Res. 00007-2018 Tribunal Agrario — Requirements for Possessory Information Proceedings and Assessment of Public Deeds

OutcomeResultado

UpheldConfirmada

The appealed decision rejecting the possessory information claim was upheld due to failure to prove ten-year possession and documentary inconsistency in the acquisition deed.Se confirma la sentencia apelada que rechazó la información posesoria por falta de prueba de la posesión decenal y por inconsistencia documental en la escritura de adquisición.

SummaryResumen

The Agrarian Court upholds the lower-court decision rejecting a possessory information claim because the petitioner failed to prove the legal requirements, especially the ten-year uninterrupted, public, peaceful possession as owner. The Court emphasizes that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner, who must satisfy the requirements of Article 1 of the Possessory Information Law and Article 856 of the Civil Code. In this case, the witness testimony was insufficient because the witnesses had known the land for less than ten years before the proceeding was initiated, and a public deed of sale was not accepted as documentary proof since it described a property located in a different district from the one sought to be titled. The ruling reiterates that under Article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, evidence is freely assessed but must be reasoned, and the judge is not required to cure the petitioner's evidentiary shortcomings.El Tribunal Agrario confirma la sentencia que rechazó una solicitud de información posesoria, debido a que la parte promovente no demostró los requisitos legales, en particular la posesión decenal quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida. El tribunal subraya que la carga de la prueba recae exclusivamente sobre el titulante y que correspondía acreditar los extremos exigidos en los artículos 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil. En el caso concreto, las declaraciones testimoniales resultaron insuficientes porque los testigos conocían el terreno por menos de diez años antes de iniciado el proceso, y una escritura pública de compraventa no fue aceptada como prueba documental base pues refería a un inmueble ubicado en un distrito distinto al que se pretendía titular. La resolución reitera que, conforme al artículo 54 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, la valoración probatoria es libre pero razonada, y que el juez no está obligado a subsanar las deficiencias probatorias de la parte actora.

Key excerptExtracto clave

In accordance with the foregoing, the appellant's grievances are not admissible. ... the statements made by the parties before a notary public in a deed do not prove the truth of such statements. This is because only those facts that the notary can attest to, having occurred in his presence and duly recorded, can be taken as true from the contents of a deed. Otherwise, the contents are merely the statements of the parties, which may not be true. ... From the referenced witness testimony it does not follow, as the trial court correctly concluded, that the petitioner exercised possession, either personally or derivatively, for at least ten years before filing the action in March 2012. ... The burden of proof in this regard rests exclusively with her.Conforme lo expuesto, los agravios de la parte recurrente no son de recibo. ... las manifestaciones que las partes de una escritura hagan ante una persona notaria, no son prueba de la existencia de tales. Lo anterior por cuanto de lo consignado en una escritura solo se pueden tener como hechos ciertos aquellos de los cuáles la persona notaria pueda dar fe, por ocurrir en su presencia, siempre que así lo hace constar. En caso contrario lo consignado se tienen solo como manifestaciones de las partes, que pueden no ser ciertas. ... De esa prueba testimonial referida no se deriva, como correctamente concluyo el juez de instancia, que la parte promovente haya ejercido posesión personalmente o en forma derivada por mínimo diez años antes de plantearse el proceso, en marzo del 2012. ... La carga de la prueba al respecto le corresponde exclusivamente a ella.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"las manifestaciones que las partes de una escritura hagan ante una persona notaria, no son prueba de la existencia de tales."

"the statements made by the parties before a notary public in a deed do not prove the truth of such statements."

Considerando VIII

"las manifestaciones que las partes de una escritura hagan ante una persona notaria, no son prueba de la existencia de tales."

Considerando VIII

"La parte titulante debía, desde el momento en que ofreció prueba testimonial, corroborar que las personas testigas ofrecidas conociesen el terreno durante el tiempo suficiente para poder probar los hechos por ella afirmados."

"The petitioner had to, from the moment she offered witness evidence, verify that the witnesses offered knew the land for a long enough time to prove the facts she claimed."

Considerando IX

"La parte titulante debía, desde el momento en que ofreció prueba testimonial, corroborar que las personas testigas ofrecidas conociesen el terreno durante el tiempo suficiente para poder probar los hechos por ella afirmados."

Considerando IX

"la carga de la prueba de sus gestiones y de lo que afirma ... es responsabilidad únicamente de la parte promovente, que los tribunales no pueden solventar"

"the burden of proof for her proceedings and what she claims ... is the sole responsibility of the petitioner, which the courts cannot remedy"

Considerando VI

"la carga de la prueba de sus gestiones y de lo que afirma ... es responsabilidad únicamente de la parte promovente, que los tribunales no pueden solventar"

Considerando VI

Full documentDocumento completo

VI.- Our legal system guarantees the right to register lands, provided that all legal requirements demanded in the various regulatory bodies are met (voto 51 of May 26, 1995 of the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias 139 of July 14, 1941 requires, to authorize the registration of a property through this type of process, that it be unregistered in the Registro Público Inmobiliario and that its owner lack a registrable title for such purposes (voto of the Sala Primera 226 of July 11, 1990). Apart from what will be said about the form and number of witnesses who must testify, the cited law establishes that what the person filing for title states, in writing or verbally, has the character of a sworn statement (numeral 3 final paragraph). The person filing for title must declare the following data required by numeral 1: indication of whether there are real charges and encumbrances (easements (servidumbres), usufructs (usufructos), etc.), specifying the type and proving their constitution; time of possession; description of the possessory acts; cause and date of acquisition; full name of the person who transferred the property, in the case of a derivative mode, as well as their domicile. It must also be declared that the farm is not registered in the referred Registry, that there is no registrable title of ownership (dominio) and that there is no intent to evade the consequences of a probate proceeding. Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15 of the referred law set forth the other requirements that must be met. In that sense, the Tribunal has explained, the Posesory Information (Información Posesoria) is a non-contentious judicial activity proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right ..., fulfilling the corresponding legal requirements for this. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner (posesión a título de dueño), in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Código Civil). ... For reasons of public interest, and to avoid a double registry inscription on the same property, or to protect third parties with a better right than the person filing for title, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Posesory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore notify personally from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners (colindantes), because the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. It is also ordered to notify the co-owners (condueños or condóminos). Likewise, to safeguard the interests of the State, it is ordered to consider as a party the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, for the protection of property subject to public domain, and of state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law mandates summoning all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Boletín Judicial, who may have a legitimate interest in the process. (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (see voto 755 of November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries (fences, lanes, etc.) is also required. The following documents must be provided: cattle brand if the farm is dedicated to livestock; identity card or respective identification document of the party filing for title; cadastral map (plano catastrado); updated certification from the Registro Público Inmobiliario clarifying if other farms have been titled and their size; updated certification from the Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía on whether or not the land is included within any protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida). Current legislation on soils requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its suitability (soil study).

If there are springs (nacientes) or water sources, the respective report must be requested from the competent entity for their protection (articles 50 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Constitución Política, 1, 3, and 17 of the Ley de Aguas 276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the Ley Forestal 7575 of February 5, 1996, and Decreto Ejecutivo 26237 of June 19, 1997). If ten-year possession is not held at the time of initiating the proceeding, the promoting party may add that of their transferors, but in addition to clarifying that in the initial brief, they must provide the public document in which the transfer of their right is recorded. The documentary evidence and the rest of the evidence that must be provided must ratify or prove precisely what was reported in that brief. Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentary evidence accompanying the initial brief. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, in a minimum of three, the legislator imposed the requirement that they must be persons who are neighbors (personas vecinas) of the canton where the property is located. This is so that they could attest to how and since when possession has been exercised over the land to be titled. In other words, it is presumed that the neighboring persons of the area are those who best know the owners of the nearby lands and what happens on them, by frequenting or living in the same place. If the land is included within a protected wilderness area, other special requirements are demanded (see voto 7 of the Tribunal Agrario of January 10, 2000). All those requirements and others that are not of interest to highlight at this time, as well as the pertinent evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial memorial, are clearly specified in the Código Civil, the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and special laws regarding water, soil, and forest resources. Furthermore, according to numerals 8 and 18 of the Ley de Catastro Nacional 6545 of March 26, 1981, there must be a true concordance between the information of the Registro Público and that of the Catastro Nacional. Ignorance in this regard cannot therefore be alleged, much less if one has professional legal advice, as happened in the case. The omission regarding them or regarding the offering of pertinent evidence is solely the responsibility of the promoting party, which the courts cannot resolve, as the person filing for title bears the burden of proof for their actions and what they affirm (article 317 of the Código Procesal Civil and 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, voto of this Tribunal Agrario 827 of December 19, 2003).

VII.- Given the grievance, it is also important to highlight that numeral 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria establishes, in evidentiary matters, the system of free evaluation (libre valoración). This implies studying and selecting the sources of proof obtained, in order to establish their effectiveness for resolving the conflict submitted to its knowledge, through perception, representation or reconstruction, and deductive or inductive reasoning. The court must express the principles of equity or of law on which it bases its criterion. "The system of free evaluation of evidence surpasses the classic system of legal proof (prueba legal) as well as that of sound criticism (sana crítica), which govern in civil proceedings. The way the agrarian process has been conceived allows the judge to broadly evaluate the facts alleged by the parties. Said system is not arbitrary; on the contrary, in the free evaluation of evidence, it must be reasoned, critical, based on logic, experience, and psychology. In the motivation of the ruling, the judge must set forth the reasons for conviction that lead them to resolve in the terms they do. Unlike the legal tariff system, in which evidence is assessed subject to prior legal rules, and even the admissibility of evidence must be previously indicated by the Legal System, in the system of free assessment (libre apreciación) the judge has freedom to admit evidence according to their criterion (votos 398 of June 6, 2001 of the Sala Primera.

In the same sense, see votes 206 of March 26, 1999; 46 of April 26, 1995; 66 of February 6, 2009; and 364 of May 28, 2009, of the Agrarian Tribunal, and 3657 of May 7, 2003, of the Constitutional Chamber).           VIII.- Based on the foregoing, the grievances of the appellant are not accepted. Firstly, the documentary and testimonial evidence received was duly analyzed, in accordance with the conclusions of the trial judge. The fact that the judge did not cite each of the evidentiary elements in the analysis does not imply a lack of reasoning or improper evidentiary assessment. Nor is it true that the judge failed to analyze the value of the acquisition deed (escritura de adquisición), since the second proven fact expressly cites and analyzes that document. Furthermore, given the challenge, it is important to highlight that a public deed certainly has significant probative value because it is prepared by a notary, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 369 and 370 of the Civil Code, applied supplementarily in this matter. But this does not grant it the scope that the appellant sets forth in the grievance, specifically for the purpose of proving ten-year possession. In this regard, the statements that the parties to a deed make before a notary are not proof of the existence of such facts. The foregoing is because, from what is recorded in a deed, only those facts of which the notary can attest, because they occurred in their presence, provided that they so record it, can be taken as certain facts. Otherwise, what is recorded is taken only as statements of the parties, which may not be true. "Case law has repeatedly held that the notarial function turns the notary into a privileged witness with the power to affirm, in a certain manner, that the events occurred before them, as they relate them in the deed, but without that public faith extending to accepting the statements of the grantors as true, because regarding those statements, the Notary merely records what they are told or led to believe, based on mere third-party faith, which is not protected by article 735 (of the Code ...)" (vote 123 of December 6, 1967, of the Court of Cassation). In this case, the petitioner in the initial filing declared that the petitioner acquired the land by sale from [Name1] and as proof thereof offers deed 94 of July 15, 2004, of notary Ana Gutiérrez (folio 8). But apart from the fact that such a document is not in itself useful proof to demonstrate possession exercised by the transferors, the referenced deed, visible at folio 5, does not demonstrate that the land sought to be titled in this proceeding was conveyed. This is because the petitioner sought to register a land of slightly more than 70,000 square meters, described in plan G-945485-2004, surveyed (catastrado) on August 26, 2004, modified by plan G-1873173-2016. Both plans locate the mapped land in [Address1] () Cruz (folios 1 and 57). But the deed that the applicant offers as proof of acquisition describes a land of approximately eight hectares, located in [Address2] (Cartagena). The record does not contain a deed correcting that the district referenced in the deed was incorrect, nor was it proven that a modification of the geopolitical division of both districts had occurred, such that the land passed from being located in Cartagena to Tempate. This inconsistency was not analyzed by the trial court, nor does the petitioner justify the change of district in an acceptable manner. Note in this regard, moreover, that less than two months elapsed between the deed and the surveying of the original plan. Therefore, the analyzed deed cannot be accepted as the base document for the acquisition of the land, since it demonstrates the acquisition of a land located in a different place from the one the petitioner seeks to title in this proceeding.           IX.- Regarding the objection to the assessment of the testimonies of [Name2] and [Name3], who testified at the end of March 2017, the appellant cannot ignore that they stated they had known the land for less time than legally required to consider them sufficient and useful proof to demonstrate ten-year possession. The first witness stated that she had lived in Cartagena for 7 years (since 2010) and that she had known the land since then. She indicated that the petitioner acquired it by purchase from her boyfriend’s grandfather, [Name4], 13 years ago, without clarifying how she could attest to that statement (folio 111). Given the precision of the date on which she stated she knew the land, it cannot be considered that she knew it beforehand, nor can it be taken as useful proof for the purpose of demonstrating possession for 13 years (since 2004). By that year, and given the date the proceeding was filed (2012), the applicant would have only 8 years of possessing the land on their own, without adding that of the transferor (possession that was not proven either). In this regard, and contrary to what the appellant alleges, the requirement of ten-year possession must be met before the proceeding is filed. It is not acceptable, as alleged, to add years subsequent to its filing, regardless of the year in which the witnesses testify. [Name3] indicated knowing the land for only 5 or 6 years (2011 or 2012) and that at that time it belonged to [Name5] (folio 114). That is, when the proceeding was filed, the witness had only known the land for 1 or 2 years. Even so, the witness affirmed that it belonged to [Name5], who according to the petitioner sold it to him in 2004, without the witness explaining how or why they affirmed that fact, if they became acquainted with the land many years after it was no longer Mr. [Name1]'s. From that referenced testimonial evidence, it does not follow, as the trial judge correctly concluded, that the petitioner exercised possession personally or derivatively for a minimum of ten years before the proceeding was filed, in March 2012. The applicant, from the moment the applicant offered testimonial evidence, had to corroborate that the offered witnesses had known the land for sufficient time to be able to prove the facts affirmed by the applicant. If due to error or ignorance on the applicant's part or on the part of the applicant's legal advisor, the applicant does not properly accredit them at the appropriate time, it is a burden that must be imputed against the applicant under the applicant's own responsibility. It is not for the judge to remedy that situation. Nor is the argument acceptable that if the court did not consider the testimonies of those two witnesses useful, it should have ordered that additional testimonial evidence be offered. Although it is the power of the trial judge to determine if the number of witnesses needed to render judgment must be greater than the minimum (Articles 6 and 11 of the referenced Law), this must be applied provided it is strictly necessary and it is corroborated that the effective fulfillment of the purposes of the current legislation is not thereby altered (see vote of the Agrarian Tribunal 827 of December 19, 2003). As for the appellant's assertion that those two witnesses did know the land and to whom it previously belonged, it is also not accepted, given that this was not what they stated, as explained. To precisely avoid claims such as the one analyzed, both the judge and the parties may actively intervene in the evidentiary proceedings. During the examination of the witnesses, the court must try to obtain and corroborate the information provided about the land to be titled and the possessory acts carried out. If the judge omits to ask a question of special interest, both the applicant and the applicant's legal advisor could request that it be asked, since they may be present during the examination. In this regard, the petitioner must be very diligent with the information provided and take care to demonstrate the petitioner's affirmations and presumed right. The burden of proof in this regard rests exclusively with the petitioner. It is unacceptable to allow the petitioner to remedy or alter, at the petitioner's convenience, what the witnesses have affirmed or what has been demonstrated during the proceeding. The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is clear regarding requirements, and there is a large number of pronouncements from the Tribunals that have explained how each one should be interpreted and must be fulfilled. In this case, given the statements of [Name2] and [Name3] about knowing the land since 2010 or 2011, there was no obligation for the court to order additional evidence. Regarding the testimony of [Name6] (folio 113), indeed that was the only witness who indicated knowing the land for 20 years, but the witness's statement is not sufficient to deem the ten-year possession proven, given what is legally required regarding the minimum number of witnesses required and the serious contradiction explained in relation to the location of the land, based on the acquisition deed that the petitioner presented. Therefore, contrary to what is claimed by the appellant, the requirements demanded to title the land cannot be considered fulfilled. Nor is the request acceptable that the sentence be revoked so that the trial court orders to receive more testimonial evidence, according to what has already been analyzed.            X.- In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed judgment on the grounds that were the object of appeal.”  Therefore, it is not appropriate to refer to the content of the documentary evidence accompanying the initial filing. Regarding the required testimonial evidence, from a minimum of three witnesses, the legislator imposed the requirement that they must be neighbors of the canton where the property is located. This is so that they can attest to how and since when possession has been exercised over the land to be titled. In other words, it is presumed that neighbors of the area are those who best know the owners of nearby lands and what happens on them, by frequenting or living in the same place. If the land is included within a protected wild area, other special requirements are demanded (see vote 7 of the Agrarian Tribunal of January 10, 2000). All these requirements and others not pertinent to highlight at this time, as well as the relevant evidence to corroborate what was declared in the initial filing, are clearly specified in the Civil Code, the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and special laws on water, soil, and forest resources. Furthermore, in accordance with numerals 8 and 18 of the Ley de Catastro Nacional 6545 of March 26, 1981, there must be a true concordance between the information in the Public Registry and that of the Catastro Nacional. Ignorance in this regard cannot therefore be alleged, much less if one has professional legal counsel, as happened in the case. The omission regarding these requirements or the offering of pertinent evidence is solely the responsibility of the promoting party, which the tribunals cannot remedy, since the party seeking title bears the burden of proof for its claims and assertions (Article 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, vote of this Agrarian Tribunal 827 of December 19, 2003).

**VII.-** Given the grievances raised, it is also important to highlight that numeral 54 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria establishes, in evidentiary matters, the system of free evaluation of evidence (libre valoración). This implies studying and selecting the sources of evidence obtained, in order to establish their efficacy for resolving the conflict submitted for consideration, through perception, representation or reconstruction, and deductive or inductive reasoning. The tribunal must express the principles of equity or law upon which it bases its criterion. "*The system of free evaluation of evidence surpasses the classic system of statutory evidence (prueba legal) as well as that of sound criticism (sana crítica), which govern in the civil process. The manner in which the agrarian process has been conceived allows the judge to broadly assess the facts alleged by the parties. Said system is not arbitrary; on the contrary, in the free evaluation of evidence, it must be reasoned, critical, and based on logic, experience, and psychology. In the reasoning of the ruling, the judge must set forth the grounds for conviction that lead them to resolve in the terms that they do. Unlike the statutory tariff system, in which evidence is assessed subject to prior legal rules, and even the admissibility of evidence must be previously indicated by the Legal System, in the system of free evaluation, the judge has the freedom to admit evidence according to their criterion* (votes 398 of June 6, 2001 of the First Chamber. In the same sense, see votes 206 of March 26, 1999; 46 of April 26, 1995; 66 of February 6, 2009; and 364 of May 28, 2009 of the Agrarian Tribunal, and 3657 of May 7, 2003 of the Constitutional Chamber).

**VIII.-** As set forth, the grievances of the appellant are not admissible. In the first place, the documentary and testimonial evidence received were duly analyzed, based on what was concluded by the trial judge. The fact that the judge did not cite each and every evidentiary element in their analysis implies neither a lack of reasoning nor an improper evaluation of evidence. It is also not true that the judge did not analyze the value of the acquisition deed, since in proven fact number two, said document is expressly cited and analyzed. Furthermore, it is important to highlight, given the appeal, that a public deed certainly has significant evidentiary value because it is prepared by a notary, as provided in numerals 369 and 370 of the Civil Code, applied supplementarily in this matter. However, this does not give it the scope that the appellant states in their grievance, specifically for the purpose of proving ten-year possession (posesión decenal). In this regard, the statements that the parties to a deed make before a notary are not proof of the existence of such facts. The foregoing is because from what is recorded in a deed, only those facts can be taken as certain of which the notary can attest, by occurring in their presence, provided they so attest. Otherwise, what is recorded is taken only as statements of the parties, which may not be true. "*Case law has repeatedly resolved that the notarial function converts the notary into a privileged witness with the power to affirm, in a certain manner, that the facts occurred before them, as they relate them in the deed, but without that public faith (fe pública) extending to accepting as true the statements of the grantors, because regarding these, the Notary merely records what is told or made to believe to them, based on simple third-party faith (fe ajena), which is not protected by Article 735 (of the Code ...)*" (vote 123 of December 6, 1967 of the Court of Cassation). In this case, the managing party in their initial filing declared that they acquired the land through a sale made to them by [Name1] and as proof thereof offers deed 94 of July 15, 2004 of notary Ana Gutiérrez (*folio 8*). But aside from the fact that such a document in itself is not useful evidence to prove possession exercised by the transferors, the referenced deed, visible at folio 5, does not prove that the land sought to be titled in this process was alienated. This is because the promoting party sought to register a land of just over 70,000 square meters, described in plan G-945485-2004, registered in the cadastre on August 26, 2004, modified by plan G-1873173-2016. Both plans locate the mapped land in [Address1] () Cruz (*folios 1 and 57*). However, the deed that the titling party offers as proof of acquisition describes a land of approximately eight hectares, located in [Address2] (Cartagena). There is no record in the case file of a deed correcting that the district referenced in the deed was incorrect, nor was it proven that a modification of the geopolitical division of both districts had occurred, such that the land passed from being located in Cartagena to Tempate. Said inconsistency was not analyzed by the trial court, nor does the promoting party justify in an acceptable manner the change of district. Note in this regard, furthermore, that between the deed and the original plan's cadastre registration, less than two months elapsed. Therefore, the analyzed deed cannot be accepted as the base document for the acquisition of the land, since it proves the acquisition of a land located in a different place than the one the promoting party seeks to title in this process.

**IX.-** With respect to the objection regarding the evaluation of the testimonies of [Name2] and [Name3], who testified at the end of March 2017, the appellant cannot disregard that they stated they had known the land for less time than legally required to consider them sufficient and useful evidence to prove ten-year possession (posesión decenal). The first stated that she had lived in Cartagena for 7 years (2010) and that she had known the land since then. She indicated that the promoter acquired it by purchase from her boyfriend's grandfather, [Name4], 13 years ago, without clarifying how she could attest to said statement (*folio 111*). Given the precision of the date on which she stated she knew the land, it cannot be considered that she knew it before, nor can it be taken as useful evidence for the purpose of proving possession since 13 years ago (2004). As of that year and given the date of filing the process (2012), the title claimant would have only 8 years of possessing the land on their own, without adding that of the transferor (possession that was not proven either). In this regard, and contrary to what the appellant alleges, the requirement of ten-year possession must be fulfilled before the process is filed. It is not acceptable, as argued, to add years after its initiation, regardless of the year in which the witnesses testify. [Name3] indicated knowing the land for only 5 or 6 years (2011 or 2012) and that at the time it belonged to [Name5] (*folio 114*). That is, when the process was filed, he had only known the land for 1 or 2 years. Even so, he affirmed that it was [Name5]'s, who according to the promoter sold it to him in 2004, without the witness explaining how or why he affirmed said fact, if he knew the land many years after it was no longer Mr. [Name1]'s. It does not follow from that referenced testimonial evidence, as the trial judge correctly concluded, that the promoting party exercised possession personally or derivatively for at least ten years before filing the process, in March 2012. The titling party should have, from the moment they offered testimonial evidence, corroborated that the offered witnesses knew the land for the sufficient time to prove the facts affirmed by them. If their error or ignorance, or that of their legal counsel, fails to substantiate these in the proper form at the opportune moment, it is a burden that must only be attributed against them under their responsibility. It is not for the judge to remedy this situation. Nor is their argument acceptable that if the tribunal did not consider the testimonies of those two witnesses useful, it should have ordered the offering of additional testimonial evidence. Although it is the faculty of the trial judge to determine if the number of witnesses needed to rule must be greater than the minimum (articles 6 and 11 of the referenced Law), this must be applied provided it is strictly necessary and it is corroborated that the effective fulfillment of the purposes of the current legislation is not thereby altered (see vote of the Agrarian Tribunal 827 of December 19, 2003). As for the appellant's assertion that those two witnesses did know the land and who owned it before, it is also not admissible, given that this was not what they stated, as explained. To precisely avoid claims like the one analyzed, both the judge and the parties can actively intervene in the evacuation of evidence. During the interrogation of the witnesses, the tribunal must try to obtain and corroborate the information provided about the land to be titled and the acts of possession carried out. If the judge omits to ask a question of special interest, both the title claimant and their legal counsel could request that it be asked, given that they can be present during the interrogation. In this regard, the managing party must be very diligent with the information provided and strive to demonstrate their affirmations and their presumed right. The corresponding burden of proof falls exclusively upon them. What is unacceptable is to allow them to gradually rectify or alter, at their convenience, what the witnesses have affirmed or what has been demonstrated during the process. The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias is clear regarding requirements, and there is a large number of pronouncements from the Tribunals that have explained how each one is interpreted and must be fulfilled. In the case, in view of the statements of [Name2] and [Name3], about knowing the land since 2010 or 2011, there was no obligation for the tribunal to order additional evidence. As for the testimony of [Name6] (*folio 113*), he was certainly the only witness who indicated knowing the land for 20 years, but his statement is not sufficient to deem the ten-year possession proven, given what is legally required regarding the minimum number of witnesses required and the serious contradiction explained in relation to the location of the land, based on the acquisition deed presented by the promoting party. Therefore, contrary to what was claimed by the appellant, the requirements demanded to title the land cannot be considered fulfilled. Nor is their petition acceptable that the judgment be revoked for the trial tribunal to order receiving more testimonial evidence, according to what was already analyzed.

**X.-** In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed judgment in what was the subject of appeal."

“VI.- Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico garantiza el derecho de inscribir terrenos, siempre que se cumplan todos los requisitos legales exigidos en los diversos cuerpos normativos (voto 51 de 26 de mayo de 1995 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias 139 de 14 de julio de 1941 exige para autorizar la inscripción de un fundo a través de este tipo de proceso, que esté sin inscribir en el Registro Público Inmobiliario y que su persona dueña carezca de título inscribible para tales efectos (voto de la Sala Primera 226 de 11 de julio de 1990). Aparte de lo que se dirá sobre la forma y cantidad de personas testigas que deben declarar, la ley citada establece que lo que manifieste quien titula, por escrito o verbalmente, tiene el carácter de declaración jurada (numeral 3 párrafo final). La persona titulante debe declarar los siguientes datos exigidos por el numeral 1: indicación de si existen cargas reales y gravámenes (servidumbres, usufructos, etc.), especificar el tipo y probar su constitución; tiempo de posesión; descripción de los actos posesorios; causa y fecha de adquisición; nombre y apellidos de la persona que transmitió, en caso de tratarse de un modo derivado, así como su domicilio. Debe además declararse que la finca no se encuentra inscrita en el Registro referido, se carece de título de dominio inscribible y que no se pretende evadir las consecuencias de un proceso sucesorio. Los artículos 1, 2, 4, 5 6, 7, 9 y 15 de la ley referida disponen los demás requisitos que deben cumplirse. En ese sentido, el Tribunal ha explicado, la 􀂳􀂫 Información Posesoria es un trámite de actividad judicial no contenciosa para la formalización de un título registrable sobre un derecho de propiedad ..., cumpliendo para ello con los requisitos legales correspondientes. Se exige demostrar la posesión a título de dueño, en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida (artículos 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil). ... Por razones de interés público, y para evitar una doble inscripción registral sobre un mismo bien, o bien, para tutelar a terceros de mejor derecho que el titulante, la Ley exige notificar a ciertos sujetos . También estableció un trámite de oposición dentro de la Información Posesoria, en caso de que alguno de los interesados se sienta perjudicado por la titulación (artículo 8). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ordena al Juez tener como partes y por tanto notificarles personalmente desde el inicio de las diligencias, a los colindantes, ello por cuanto la titulación podría abarcar parte de las tierras que les pertenecen. También se ordena notificar a los condueños o condóminos. Igualmente, en resguardo de los intereses del Estado, se ordena tener como parte a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para el resguardo de la propiedad sujeta al dominio público, y de la Propiedad Agraria estatal (artículo 5). Finalmente, la Ley manda a citar a todos los interesados, mediante la publicación de un Edicto en el Boletín Judicial, que puedan tener un interés legítimo en el proceso.(Ver numeral 5 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) ( ver voto 755 de 13 de noviembre del 2003). Se exige también la existencia de linderos bien señalados (cercas, carriles, etc.). Deben aportarse los siguientes documentos: marca de ganado si la finca se dedica a ganadería; cédula de identidad o documento de identificación respectivo de la parte titulante; plano catastrado; certificación actualizada del Registro Público Inmobiliario que aclare si se han titulado otras fincas y su medida; certificación actualizada del Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía sobre si está o no comprendido el terreno dentro de alguna área silvestre protegida. La legislación vigente sobre suelos exige se demuestre el uso del terreno conforme a su aptitud (estudio de suelo).

De existir nacientes o fuentes de agua debe solicitarse el informe respectivo del ente competente para su tutela (artículos 50 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, inciso 14 del numeral 121 de la Constitución Política, 1, 3 y 17 de la Ley de Aguas 276 de 27 de agosto de 1942, 33 de la Ley Forestal 7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996 y Decreto Ejecutivo 26237 de 19 de junio de 1997). De no tenerse la posesión decenal al momento de iniciar la diligencia, puede la parte promovente sumar la de sus transmitentes, pero además de aclarar eso en el escrito inicial, debe aportar el documento público en el cual conste el traspaso de su derecho. La documental y el resto de la prueba que se debe aportar, deben ratificar o probar precisamente lo informado en ese escrito. Por ello no resulta procedente se remita al contenido de la documental que acompañe al escrito inicial. En cuanto a la prueba testimonial exigida, en un mínimo de tres, la persona legisladora impuso el requisito de que debían ser personas vecinas del cantón donde se ubica el inmueble. Ello con el fin de que pudiesen dar fe de cómo y desde cuando se ha ejercido la posesión sobre el terreno a titular. En otras palabras, se presume que las personas vecinas de la zona son quienes mejor conocen las personas dueñas de los terrenos cercanos y que sucede en ellos, por frecuentar o vivir en el mismo lugar. Si el terreno está comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida se exigen otros requerimientos especiales (ver voto 7 del Tribunal Agrario de 10 de enero del 2000). Todos esos requisitos y otros más que no interesa resaltar en esta oportunidad, así como la prueba pertinente para corroborar lo declarado en el memorial inicial, están claramente especificados en el Código Civil, la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y leyes especiales en materia de aguas, suelo y recurso forestal. Además, conforme a los numerales 8 y 18 de la Ley de Catastro Nacional 6545 de 26 de marzo de 1981 debe existir una verdadera concordancia entre la información del Registro Público y la del Catastro Nacional. No puede entonces alegarse desconocimiento al respecto, mucho menos si se cuenta con asesoría legal profesional, como sucedió en el caso. La omisión en cuanto a ellos o respecto del ofrecimiento de prueba pertinente, es responsabilidad únicamente de la parte promovente, que los tribunales no pueden solventar, pues quien titula tiene la carga de la prueba de sus gestiones y de lo que afirma (artículo 317 del Código Procesal Civil y 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, voto de este Tribunal Agrario 827 de 19 de diciembre del 2003).

VII.- Dado lo agraviado, es también importante destacar que el numeral 54 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria establece, en materia probatoria, el sistema de la libre valoración. Ello implica estudiar y seleccionar las fuentes de prueba obtenidas, a fin de establecer su eficacia para resolver el conflicto sometido a su conocimiento, a través de la percepción, la representación o reconstrucción y el razonamiento deductivo o inductivo. El tribunal debe expresar los principios de equidad o de derecho sobre los cuales basa su criterio. "El sistema de la libre valoración de la prueba supera el clásico sistema de la prueba legal así como el de la sana crítica, que rigen en el proceso civil. La forma como ha sido concebido el proceso agrario le permite al juez valorar ampliamente los hechos alegados por las partes. Dicho sistema no es arbitrario, por el contrario en la libre valoración de la prueba la misma deber ser razonada, crítica, basarse en la lógica, la experiencia y la sicología. En la motivación del fallo el juez debe exponer los motivos de convicción que lo llevan a resolver en los términos que lo hace. A diferencia del sistema de tarifa legal, en el cual las pruebas se aprecian con sujeción a reglas legales previas, e incluso la admisibilidad de pruebas debe estar previamente señalado por el Ordenamiento Jurídico, en el sistema de libre apreciación el juez tiene libertad para admitir pruebas conforme a su criterio (votos 398 del 6 de junio del 2001 de la Sala Primera. En igual sentido véase votos 206 del 26 de marzo de 1999, 46 del 26 de abril de 1995; 66 del 6 de febrero de 2009 y 364 de 28 de mayo del 2009 del Tribunal Agrario y 3657 del 7 de mayo de 2003 de la Sala Constitucional).

VIII.- Conforme lo expuesto, los agravios de la parte recurrente no son de recibo. En primer lugar, la prueba documental y la testimonial recibida fueron debidamente analizadas, en función de lo concluido por el juez de instancia. El que no citara cada uno de los elementos probatorios en su análisis, no implica ni falta de fundamentación ni indebida valoración probatoria. Tampoco es cierto que no analizase el valor de la escritura de adquisición, pues en el hecho probado segundo se cita y analiza expresamente dicho documento. Además, es importante resaltar, dado lo impugnado, que una escritura pública ciertamente tienen un importante valor probatorio por ser confeccionado por una persona notaria, según lo dispuesto en los numerales 369 y 370 del Código Civil, aplicados supletoriamente en esta materia. Pero ello no le otorga los alcances que la parte recurrente expone en su agravio, en específico para efectos de demostrar la posesión decenal. Al respecto, las manifestaciones que las partes de una escritura hagan ante una persona notaria, no son prueba de la existencia de tales. Lo anterior por cuanto de lo consignado en una escritura solo se pueden tener como hechos ciertos aquellos de los cuáles la persona notaria pueda dar fe, por ocurrir en su presencia, siempre que así lo hace constar. En caso contrario lo consignado se tienen solo como manifestaciones de las partes, que pueden no ser ciertas. "La jurisprudencia ha resuelto reiteradamente que la función notarial convierte al notario en un testigo privilegiado con la potestad de afirmar, de un modo cierto, que los hechos ocurrieron ante él, como los refiere en la escritura, pero sin que esa fe pública alcance a dar por verdaderas las manifestaciones de los otorgantes, porque en cuanto a ellas el Notario se limita a consignar lo que le dicen o le hacen creer, basándose en las simple fe ajena, que no está protegida por el artículo 735 (del Código .....)" (voto 123 de 6 de diciembre de 1967 de la Sala de Casación). En este caso, la parte gestionante en su escrito inicial declaró que adquirió el terreno por venta que le hiciera [Nombre1] y como prueba de ello ofrece la escritura 94 de 15 de julio de 2004 de la notaria Ana Gutiérrez (folio 8). Pero aparte de que tal documento en sí no es prueba útil para demostrar posesión ejercida por las personas transmitentes, la escritura referida, visible a folio 5, no demuestra que se haya enajenado el terreno que se pretende titular en este proceso. Esto por cuanto,la parte promovente pretendía inscribir un terreno de poco más de 70000 metros cuadrados, descrito en el plano G-945485-2004, catastrado el 26 de agosto de 2004, modificado por el plano G-1873173-2016. Ambos planos ubican el terreno graficado en el [Dirección1] () Cruz (folios 1 y 57). Pero la escritura que ofrece la parte titulante como prueba de adquisición, describe un terreno de aproximadamente ocho hectáreas, ubicado en el [Dirección2] (Cartagena). No consta en autos escritura que corrigiese que el distrito referido en la escritura estuviese incorrecto ni tampoco se probó que hubiese ocurrido una modificación de la división geopolítica de ambos distritos, de manera que el terreno pasase de estar ubicado en Cartagena a Tempate. Dicha inconsistencia no fue analizada por el juzgado de primera instancia ni tampoco la parte promovente justifica en forma aceptable el cambio de distrito. Nótese al respecto además que entre la escritura y el catastro del plano original transcurrieron menos de dos meses. Por ende, no puede aceptarse como documento base de la adquisición del terreno la escritura analizada, pues tal demuestra la adquisición de un terreno ubicado en un lugar diferente al que la parte promovente pretende titular en este proceso.

IX.- Con respecto a lo objetado sobre la valoración de las testimoniales de [Nombre2] y [Nombre3] , que declararon a finales de marzo del 2017, no puede la parte impugnante desconocer que manifestaron conocer el terreno por menos tiempo del requerido legalmente para considerarles prueba suficiente y útil para demostrar la posesión decenal. La primera manifestó que vivía en Cartagena desde hacía 7 años (2010) y que desde entonces conocía el terreno. Indicó que el promovente lo adquirió por compra al abuelo de su novio, [Nombre4] , hacía 13 años, sin que aclarase cómo podía dar fe de dicha manifestación (folio 111). Ante la precisión de la fecha en la cual manifestó conocía el terreno, no puede considerarse lo conociese de antes y tampoco puede tenerse como prueba útil para efectos de demostrar una posesión desde hacía 13 años (2004). A ese año y dada la fecha de planteamiento del proceso (2012), el titulante tendría solo 8 años de poseer el terreno por sí solo, sin sumar la del transmitente (posesión que no fue probada tampoco). Al respecto, y contrario a lo que alega la recurrente, el requisito de la posesión decenal debe cumplirse antes de plantearse el proceso. No es aceptable, como lo alega, sumar años posteriores a su interposición, independientemente del año en que declaren las personas testigas. [Nombre3] indicó conocer el terreno desde hacía tan solo 5 o 6 años (2011 o 2012) y que en su momento le pertenecía a [Nombre5] (folio 114). Es decir, al plantearse el proceso tenía tan solo 1 o 2 años de conocer el terreno. Aún así afirmó que fue de [Nombre5] , quien según el promovente se lo vendió en el 2004, sin explicar el testigo cómo o por qué afirmó dicho dato, si conoció el terreno muchos años luego de que ya no era del señor [Nombre1]. De esa prueba testimonial referida no se deriva, como correctamente concluyo el juez de instancia, que la parte promovente haya ejercido posesión personalmente o en forma derivada por mínimo diez años antes de plantearse el proceso, en marzo del 2012. La parte titulante debía, desde el momento en que ofreció prueba testimonial, corroborar que las personas testigas ofrecidas conociesen el terreno durante el tiempo suficiente para poder probar los hechos por ella afirmados. Si error o ignorancia suya o de quien le asesora legalmente , no los acredita en la forma debida en el momento oportuno, es una carga que solo debe imputarse en su contra bajo su responsabilidad. No corresponde a la persona juzgadora subsanar dicha situación. No es tampoco aceptable su argumento de que si el tribunal no consideraba útiles los testimonios de esos dos testigos debió ordenar se ofreciese prueba testimonial adicional. Si bien es facultad de la persona juzgadora de instancia determinar si el número de personas testigas que necesita para fallar debe ser mayor al mínimo (artículos 6 y 11 de la Ley referida), ello debe aplicarse siempre y cuando sea estrictamente necesario y se corrobore no se altera con ello el cumplimiento efectivo de los fines de la legislación vigente (ver voto del Tribunal Agrario 827 de 19 de diciembre de 2003). En cuanto a la afirmación de la parte recurrente de que esas dos personas testigas si conocían el terreno y de quien era antes, tampoco es de recibo, dado que eso no fue lo manifestado por ellos, conforme se explicó. Para evitar precisamente reclamos como el analizado, tanto la persona juzgadora como las partes puede intervenir activamente en la evacuación de la prueba. Durante el interrogatorio de las personas testigas el tribunal debe tratar de obtener y corroborar la información brindada sobre el terreno a titular y los actos posesorios realizados. Si la persona juzgadora omite hacer alguna pregunta de especial interés, tanto la persona titulante como su asesora legal podían solicitar se hiciese, dado que pueden estar presente durante el interrogatorio. Al respecto, debe la parte gestionante ser muy diligente con la información brindada y esmerarse en demostrar sus afirmaciones y su presunto derecho. La carga de la prueba al respecto le corresponde exclusivamente a ella. Lo que resulta inaceptable es permitirle vaya subsanando o alterando a su conveniencia, lo que han afirmado las personas testigas o lo que se ha ido demostrando durante el proceso. La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias es clara en cuanto a requisitos y existe una gran cantidad de pronunciamientos de los Tribunales que han explicado como se interpretan y deben cumplirse cada uno. En el caso, en vista de las afirmaciones de [Nombre2] y [Nombre3] , sobre conocer el terreno desde 2010 o 2011, no existía obligación del tribunal de ordenar prueba adicional. En cuanto al testimonio de [Nombre6] (folio 113), ciertamente fue el único testigo que indicó conocer el terreno desde hacía 20 años, pero no es suficiente su dicho para tener por demostrada la posesión decenal, dado lo exigido legalmente en cuanto al mínimo de testigos requeridos y la contradicción grave explicada en relación con la ubicación del terreno, con base en la escritura de adquisición que la parte promovente presentó. Por ende, contrario a lo reclamado por la parte impugnante, no se pueden considerar cumplidos los requisitos exigidos para titular el terreno. No es aceptable tampoco su petitoria de que se revoque la sentencia para que el tribunal de instancia ordene recibir más prueba testimonial, según lo ya analizado.

X.- De conformidad con lo expuesto, procede confirmar la sentencia recurrida en lo que fue objeto de apelación.”

TopicsTemas

Land Tenure, Titling, and Refugios PrivadosTenencia, Titulación y Refugios Privados

Concept anchorsAnclajes conceptuales

Ley de Informaciones Posesorias Art. 1
Código Civil Art. 856
Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria Art. 54
Código Procesal Civil Art. 317
Código Civil Art. 369
Código Civil Art. 370
Ley de Informaciones Posesorias Art. 5
Ley de Informaciones Posesorias Art. 8

Spanish key termsTérminos clave en español

Requirements for Possessory Information Proceedings and Assessment of Public DeedsRequisitos para información posesoria y valoración de escritura pública

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp