← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00672-2018 Tribunal Agrario · Tribunal Agrario · 19/07/2018
OutcomeResultado
The dissenting judge concludes that the challenged judgment was issued prematurely and must be reversed for failing to require proof of the right of way shown on the map.La jueza disidente concluye que la sentencia impugnada se dictó en forma anticipada y debe ser anulada por omitir la prevención de probar la servidumbre de paso consignada en el plano.
SummaryResumen
Judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez issues a dissenting vote against the majority decision of the Agrarian Tribunal that rejected the appeal. The dissenting judge holds that, although possessory information proceedings are not the proper channel to create a right of way, when the applicant includes one on the cadastral map they are asserting its prior existence, and must therefore prove it with documentation. She argues that easements are real rights requiring registration in the Public Registry and that the Possessory Information Law mandates declaring all real charges. A mere indication on a map does not prove an easement's creation; under the Civil Procedure Code, rights of way can only arise from a public-deed agreement or a will. The trial court failed to require the applicant to submit proof of the easement, and by approving the possessory information without this verification it issued a premature judgment that violates the due process rights of adjoining landowners and third parties. The judge concludes the judgment must be reversed so the court of origin can remedy the omission.La jueza Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez emite un voto salvado en contra de la decisión mayoritaria del Tribunal Agrario que rechazó la apelación. La magistrada disidente sostiene que, si bien la información posesoria no es la vía para constituir una servidumbre de paso, cuando el promovente consigna una en el plano catastrado está afirmando su existencia previa, por lo que debe demostrarla documentalmente. Argumenta que la servidumbre es un derecho real que debe inscribirse en el Registro Público y que la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias exige declarar todas las cargas reales. La sola indicación en un plano no acredita la constitución de una servidumbre, que según el Código Procesal Civil solo puede nacer de convenio en escritura pública o por testamento. El fallo de primera instancia omitió prevenir al promovente para que aportara prueba de la servidumbre y, al aprobar la información posesoria sin esa verificación, dictó una sentencia anticipada que vulnera el debido proceso de colindantes y terceros. La jueza concluye que la sentencia debe ser anulada para que el juzgado de origen subsane la omisión.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In other words, a right of way is a charge or encumbrance that must not only be declared by the applicant but also proven, and specific proof is required given the manner in which it can be created. It is also necessary to prove the existence of this encumbrance in a possessory information proceeding, for the following reasons: 1) An easement is a real right and at the same time an encumbrance or charge on real property. As such, it must be recorded in the Public Real Estate Registry, on the entry of the servient or dominant tenements. [...] 3) If that declaration is required, and an easement is even shown on the map, its existence must be duly proven by submitting the relevant document showing that the encumbrance had been created before the map was drawn. This is specifically required under our current legislation, which provides that rights of way, for agricultural or other purposes, are created only by agreement (recorded in a public deed as they are real rights and registrable encumbrances) or by will (testamentary disposition), as provided in Article 378 of the Civil Procedure Code, applied supplementarily. Based on the foregoing, due to omissions in due process to guarantee the rights of adjoining landowners and third parties, and in light of public-interest rules of the legal system, it is concluded that the challenged judgment was issued prematurely and must be reversed. The lower court should have required proof of the existence of the easement shown on the map before giving the final hearing to the Attorney General's Office.En otras palabras, la servidumbre de paso es una carga o gravamen que no solo debe ser declarado por la parte titulante, sino además demostrado, y para ello se exige prueba específica, dada la forma cómo se puede constituir. Resulta además necesario se demuestre la existencia de ese gravamen en un proceso de información posesoria, por lo siguiente: 1) La servidumbre es un derecho real, y a la vez es un gravamen o carga, que pesa sobre inmuebles. Como tal, se debe inscribir en el Registro Público Inmobiliario, en el asiento de los fundos -sirvientes o dominantes-. [...] 3) Si se exige esa declaración, e incluso se consigna en el plano una servidumbre, debe demostrarse su existencia en la forma debida, aportando el documento pertinente que demuestre se había constituido dicho gravamen antes de confeccionarse el plano. Esto por exigirse en forma específica, en nuestra legislación vigente, que las servidumbre de paso, agrícolas o para otros fines, se constituyen solo por convenio (consignado en escritura pública al ser un derecho real y gravamen registrable) o por testamento (disposición de última voluntad), según lo dispuesto en el numeral 378 del Código Procesal Civil, aplicado supletoriamente. Con base en lo anterior, por existir omisiones al debido proceso para garantizar a colindantes y terceros, y en función de normas de interés público del ordenamiento jurídico, se concluye la sentencia impugnada se dictó en forma anticipada, y debe ser anulada. Debió el a quo prevenir lo relativo a que se demostrara la existencia de la servidumbre consignada en el plano, previo a dar audiencia final a la PGR.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En otras palabras, la servidumbre de paso es una carga o gravamen que no solo debe ser declarado por la parte titulante, sino además demostrado, y para ello se exige prueba específica, dada la forma cómo se puede constituir."
"In other words, a right of way is a charge or encumbrance that must not only be declared by the applicant but also proven, and specific proof is required given the manner in which it can be created."
Voto salvado, fundamento jurídico
"En otras palabras, la servidumbre de paso es una carga o gravamen que no solo debe ser declarado por la parte titulante, sino además demostrado, y para ello se exige prueba específica, dada la forma cómo se puede constituir."
Voto salvado, fundamento jurídico
"Tenemos claro un plano por sí mismo no refleja la constitución de derecho real alguno con base en lo expuesto en el artículo 301 del Código Civil."
"We are clear that a map by itself does not reflect the creation of any real right, based on the provisions of Article 301 of the Civil Code."
Voto salvado, citando voto 391-F-10
"Tenemos claro un plano por sí mismo no refleja la constitución de derecho real alguno con base en lo expuesto en el artículo 301 del Código Civil."
Voto salvado, citando voto 391-F-10
"Con base en lo anterior, por existir omisiones al debido proceso para garantizar a colindantes y terceros, y en función de normas de interés público del ordenamiento jurídico, se concluye la sentencia impugnada se dictó en forma anticipada, y debe ser anulada."
"Based on the foregoing, due to omissions in due process to guarantee the rights of adjoining landowners and third parties, and in light of public-interest rules of the legal system, it is concluded that the challenged judgment was issued prematurely and must be reversed."
Voto salvado, conclusión
"Con base en lo anterior, por existir omisiones al debido proceso para garantizar a colindantes y terceros, y en función de normas de interés público del ordenamiento jurídico, se concluye la sentencia impugnada se dictó en forma anticipada, y debe ser anulada."
Voto salvado, conclusión
Full documentDocumento completo
The undersigned judge Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, member of the Agrarian Tribunal, signs but does not share the majority vote, insofar as it rejects the appeal, based on the following considerations: While it is true that the possessory information proceeding is not the proper avenue to constitute an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso), what is claimed by the PGR is not that it be used to constitute one. On the contrary, the title applicant, by recording the existence of an easement on the base plan, is affirming or maintaining that it has already been constituted. Therefore, the proper course is for the applicant to prove its existence in the proper manner, and since this is an easement of passage, according to the jurisprudence of the First Chamber, this can be done by providing the respective document where it was constituted, without it being valid to treat it as existing solely based on what is indicated in a plan. In other words, the easement of passage is an encumbrance (carga) or burden (gravamen) that must not only be declared by the title applicant, but also proven, and for this, specific evidence is required, given the manner in which it can be constituted. Furthermore, proving the existence of that burden in a possessory information proceeding is necessary for the following reasons:
Exceptionally, the following are considered access: navigable rivers, easements of passage (servidumbres de paso), and private roads registered in the Public Property Registry. All fronts of the properties and their accesses must be indicated, and, when they exist, the widths of sidewalks, green zones, shoulders, roadways, or the total width of the existing right-of-way must be dimensioned..." Likewise, this Court, in a recent ruling, stated: "According to Article 379 of the Civil Code, easements of passage (servidumbres de paso), being discontinuous, may be voluntarily constituted only through a mortis causa legal transaction (inheritance, legacy) or inter vivos (agreement), and even by judicial resolution when dealing with forced easements of passage, that is, as a result of the final resolution of an ordinary proceeding. Certainly, the non-contentious proceeding of possessory information is not the pertinent procedural route to constitute them.
The challenged resolution is effectively constituting an easement of passage (servidumbre de paso), for which there is no evidence whatsoever of having been constituted in any of the forms described above, contradicting Articles 379 and 308 of the Civil Code. The court of origin did not at any time take into account that it should have warned the petitioner to declare, under the character of a sworn statement, whether said easement is constituted or not, and if affirmative, to provide the legal instrument proving its constitution, because according to Article 370 of the Civil Code, lands are presumed free. Another reason that would motivate the nullity of the judgment relates to the constitution of the easement; the judge never warned the petitioner to demonstrate its constitution or agreement. We are clear that a plan by itself does not reflect the constitution of any real right based on what is set forth in Article 301 of the Civil Code.
However, the data recorded on a cadastral plan are vested with the public faith of the surveyor who performs it, and attests that the data recorded in said document correspond to a previously verified physical reality. Article 2 of the Possessory Information Law establishes, and imposes on the professional in charge of the survey, the responsibility for compliance with what is statuted. .... With all the foregoing, and as has been expressed, the plan represents the property to be titled, and the reality of the land must coincide with what is documented in the topographic survey. When the existence of said easement was recorded, it should have been demonstrated, because said plan will support the registration characteristics of the property that is ordered to be titled. See in this same sense Agrarian Court Ruling Number 132-F-2006 of 15:50 hours on February 16, 2006. Ignoring this subsequent regulation that imposes that obligation could generate future conflicts regarding said easement, because when approving a possessory information which originates a new registry title, it must be reflected that the characteristics recorded in the plan in which the approved title is described are adjusted to the material reality.
The Judge must attest to compliance with all requirements, not only those recorded in the Possessory Information Law, but also in other complementary laws such as the Roads Law, Cadastre Law, Soils Law, Water Law, among others, and in this case, the provisions of the Cadastre Law should have been obeyed" (ruling 391-F-10 of April 29, 2010, of the Agrarian Court). Even so, it must be taken into account that there is no legal impossibility whatsoever for a person who has a landlocked property, if there is no agreement with adjoining landowners to obtain an outlet, to constitute the easement through legal means (right of way), especially if they already mapped the access as an "easement (servidumbre)" on a plan. If it cannot be constituted by agreement of the parties and complying with the requirements of the law, they must resort to the corresponding legal channels to request the constitution, in favor of the property to be titled, of a right of way or forced easement (see Agrarian Court rulings 811-98 and 1050-05).
Therefore, the PGR is correct in affirming that in the documentary evidence provided to the proceeding, an easement is recorded that was not proven to exist and be duly constituted. And in this case, the existence of that encumbrance should have been demonstrated, because if it does not exist, the base plan could not have been cadastrally registered, as it was the only access recorded to a public street for the land to be titled. Based on the foregoing, due to omissions in due process to guarantee the rights of adjoining landowners and third parties, and pursuant to public interest norms of the legal system, it is concluded that the challenged judgment was issued prematurely and must be annulled. The lower court should have warned regarding demonstrating the existence of the easement recorded on the plan, prior to giving final audience to the PGR."
"VI.- VOTO SALVADO: La suscrita jueza Ruth Alpízar Rodríguez, integrante del Tribunal Agrario, suscribe pero no comparte el voto de la mayoría, en cuanto rechaza el recurso de apelación, con base en las siguientes consideraciones: Si bien es cierto el proceso de información posesoria no es la vía idónea para constituir una servidumbre de paso, lo reclamado por la PGR no es que se utilice tal para constituirla. Por el contrario, la parte titulante, al consignar en el plano base la existencia de una servidumbre, está afirmando o sosteniendo que la misma ya está constituída. Por ende, lo procedente es que demuestre su existencia en la forma debida, y al tratarse de una servidumbre de paso, de acuerdo con la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera, se puede hacer aportando el documento respectivo dónde se constituyó, sin que sea válido que solo con lo indicado en un plano se tenga por existente. En otras palabras, la servidumbre de paso es una carga o gravamen que no solo debe ser declarado por la parte titulante, sino además demostrado, y para ello se exige prueba específica, dada la forma cómo se puede constituir. Resulta además necesario se demuestre la existencia de ese gravamen en un proceso de información posesoria, por lo siguiente:
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.