Mangrove Use Permits: Wildlife Service, Not Forestry Service, Holds CompetencePermisos de uso en manglares competencia de Vida Silvestre y no de Forestal

"XVI.-[...]Secondly, administrative law doctrine indicates that the administrative act is composed of essential elements that comprise it. They constitute the way in which the legal system determines its formation and manifestation. They are the legal qualities that the Administration's conduct must possess to be valid and effective. Among the various classifications is one that groups them into subjective, objective, and formal. The first, which is the one relevant to the case at bar (sub-júdice), is further subdivided into two: competence (competencia) and the regularity of the official's investiture (regularidad de la investidura del funcionario). Regarding competence, it implies that only the Administration body that has it attributed for that purpose may issue the act. This is why scholars indicate that the distribution of competences among various bodies of an entity constitutes a basic operation of the organization; otherwise, the plurality of bodies within a single entity would be pointless. Competence can be determined according to subject matter, territory or place, time, hierarchical level, and persons. By reason of subject matter, the Administration is in charge of certain specific activities or tasks. It configures the ultimate and broadest purpose of the act—health, labor, finance, etc.—. That is, a type of matter characterized by its object and content is granted to an entity or body. By reason of territory, the spatial limits within which the administrative act must be adopted and executed are established. By reason of time, the time limit within which the act legally takes effect is fixed. By hierarchical level, the hierarchical relationship between two bodies is determined. Finally, by persons, it is established based on the scope of their specific competence. For the act of an entity or body to be valid, it must have been issued in strict adherence to the aforementioned criteria of competence. Regarding the other subjective element, the regularity of the official's investiture, it refers to the fact that the act must emanate from the duly appointed official—public official or agent de jure (funcionario o agente público de derecho)—. Article 129 of the LGAP refers to this subjective element of the act by providing: “The act shall be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated servant at the time of issuing it, after fulfilling all the substantial procedures foreseen for that purpose and the indispensable requirements for the exercise of the competence.” This Chamber, based on the foregoing, and having analyzed the factual framework of the case at bar (sub-júdice) in light of the applicable regulations, arrives at the same conclusion reached by the lower court judges: resolution number 168-93-DGF-MIRENEM was issued by an incompetent body and, therefore, by an official not designated for that purpose. In this regard, it is necessary to point out, the repealed Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), number 4465 of November 25, 1969, in effect at the time the permit applications were filed by the plaintiff and the co-defendants Mr. Hong, in its Articles 1, 2 subsections a) and b), 7, 10 subsection c), 18, and 40, provided the following: “Article 1- This law establishes as an essential function of the State to ensure the protection, use, conservation, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of multiple use of renewable natural resources. Article 2- The fulfillment of this function shall be in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería), which must: a) Conserve, through technical forest management (manejo forestal) systems, the country's renewable forest resources, and increase them to the maximum through modern techniques applicable to the matter; b) Establish, for the purposes of the preceding subsection, protective zones (zonas protectoras), forest reserves (reservas forestales), national parks (parques nacionales), and biological reserves (reservas biológicas). The definitions of each of these areas and the procedure for establishing them shall be done through Regulations; ... Article 7- The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock shall carry out its functions through the Directorate General of Forestry (Dirección General Forestal); the officials and employees of the Directorate General of Forestry shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Statute ... Article 10- The functions and powers of the Directorate General of Forestry shall be the following: ... c) Administer the State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) according to the provisions and principles established in this law and its regulations; ... Article 18- The State Forest Heritage is constituted by the National Reserves (Reservas Nacionales), Forest Reserves, National Parks, Forest Nurseries (Viveros Forestales), Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves ... Article 40- The Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, shall be in charge of the administration of the National Reserves and the rural state-owned farms, as well as those lands that by law have been declared must not leave the domain of the State./ The administration of all forests and forest lands existing in the national reserves and state farms shall be in charge of the Forest Service (Servicio Forestal).” Under the shelter of these norms, as well as what is prescribed by Article 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), Law number 6043 of March 2, 1977, the Executive Branch issued Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 16852-MAG of January 23, 1986, published in Supplement (Alcance) number 5 to La Gaceta number 32 of February 14, 1986; in which, in Article 1, it was declared as “... Forest Reserves the mangrove areas adjacent to the continental and insular coastlines of the country, whatever their extension. That is, whether they are located solely within the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone or extend to lands—state or private—adjacent to that two-hundred-meter-wide strip, measured from the ordinary high tide. Likewise, the category of forest reserve is maintained even in those areas that have been stripped of mangrove.” That is why, in ordinal 2 ibidem, its administration was granted to the Directorate General of Forestry, indicating that “... it shall grant the respective permits or concessions for the use of mangrove; the use of marine fauna shall be in charge of the Directorate General of Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources (Dirección General de Recursos Pesqueros y Acuacultura), ensuring in both cases the conservation of wild and marine fauna.” For its part, canon (canon) 4 ejúsdem provided the following: “The Directorate General of Forestry shall not grant permits or concessions in mangrove areas when the activity to be developed involves a change in land use (cambio en el uso de la tierra), except in cases of installation of saltworks (salinas) and aquaculture projects, in which the elimination of mangrove shall be authorized in areas no larger than 0.5 Ha for the purpose of constructing artificial canals or other works necessary to enable these projects, which must be located outside the mangrove area. Excepted from this article are comprehensive mangrove management projects, according to the criteria of the Directorate General of Forestry, and those projects classified as of social interest.” In accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions indicated above, there is no doubt that the subject matter competence (competencia material) for granting permits for the purpose of developing aquaculture projects, such as shrimp farming, corresponded to the Directorate General of Forestry. Subsequently, on October 21, 1992, Law number 7317, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), was enacted. This new regulatory body, in its numerals 1, 6, 7 subsection h), and 17, to the extent relevant, prescribes: “ARTICLE 1.- The purpose of this Law is to establish regulations on wildlife. Wildlife is composed of continental and insular fauna that live in natural conditions, temporarily or permanently, in the national territory, and the flora that lives in natural conditions in the country. These may only be the subject of private appropriation and trade, through the provisions contained in public treaties, international conventions, this Law, and its Regulations. ... ARTICLE 6.- The Directorate General of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines (Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas) is the competent body in matters of planning, development, and control of wild flora and fauna. ... ARTICLE 7.- The Directorate General of Wildlife of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines has the following functions in the exercise of its competence: ... h) Administer, supervise, and protect wetlands (humedales)./ The creation and delimitation of wetlands shall be done by executive decree, according to technical criteria. ARTICLE 17.- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines is empowered to grant contracts, use rights (derechos de uso), licenses, concessions, or any other legally established legal figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife. Likewise, it is empowered to coordinate actions with centralized or decentralized entities that execute agricultural soil, water, and forest conservation programs, in order to achieve the sustainable use of wildlife./ In the establishment and development of national wildlife refuges (refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), their inhabitants shall participate with the purpose of fostering the integral development of the community and ensuring the protection of the ecosystems. Additionally, for this purpose, coordination must be carried out with community development associations, as well as with any public or private body located in the area.” Under the protection of these provisions, especially numerals 7 subsection h) and 17, the Executive Branch issued Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM of September 14, 1993. In its first article, the mangrove areas adjacent to the continental and insular coastlines of the country, whatever their extension, were declared wetlands; that is, they ceased to be forest reserves, as indicated in Executive Decree 16852-MAG. Meanwhile, in ordinals 2, 3, and 4 (the latter, before the amendment introduced by Executive Decree number 23247-MIRENEM of April 20, 1994, published in La Gaceta number 95 of May 18, 1994) it was provided: “Article 2- The administration of the Wetlands shall be in charge of the Directorate General of Wildlife, as a component of the National System of Wetlands (Sistema Nacional de Humedales); except for wetlands comprised within areas that are under the management category of National Parks and Biological Reserves, which shall remain under the administration of the National Parks Service (Servicio de Parques Nacionales). The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines shall grant the respective permits and/or concessions for the use of the resources, ensuring the conservation of wildlife and marine life. Article 3- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines shall not grant permits or concessions in estuarine wetland areas occupied by mangroves when the activity to be developed involves a change in land use (cambio de uso de la tierra), except in cases of installation of saltworks in which the elimination of mangroves shall be authorized according to technical criteria affecting the minimum area necessary to build artificial canals. For aquaculture projects, only the alteration of mangrove areas for the construction of water intake canals shall be permitted, the dimensions of which must be technically justified. Article 4- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines may only grant permits and concessions for the extraction of firewood, bark, charcoal, props and posts [sic] for electric lighting, under management plans (planes de manejo), framed within the concept of sustainable development. The permits and concessions shall be granted by the Directorate General of Forestry with the prior approval (visto bueno) of the Directorate General of Wildlife.” From all the provisions—legal and regulatory—transcribed, it is clear to this Chamber that the subject matter competence for the administration, supervision, and protection of wetlands was transferred from the MAG to the then MIRENEM, today the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE); which exercises said function through the Directorate General of Wildlife; being thus able to “grant contracts, use rights, licenses, concessions or any other legally established legal figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife.” It was not necessary, as the appellant wishes to make it appear, for Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM to expressly state that the Directorate General of Wildlife had the power to grant permits or concessions over wetlands, since the referred Wildlife Conservation Law expressly states so in Article 17, which must be related to Article 6 of that Law. Moreover, it is a contradiction that, on the one hand, Articles 7 subsection h) ibidem and 2 of the aforementioned regulation conferred upon it the administration of the wetlands, but, on the other hand, the granting of use permits or concessions over them was retained by the Directorate General of Forestry; when the truth is that administration implies the power to determine to whom a use permit will or will not be granted. In any case, if it were interpreted that the indicated Executive Decree does not confer said power to the Directorate General of Wildlife, it is repeated, Article 17 of the indicated Wildlife Conservation Law grants it to MIRENEM; therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 62 of the LGAP, the office with the most similar function is the Directorate General of Wildlife and not the Directorate General of Forestry. The corollary of what has been set forth up to now is that, as of the enactment and publication of the Wildlife Conservation Law and, particularly, of Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM (through which, in addition, Executive Decree number 16852-MAG of January 23, 1986 was repealed), the competent body to grant use permits over mangrove areas is the Directorate General of Wildlife of MIRENEM. This becomes even clearer with what is provided in Article 6 of the first indicated Decree, which states: “Article 6- The permits and concessions for the installation of saltworks and aquaculture activities granted by the Directorate General of Forestry prior to this executive decree shall remain in force until their expiration, under the same conditions under which they were granted.” The lower court judges, in the proven fact listed with number 20, had it established that on May 7, 1993, Messrs. José María Hong Fung and Julio Hong Acón filed their latest application before the Directorate General of Forestry for the granting of a use permit over State forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del Estado) with the management category of mangrove forest reserve (reserva forestal manglar), in an approximate area of 200 hectares, located in the province of Guanacaste, canton of Abangares, district of Colorado, to carry out an aquaculture project. In a brief filed on June 15 of that year—proven fact marked with number 21—they requested the application of administrative silence (silencio positivo) in their favor. On November 26, 1993, MIRENEM, through the Directorate General of Forestry—established fact identified with number 23—issued resolution number 168-93-MIRENEM at 10 hours 35 minutes, through which it decided to grant them the use permit for a term of five years, automatically renewable for equal periods if neither party expressed otherwise, to develop an aquaculture project, on a surface area of 150 hectares of salt marshes (marismas), located in the mangrove forest reserve. Regarding the foregoing, it is necessary to indicate the following. As of May 7, 1993, Executive Decree number 22250-MIRENEM had not yet been issued, much less published. Consequently, the competent body, at that time, for granting permits in the areas until then called “mangrove forest reserve” was the Directorate General of Forestry. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 65 of the LGAP, it corresponded to that office to carry out all those procedural acts (actos de trámite) to make the final decision. However, it is reiterated once more, as of October 8, 1993, the date on which Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM was published, said competence was transferred or conferred to the Directorate General of Wildlife; ergo, according to the provisions of Articles 67 subsection 2), 88, and 129 ejúsdem, the Directorate General of Forestry should have declared itself incompetent from that moment, forwarding the file to the competent body. However, as stated, this did not happen. As a consequence of the foregoing, the subjective element of resolution DGF-168-93-MIRENEM is vitiated with absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) due to legal inexistence (artículos 158, 165, 166 and 182 ibidem). Within this line of thought, contrary to what was affirmed by the cassation appellant, and as canon 172 of the same normative body indicates, since the resolution issued by the Directorate General of Forestry suffers from absolute nullity, it cannot be cured or validated; therefore, the provisions of Article 351 subsection 3 ibidem are not applicable. In this sense, it is also opportune to indicate that the provisions of numeral 161 ejúsdem are not applicable to the case at bar (sub-júdice), as it is not a case of relative incompetence; nor is what is indicated in ordinal 187 applicable, not only because it concerns absolute nullity, but also because resolutions R-87-95-MIRENEM and R-142-95-MIRENEM, issued by the then Minister, do not constitute a new act in which the defect was mentioned and corrected, but rather the resolution of the appeals filed by the plaintiff, in which what was resolved by the lower body was simply confirmed. For this reason, it cannot be considered that there was avocation (avocación) according to the provisions of Articles 93 and 94 ejúsdem." will grant the respective permits or concessions for the use of mangrove; the use of marine fauna shall be the responsibility of the General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources (Dirección General de Recursos Pesqueros y Acuacultura), with both cases requiring vigilance for the conservation of wildlife and marine fauna.” For its part, canon 4 of the same law provided as follows: “The General Forest Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) shall not grant permits or concessions in mangrove areas when the activity to be developed involves a land-use change (cambio en el uso de la tierra), except in cases of saltworks installation and aquaculture projects, in which the removal of mangrove shall be authorized in areas no larger than 0.5 Ha for the purpose of constructing artificial canals or other works necessary to enable these projects, which must be located outside the mangrove area. Excepted from this article are integrated mangrove management projects, according to the criteria of the General Forest Directorate (Dirección General Forestal), and those projects classified as being of social interest.” In accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions indicated above, there is no doubt that the material competence for granting permits for the purpose of developing aquaculture projects, such as shrimp farming, corresponded to the General Forest Directorate (Dirección General Forestal).

Subsequently, on October 21, 1992, Law number 7317, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), was enacted. This new regulatory body, in its numerals 1, 6, 7 subsection h), and 17, as pertinent, prescribes: “ARTICLE 1.- The purpose of this Law is to establish regulations on wildlife. Wildlife is composed of continental and insular fauna that lives in temporary or permanent natural conditions within the national territory, and the flora that lives in natural conditions in the country. These may only be subject to private appropriation and commerce through the provisions contained in public treaties, international conventions, this Law, and its Regulations. ... ARTICLE 6.- The General Directorate of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines is the competent body in matters of planning, development, and control of wild flora and fauna. ... ARTICLE 7.- The General Directorate of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines has the following functions in the exercise of its competence: ... h) Administer, supervise, and protect wetlands. The creation and delimitation of wetlands shall be done by executive decree, according to technical criteria. ARTICLE 17.- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines is empowered to grant contracts, use rights, licenses, concessions, or any other legally established legal figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife. Likewise, it is empowered to coordinate actions with centralized or decentralized entities that execute agricultural programs for soil, water, and forest conservation, in order to achieve the ‘sustainable’ use of wildlife. In the establishment and development of national wildlife refuges, their inhabitants shall participate with the purpose of fostering the integral development of the community and ensuring the protection of ecosystems.

Furthermore, for this purpose, coordination shall be carried out with community development associations, as well as with any public or private body located in the area." Under the protection of these provisions, especially numerals 7 subsection h) and 17, the Executive Branch issued Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM of September 14, 1993. Its first article declares the mangrove areas adjacent to the country's continental and insular coastlines as wetlands, whatever their extent; that is, they cease to be forest reserves, as indicated by Executive Decree 16852-MAG. Meanwhile, in ordinals 2, 3, and 4 (the latter, before the amendment introduced by Executive Decree number 23247-MIRENEM of April 20, 1994, published in La Gaceta number 95 of May 18, 1994), it was provided: "Article 2- The administration of the Wetlands will be the responsibility of the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, as a component of the National Wetlands System; except for the wetlands included within areas under the management category of National Parks and Biological Reserves, which will continue under the administration of the Servicio de Parques Nacionales. The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines will grant the respective permits and/or concessions for the use of resources, and must ensure the conservation of wildlife and marine life. Article 3- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines will not grant permits or concessions in estuarine wetland areas occupied by mangrove when the activity to be developed implies a land-use change (cambio de uso de la tierra), except in cases of the installation of saltworks (salinas) where the elimination of mangrove will be authorized according to technical criteria that affect the minimum area necessary to build artificial channels. For aquaculture projects, the alteration of mangrove areas will only be permitted for the construction of water intake channels, whose dimensions must be technically justified. Article 4- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines may only grant permits and concessions for the extraction of firewood, bark, charcoal, props and poles (sic) for electric lighting, under management plans, framed within the concept of sustainable development. The permits and concessions will be granted by the Dirección General Forestal with the prior approval of the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre." From all the provisions – legal and regulatory – transcribed, it is clear to this Chamber that the material competence for the administration, supervision and protection of wetlands was transferred from MAG to the then MIRENEM, today the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE); which exercises this function through the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre; being able, then, to "grant contracts, use rights, licenses, concessions or any other legally established legal figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife." It was not necessary, as the appellant seeks to suggest, for Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM to expressly provide that the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre had the power to grant permits or concessions over wetlands, since the referenced Wildlife Conservation Law expressly indicates so in article 17, which must be related to article 6 of that Law. Furthermore, it is a contradiction that, on one hand, articles 7 subsection h) ibidem and 2 of the aforementioned regulation conferred upon it the administration of wetlands, but, on the other hand, the granting of use permits or concessions over them remained with the Dirección General Forestal; when the fact is that administration implies the power to determine to whom a use permit will be granted or not. In any case, if it were interpreted that the indicated Executive Decree does not confer this power to the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, it bears repeating, article 17 of the indicated Wildlife Conservation Law grants it to MIRENEM; therefore, pursuant to the provisions of article 62 of the LGAP, the office with the most similar function is the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre and not the Dirección General Forestal. A corollary of what has been set forth so far is that, from the enactment and publication of the Wildlife Conservation Law and, particularly, of Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM (through which, furthermore, Executive Decree number 16852-MAG of January 23, 1986 was repealed), the competent body to grant use permits over mangrove areas is the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of MIRENEM. This becomes even clearer with the provisions of article 6 of the first indicated Decree, which states: "Article 6- The permits and concessions for the installation of saltworks (salinas) and aquaculture activities granted by the Dirección General Forestal prior to this executive decree will remain in force until their expiration, under the same conditions in which they were granted." The instance judges, in the proven fact preceded by number 20, took as accredited that on May 7, 1993, Mr. José María Hong Fung and Mr. Julio Hong Acón, filed before the Dirección General Forestal their last application for granting a use permit over state forest patrimony with the management category of mangrove forest reserve, in an approximate area of 200 hectares, located in the province of Guanacaste, canton of Abangares, district of Colorado, to carry out an aquaculture project. In a brief presented on June 15 of that year – proven fact marked with number 21 – they requested the application of positive silence in their favor. On November 26, 1993, MIRENEM, through the Dirección General Forestal – accredited fact individualized with number 23 – issued resolution number 168-93-MIRENEM at 10:35 a.m., by which it decided to grant them the use permit for a period of five years, automatically renewable for equal periods if neither party stated otherwise, to develop an aquaculture project, over an area of 150 hectares of salt marshes, located in the mangrove forest reserve. Regarding the above, it is necessary to indicate the following. By May 7, 1993, Executive Decree number 22250-MIRENEM had not been issued and, even less so, published. Consequently, the competent body, at that time, for granting permits in what were then called "mangrove forest reserve" areas was the Dirección General Forestal. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of article 65 of the LGAP, it was up to that office to carry out all those procedural acts to make the final decision. However, it is reiterated once more, as of October 8, 1993, the date on which Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM was published, said competence was transferred or conferred to the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre; ergo, as provided by articles 67 subsection 2), 88 and 129 ejúsdem, the Dirección General Forestal should have declared itself incompetent from that moment, and should have remitted the administrative file (expediente) to the competent body. However, as has been set forth, this did not happen. As a consequence of the above, the subjective element of resolution DGF-168-93-MIRENEM is vitiated with absolute nullity due to legal nonexistence (articles 158, 165, 166 and 182 ibidem). Within this line of thought, contrary to what the cassation appellant (casacionista) stated, and as indicated by canon 172 of the same normative body, as the resolution issued by the Dirección General Forestal suffers from absolute nullity, it cannot be cured or validated; therefore, the provisions of article 351 subsection 3 ibidem are not applicable. In this sense, it is also opportune to indicate that the provisions of numeral 161 ejúsdem are also not applicable to the sub-júdice, as this is not a case of relative incompetence; nor are those of ordinal 187, not only because it involves an absolute nullity, but also because in resolutions R-87-95-MIRENEM and R-142-95-MIRENEM, issued by the then Minister, it is not a new act in which the defect was mentioned and corrected, but rather the resolution of the appeals filed by the plaintiff, in which, simply, what was decided by the lower authority was confirmed. For this reason, it also cannot be considered that there was avocation as provided for in articles 93 and 94 ejúsdem." Forest Reserves the areas of mangroves adjacent to the continental and insular coastlines of the country, whatever their extent. That is, whether they are located solely within the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo-Terrestre) or extend onto lands – state or private – adjacent to that strip two hundred meters wide, measured from the ordinary high tide line. Likewise, the category of forest reserve is maintained even in those areas that have been stripped of mangrove.” It is for this reason that, in paragraph 2 ibidem, their administration was granted to the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal), indicating that “... it shall grant the respective permits or concessions for the exploitation of mangrove; exploitation of marine fauna shall be the responsibility of the General Directorate of Fishery Resources and Aquaculture (Dirección General de Recursos Pesqueros y Acuacultura), and in both cases the conservation of wild and marine fauna must be ensured.” For its part, canon 4 of the same enactment provided the following: “The General Forestry Directorate shall not grant permits or concessions in mangrove areas when the activity to be developed implies a land-use change (cambio de uso de la tierra), except in the cases of the installation of saltworks and aquaculture projects, in which the elimination of mangrove shall be authorized in areas no larger than 0.5 Ha in order to construct artificial canals or other works that are necessary to enable these projects, which must be located outside the mangrove area. Excluded from this article are comprehensive mangrove management projects, in accordance with the criteria of the General Forestry Directorate, and those projects that are classified as being of social interest.” In accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions indicated above, there is no doubt that the material competence for granting permits for the purpose of developing aquaculture projects, such as shrimp farming, corresponded to the General Forestry Directorate. Subsequently, on October 21, 1992, Law number 7317, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), was enacted. This new regulatory body, in its numerals 1, 6, 7 subparagraph h) and 17, as relevant, prescribes: “ARTICLE 1.- The purpose of this Law is to establish regulations regarding wildlife. Wildlife is composed of the continental and insular fauna that live under temporary or permanent natural conditions in the national territory and the flora that live under natural conditions in the country. These may only be subject to private appropriation and trade by means of the provisions contained in public treaties, international agreements, this Law, and its Regulations. ... ARTICLE 6.- The General Directorate of Wildlife (Dirección General de Vida Silvestre) of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines is the competent body in matters of planning, development, and control of wild flora and fauna. ... ARTICLE 7.- The General Directorate of Wildlife of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines has the following functions in the exercise of its competence: ... h) Administer, supervise, and protect wetlands. / The creation and delimitation of wetlands shall be made by executive decree, according to technical criteria. ARTICLE 17.- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines is empowered to grant contracts, use rights, licenses, concessions, or any other legally established juridical figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife. Likewise, it is empowered to coordinate actions with centralized or decentralized entities that execute agricultural programs for the conservation of soils, waters, and forests, in order to achieve the 'sustainable' use of wildlife./ In the establishment and development of national wildlife refuges, their inhabitants shall participate with the aim of promoting the integral development of the community and ensuring the protection of the ecosystems. Furthermore, for this purpose, coordination shall be carried out with community development associations, as well as with any public or private organization located in the area.” Under the protection of these provisions, especially numerals 7 subparagraph h) and 17, the Executive Branch issued Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 22550-MIRENEM of September 14, 1993. In its first article, the mangrove areas adjacent to the continental and insular coastlines of the country, whatever their extent, are declared wetlands; that is, they cease to be forest reserves, as indicated by Executive Decree 16852-MAG. For its part, in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 (the latter, before the reform introduced by Executive Decree number 23247-MIRENEM of April 20, 1994, published in Gazette number 95 of May 18, 1994) it was provided: “Article 2º- The administration of the Wetlands shall be the responsibility of the General Directorate of Wildlife, as a component of the National Wetlands System; except those wetlands included within the areas that are under the management category of National Parks and Biological Reserves, which shall continue under the administration of the National Parks Service. The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines shall grant the respective permits and/or concessions for the exploitation of resources, and must ensure the Conservation of wildlife and marine life. Article 3º- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines shall not grant permits or concessions in estuarine wetland areas occupied by mangrove when the activity to be developed implies a change in land use, except in the cases of the installation of saltworks, in which the elimination of mangrove shall be authorized in accordance with technical criteria affecting the minimum area necessary to construct artificial canals. For aquaculture projects, the alteration of mangrove areas shall only be permitted for the construction of water intake canals, the dimensions of which must be technically justified. Article 4º- The Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines may only grant permits and concessions for the extraction of firewood, bark, charcoal, props, and electricity poles, under management plans, framed within the concept of sustainable development. The permits and concessions shall be granted by the General Forestry Directorate upon the approval of the General Directorate of Wildlife.” From all the provisions – legal and regulatory – transcribed, it is clear to this Chamber that the material competence for the administration, supervision, and protection of wetlands was transferred from the MAG to the then MIRENEM, today the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE); which exercises said function through the General Directorate of Wildlife; being able, therefore, to “grant contracts, use rights, licenses, concessions, or any other legally established juridical figure for the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife.” It was not necessary, as the appellant tries to make it appear, for Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM to expressly provide that the General Directorate of Wildlife had the power to grant permits or concessions over wetlands, since the aforementioned Wildlife Conservation Law expressly indicates it in article 17, which must be related to article 6 of that Law. Furthermore, it is a contradiction that, on the one hand, articles 7 subparagraph h) ibidem and 2 of the aforementioned regulation conferred upon it the administration of wetlands, but, on the other hand, the granting of use permits or concessions over them remained with the General Forestry Directorate; when the truth is that administration implies the power to determine to whom a use permit shall or shall not be granted. In any case, if it were interpreted that the indicated Executive Decree does not confer said power to the General Directorate of Wildlife, it is repeated, article 17 of the indicated Wildlife Conservation Law grants it to the MIRENEM; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 62 of the LGAP, the office with the most similar function is the General Directorate of Wildlife and not the General Forestry Directorate. A corollary of what has been set forth up to now is that, starting from the enactment and publication of the Wildlife Conservation Law and, particularly, of Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM (by means of which, moreover, Executive Decree number 16852-MAG of January 23, 1986 was repealed), the competent body to grant use permits over mangrove areas is the General Directorate of Wildlife of the MIRENEM. This becomes even clearer with the provision in article 6 of the first indicated Decree, which states: “Article 6º- The permits and concessions for the installation of saltworks and aquaculture activities granted by the General Forestry Directorate prior to this executive decree shall remain in force until their expiration, under the same conditions in which they were granted.” The instance judges, in the proven fact preceded by number 20, held it as accredited that on May 7, 1993, Messrs. José María Hong Fung and Julio Hong Acón, filed before the General Forestry Directorate their last request for the granting of a use permit over state forest patrimony with the management category of mangrove forest reserve, in an approximate area of 200 hectares, located in the province of Guanacaste, canton of Abangares, district of Colorado, to carry out an aquaculture project. In a brief filed on June 15 of that year – proven fact marked with number 21 – they requested the application of administrative approval by silence (silencio positivo) in their favor. On November 26, 1993, the MIRENEM, through the General Forestry Directorate – accredited fact individualized with number 23 – issued resolution number 168-93-MIRENEM at 10 hours 35 minutes, by which it ordered to grant them the use permit for a term of five years, automatically renewable for equal periods if neither party stated otherwise, to develop an aquaculture project, on an area of 150 hectares of salt marshes, located in the mangrove forest reserve. Regarding the foregoing, it is necessary to indicate the following. As of May 7, 1993, Executive Decree number 22250-MIRENEM had not been issued and, even less, published. Consequently, the competent body, at that time, for granting permits in the areas then designated as “mangrove forest reserve” was the General Forestry Directorate. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 65 of the LGAP, it fell upon that office to carry out all those procedural acts to make the final decision. However, it is reiterated once more, starting from October 8, 1993, the date on which Executive Decree number 22550-MIRENEM was published, said competence was transferred or conferred to the General Directorate of Wildlife; ergo, according to the provisions of articles 67 subparagraph 2), 88, and 129 of the same law, the General Forestry Directorate should have declared itself incompetent from that moment on, forwarding the case file (expediente) to the competent body. However, as stated, that did not happen. As a consequence of the foregoing, the subjective element of resolution DGF-168-93-MIRENEM is vitiated by absolute nullity due to juridical non-existence (articles 158, 165, 166, and 182 ibidem). Within this line of thought, contrary to what was affirmed by the appellant, and as indicated by canon 172 of the same regulatory body, suffering from absolute nullity, the resolution issued by the General Forestry Directorate cannot be cured or validated; therefore, the provision of article 351 subparagraph 3 ibidem is not applicable. In this sense, it is also timely to indicate that the provision of numeral 161 of the same law is also not applicable to the sub-judice, as it does not involve a case of relative incompetence; nor is what is indicated in paragraph 187 applicable, not only because it involves absolute nullity, but also because, in resolutions R-87-95-MIRENEM and R-142-95-MIRENEM, issued by the then Minister, it does not involve a new act in which mention was made of the defect and it was corrected, but rather, the resolution of the appeals filed by the plaintiff party, in which, simply, what was decided by the lower body was confirmed. For this reason, it cannot be considered that there was avocation according to the provisions of articles 93 and 94 of the same law."

"XVI.-[...]En segundo término, la doctrina ius administrativista señala que el acto administrativo se compone de elementos esenciales que lo integran. Constituyen el modo en que el ordenamiento jurídico determina su formación y manifestación. Son las cualidades jurídicas que debe reunir la conducta de la Administración para ser válida y eficaz. Dentro de las diversas clasificaciones está la que los agrupa en subjetivos, objetivos y formales. El primero, el cual es el que interesa al sub-júdice, se subdivide, a su vez, en dos: la competencia y la regularidad de la investidura del funcionario. Tocante a la competencia, implica que sólo podrá dictar el acto el órgano de la Administración que la tenga atribuida para ello. Es por ello que los doctrinarios indican que la distribución de competencias entre varios órganos de un ente constituye una operación básica de la organización, de lo contrario, no tendría razón de ser la pluralidad de órganos en un mismo ente. La competencia se puede determinar según la materia, el territorio o lugar, tiempo, grado y personas. Por razón de la materia, la Administración tiene a su cargo ciertas y específicas actividades o tareas. Configura el fin último y más amplio del acto –salud, trabajo, hacienda, etc.-. Es decir, se le otorga a favor de un ente u órgano un tipo de asuntos caracterizado por su objeto y contenido. Por razón del territorio, se establecen los límites espaciales dentro de los cuales debe adoptarse y ejecutarse el acto administrativo. Por razón del tiempo, se fija el límite temporal dentro del cual surte legalmente efectos el acto. Por el grado, se determina la relación de jerarquía entre dos órganos. Finalmente, por las personas, se establece en razón del ámbito de su competencia específica. Para que el acto de un ente u órgano resulte válido, debe haberse dictado en estricto apego de los anteriores criterios de competencia. Tocante al otro elemento subjetivo, la regularidad de la investidura del funcionario, se refiere a que el acto debe emanar del funcionario debidamente nombrado –funcionario o agente público de derecho-. El artículo 129 de la LGAP se refiere a este elemento subjetivo del acto al disponer: “El acto deberá dictarse por el órgano competente y por el servidor regularmente designado al momento de dictarlo, previo cumplimiento de todos los trámites sustanciales previstos al efecto y de los requisitos indispensables para el ejercicio de la competencia.” Esta Sala, con base en lo expuesto, y una vez analizado el cuadro fáctico del sub-júdice a la luz de la normativa aplicable, arriba a la misma conclusión sustentada por los juzgadores de instancia: la resolución número 168-93-DGF-MIRENEM, fue dictada por un órgano incompetente y, por ende, por un funcionario no designado para ese efecto. Al respecto, precisa señalar, la Ley Forestal derogada, número 4465 del 25 de noviembre de 1969, vigente al momento de presentarse las solicitudes de permisos por parte de la actora y los codemandados señores Hong, en sus artículos 1, 2 incisos a) y b), 7, 10 inciso c), 18 y 40, disponía lo siguiente: “Artículo 1o- La presente ley establece como una función esencial del Estado velar por la protección, aprovechamiento, conservación y fomento de los recursos forestales del país, de acuerdo con el principio de uso múltiple de los recursos naturales renovables. Artículo 2 o- El cumplimiento de esta función estará a cargo del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, el cual deberá: a) Conservar por medio de sistemas técnicos de manejo forestal, los recursos forestales renovables del país, e incrementarlos al máximo mediante las técnicas modernas aplicables a la materia; b) Establecer, para los fines del inciso anterior, zonas protectoras, reservas forestales, parques nacionales y reservas biológicas. Las definiciones de cada una de estas áreas y el procedimiento para establecerlas, se hará por vía de Reglamento; ... Artículo 7o- El Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería realizará sus funciones a través de la Dirección General Forestal; los funcionarios y empleados de la Dirección General Forestal serán designados de conformidad con las disposiciones del Estatuto del Servicio Civil ... Artículo 10o- Las funciones y atribuciones de la Dirección General Forestal serán las siguientes: ... c) Administrar el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado según las disposiciones y principios establecidos en esta ley y su reglamento; ... Artículo 18o- El Patrimonio Forestal del Estado está constituido por las Reservas Nacionales, Reservas Forestales, Parques Nacionales, Viveros Forestales, las Zonas Protectoras y Reservas Biológicas ... Artículo 40o- El Poder Ejecutivo, a través del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, tendrá a su cargo la administración de las Reservas Nacionales y de las fincas rurales del Estado, así como aquellos terrenos que por ley, se ha declarado que no deben salir del dominio del Estado./ La administración de todos los bosques y terrenos forestales existentes en las reservas nacionales y fincas del Estado, estará a cargo del Servicio Forestal.” Al socaire de dichas normas, así como con lo preceptuado por el artículo 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, Ley número 6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977, el Poder Ejecutivo emite el Decreto Ejecutivo número 16852-MAG de 23 de enero de 1986, publicado en el Alcance número 5 a La Gaceta número 32 del 14 de febrero de 1986; en el cual, en el artículo 1, se declaró como “... Reservas Forestales las áreas de manglares adyacentes a los litorales continentales e insulares del país, cualesquiera que sea su extensión. Es decir, ya se encuentren únicamente dentro de la Zona Marítimo-Terrestre o bien se extiendan a terrenos –estatales o privados- colindantes con esa franja de doscientos metros de ancho, contados a partir de la pleamar ordinaria. Asimismo se mantiene la categoría de reserva forestal aún en aquellas áreas que fueran desprovistas de manglar.” Es por ello que, en el ordinal 2 ibídem, se le otorgaba su administración a la Dirección General Forestal, indicándose, que “ ... otorgará los respectivos permisos o concesiones para el aprovechamiento de mangle; los aprovechamientos de fauna marina estarán a cargo de la Dirección General de Recursos Pesqueros y Acuacultura, debiéndose velar en ambos casos por la conservación de fauna silvestre y marina.” Por su parte, el canon 4 ejúsdem disponía lo siguiente: “La Dirección General Forestal no otorgará permisos o concesiones en áreas de manglar cuando la actividad a desarrollar implique un cambio en el uso de la tierra, salvo en los casos de instalación de salinas y proyectos de acuacultura, en los cuales se autorizará la eliminación de mangle en áreas no mayores de 0,5 Ha con el fin de construir canales artificiales u otras obras que sean necesarias para habilitar estos proyectos, los que deberán estar ubicados fuera del área de manglar. Se exceptúa de este artículo los proyectos de manejo integral del manglar, de acuerdo con el criterio de la Dirección General Forestal y aquellos proyectos que sean clasificados como de interés social.” De acuerdo con la normativa legal y reglamentaria antes indicada, no cabe duda que la competencia material para el otorgamiento de los permisos con el objeto de desarrollar proyectos de acuacultura, como lo es la cría de camarones, le correspondía a la Dirección General Forestal. Posteriormente, el 21 de octubre de 1992, se promulga la Ley número 7317, Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre. Este nuevo cuerpo normativo, en sus numerales 1, 6, 7 inciso h) y 17, en lo conducente, preceptúa: “ARTÍCULO 1.- La presente Ley tiene como finalidad establecer regulaciones sobre la vida silvestre. La vida silvestre está conformada por la fauna continental e insular que vive en condiciones naturales temporales o permanentes, en el territorio nacional y la flora que vive en condiciones naturales en el país. Estas únicamente pueden ser objeto de apropiación particular y de comercio, mediante las disposiciones contenidas en los tratados públicos, en los convenios internacionales, en la presente Ley y en su Reglamento. ... ARTÍCULO 6.- La Dirección General de Vida Silvestre del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas es el órgano competente en materia de planificación, desarrollo y control de la flora y de la fauna silvestres. ... ARTÍCULO 7.- La Dirección General de Vida Silvestre del Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas tiene las siguientes funciones en el ejercicio de su competencia: ... h) Administrar, supervisar y proteger los humedales./ La creación y delimitación de los humedales se hará por decreto ejecutivo, según criterios técnicos. ARTÍCULO 17.- El Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas queda facultado para otorgar contratos, derechos de uso, licencias concesiones o cualquier otra figura jurídica legalmente establecida para la conservación y el uso sustentable de la vida silvestre. Asimismo, está facultado para coordinar acciones con los entes centralizados o descentralizados que ejecuten programas agropecuarios de conservación de suelos, aguas y bosques, con el fin de lograr el aprovechamiento " sostenible " de la vida silvestre./ En el establecimiento y desarrollo de los refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, participarán sus habitantes con la finalidad de propiciar el desarrollo integral de la comunidad y asegurar la protección de los ecosistemas. Además, para ello se deberá coordinar con las asociaciones de desarrollo comunal, así como con cualquier organismo, público o privado, que esté localizado en la zona.” Al amparo de estas disposiciones, en especial los numerales 7 inciso h) y 17, el Poder Ejecutivo emite el Decreto Ejecutivo número 22550-MIRENEM del 14 de setiembre de 1993. En su artículo primero se declaran humedales las áreas de manglares adyacentes a los litorales continentales e insulares del país, cualesquiera que sea su extensión; es decir, dejan de ser reservas forestales, según lo indicaba el Decreto Ejecutivo 16852-MAG. Por su parte en los ordinales 2, 3 y 4 (este último, antes de la reforma introducida por Decreto Ejecutivo número 23247-MIRENEM de 20 de abril de 1994, publicado en la Gaceta número 95 de 18 de mayo de 1994) se dispuso: “Artículo 2º- La administración de los Humedales estará a cargo de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, como un componente del Sistema Nacional de Humedales; excepto los humedales comprendidos dentro de las áreas que se encuentran bajo la categoría de manejo de Parques Nacionales y Reservas Biológicas, los cuales seguirán bajo administración del Servicio de Parques Nacionales. El Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas otorgará los respectivos permisos y/o concesiones para el aprovechamiento de los recursos, debiendo velar por la Conservación de la vida silvestre y marina. Artículo 3º- El Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas no otorgará permisos o concesiones en áreas de humedales estuarinos ocupados por manglar cuando la actividad a desarrollar implique un cambio de uso de la tierra, salvo en los casos de instalación de salinas en las cuales se autorizará la eliminación de manglar de acuerdo a criterios técnicos que afecten el área mínima necesaria para construir canales artificiales. Para los proyectos de acuacultura solamente se permitirá la alteración de áreas de manglar para la construcción de los canales de toma de agua, cuyas dimensiones deberán ser técnicamente justificadas. Artículo 4º- El Ministerio de Recursos Naturales, Energía y Minas solo podrá otorgar permisos y concesiones para la extracción de leña, corteza, carbón, puntales y postes (sic) alumbrado eléctrico, bajo planes de manejo, enmarcados dentro del concepto de desarrollo sostenible. Los permisos y concesiones serán otorgados por la Dirección General Forestal previo el visto bueno de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre.” De todas las disposiciones –legales y reglamentarias- trascritas, a esta Sala le queda claro que la competencia material para la administración, supervisión y protección de los humedales fue traspasada del MAG al entonces MIRENEM, hoy Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE); el cual ejerce dicha función por medio de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre; pudiendo, entonces, “otorgar contratos, derechos de uso, licencias, concesiones o cualquier otra figura jurídica legalmente establecida para la conservación y el uso sustentable de la vida silvestre”. No resultaba necesario, como lo quiere hacer ver el recurrente, que el Decreto Ejecutivo número 22550-MIRENEM expresamente dispusiera que la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre tenía la facultad de otorgar permisos o concesiones sobre los humedales, pues, la referida Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre expresamente lo indica en el artículo 17, el cual debe relacionarse con el artículo 6 de esa Ley. Además, resulta un contrasentido que, por un lado, los artículos 7 inciso h) ibídem y 2 del susodicho reglamento le confirieran la administración de los humedales, pero, por el otro, el otorgamiento de los permisos o concesiones de uso sobre ellos lo mantuviera la Dirección General Forestal; cuando lo cierto es que la administración implica el poder determinar a quien se le otorgará o no un permiso de uso. En todo caso, si se interpretara que el indicado Decreto Ejecutivo no le confiere dicha potestad a la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, se repite, el artículo 17 de la indicada Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre se la otorga al MIRENEM; por ello, a tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 62 de la LGAP, la oficina con la función más similar es la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre y no la Dirección General Forestal. Corolario de lo hasta hora expuesto es que, a partir de la promulgación y publicación de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y, particularmente, del Decreto Ejecutivo número 22550-MIRENEM (mediante el cual, además, se derogó el Decreto Ejecutivo número 16852-MAG de 23 de enero de 1986), el órgano competente para otorgar los permisos de uso sobre las áreas de manglares es la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre del MIRENEM. Esto queda aún más claro con lo dispuesto en el artículo 6 del primer Decreto indicado, el cual señala: “Artículo 6º- Los permisos y concesiones para la instalación de salinas y actividades de acuacultura otorgados por la Dirección General Forestal con anterioridad al presente decreto ejecutivo, se mantendrán vigentes hasta su vencimiento, bajo las mismas condiciones en que fueron otorgados.” Los juzgadores de instancia, en el hecho probado antecedido con el número 20, tuvieron por acreditado que el día 7 de mayo de 1993, los señores José María Hong Fung y Julio Hong Acón, formularon ante la Dirección General Forestal su última solicitud de otorgamiento de permiso de uso sobre patrimonio forestal del Estado con categoría de manejo de reserva forestal manglar, en un área aproximada de 200 hectáreas, ubicadas en la provincia de Guanacaste, cantón de Abangares, distrito de Colorado, para llevar a cabo un proyecto de acuacultura. En escrito presentado el día 15 de junio de ese año –hecho probado marcado con el número 21- solicitaron la aplicación del silencio positivo a su favor. El 26 de noviembre de 1993, el MIRENEM, por medio de la Dirección General Forestal –hecho acreditado individualizado con el número 23- emitió la resolución número 168-93-MIRENEM de las 10 horas 35 minutos, con la cual dispuso concederles el permiso de uso por el plazo de cinco años, prorrogables en forma automática por períodos iguales si ninguna de las partes manifestaba lo contrario, para desarrollar un proyecto de acuacultura, sobre una superficie de 150 hectáreas de marismas, ubicadas en la reserva forestal de manglares. Respecto a lo anteriormente reseñado es menester indicar lo siguiente. Para el día 7 de mayo de 1993 no se había emitido y, menos aún, publicado el Decreto Ejecutivo número 22250-MIRENEM. En consecuencia, el órgano competente, en ese momento, para el otorgamiento de permisos en las denominadas hasta ese entonces áreas de “reserva forestal de manglares” lo era la Dirección General Forestal. Por ello, a tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 65 de la LGAP, le correspondía a esa oficina efectuar todos aquellos actos de trámite para tomar la decisión final. Sin embargo, se reitera una vez más, a partir del día 8 de octubre de 1993, fecha en que se publicó el Decreto Ejecutivo número 22550-MIRENEM, dicha competencia le fue trasladada o conferida a la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre; ergo, según lo disponen los artículos 67 inciso 2), 88 y 129 ejúsdem, la Dirección General Forestal debió declararse incompetente a partir de ese momento, remitiendo el expediente al órgano competente. Empero, según se expuso, ello no sucedió. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, el elemento subjetivo de la resolución DGF-168-93-MIRENEM está viciado de nulidad absoluta por inexistencia jurídica (artículos 158, 165, 166 y 182 ibídem). Dentro de esta línea de pensamiento, contrario a lo afirmado por el casacionista, y como lo indica el canon 172 del mismo cuerpo normativo, al padecer de una nulidad absoluta la resolución emitida por la Dirección General Forestal, no puede sanearse ni convalidarse; por ello, no resulta aplicable lo dispuesto en el artículo 351 inciso 3 ibídem. En este sentido, también es oportuno indicar que al sub-júdice tampoco le resulta aplicable lo dispuesto en el numeral 161 ejúsdem, al no estarse ante un supuesto de incompetencia relativa; tampoco, lo indicado en el ordinal 187, no sólo, por tratarse de una nulidad absoluta, sino también, porque en las resoluciones R-87-95-MIRENEM y R-142-95-MIRENEM, emitidas por el entonces señor Ministro, no se trata de un nuevo acto en el cual se hizo mención del vicio y se corrigió, sino, de la resolución de los recursos interpuestos por la parte actora, en donde, simplemente, se confirmó lo resuelto por el inferior. Por esta razón, tampoco puede considerarse que hubo avocación según lo dispuesto en los artículos 93 y 94 ejúsdem."