Exclusion of water protection areas in topographical surveys for possessory information proceedingsExclusión de áreas de protección hídrica en levantamientos topográficos para información posesoria

"III.- The resolutions to which the State representative alludes as the basis for his assertions do not refer to the matter at issue. However, in Voto Nº 595 of 15 hours 15 minutes of August 30, 2004, this Court held a position similar to that set forth by the State representative, stating: The relevant legal framework for determining whether the State representative is correct regarding the grievances raised consists of Article 7 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, according to which the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible to acquisition by claim (denuncio) or possession, except those already under private ownership with legitimate title: "… c) Lands of islands, lands situated on the banks of rivers, streams, and, in general, of all sources located in basin or catchment areas (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas) where springs (manantiales) emerge, or where any watercourses that supply a population have their origins or headwaters, or which it is advisable to reserve for the same purpose. On flat terrain or terrain with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in basin and catchment areas (cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, measured from the nearest highest elevation …". In this case, the intention is to title a property depicted in plan P-251342-95, in which the Topographical Engineer drew on the western boundary the existence of two streams (quebradas) crossing the property and one that runs along the edge of the site identified as vertex [Dirección1] of the survey (levantamiento topográfico). Given this situation, the State representative indicated upon appearing in the proceeding that it was necessary to request from the applicant (titulante) a new plan where the course of the streams (quebradas) was comprehensively described and to request from the Area de Cuencas Hidrográficas of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a report on whether said springs (manantiales) supply water to any population or whether it is advisable to reserve them for that purpose, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 2726; likewise, it should be stated in the final judgment that the area adjacent to the streams (quebradas) constitutes a protection area, with the cutting or removal of trees being prohibited, and that the course of those streams (quebradas) is public domain, pursuant to articles 33(b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575, and sections IV of Article 1 and III of Article 3 of the Ley de Aguas. The Court (Despacho), in an order (auto) of 13 hours on February 24, 2003, apparently partly sharing the position of the Agrarian Prosecutor (Procurador Agrario), granted the applicant (promovente) a two-month period to present a new plan indicating "comprehensively the course of the streams (quebradas)" (folio 61), omitting to request the official communication to which the State representative alluded, without expressly indicating whether it rejected that request or not, to which said professional likewise raised no objection. The applicant (titulante), for his part, in compliance with the preventive measure (prevención) issued to him, provided cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. P-853376-03, in which he represented in shaded form the portions identified with letters A and B, which constitute the surroundings of the two streams (quebradas) in question, expressly indicating that they measure 43,637.40 square meters and 36,690.33 square meters, respectively, which were excluded from the total area of the property, according to the deduction made from the measurement cited in the first survey (levantamiento topográfico), that is, plan P-251342-95 (folio 1). The Court (Despacho) deemed the preventive measure (prevención) fulfilled in the order (auto) of 15 hours 20 minutes of May 12, 2003 (folio 73), duly notified to the State representative, who, subsequent to the issuance of said order (auto), appeared in the proceeding reiterating his request that a report be requested from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (folio 65), a request denied by the Court (Juzgado) in the ruling (resolución) of 15 hours 10 minutes of July 24, 2003 (folio 66), arguing that the new plan had already been presented and expressly indicated which were the protection areas. The Prosecutor (Procurador) insisted on the need to request the report in question, noting that the areas excluded in the second plan did not respect the minimum of 200 meters adjacent to each spring (naciente) if the terrain was flat, or 300 meters if it was uneven (folio 68). That request was again rejected in the order (auto) of 15 hours 10 minutes of August 29, 2003 (folio 69), with the trial judge (a quo) arguing that the ruling (resolución) of 15 hours 10 minutes of July 24, 2003, was final (firme), and therefore proceeded to grant a final hearing (audiencia final) to the State representative regarding the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) proceeding, who limited himself to requesting a copy of the report sent by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, despite the fact that he knew—according to the court record (autos)—that it had been rejected; hence that request was denied. From the cited proceedings, it is clear that the Prosecutor (Procurador) is correct in affirming that throughout the process he made several requests for the Court (Despacho) to request the report in question; however, that does not mean the statement made by the trial judge (a quo) in the judgment, that the State did not oppose the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) proceedings, is incorrect, since at no time did it express its disagreement with the process in the terms set forth in Articles 5 and 8 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. It is also evident that, although the appellant made several requests for the data he deemed relevant to be requested from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, he repeatedly allowed the rulings (resoluciones) rejecting such a petition to become final (firme) without timely showing any opposition, which tacitly constitutes agreement with the trial judge's (a quo) actions. However, this does not prevent him from now challenging the decision through the appeals process, requesting that this court analyze the relevance of that information, still absent from the proceedings, and whether the evidence in the record (autos) is sufficient to deny the titling.- V.- In the case at bar (subjúdice), the titling of a property is sought that, according to plan P-853376-03 which represents it, is crossed by two streams (quebradas), whose banks—duly shaded—were excluded from the total area of the tract (fundo), as follows: The first sector, identified as "A", has a measurement of 43,637.40 square meters and the second, "B", measures 36,690.33 square meters, according to the surveyor (topógrafo). However, in neither of these cases did the surveyor (topógrafo) mark the dimensions (cotas), that is, he did not perform the dimensioning process (acotamiento) on the plan, identifying the strip of land excluded on both banks of the streams (quebradas), respecting the scale used in the plan. This latter data is necessary to accurately determine whether the professional effectively excluded the linear measurement required by law along the banks of the streams (quebradas), since it is evident from the shaded parts that, regardless of whether 200 or 300 meters were left, the measurement is not the same along all the contours of the first two streams (quebradas) according to their geographical features. Note, if the overall scale is 1:10,000, every centimeter must represent one hundred meters, and in this case, there are parts where even the minimum measurement of 200 meters is not reached in the event the terrain is flat. It must be emphasized, it is essential to know whether the farm's relief is flat or uneven to determine if the area to be excluded from the bank of the streams (quebradas) is 200 or 300 meters, and in this case, the surveyor (topógrafo) omitted that data, the applicant (promovente) did not take care to make that specification, and this omission would also not be attributable to the trial judge (a quo)—although he should have taken note of it in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) he conducted on the site, as was his duty—since it is the applicant (titulante) who must ensure compliance with all the requirements mandated by law, understood comprehensively as both the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and all other special laws and regulations governing the matter that are directly linked to the case given the specificities of the property sought to be registered. In addition to the above, even lacking that data, in the best-case scenario for the applicant (promovente)—that is, if he only had to exclude 200 meters—it is possible to conclude that he did not meet that requirement, because the shaded sector does not represent, in some sections, more than 200 linear meters on each bank of the stream (quebrada), starting from, as indicated, the premise that each centimeter on the farm's drawing represents 100 meters in reality. As for the third stream (quebrada) described on the western [Dirección2], exactly where [Dirección3] was located, it is evident that the surrounding area, of 200 or 300 meters depending on whether the terrain was flat or uneven, was not entirely excluded. The foregoing is sufficient to deny the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) proceeding, without needing to process the report from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados requested by the State representative, given that it is not possible to authorize the titling of public domain lands (terrenos de dominio público), which by their nature are imprescriptible (imprescriptibles), unless the applicant (promovente) proves possession of said land ten years before the encumbrance." The Court maintains the same position expressed regarding the need to exclude such areas from the surveys (levantamientos topográficos) in order to authorize the registration of those lands. IV.- Article 7(c) of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización provides that the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible to acquisition by claim (denuncio) or possession, except those already under private ownership with legitimate title: c) Lands of islands, lands situated on the banks of rivers, streams, and, in general, of all sources located in basin or catchment areas (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas) where springs (manantiales) emerge, or where any watercourses that supply a population have their origins or headwaters, or which it is advisable to reserve for the same purpose. On flat terrain or terrain with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in basin and catchment areas (cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, measured from the nearest highest elevation. In this case, given that the record (autos) confirms the necessity that the water resource (recurso hídrico) existing on the property to be titled be reserved for the rural population supply of sectors located downstream from the land subject to these proceedings, according to the report from the Departamento de Recursos Hídricos, Dirección de Gestión Ambiental del Recurso Hídrico of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, it is necessary, in accordance with section (c) of Article 7 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, that it be excluded from the area to be titled. Such exclusion is not represented in the surveys (levantamientos topográficos) in the record (autos), since said rule expressly provides that in "… flat terrain or terrain with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in basin or catchment areas (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, measured from the nearest highest elevation.", such that the excluded area is less than legally required. In this case, in compliance with said rule, the trial judge (Juzgador de instancia) should have issued a preventive measure (prevenir) to the applicants (promoventes) to provide a survey (levantamiento topográfico) that excluded said area, or they should have, without need of such a preventive measure (prevención) and in accordance with said regulation, proceeded to comply with it from the outset. Given such non-compliance, it would not be possible to authorize the titling of the property as requested in the initial filing or with subsequent modifications, to the extent that the registration of inalienable areas not susceptible to acquisition by claim (denuncio) or possession would be authorized. Therefore, the sole grievance raised by the State representative is shared, and the denial of the Possessory Information (Información Posesoria) must be ordered." "III.- The resolutions to which the State's representative alludes as the basis for his assertions do not refer to the matter at issue. However, in Voto Nº 595 of 15 hours 15 minutes of August 30, 2004, this Tribunal held a position similar to that set forth by the State's representative, when it stated: The relevant legal framework to determine whether the State's representative is correct regarding the grievances raised consists of numeral 7 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, according to which, the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible to acquisition by denouncement (denuncio) or possession, except those that were under private domain, with legitimate title: "… c) The lands of islands, those situated on the banks of rivers, streams and, in general, of all sources that are in hydrographic basins or watersheds (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas) in which springs (manantiales) well up, or in which any watercourses from which a population is supplied have their origins or headwaters, or which it is convenient to reserve for the same purpose. On flat land or land with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in the hydrographic basins and watersheds (cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, counting from the nearest highest elevation …". In this case, the goal is to title a parcel of land depicted in plan P-251342-95, in which the Topographical Engineer drew on the western boundary the existence of two streams (quebradas) that cross the property and one that passes along the edge of the site identified as vertex [Dirección1] of the topographic survey. Faced with this situation, the State's representative indicated, upon appearing in the proceeding, that it was necessary to request the title applicant to submit a new plan that comprehensively described the course of the streams (quebradas) and to request from the Area de Cuencas Hidrográficas of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a report on whether said springs (manantiales) supply water to any population or it is convenient to reserve them for such purpose, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 2726; likewise, that the final resolution should state that the area adjacent to the streams (quebradas) constitutes a protection area, prohibiting the cutting or elimination of trees, and that the course of these streams (quebradas) is public domain, pursuant to numerals 33 subsection b) and 34 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575, and 1 subsections IV and 3 subsection III of the Ley de Aguas. The Lower Court (Despacho), in an order (auto) at 1:00 p.m. on February 24, 2003, seemingly partially sharing the view of the Agrarian Procurator (Procurador Agrario), granted the petitioner a two-month period to submit a new plan that would indicate "the comprehensive course of the streams (quebradas)" (folio 61), omitting to request the official communication (oficio) to which the State's representative alluded, without expressly indicating whether or not it was rejecting that request, whereupon said professional also failed to raise any objection. The title applicant, for his part, in compliance with the requirement (prevención) imposed upon him, provided cadastral plan (plano catastrado) No. P-853376-03, in which he represented in shaded form the portions identified with the letters A and B, which constitute the surroundings of the two streams (quebradas) in question, expressly indicating that they measure 43,637.40 square meters and 36,690.33 square meters, respectively, which were excluded from the total area of the property, according to a deduction made from the measurement cited in the first topographic survey, i.e., plan P-251342-95 (folio 1). The Lower Court (Despacho) deemed the requirement fulfilled in an order (auto) at 3:20 p.m. on May 12, 2003 (folio 73), duly notified to the State's representative, who, after the issuance of said order, appeared in the proceeding reiterating his request that a report be requested from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (folio 65), a request denied by the Court (Juzgado) in a resolution at 3:10 p.m. on July 24, 2003 (folio 66), arguing that the new plan had already been presented, expressly indicating what the protection areas were. The Procurator (Procurador) insisted on the need to request the report in question, warning that the areas excluded from the second plan did not respect the minimum of 200 meters adjacent to each spring (naciente) if the land were flat, or 300 meters if it were sloped (folio 68). That request was again rejected in an order (auto) at 3:10 p.m. on August 29, 2003 (folio 69), the lower court (a quo) arguing that the resolution at 3:10 p.m. on July 24, 2003, was final (firme), and therefore it proceeded to grant a final hearing to the State's representative regarding the Información Posesoria proceeding, who merely limited himself to requesting a copy of the report sent by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, even though he was aware—according to the orders (autos)—that it had been rejected, hence the request was denied. From the cited procedure, it is clear that the Procurator (Procurador) is correct in stating that throughout the proceeding he made several requests for the Court (Despacho) to request the report in question; however, that does not mean the information stated by the lower court (a quo) in the judgment to the effect that the State did not oppose the Información Posesoria proceedings is incorrect, since at no time did it express its disagreement with the proceeding in the terms indicated by Articles 5 and 8 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. It is also evident that, although the appellant made several requests to seek the data he considered relevant from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, he repeatedly allowed the resolutions rejecting such petition to become final (firmeza) without timely showing any opposition, which tacitly implies agreement with the actions of the lower court (a quo). However, that does not prevent him from now challenging the ruling through the appeals process, requesting that this venue analyze the relevance of that information, still absent from the proceeding, and whether the evidence on file is sufficient to deny the titling.— V.— In the sub judice case, the aim is the titling of a property that, according to plan P-853376-03 representing it, is crossed by two streams (quebradas), whose banks—duly shaded—were excluded from the total area of the property, as follows: The first sector, identified as "A", has a measurement of 43,637.40 square meters, and the second, "B", measures 36,690.33 square meters, as referenced by the surveyor (topógrafo). However, in none of these cases did the surveyor (topógrafo) mark the dimensions (cotas), meaning he did not carry out the dimensioning process on the plan, identifying the strip of land excluded on both banks of the streams (quebradas), respecting the scale used in the plan. This last piece of data is necessary to determine with exactness whether the professional effectively excluded the linear measurement required by law from the bank of the streams (quebradas), since it is evident from the shaded parts that, regardless of whether 200 or 300 meters were left, it is not the same measurement along all the contours of the first two streams (quebradas) according to their geographic features. Note that if the general scale is 1:10,000, for every centimeter there must be one hundred meters, and in this case, there are parts where the minimum measurement of 200 meters is not even reached, in the event the land were flat. It must be emphasized that it is essential to know whether the property has flat or sloped (quebrado) relief in order to determine if the area to be excluded from the bank of the streams (quebradas) is 200 or 300 meters, and in this case, the surveyor (topógrafo) omitted that data, the petitioner did not bother to make that specification, and this omission could not be attributed to the lower court (a quo) either—although it should have taken note of it in the judicial inspection (reconocimiento judicial) it carried out on the site, as was its duty— as it is the title applicant who must ensure compliance with all the requirements demanded by law, understood as comprehensive, both of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and all those special laws and regulations governing the matter and directly linked to the case given the specificities of the land sought to be registered. Added to the foregoing, even lacking that data, in the best-case scenario for the petitioner—namely, that he only had to exclude 200 meters—it is possible to conclude that he did not comply with that requirement, since the shaded sector does not represent, in some sectors, more than 200 linear meters on each of the banks of the stream (quebrada), based, as indicated, on the fact that each centimeter of the property's graphic representation corresponds to 100 meters in reality. As for the third stream (quebrada) described on the [Dirección2] west, exactly where the [Dirección3] was located, it is evident that the surrounding area, of 200 or 300 meters depending on whether the land was flat or sloped (quebrado), was not entirely excluded. The foregoing is sufficient to deny the Información Posesoria proceeding, without the need to process the report from the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados requested by the State's representative, given that it is not possible to authorize the titling of public domain lands that by their nature are imprescriptible, unless the petitioner proves possession of said land ten years prior to the encumbrance.” The Tribunal maintains the same position set forth regarding the need to exclude said areas from the topographic surveys in order to authorize the registration of those lands. IV.—Numeral 7 subsection c) of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización provides that the following shall be considered inalienable and not susceptible to acquisition by denouncement (denuncio) or possession, except those that were under private domain, with legitimate title: c) The lands of islands, those situated on the banks of rivers, streams and, in general, of all sources that are in hydrographic basins or watersheds (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas) in which springs (manantiales) well up, or in which any watercourses from which a population is supplied have their origins or headwaters, or which it is convenient to reserve for the same purpose. On flat land or land with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in the hydrographic basins and watersheds (cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, counting from the nearest highest elevation. In this case, since it is clear from the record that the water resource (recurso hídrico) existing on the property sought to be titled must be reserved for rural population supply of sectors located downstream of the land that is the subject of these proceedings, according to a report from the Departamento de Recursos Hídricos, Dirección de Gestión Ambiental del Recurso Hídrico of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, it is necessary, in accordance with subsection c) of Article 7 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, that it be excluded from the area to be titled. Such exclusion is not represented in the topographic surveys contained in the record, because said norm expressly provides that on “… flat land or land with a slight slope, a strip of two hundred meters on either side of said rivers, springs (manantiales), or streams shall be considered inalienable; and in the hydrographic basins or watersheds (cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas), a strip of land of three hundred meters on either side of the maximum depression, along the entire line, counting from the nearest highest elevation.”, such that the excluded area is less than what is legally required. In this case, in compliance with said norm, the Judge of the lower court should have required (prevenir) the petitioners to provide a topographic survey excluding said area, or they themselves, without necessity of such requirement, should have proceeded in accordance with said regulations to comply with them from the outset. Given such non-compliance, it would not be possible to authorize the titling of the property as requested in the initial brief, nor with the subsequent modifications, insofar as it would authorize the registration of inalienable areas not susceptible to acquisition by denouncement (denuncio) or possession. Therefore, the sole grievance raised by the State's representative is shared, and the denial (desestimatoria) of the Información Posesoria must be ordered."

"III.- Las resoluciones a las que hace alusión el representante del Estado como fundamento de sus afirmaciones no están referidas al tema en cuestión. Sin embargo, en Voto Nº 595 de las 15 horas 15 minutos del 30 de agosto del 2004 este Tribunal sostuvo una posición similar a la expuesta por el representante del Estado, al indicarse: El marco legal relevante para determinar si el representante del Estado lleva razón en torno a los agravios expuestos, está constituido por el numeral 7 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, según el cual, se considerarán inalienables y no susceptibles de adquirirse por denuncio o posesión, salvo los que estuvieren bajo el dominio privado, con título legítimo: "… c) Los terrenos de las islas, los situados en las márgenes de los ríos, arroyos y, en general, de todas las fuentes que estén en cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas en que broten manantiales, o en que tengan sus orígenes o cabeceras cualesquiera cursos de agua de los cuales se surta alguna población, o que convenga reservar con igual fin. En terrenos planos o de pequeño declive se considerará inalienable una faja de doscientos metros a uno y otro lado de dichos ríos, manantiales o arroyos; y en las cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas, una faja de terreno de trescientos metros a uno y otro lado de la depresión máxima, en toda la línea, a contar de la mayor altura inmediata …". En este caso, se pretende titular un terreno graficado en el plano P-251342-95, en el cual el Ingeniero Topógrafo dibujó en la colindancia oeste la existencia de dos quebradas que atraviesan la propiedad y una que pasa en el borde del sitio que identificó como el vértice [Dirección1] del levantamiento topográfico. Ante tal situación, el representante del Estado indicó al apersonarse al proceso, era necesario solicitar al titulante un nuevo plano donde se describiera en forma integral el cause de las quebradas y pedir al Area de Cuencas Hidrográficas del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados un informe de si dichos manantiales surten de agua a alguna población o conviene reservarlos para tal fin, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley N° 2726; así mismo, se hiciera constar en la resolución final, el área contigua a las quebradas constituye área de protección, quedando prohibida la corta o eliminación de árboles, y que el cause de esas quebradas es de dominio público, conforme a los numerales 33 inciso b) y 34 de la Ley Forestal N° 7575, 1 incisos IV y 3 inciso III de la Ley de Aguas. El Despacho, en auto de las 13 horas del 24 de febrero del 2003, al parecer compartiendo parcialmente lo expuesto por el Procurador Agrario, concedió al promovente un plazo de dos meses para que presentara un nuevo plano que indicara "en forma integral el cause de las quebradas" (folio 61), omitiendo solicitar el oficio al que hizo alusión el representante del Estado, sin indicar expresamente si rechazaba o no esa gestión, ante lo cual dicho profesional tampoco presentó objeción alguna. El titulante por su parte, en cumplimiento de la prevención que se le hiciera, aportó el plano catastrado N° P-853376-03, en el cual representó en forma sombreada las porciones que identificó con las letras A y B, las cuales constituyen los alrededores de las dos quebradas en referencia, indicando expresamente, las mismas tienen una medida de 43.637,40 metros cuadrados y 36.690,33 metros cuadrados, respectivamente, las cuales quedaron excluidas del área total del inmueble, según deducción hecha a la medida citada en el primer levantamiento topográfico, sea el plano P-251342-95 (folio 1). El Despacho tuvo por cumplida la prevención en auto de las 15 horas 20 minutos del 12 de mayo del 2003 (folio 73), debidamente notificada al representante del Estado, quien en forma posterior al dictado de dicho auto, se apersonó al proceso reiterando su solicitud de que se pidiera informe al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (folio 65), gestión denegada por el Juzgado en resolución de las 15 horas 10 minutos del 24 de julio del 2003 (folio 66), aduciendo ya el nuevo plano había sido presentado indicándose expresamente cuáles son las áreas de protección. El Procurador insistió en la necesidad de pedir el informe en referencia advirtiendo las áreas excluidas del segundo plano no respetaban el mínimo de 200 metros contiguos a cada naciente en caso de que el terreno fuera plano, o de 300 metros si es quebrado (folio 68). Esa solicitud fue nuevamente rechazada en auto de las 15 horas 10 minutos del 29 de agosto del 2003 (folio 69), aduciendo el a quo la resolución de las 15 horas 10 minutos del 24 de julio del 2003 estaba firme, por lo que procedió a otorgar audiencia final al representante del Estado sobre el trámite de Información Posesoria, quien se limitó a pedir copia del informe remitido por el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, pese a que era de su conocimiento -según los autos- el mismo había sido rechazado, de ahí que gestión fue denegada. De la tramitación citada se desprende, lleva razón el Procurador en afirmar durante todo el proceso hizo varias gestiones para que el Despacho solicitara el informe en referencia; no obstante, eso no significa sea incorrecto el dato expuesto por el a quo en la sentencia en el sentido de que el Estado no se opuso a las diligencias de Información Posesoria, puesto que en ningún momento mostró su inconformidad con el proceso en los términos que señalan los artículos 5 y 8 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. También se evidencia, aunque el recurrente hizo varias gestiones para que se pidieran los datos que consideraba relevantes al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, en reiteradas oportunidades dejó que las resoluciones donde se le rechazaba tal petición adquirieran firmeza sin mostrar oportunamente oposición alguna, lo cual tácitamente es una conformidad con las actuaciones del a quo. Sin embargo, ello no obsta para que pueda ahora cuestionar el fallo mediante el proceso de impugnación, solicitando se analice en esta sede la pertinencia de esa información, aún ausente en el proceso y si la prueba que consta en autos es suficiente para denegar la titulación.- V.- En el subjúdice se pretende la titulación de un inmueble que según el plano P-853376-03 que lo representa, es atravesado por dos quebradas, cuyos márgenes -debidamente sombreadas- fueron excluidas del área total del fundo, de la siguiente manera: El primer sector, identificado como "A", tiene una medida de 43.637,40 metros cuadrados y el segundo, "B", mide 36.690,33 metros cuadrados, según refiere el topógrafo. Empero, en ninguno de esos supuestos el topógrafo marcó las cotas, es decir, no realizó el proceso de acotamiento en el plano, identificando la franja de tierra excluida a ambos márgenes de las quebradas, respetando la escala utilizada en el plano. Este último dato es necesario para determinar con exactitud si el profesional efectivamente excluyó al margen de las quebradas la medida lineal que exige la ley, pues de las partes sombreadas se desprende, independientemente de si se dejaron 200 o 300 metros, no es la misma medida en todos los contornos de las primeras dos quebradas según los accidentes geográficos de éstas. Nótese, si la escala general es de 1:10.000, por cada centímetro deberá haber cien metros y en este caso, existen partes en que ni siquiera se llega a la medida mínima de 200 metros en la eventualidad de que el terreno fuera plano. Debe resaltarse, es esencial saber si la finca es de relieve plano o quebrado para determinar si el área a excluir del margen de las quebradas es de 200 o 300 metros y en este caso, el topógrafo omitió ese dato, el promovente no se ocupó de hacer esa especificación, y tampoco sería achacable esa omisión al a quo -aunque debió tomar nota de ello en el reconocimiento judicial que realizó en el sitio como era su deber- al ser el titulante quien debe ocuparse de cumplir con todos los requisitos que exige la ley, entendida ésta comprensiva, tanto de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, como de todas aquellas leyes y reglamentos especiales que rigen la materia y estén directamente vinculadas al caso dadas las especificidades del terreno que se pretenda inscribir. Aunado a lo anterior, aún faltando ese dato, en el mejor de los casos para el promovente -sea que sólo hubiera tenido que excluir 200 metros- es posible concluir no cumplió con ese requisito, pues el sector sombreado no representa en algunos sectores más de 200 metros lineales a cada uno de los márgenes de la quebrada, partiendo como se indicó, de que cada centímetro del gráfico de la finca representa 100 metros en la realidad. En cuanto a la tercera quebrada descrita en la [Dirección2] oeste, exactamente donde se ubicó el [Dirección3] , se evidencia, el área aledaña, de 200 o 300 metros dependiendo de si el terreno era plano o quebrado, no fue excluida del todo. Lo expuesto es suficiente para denegar el trámite de Información Posesoria, sin necesidad de gestionar el informe del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados solicitado por el representante del Estado, dado que no es posible autorizar la titulación de terrenos de dominio público que por su naturaleza son imprescriptibles, a menos que el promovente demuestre la posesión de dicho terreno diez años antes de la afectación.” El Tribunal mantiene la misma posición expuesta en torno a la necesidad de excluir dichas áreas de los levantamientos topográficos para poder autorizar la inscripción de esos terrenos. IV.-El numeral 7º inciso c) de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización dispone, se considerarán inalienables y no susceptibles de adquirirse por denuncio o posesión, salvo los que estuvieren bajo el dominio privado, con título legítimo: c) Los terrenos de las islas, los situados en las márgenes de los ríos, arroyos y, en general, de todas las fuentes que estén en cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas en que broten manantiales, o en que tengan sus orígenes o cabeceras cualesquiera cursos de agua de los cuales se surta alguna población, o que convenga reservar con igual fin. En terrenos planos o de pequeño declive se considerará inalienable una faja de doscientos metros a uno y otro lado de dichos ríos, manantiales o arroyos; y en las cuencas y hoyas hidrográficas, una faja de terreno de trescientos metros a uno y otro lado de la depresión máxima, en toda la línea, a contar de la mayor altura inmediata. En este caso, al constar en autos la necesidad de que el recurso hídrico existente en el inmueble que se pretende titular sea reservado para el abastecimiento poblacional rural de sectores ubicados hacia aguas debajo del terreno objeto de las presentes diligencias, según informe del Departamento de Recursos Hídricos, Dirección de Gestión Ambiental del Recurso Hídrico del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, es preciso de conformidad con el inciso c) del artículo 7 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización el mismo sea excluido del área a titular. Tal exclusión no está representada en los levantamientos topográficos constantes en autos, pues dicha norma dispone en forma expresa que en “… terrenos planos o de pequeño declive se considerará inalienable una faja de doscientos metros a uno y otro lado de dichos ríos, manantiales o arroyos; y en las cuencas u hoyas hidrográficas, una faja de terreno de trescientos metros a uno y otro lado de la depresión máxima, en toda la línea, a contar de la mayor altura inmediata.”, de manera tal que el área excluida es inferior a la legalmente exigida. En este caso, en cumplimiento de dicha norma, debió el Juzgador de instancia prevenir a los promoventes aportar un levantamiento topográfico que excluyera dicha área, o bien éstos sin necesidad de dicha prevención conforme a dicha normativa proceder a cumplir desde un inicio con la misma. Ante tal incumplimiento, no sería posible autorizar la titulación del inmueble tal y como se solicitó en el escrito inicial ni con las modificaciones posteriores, en la medida de que se estaría autorizando la inscripción de áreas inalienables no susceptibles de adquirirse por denuncio o posesión. Por ende, se comparte el único agravio expuesto por el representante del Estado debiendo disponerse la desestimatoria de la Información Posesoria."