y C) Los casos contenidos en leyes que regulan aspectos especiales de la zona marítimo terrestre, verbigracia, el caso contenido en la Ley 7744, de Concesión y Operación de Marinas y Atracaderos Turísticos de 19 de diciembre de 1997 (publicada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta 26, de 06 de febrero de 1998). Sin embargo, conviene precisar que la Ley 6043, sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y su Reglamento (dictado por Decreto 7841-P, de 16 de diciembre de 1977, publicado en el Alcance 16, del Diario Oficial La Gaceta 20, de 27 de enero de 1978, y vigente a partir de esta última fecha; en adelante RLZMT) establecen dos categorías de personas físicas que ejercen actos de ocupación en la zona marítima terrestre: poblador y ocupante. La figura del poblador se halla regulada en los artículos 70 de la LZMT y 75 del RLZMT; la del ocupante se encuentra en los artículos 44 y Transitorio VII de la LZMT. El artículo 70 de la LZMT se lee: “Los pobladores de la zona marítimo terrestre, costarricenses por nacimiento, con más de diez años de residencia en ella, según información de la autoridad de la Guardia de Asistencia Rural local o certificación del Registro Electoral sobre el domicilio del solicitante, podrán continuar en posesión de sus respectivos lotes siempre que fuere su única propiedad. Sin embargo, deberán sujetarse a la planificación de la zona, a cuyo efecto podrán ser reubicados e indemnizadas sus mejoras de acuerdo con esta ley. En todo caso deberá respetarse la zona pública”. El numeral 75 del RLZMT indica: “ Los pobladores de la zona marítimo terrestre, costarricenses por nacimiento, con más de diez años de residencia continua en ella, según información de la autoridad de la Guardia de Asistencia Rural local o certificación del Registro Electoral sobre el domicilio del solicitante podrán continuar en posesión de sus respectivos lotes siempre que fuere su única propiedad, pudiendo ser reubicados de acuerdo con la planificación de la zona, previa indemnización de las mejoras. En todo caso deberá respetarse la zona pública. Cuando el período de residencia sea inferior a diez años, los pobladores podrán solicitar concesión sobre el predio, siempre que no se incluya parte alguna de la zona pública. Si existiesen mejoras en la zona pública, se aplicará lo dispuesto en el inciso e), artículo 73 del reglamento, y las disposiciones del artículo 74 del reglamento si las mejoras estuvieren ubicadas en la zona restringida. Quienes no siendo pobladores hayan construido o edificado en la zona restringida en predios ilegalmente poseídos, no tendrán derecho al pago de mejoras. Sin embargo, podrán solicitar concesión sobre el predio y, si se les otorgare, no se les cobrará por el uso, y disfrute de esas mejoras. Las solicitudes de concesiones que hagan los ocupantes de la zona marítimo terrestre tendrán prioridad sobre las demás.”. El artículo 44 de la LZMT se lee: “ Las concesiones se otorgarán atendiendo al principio de que el primero en tiempo es primero en derecho. Sin embargo, el reglamento de esta ley podrá establecer un orden de prioridades atendiendo a la naturaleza de la explotación y a la mayor conveniencia pública de ésta; pero en igualdad de condiciones se ha de preferir al ocupante del terreno que la haya poseído quieta, pública y pacíficamente en forma continua.”. Y el Transitorio VII de la LZMT señala: “Las municipalidades con jurisdicción en la zona marítimo-terrestre cobrarán el canon que establece esta ley para los ocupantes de la misma. El cobro se hará de acuerdo con el uso y con el avalúo actual de la Dirección General de la Tributación Directa. Esta autorización tendrá carácter provisional, hasta tanto no entre en vigencia el plan de desarrollo para la respectiva zona, y no produce derecho alguno para los ocupantes en lo que a concesión se refiere.”. De la lectura de las normas transcritas se concluye la existencia de requisitos que debe cumplir toda persona para ostentar la condición de poblador: a) una posesión continua de al menos 10 años de antigüedad anterior a la entrada en vigencia de la LZMT –16 de marzo de 1977–, es decir, una posesión que iniciara al menos desde 1967; b) nacer antes de 1949, para tener mayoría de edad al iniciar los 10 años de la posesión indicada; c) ser costarricense por nacimiento; d) no ser propietario de otro terreno, e) contar con un informe de la Fuerza Pública o una certificación del Registro Civil, que sirvan de prueba sobre la posesión de marras. En relación con la categoría de ocupante, los requisitos para ostentar tal condición son: i) una posesión inferior a 10 años con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la LZMT (16 de marzo de 1977), es decir, una posesión que iniciara con posterioridad a 1967; b) nacer antes de 1959; c) ser costarricense por nacimiento; d) no ser propietario de otro terreno, e) contar con un informe de la Fuerza Pública o una certificación del Registro Civil que sirvan de prueba sobre la posesión de marras. De esta forma, salvo disposición legal especial, las personas que 1) ingresaron a la zona marítimo terrestre antes de la vigencia de la LZMT y no son pobladores ni ocupantes, y 2) ingresaron después del 16 de marzo de 1977, se hallan en una situación de ocupación ilegal. Al concordar los artículos 70, 44 y Transitorio VII de la LZMT y 75 del RLZMT con los numerales 12 y 20 de la LZMT, se concluye que los pobladores y los ocupantes no se hallan en los casos de excepción previstos en el último artículo (sea, el 20 iusidem), por lo que debe entenderse que los reconocimientos que se dan por la LZMT se reducen a la zona restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre, y no a la zona pública. Se tiene por resuelto, entonces, el alegato de precedentes contradictorios formulado por el Defensor Público Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal en el sentido de que respecto de la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre a) sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los ocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones por ellos utilizadas cuando no cuenten con permiso o concesión que les habiliten legalmente para ejercer tal posesión, y b) ese desalojo y esa destrucción de las construcciones pueden ser suspendidos por 24 meses según lo previsto en los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073, de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales de 19 de septiembre de 2012, publicada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta 206, de 25 de octubre de 2012 Alcance 163 (sobre la que se exponen elementos relevantes en el Considerando V infra).

IV.- Situación específica de la señora Gerarda Espinoza Briceño. En el caso particular de la señora Gerarda Espinoza Briceño resulta necesario considerar que si bien es cierto el Tribunal de Juicio de Puntarenas señala como hecho probado a folio 134, para efectos del dictado de la absolutoria, que su posesión se realiza “al menos desde el 23 de abril de 2007”, el mismo Tribunal reconoce que su posesión es de 40 a 50 años, según lo deriva de la prueba evacuada, en especial el testimonio de Jorge Pérez Espinoza (archivo digital c0100130530150339.vgz contador 15:19:34). En atención a tal reconocimiento posesorio, que no ha sido objeto de impugnación y se halla firme, se logra concluir que la señora Espinoza Briceño no cumple con uno de los requisitos para ser considerada pobladora: nacer antes de 1949 y así tener capacidad para el ejercicio posesorio; al efecto, nótese que nació el 29 de diciembre de 1951 (folio 23, identificación de la señora Espinoza Briceño). Por ende, la categoría de ocupante (y no la de poblador) es la que resulta procedente analizar para este caso de la señora Espinoza Briceño. Recordemos, en lo que interesa, que el numeral 75 del RLZMT indica que: “…Cuando el período de residencia sea inferior a diez años, los pobladores podrán solicitar concesión sobre el predio, siempre que no se incluya parte alguna de la zona pública. Si existiesen mejoras en la zona pública, se aplicará lo dispuesto en el inciso e), artículo 73 del reglamento, y las disposiciones del artículo 74 del reglamento si las mejoras estuvieren ubicadas en la zona restringida.”. En primer término, si bien es cierto el legislador utiliza el término “pobladores”, en este supuesto descrito en este párrafo del numeral 75 debe entenderse que se trata de “ocupantes” dado el contexto de todo el artículo. En segundo término, ha quedado como probado y en firme que la señora Espinoza Briceño habita una construcción sita en la zona pública sin contar con permiso o concesión algunos que le habiliten legalmente para ello, lo que obliga a la lectura del inciso e) del numeral 73 del RLZMT: “Cuando existan construcciones, edificaciones, o instalaciones levantadas ilegalmente en la zona pública, la municipalidad deberá destruirlas, demolerlas o removerlas, siguiendo el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 22 de este reglamento.”, y el 22 del RLZMT señala que las autoridades administrativas de la correspondiente jurisdicción, así como las respectivas municipalidades, tan pronto tengan noticia de alguna contravención a lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 de la LZMT deben proceder al desalojo de los infractores, así como a la destrucción o demolición de las construcciones que se hayan realizado. De las consideraciones zona marítimo terrestre sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los ocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones realizadas; y, en particular, que la señora Gerarda Espinoza Briceño es ocupante de una construcción sita en la zona pública sin contar con permiso o concesión que le habiliten legalmente para ello, por lo que en su caso sí procede su desalojo y la destrucción de tal construcción para que la zona pública por ella ocupada recupere su estado anterior a la invasión.

V.Ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre. La Ley 9073 , de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, de 19 de septiembre de 2012, (publicada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta 206, de 25 de octubre de 2012, Alcance 163), señala en sus artículos 1 y 7 lo siguiente: “Por el plazo de veinticuatro meses, se suspenderá el desalojo de personas, demolición de obras, suspensión de actividades y proyectos en la zona marítimo-terrestre, zona fronteriza y patrimonio natural del Estado.”; y “Durante la vigencia de esta moratoria, el Estado deberá tomar las medidas necesarias para el ordenamiento de las zonas referidas en la presente ley.”. Estos numerales han sido la base sobre la que el Tribunal de Juicio de Puntarenas y el Tribunal de Apelación de San Ramón, determinaron la procedencia de otorgar un plazo de veinticuatro meses de moratoria, durante el que se suspende la ejecución del desalojo de la señora Gerardo Espinoza Briceño y la destrucción de la construcción habitada por ella en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre. Sin embargo, esta Ley 9073, no sólo regula el otorgamiento de aquella moratoria, busca también el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre. Por ende, se ordena al Alcalde y al Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Cóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo y a la Junta Directiva del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a la Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo ejecutar las acciones necesarias para que, en el plazo de veinticuatro meses, fijado por los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073 realicen el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre correspondiente. Al efecto, se advierte al Alcalde y al Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Cóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo su obligación de realizar todos los procesos de coordinación interinstitucional, para cumplir con el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre de marras. Se ordena la notificación correspondiente de la presente sentencia de casación a efectos de que las instancias públicas indicadas cumplan con lo dispuesto por esta Sala.

VI.- Por las consideraciones expuestas, se declara sin lugar el recurso de casación, formulado por el defensor público Cristhiam Gutiérrez Leal , a favor de la señora G.E.B. Se resuelve el alegato de precedentes contradictorios formulado por el Defensor Público en el sentido de que sí procede el desalojo de los pobladores y los ocupantes y la destrucción de las construcciones realizadas en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, cuando no cuenten con permiso o concesión que les habiliten legalmente para ejercer tal posesión. Se mantienen incólumes a) la orden de desalojo de la señora G.E.B. de la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, b) la orden de destrucción de la construcción habitada por la señora G.E.B. en calidad de ocupante en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre, c) la suspensión por veinticuatro meses del desalojo y la destrucción de la construcción indicados. Se ordena al Alcalde y a los integrantes del Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Cóbano, al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, y al Presidente Ejecutivo y a los integrantes de la Junta Directiva del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo ejecutar las acciones necesarias para que en el plazo de veinticuatro meses, fijado por los artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley 9073 de Protección a los Ocupantes de Zonas Clasificadas como Especiales, realicen en forma coordinada el ordenamiento de la zona marítimo terrestre correspondiente bajo el apercibimiento de que el no acatamiento de esta decisión implicará la comisión del delito de desobediencia a la autoridad.”