Inadmissibility of Possessory Information in Reventado River National ReserveImprocedencia de información posesoria en Reserva Nacional Río Reventado

**IV.** The sole ground for complaint lies in the location of the property within the Reserva Nacional del Río Reventado. The appellant essentially contends that a regulation is being applied retroactively to her and that she has vested rights (derechos adquiridos). In this matter, pursuant to the documentary evidence in images 243 to 245, it has been established that the property subject to the titling process is plotted on cadastral map C-434461-1997. The Catastro Nacional issued a technical report in which it concluded: “*3. The cadastral map does not show any overlap with properties registered in the name of the State or with private parties, and it is also consistent with the reference cartography. 4. Based on our Official Reference Cartography System, cadastral map C-0434461-1997 shows total overlap with the Reserva Nacional Márgenes Río Reventado, according to Decretos Ejecutivos N°3459 of November 26, 1964 and N°22834 of January 24, 1947…*”. Two important aspects can be inferred from the foregoing; first, the graphic representation conforms to the material reality, which is why it is not necessary to know whether or not it is located at [[Dirección1]] of the river in question. Secondly, since 1964, a national reserve (reserva nacional) was ordered to be created in the areas surrounding the Río Reventado. Hence, it is important to analyze the State's obligation to ensure the safety and the environment in which the inhabitants carry out their work. As a brief historical note, in December 1963, the aforementioned river produced two flash floods (cabezas de agua), a public and notorious event, which caused great material destruction and left a significant number of people dead, in addition to being classified as a national tragedy. For that reason, a national reserve (reserva nacional) was created in 1964 in order to regulate the use of that zone. The Constitution establishes in Article 50 the State's obligation to ensure a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. With that axiological foundation, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente establishes land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) among its pillars. Article 28 regulates planning policies, indicating that it is the function of the State, the municipalities, and other public entities to define and execute national land-use planning policies aimed at regulating and promoting human settlements and the economic and social activities of the population, as well as physical-spatial development, in order to achieve harmony between the greater well-being of the population, the use of natural resources, and the conservation of the environment. Article 29 of the same law establishes the following purposes: “*a) To optimally locate, within the national territory, productive activities, human settlements, public use and recreational zones, communication and transportation networks, wilderness areas, and other vital infrastructure works, such as energy units and irrigation and drainage districts. b) To serve as a guide for the sustainable use of environmental elements. c) To balance the sustainable development of the different zones of the country. d) To promote the active participation of inhabitants and organized society in the drafting and application of land-use planning plans and city regulatory plans, in order to achieve the sustainable use of natural resources*.” From the provisions cited above, it is observed that land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) has various purposes; however, it is important to emphasize the state authority to delimit and regulate human settlements, in addition to promoting sustainable development. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización establishes that zones having the character of national reserves (reservas nacionales) belong to the State. Subsection b) covers the situation of those portions of land not protected by ten-year possession (posesión decenal). In the case under review, as the appealed judgment reasonably states, the property subject to the possessory information proceeding (proceso de información posesoria) is not suitable for acquisitive prescription (usucapir) because it is located entirely within the zone of the Reserva Nacional Río Reventado. According to the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias (CNE), this sector’s river originates on the slopes of the Irazú Volcano and belongs to the Río Reventazón watershed. Furthermore, that micro-watershed, according to the aforementioned state entity, has combined threats: volcanism, seismicity, landslides, focal flooding; added to intensive soil degradation, erosion, physical-chemical contamination, and inadequate solid waste management (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Problemática de la Cuenca del Río Reventado-Cartago: los aspectos de ocupación en área de amenaza natural múltiple y los conflictos de uso de suelo en áreas con regulaciones preventivas. 2002). Specifically, the State ordered that zone through Law 3459 of November 26, 1964, which created the Reserva nacional márgenes Río Reventado, Cartago. In Article 2 of that legal body, the Government would proceed to expropriate the reserved lands no later than within a period of three months from the decree establishing the reserve, by means of cash payment to their owners for the market value of the expropriated parcels. Moreover, in Article 3, it regulated that the owners of the lands included in said national reserve must refrain from carrying out any type of work or construction that could make the expropriation of the lots more onerous. Additionally, Article 4 established that said reserve shall be used for the construction of the necessary defense works. In other words, the law in question decrees the reserve and orders compensation (indemnización) to the owners, consequently making such zones State property under the category of national reserve (reserva nacional). Decreto 22834-MOPT-MVAH, based on the law cited above, proceeded to order those zones and prohibits the construction of housing, in addition to being an inalienable zone. Furthermore, the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, through judgment 4880 of 2:55 p.m. on May 22, 2002, analyzed the constitutionality of the aforementioned regulation, explaining the following: "*Regarding the competence of the Executive Branch.— The Sala Constitucional has on several occasions developed the notion of the police power (poder de policía) enjoyed by the Administration for the purpose of ensuring order, public health, tranquility, and the security of persons. Police power can manifest itself in different areas (social, economic, cultural, and military) and with different intensity. This notion allows for the reasonable imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights, to the extent that an ordinary law assigns functions allowing the Administration—in use of its police powers—to regulate an activity. The foregoing because the fundamental rights of each person must coexist with all and each of the fundamental rights of others. In its broadest sense, Police Power comprises measures aimed at protecting public safety, morality, and health, as well as the defense and promotion of the community's economic interests and its general welfare. It is manifested, in principle, as a power attributed to the legislative branch and is, therefore, non-delegable. However, an ordinary law can indeed create an assignment of functions, giving the executive branch, for example, the power to establish regulations on certain matters, within certain limits pre-established in the law. In the present case, this Court finds that the Procuraduría General de la República and the Municipalidad de Cartago are correct in affirming in their reports that, in the matter before us, it is Law No. 3459 of November 19, 1964—and not the challenged Decree—that restricts, for reasons of public convenience, the right to property, since decreto número 22834-MOPT-MVAH merely develops the limitations enshrined therein, so that the objective is the sectorization of the areas within one kilometer of each bank of the river to which the property limitations previously established in the cited Law are applicable, which implies that the alleged overreach of functions attributed to the Executive Branch is unfounded, as it involves a necessary and legitimate regulation to fulfill the purposes of the Law. The Decree specifically develops the content of the law and does not go beyond it, because it is precisely through that prevention that the safety and health of a community's inhabitants are protected. Therefore, it is not considered that the Regulation exceeds what the legislator intended, since it is not a new parameter but a means through which the already-cited legal interests are protected. It must be remembered that the function of this Executive Decree is the development of the articles of a law, and in that sense, it is logical for it to be much more specific, since it seeks to break down the general parameters intended by the law, for its effective application and based on the principles established by it*." Two important aspects can be inferred from the foregoing: the first is the State's police power (poder de policía), among other things, for safety and public health matters, making it legitimate to restrict zones for the creation of human settlements. On the other hand, the decree regulates the law and establishes the limitations, but always following the objective of that legislation number 3459 of 1964. For that reason, the grievance alleging that a regulation is limiting a right, and that the title holder has vested rights (derechos adquiridos), is unfounded. It should be noted that in 1964 this zone was declared a national reserve (reserva nacional), and those who occupied that zone were entitled to compensation (indemnización), in the interest of completely vacating the region for the reasons described above, and it is not a zone suitable for acquisitive prescription (usucapir) under the terms of Article 856 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones. Finally, the principle of autonomy of proceedings exists, and if other property titles have been granted in the zone, it is a circumstance that has no effect in this proceeding. Therefore, the appealed decision shall be upheld.

<span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">IV.</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The sole ground for complaint lies in the property's location within the Reserva Nacional del Río Reventado. The appellant essentially contends that a regulation is being applied retroactively and that she has vested rights (derechos adquiridos). In this matter, in accordance with the documentary evidence at images 243 to 245, it has been demonstrated that the property subject to titling is plotted on cadastral map C-434461-1997. The Catastro Nacional issued a technical report, in which it concluded: “<span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">3. The cadastral map does not overlap with properties registered in the name of the State or with private parties; furthermore, it is consistent with the reference cartography. 4. Based on our Official Reference Cartography System, cadastral map C-0434461-1997 shows total overlap with the Reserva Nacional Márgenes Río Reventado, in accordance with Decretos Ejecutivos N°3459 of November 26, 1964 and N°22834 of January 24, 1947…</span><span style="font-family:Arial">”. Two important aspects can be inferred from the foregoing; first, the graphic representation conforms to the material reality, which is why it is not necessary to know whether or not it is located at [[Dirección1]]<span style="font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces"> </span>from the aforementioned river. Secondly, since 1964, the creation of a national reserve (reserva nacional) in the areas surrounding the Río Reventado was ordered. Hence, it is important to analyze the State's obligation to ensure safety and the environment in which inhabitants carry out their activities. As a brief historical note, in December 1963 the mentioned river unleashed two flash floods (cabezas de agua), a public and notorious event, causing great material destruction and leaving a significant number of people dead, besides being classified as a national tragedy. For this reason, a national reserve was created in 1964 in order to regulate the use of that area. The Constitution establishes in Article 50 the State's obligation to ensure a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. With that axiological foundation, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente establishes territorial planning (ordenamiento territorial) among its pillars. Article 28 regulates planning policies, indicating that it is the function of the State, the municipalities, and other public entities to define and execute national territorial planning policies, aimed at regulating and promoting human settlements (asentamientos humanos) and the economic and social activities of the population, as well as physical-spatial development, in order to achieve harmony between the greater well-being of the population, the use of natural resources, and the conservation of the environment. Article 29 ibid establishes the following objectives: “<span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">a) To optimally locate, within the national territory, productive activities, human settlements, public use and recreational areas, communication and transportation networks, wilderness areas, and other vital infrastructure works, such as energy units and irrigation and drainage districts. b) To serve as a guide for the sustainable use of the elements of the environment. c) To balance the sustainable development of the different areas of the country. d) To promote the active participation of inhabitants and organized society in the preparation and application of territorial planning plans and urban regulatory plans, in order to achieve the sustainable use of natural resources</span><span style="font-family:Arial">”. From the rules cited above, it is observed that territorial planning has various purposes; however, it is worth emphasizing the State's power to delimit and regulate human settlements, in addition to promoting sustainable development. On the other hand, Article 11 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización establishes that zones having the character of national reserves belong to the State. Subsection b) includes the case of those portions of land not covered by ten-year possession (posesión decenal). In the sub examine, just as the appealed judgment reasonably sets forth, the property subject to this possessory information proceeding (proceso de información posesoria) is not eligible for acquisitive prescription (usucapir) because it is located entirely within the Reserva Nacional Río Reventado area. According to the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, the river originates on the slopes of the Irazú volcano and belongs to the Río Reventazón watershed. Furthermore, according to said state entity, this micro-watershed has combined threats: volcanism, seismicity, landslides, focal flooding; added to intensive soil degradation, erosion, physico-chemical contamination, and inadequate solid waste management (<span style="font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt">Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Problemática de la Cuenca del Río Reventado-Cartago: los aspectos de ocupación en área de amenaza natural múltiple y los conflictos de uso de suelo en áreas con regulaciones preventivas. 2002</span><span style="font-family:Arial">). Specifically, the State ordered that zone through Law 3459 of November 26, 1964, which created the Reserva nacional márgenes Río Reventado, Cartago. In Article 2 of that legal body, the Government would proceed to expropriate the reserved lands no later than within a period of three months from the decree establishing the reserve, through payment in cash to their owners, of the market value of the expropriated parcels. Furthermore, in Article 3, it regulated that the owners of the lands included in said national reserve must refrain from carrying out work or constructions of any nature that could make the expropriation of the lots more burdensome. Additionally, Article 4 established that such reserve would be designated for the construction of the necessary defense works. In other terms, the law in question decrees the reserve and orders compensation to the owners, consequently making such zones State property under the concept of a national reserve. Decree 22834-MOPT-MVAH, based on the law cited above, proceeded to order those zones and prohibits the construction of dwellings, besides being an inalienable zone. Adding to the above, the Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, through judgment 4880 of 2:55 p.m. on May 22, 2002, analyzed the constitutionality of the aforementioned regulation, explaining the following: "<span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Regarding the competence of the Executive Branch.- The Constitutional Chamber has on several occasions developed the notion of police power (poder de policía) enjoyed by the Administration for the purpose of ensuring order, public health, tranquility, and the safety of persons. Police power can manifest itself in different spheres (social, economic, cultural, and military) and with varying intensity. This notion allows the reasonable imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights, to the extent that an imputation of functions exists in ordinary law, allowing the Administration –in use of its police powers– the regulation of an activity. The foregoing because the fundamental rights of each person must coexist with each and every one of the fundamental rights of others. In its broadest sense, the Police Power comprises measures aimed at protecting public safety, morality, and health, as well as the defense and promotion of the economic interests of the community and its general welfare. It manifests itself, in principle, as a power attributed to the legislative branch and is therefore non-delegable. However, an imputation of functions can be created in ordinary law, assigning to the executive branch, for example, the authority to establish rules on certain matters, within certain pre-established limits in the law. In the present case, this Chamber considers that the Procuraduría General de la República and the Municipalidad de Cartago are correct when they state in their reports that it is Law No. 3459 of November 19, 1964 - and not the questioned Decree - that restricts, for reasons of public convenience, the right to property, because Decree number 22834-MOPT-MVAH does nothing more than develop the limitations enshrined therein, so that the objective is the sectorization of the areas included within one kilometer of each riverbank to which the property limitations previously established in said Law are applicable, which implies that the alleged overreach of functions attributed to the Executive Branch becomes unfounded, as it is a necessary and legitimate regulation, to fulfill the purposes of the Law. The Decree specifically develops the content of the law and does not go beyond it, by virtue of the fact that precisely through this prevention, the safety and health of a community's inhabitants are protected. That is why it is not considered that in the Regulation there is an excess of what the legislator intended, since this is not a new parameter, but rather a means through which the aforementioned legal interests are protected. It must be remembered that the function of this Executive Decree is the development of the articles of a law and, in that sense, it is logical that it be much more specific, since it seeks to break down the general parameters intended by the law, based on its effective application and the principles established by it</span><span style="font-family:Arial">". Two important aspects are inferred from the foregoing; first is the State's police power, among others, for safety and public health issues, making it legitimate to restrict zones for the creation of human settlements. Secondly, the decree regulates the law and establishes the limitations, but always following the objective of that legislation number 3459 of 1964. For this reason, the grievance regarding a regulation limiting a right, as well as the claim that the petitioner has vested rights (derechos adquiridos), lacks foundation. Note that since 1964, that area was declared a national reserve, and those occupying that area were entitled to compensation, in order to completely vacate the region for the reasons outlined above, and it is not an area eligible for acquisitive prescription (usucapir) under the terms of Article 856 of the Código Civil, in relation to Article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones. Finally, the principle of procedural autonomy (autonomía de los procesos) exists, and if other property titles have been granted in the area, it is a vicissitude that has no effects in this proceeding. Consequently, the appealed ruling will be confirmed.”</span>

“IV. El único motivo de queja radica en la ubicación del bien dentro de la Reserva Nacional del Río Reventado. Estima la recurrente en lo medular, se le está aplicando un reglamento de manera retroactiva y tiene derechos adquiridos. En este asunto de conformidad con la documental de imágenes 243 a 245 se tiene por demostrado el bien objeto de la titulación está graficado en el plano catastrado C-434461-1997. El Catastro Nacional rindió un informe técnico, mediante el cual concluyó: “3. El plano catastrado no presenta traslape con fincas inscritas a nombre del Estado ni con particulares, además es congruente con la cartografía de referencia. 4. Con base a nuestro Sistema de Cartografía de Referencia Oficial, el plano catastrado C-0434461-1997, presenta sobreposición total con la Reserva Nacional Márgenes Río Reventado, de acuerdo con los Decretos Ejecutivos N°3459 del 26 de noviembre del año 1964 y N°22834 del 24 de enero del año 1947…”. De lo anterior se coligen dos aspectos importantes; el primero, la representación gráfica se ajusta a la realidad material, motivo por el cual no es necesario saber si se ubica o no a [[Dirección1]] del río en mención. En segundo orden, desde el año 1964 se dispuso hacer una reserva nacional en las zonas aledañas del Río Reventado . De ahí es importante analizar la obligación del Estado de velar por la seguridad y del entorno en que los habitantes desarrollan sus labores. Como un breve dato histórico en diciembre de 1963 el río mencionado, lanzó dos cabezas de agua, evento público y notorio, generador de gran destrucción material y dejó un número importante de personas muertas, amen de ser catalogado como una tragedia nacional. Por tal razón, se creó en 1964 una reserva nacional en aras de ordenar el uso de esa zona. La Carta Constitucional establece en el numeral 50 la obligación del Estado de velar por un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Con ese fundamento axiológico, l a Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, establece dentro de sus pilares el ordenamiento territorial. El numeral 28 regula sobre las políticas del ordenamiento indicando, es función del Estado, las municipalidades y los demás entes públicos, definir y ejecutar políticas nacionales de ordenamiento territorial, tendientes a regular y promover los asentamientos humanos y las actividades económicas y sociales de la población, así como el desarrollo físico-espacial, con el fin de lograr la armonía entre el mayor bienestar de la población, el aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales y la conservación del ambiente. El artículo 29 ibid, establece como fines los siguientes: “a) Ubicar, en forma óptima, dentro del territorio nacional las actividades productivas, los asentamientos humanos, las zonas de uso público y recreativo, las redes de comunicación y transporte, las áreas silvestres y otras obras vitales de infraestructura, como unidades energéticas y distritos de riego y avenamiento. b) Servir de guía para el uso sostenible de los elementos del ambiente. c) Equilibrar el desarrollo sostenible de las diferentes zonas del país. d) Promover la participación activa de los habitantes y la sociedad organizada, en la elaboración y la aplicación de los planes de ordenamiento territorial y en los planes reguladores de las ciudades, para lograr el uso sostenible de los recursos naturales”. De las normas arriba citadas, se observa el ordenamiento territorial tiene diversos fines, sin embargo, es de subrayar la potestad estatal de delimitar y regular los asentamientos humanos, además de promover el desarrollo sostenible. Por otra parte el artículo 11 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización establece, pertenecen al Estados las zonas que tienen el carácter de reservas nacionales. En el inciso b) figura el supuesto de aquellas porciones de tierra que no estén amparados por la posesión decenal. En el subexamine, tal y como lo expone de manera razona la sentencia recurrida, el bien objeto del proceso de información posesoria, no es apto para usucapir por ubicarse completamente dentro de zona de la Reserva de Nacional Río Reventado. Tal sector de acuerdo a la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, el río nace en la faldas del volcán Irazú y pertenece a la cuenca hidrográfica del Río Reventazón. Además esa microcuenca, de acuerdo al citado ente estatal, tiene amenazas combinadas: vulcanismo, sismicidad, deslizamientos, inundaciones focales; sumado a la degradación intensiva del suelo, erosión, contaminación físico- química, y un inadecuado manejo de desechos sólidos (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Problemática de la Cuenca del Río Reventado-Cartago: los aspectos de ocupación en área de amenaza natural múltiple y los conflictos de uso de suelo en áreas con regulaciones preventivas. 2002). Específicamente el Estado ordenó esa zona mediante la ley 3459 del 26 de noviembre de 1964, donde se creó la Reserva nacional márgenes Río Reventado, Cartago. En el numeral 2 de ese cuerpo legal, el Gobierno procedería a expropiar los terrenos reservados a más tardar dentro de un plazo de tres meses a partir del decreto que establezca la reserva, mediante pago en dinero efectivo a sus propietarios, del valor venal de las parcelas expropiadas. Por otra parte, en el ordinal 3, reguló, los propietarios de los terrenos comprendidos en dicha reserva nacional deberán abstenerse de realizar trabajos u obras de cualquier naturaleza, que pudieren hacer más gravosa la expropiación de los lotes. Además el artículo 4, estableció que tal reserva se destinará a la construcción de las obras necesarias de defensa. En otros términos, la ley en mención, decreta la reserva y ordena la indemnización a los propietarios, tornando en consecuencia tales zonas propiedad del Estado bajo la figura de reserva nacional. El decreto 22834-MOPT-MVAH sustentado en la ley arriba citada, procedió a ordenar esas zonas y prohíbe la construcción de viviendas, amen de ser una zona inalienable. Abonado a lo anterior la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante sentencia 4880 de las 14 horas 55 minutos del 22 de mayo de 2002, analizó la constitucional del mencionado reglamento, explicando lo siguiente: "Sobre la competencia del Poder Ejecutivo.- La Sala Constitucional en varias ocasiones ha desarrollado la noción del poder de policía que goza la Administración con la finalidad de asegurar el orden, la salubridad, la tranquilidad y la seguridad de las personas. El poder de policía puede manifestarse en diferentes órdenes (social, económico, cultural y militar) y con diferente intensidad. Esta noción permite la imposición razonable de restricciones al goce de los derechos fundamentales, en la medida en exista en la ley ordinaria una imputación de funciones, que le permita a la Administración –en uso de sus facultades de policía– la reglamentación de una actividad. Lo anterior por cuanto, los derechos fundamentales de cada persona deben coexistir con todos y cada uno de los derechos fundamentales de las demás. En su sentido más amplio, el Poder de Policía comprende las medidas tendentes a proteger la seguridad, moralidad y salubridad pública, así como la defensa y promoción de los intereses económicos de la colectividad y al bienestar general de la misma. Se manifiesta, en principio, como una potestad atribuida al poder legislativo y por ello es indelegable. Sin embargo, sí se puede crear en la ley ordinaria, una imputación de funciones, asignándole al poder ejecutivo, por ejemplo, la atribución de estatuir sobre determinadas materias, dentro de ciertos límites preestablecidos en la ley. En el presente caso, estima esta Sala que lleva razón la Procuraduría General de la República y la Municipalidad de Cartago, cuando afirman en sus informes que en el caso que nos ocupa, es la Ley No. 3459 del 19 de noviembre de 1964 -y no el Decreto cuestionado- la que restringe, por razones de conveniencia pública, el derecho de propiedad, por cuanto el decreto número 22834-MOPT-MVAH no hace más que desarrollar las limitaciones allí consagradas, de manera que el objetivo es la sectorización de las áreas comprendidas dentro del kilómetro de cada margen del río que les son aplicables las limitaciones a la propiedad previamente establecidas en la citada Ley, lo que implica que, el alegado desbordamiento de funciones que se atribuye al Poder Ejecutivo deviene infundado, por tratarse de una reglamentación necesaria y legítima, para cumplir los fines de la Ley. El Decreto desarrolla específicamente el contenido de la ley y no va más allá, en virtud que precisamente a través de esa prevención, se protegen la seguridad, la salud de los habitantes de una comunidad. Es por ello, que no se considera que en el Reglamento exista un exceso en lo pretendido por el legislador, ya que éste no es un nuevo parámetro, sino un medio a través del cual se protegen los bienes jurídicos ya citados. Debe recordarse que la función de este Reglamento Ejecutivo, es el desarrollo del articulado de una ley y en ese sentido, resulta lógico que sea mucho más específico, ya que busca desglosar los parámetros generales pretendidos por la ley, en función de su efectiva aplicación y de los principios estatuidos por ésta". De lo anterior se infieren dos aspectos importantes; el primero es el poder de policía del Estado, entre otros, para temas de seguridad y salubridad, siendo legítimo restringir zonas para la creación de asentamientos humanos. Por otra parte, el decreto reglamenta la ley y establece las limitaciones, pero siempre siguiendo el objetivo de esa legislación número 3459 de 1964. Por tal razón, carece de fundamento lo agraviado en cuanto un reglamento esta limitando un derecho, así como que hay derechos adquiridos de la titulante. Nótese para 1964 esa zona es declarada reserva nacional, y quienes ocuparan esa zona tenían derecho a una indemnización, en aras de desalojar completamente la región por los motivos arriba reseñados y no es una zona apta para usucapir en los términos del numeral 856 del Código Civil, relacionado con el numeral 1 de la Ley de Informaciones. Por último, existe el principio de autonomía de los procesos, y si se han concedido otros títulos de propiedad en la zona, es una vicisitud que no tiene efectos en este proceso. Procederá en consecuencia confirmar la resolución apelada.”