Denial of Expropriation Within National Wildlife RefugeDenegatoria de expropiación en Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre

Res: 2001-08097 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fifteen hours and forty-two minutes on August tenth, two thousand one.- Amparo action filed by Nombre36268, of legal age, single, business administrator, bearer of identity card number CED16703, in her capacity as General Attorney-in-Fact for Nombre36269 and Nombre36270, of legal age, married, businessman, with ID card CED9360; both in their personal capacity and as special attorneys-in-fact for Nombre36270 and Nombre36269; against the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Resultando:

1. 1In a brief filed with the Secretariat of the Chamber at eleven hours and twenty-four minutes on March 8, 2001, the petitioners file an amparo action against the Ministry of Environment and Energy. They state that the protected party Nombre36269 is the owner of the property in the Partido de Limón numbered 7-004914-000, and also holds a right of possession and improvements over an unregistered property in the Public Registry since March 1954 and a right to five-tenths of the properties in the Partido de Limón, registration number 7-004915 and registration number 7-004911. They state that both they and the protected parties are owners of a right to one-tenth of the properties in the Partido de Limón, registrations 7-004915 and 7-004911. They add that by means of Executive Decree number 23121-MIRENEM, published in La Gaceta number 79 of April 26, 1994, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) established the Limoncito National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncito), of state property.They indicate that their properties and those of their represented parties are 87% included within said refuge. They add that by means of Executive Decree number 23259-MIRENEM, published in La Gaceta of May 18, 1994, the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge changed from the category of state property to mixed property, without having observed the procedure established in articles 82 and following of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), that is, the nature of the cited refuge was varied without there being express acceptance by the affected property owners. They add that in the case of their properties and those of their represented parties, that acceptance was not given, so the change of category to mixed property is flawed, which was confirmed by the Advisor to the Office of the Minister of Environment and Energy, Lic. Carlos Lizano Rodríguez. They state that since 1996 they have carried out numerous procedures, all unsuccessful to date, in order for the Ministry of Environment and Energy to expropriate the lands of their property that were included within the limits of the National Wildlife Refuge, as ordered by article 84 of the Wildlife Conservation Law.MINAE, through the advisor to the Minister, accepted their right to be expropriated, but does not do so, according to official communication DM-1445-2000 of August 16, 2000, stating that it does not have the economic resources to undertake the acquisition of those properties. They affirm that the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge remains a refuge of state property, in accordance with the categorization established in article 82 of the Wildlife Conservation Law. In the administrative file, there is an express request for their lands to be expropriated, for which reason they never accepted the transformation of the refuge from state to mixed. They state that for more than seven years, their lands have been designated as reserved zones for public utility purposes and the refusal to expropriate them by MINAE has directly affected their property right over the properties located in the Limoncito National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncito), for which reason they request that the action be granted.
2. 2Elizabeth Odio Benito, in her capacity as Minister of Environment and Energy, reports under oath (folio 34) that the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge has held the category of Mixed Refuge since 1994 without said declaration having been formally challenged to date, neither in ordinary courts nor in the constitutional court. She indicates that it is a protected wild area that is comprised of some properties of state ownership and others of private ownership. She indicates that there is no interest on the part of the State in converting said protected wild area into state property because, as has been repeatedly stated, property fulfills an environmental social function and therefore it is possible to establish limitations of social interest on it even when it belongs to private individuals. She adds that, in due course, as stated in official communication DM-1445-2000 of August 16, 2000, Mr.Nombre36270 was informed that his family's properties included within the limits of the Limoncito Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Limoncito) are not under the administration of that Ministry, so that entity is not authorized to make decisions regarding them, his family possessing all the attributes inherent to ownership (dominio), and the activity of the officials of the conservation area being limited, as police authorities, to ensuring that the provisions in force for private properties are respected with regard to environmental protection and natural resources. She reiterates, saying that neither Mrs. Nombre36268 nor her brother Nombre36270, nor their represented parties, have been dispossessed of any of the attributes of ownership over the properties in question, and therefore, the petitioners have had at all times the possibility of taking legal action before the corresponding judicial court to exercise reivindication or possessory actions in defense of their property against those they consider illegitimate possessors, which to date they have not done, as it is not recorded in the archives of that Ministry that such actions have been filed, nor have any criminal complaints been filed for usurpation of those properties.She adds that the petitioners cannot expect the State to assume the judicial defense of properties that are not even voluntarily submitted to the forest regime, since the legal system grants sufficient powers to private individuals for that purpose. She indicates that in the most recent proceeding by petitioner Nombre36270 before that Ministry, he was clearly informed that it is not understandable that he expects that Ministry to assume a competence it does not have, and he was reminded that even though the usurpation of privately owned lands is a crime subject to public prosecution, due to the circumstances of this type of crime, which can even be consented to, it is the owners' responsibility to file criminal accusations for those acts before the judicial instances and to request the eviction and demolition of constructions. She indicates that that Ministry has not deprived or limited the petitioners in the full and effective exercise of their constitutional rights, as they have sought to portray to the Chamber, but rather, on the contrary, it has been their own inaction and disuse of the ordinary means established in Costa Rican legislation that could, to some extent, be affecting their interests.
3. 3In the proceedings followed, the legal requirements have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Mora Mora; and,

Considerando:

I.The petitioners allege that their properties and those of their represented parties were included, without their consent and through an Executive Decree, within the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge, which is state property, and despite having made numerous efforts to proceed with the expropriation of those lands, and despite the Ministry of Environment and Energy acknowledging their right to be expropriated, there are no economic resources to undertake the acquisition of those properties; a situation that causes injury to their property right.

II.Based on the evidence provided in the case file, it has not been possible to demonstrate that any expropriation procedure has been formally initiated by the Administration, and therefore, the core point of this amparo action is limited to determining whether, regarding the properties claimed by the petitioners, there is any limitation that violates their constitutional right contained in article 45 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). It must be noted that the referenced properties are geographically contained within the so-called "Limoncillo National Wildlife Refuge" (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncillo); however, under oath it is indicated that they are not under the administration of that Ministry, so that body is not authorized to make decisions regarding such properties, and therefore, the petitioners and their represented parties possess all the attributes inherent to ownership (dominio), with the activity of the officials of the conservation area being limited, as police authorities, to ensuring that the legal provisions in force for private properties are respected with regard to environmental protection and especially natural resources.

Likewise, under oath it is indicated that there is no interest on the part of the State in converting said protected wild area into state property, in addition to lacking the necessary budget to make the respective payment, and therefore, the petitioners and their represented parties have not been dispossessed, at any time, of any of the attributes of ownership over the properties in question.

III.Based on the foregoing, under the faith of an oath with the legal consequences that this entails, the Minister of Environment and Energy indicated that no limitation burdens the properties in question. In addition to the above, it is noted that Law No. 7554 (ORGANIC LAW OF THE ENVIRONMENT - LEY ORGANICA DEL AMBIENTE), in the third paragraph of article 37, states:

"...The private properties affected, according to the provisions of this article, by being located in national parks, biological reserves, and wildlife refuges, shall be comprised within the state-protected wild areas only as of the moment in which they have been legally paid for or expropriated, except when they are voluntarily submitted to the Forest Regime ...".

The above means, as the Chamber has pointed out on previous occasions, that the State, through the relevant Ministry, may not exercise the protective powers established in article 34 of the aforementioned Law over lands that have not yet been effectively acquired through the respective procedures, which must be understood, for the case at hand, as the completion of the expropriation procedure with the corresponding payment and the effective transfer of the property to the State's patrimony; a procedure that has not even been initiated, as there is no State interest in acquiring such properties, regarding which, likewise, no limitation whatsoever has been imposed.

IV.Thus, in the case under study, since the properties of the petitioners and their represented parties are not under State administration, and since the existence of a specific administrative act by means of which the property or the possession of any of the attributes inherent to ownership (dominio) corresponding to the respective owners of those properties has been expressly limited has not been demonstrated, the existence of any injury to the property right protected by constitutional article 45 cannot be considered, and in that sense, the appropriate course is to dismiss the action.-

Por tanto:

The action is dismissed.

Eduardo Sancho G.

Nombre211, a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Carlos M. Arguedas R.

Adrián Vargas B. José Miguel Alfaro R.

Susana Castro A. Alejandro Batalla B.

162* Res: 2001-08097 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fifteen hours and forty-two minutes on August tenth, two thousand one.- Amparo action filed by Nombre36268, of legal age, single, business administrator, bearer of identity card number CED16703, in her capacity as General Attorney-in-Fact for Nombre36269 and Nombre36270, of legal age, married, businessman, with identity card CED9360; both in their personal capacity and as special attorneys-in-fact for Nombre36270 and Nombre36269; against the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Resulting: 1.- In a brief filed with the Secretariat of the Chamber at eleven hours and twenty-four minutes on March 8, 2001, the petitioners file an amparo action against the Ministry of Environment and Energy. They state that the protected party Nombre36269 is the owner of the property in the Limón Registry, number 7-004914-000, and also has a right of possession and improvements over an unregistered property in the Public Registry since March 1954 and a right to five-tenths of the properties in the Limón Registry, registration number 7-004915 and registration number 7-004911.

They state that both they and the protected parties are owners of a right to one-tenth of the properties in the Limón Registry, registrations 7-004915 and 7-004911. They add that by Executive Decree number 23121-MIRENEM, published in Gazette number 79 of April 26, 1994, the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) established the Limoncito National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre), as state-owned property. They indicate that their properties and those of their represented parties are 87% included within said refuge. They add that by Executive Decree number 23259-MIRENEM, published in the Gazette of May 18, 1994, the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge changed from the category of state-owned property to mixed property, without having observed the procedure established in Articles 82 et seq. of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), that is, the nature of the cited refuge was changed without there being express acceptance by the affected owners.

They add that in the case of their properties and those of their represented parties, that acceptance did not occur, therefore the change of category to mixed property is flawed, which was confirmed by the Advisor to the Office of the Minister of Environment and Energy, Lic. Carlos Lizano Rodríguez. They state that since 1996 they have made numerous efforts, all fruitless to date, so that the Ministry of Environment and Energy would expropriate the lands of their property that were included within the boundaries of the National Wildlife Refuge, as ordered by Article 84 of the Wildlife Conservation Law. MINAE, through the Minister's advisor, accepted their right to be expropriated, but does not do so, according to official communication DM-1445-2000 of August 16, 2000, stating that there are no economic resources to face the acquisition of those properties. They affirm that the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge continues to be a state-owned refuge, according to the categorization established in Article 82 of the Wildlife Conservation Law.

In the administrative file, there is an express request for their lands to be expropriated, so they never accepted the transformation of the refuge from state-owned to mixed. They state that for more than seven years, their lands have appeared as areas reserved for public utility purposes and MINAE's refusal to expropriate them has directly affected their property right over the properties located in the Limoncito National Wildlife Refuge, for which they request that the action be granted. 2.- Elizabeth Odio Benito, in her capacity as Minister of Environment and Energy, reports under oath (folio 34) that the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge has held the category of Mixed Refuge since 1994 without said declaration having been formally challenged to date, neither in ordinary jurisdiction nor in constitutional jurisdiction. She points out that it is a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) that is made up of some state-owned properties and others that are privately owned.

She indicates that the State has no interest in converting said protected wilderness area into state property because, as has been repeatedly stated, property fulfills an environmental social function and, therefore, it is possible to establish limitations of social interest on it even when it belongs to private individuals. She adds that, in due course, as recorded in official communication DM-1445-2000 of August 16, 2000, Mr. Nombre36270 was informed that his family's properties included within the boundaries of the Limoncito Wildlife Refuge are not under the administration of that Ministry, therefore that entity is not authorized to make decisions regarding them, with his family possessing all the attributes inherent to ownership (dominio), and the activity of the officials of the conservation area, as police authorities, is limited to ensuring that the provisions in force for private properties are respected therein, regarding the protection of the environment and natural resources.

She reiterates by saying that neither Mrs. Nombre36268 nor her brother Nombre36270 or their represented parties have been deprived of any of the attributes of ownership over the properties in question, therefore, the petitioners have always had the possibility of taking action before the corresponding judicial venue to exercise replevin or possessory actions in defense of their property against those they consider illegitimate possessors, which to date they have not done because it is not recorded in the archives of that Ministry that such actions have been filed, nor that criminal complaints have been filed for usurpation of those properties. She adds that the petitioners cannot expect the State to assume the judicial defense of properties that are not even voluntarily submitted to the forest regime (régimen forestal), since the legal system grants sufficient powers to private individuals for this purpose.

She points out that in the most recent proceeding by the petitioner Nombre36270 before that Ministry, he was clearly informed that it is not understandable that he expects that Ministry to assume a competence it does not have, and he was reminded that even though the usurpation of privately owned lands is a crime subject to public prosecution, due to the circumstances of these types of crimes, which can even be consented to, it is up to the owners to file the criminal accusations for these acts before the judicial instances and request the eviction and demolition of the constructions. She indicates that that Ministry has not deprived or limited the petitioners in the full and effective exercise of their constitutional rights as they have tried to make the Chamber believe, but rather, on the contrary, it has been their own inaction and disuse of the ordinary means established in Costa Rican legislation that could, to some extent, be affecting their interests. 3.- The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings conducted.

Drafted by Magistrate Mora Mora; and, Considering: I.- The petitioners claim that their properties and those of their represented parties were included, without their consent and through an Executive Decree, within the Nombre36271 National Wildlife Refuge, which is state-owned property, and despite having made numerous efforts for the expropriation of those lands to proceed, and despite the Ministry of Environment and Energy accepting the right that assists them to be expropriated, there are no economic resources to face the acquisition of those properties; a situation that causes an injury to their property right. II.- Based on the evidence provided to the case file, it has not been possible to demonstrate that any expropriation procedure has been formally initiated by the Administration, therefore, the core point of this amparo action is limited to determining whether, regarding the properties claimed by the petitioners, there exists any limitation that violates their constitutional right contained in Article 45 of the Political Constitution.

It must be noted that the aforementioned properties are geographically contained within the so-called "Limoncillo National Wildlife Refuge" (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncillo); however, it is stated under oath that they are not under the administration of that Ministry, therefore that body is not authorized to make decisions regarding such properties, meaning the petitioners and their represented parties possess all the attributes inherent to ownership, with the activity of the officials of the conservation area, as police authorities, being limited to ensuring that the legal provisions in force for private properties are respected therein, regarding the protection of the environment and especially natural resources. Likewise, it is stated under oath that the State has no interest in converting said protected wilderness area into state property, besides lacking the necessary budget to make the respective payment, meaning the petitioners and their represented parties have not been dispossessed, at any time, of any of the attributes of ownership over the properties in question.

III.- Based on the foregoing, under the faith of oath with the legal consequences that this implies, the Minister of Environment and Energy indicated that no limitation weighs on the properties in question. In addition to the above, it is understood that in Law No. 7554 (ORGANIC ENVIRONMENTAL LAW), the third paragraph of Article 37 states: "...The affected private properties, as provided in this article, for being located in national parks, biological reserves, and wildlife refuges, shall be included within the protected state wilderness areas only from the moment they have been paid for or legally expropriated, except when they voluntarily submit to the Forest Regime ...". The foregoing means, as the Chamber has pointed out on previous occasions, that the State, through the appropriate Ministry, may not exercise the protection powers established by Article 34 of the aforementioned Law over lands that have not yet been effectively acquired through the respective procedures, which should be understood, for the case at hand, as the completion of the expropriation procedure with the corresponding payment and the effective transfer of the asset to the State's patrimony; a procedure that has not even been initiated because the State has no interest in acquiring such properties, regarding which no limitation has been imposed either.

IV.- Thus, in the case under study, since the properties of the petitioners and their represented parties are not under the administration of the State, and since the existence of a specific administrative act by which the property or the possession of any of the attributes inherent to ownership belonging to the respective owners of those properties has been expressly limited has not been demonstrated, the existence of any injury to the property right protected by constitutional Article 45 cannot be considered, and in that sense, the appropriate course is to dismiss the action.- Por tanto: The action is dismissed. Eduardo Sancho G. Nombre211, a.i. Luis Paulino Mora M. Carlos M. Arguedas R. Adrián Vargas B. José Miguel Alfaro R. Susana Castro A. Alejandro Batalla B. 162*

Res: 2001-08097 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las quince horas con cuarenta y dos minutos del diez de agosto del dos mil uno.- Recurso de amparo interpuesto por Nombre36268, mayor, soltera, administradora de negocios, portadora de la cédula de identidad número CED16703, en su condición de Apoderada Generalísima de Nombre36269 y Nombre36270, mayor, casado, empresario, con cédula CED9360; ambos en su condición personal y como apoderados especiales de Nombre36270 y Nombre36269; contra el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía.

Resultando:

1. 1En memorial presentado en la Secretaría de la Sala a las once horas y veinticuatro minutos del 8 de marzo del 2001, los recurrentes interponen recurso de amparo contra el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. Señalan que la amparada Nombre36269 es dueña de la finca del Partido de Limón número 7-004914-000, y además tiene un derecho de posesión y mejoras sobre una finca sin inscribir en el Registro Público desde marzo de 1954 y un derecho a cinco décimos de las fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula número 7-004915 y matrícula número 7-004911. Señalan que tanto ellos como los amparados son propietarios de un derecho a un décimo sobre las fincas del Partido de Limón, matrículas 7-004915 y 7-004911. Agregan que mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 23121-MIRENEM, publicado en la Gaceta número 79 del 26 de abril de 1994, el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) estableció el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncito, de propiedad estatal.Indican que sus propiedades y las de sus representados están incluidas en un 87%, dentro de dicho refugio. Agregan que mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 23259-MIRENEM, publicado en la Gaceta del 18 de mayo de 1994, el Refugio Nacional de Vida Nombre36271 pasó de la categoría de propiedad estatal a propiedad mixta, sin haberse observado el procedimiento establecido en los artículos 82 y siguientes de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, es decir, se varió la naturaleza del citado refugio sin que existiera una aceptación expresa por parte de los propietarios afectados. Añaden que en el caso de sus propiedades y las de sus representados, no se dio esa aceptación, por lo que el cambio de categoría a propiedad mixta está viciado, lo cual fue confirmado por el Asesor del Despacho de la Ministra del Ambiente y Energía, Lic. Carlos Lizano Rodríguez. Manifiestan que desde 1996 han realizado numerosas gestiones, todas infructuosas hasta el momento, a fin de que el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía expropie los terrenos de su propiedad que quedaron incluidos dentro de los límites del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre, conforme lo ordena el artículo 84 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre.El MINAE, por medio del asesor de la Ministra, aceptó su derecho a ser expropiados, pero no lo hace, según el oficio DM-1445-2000 del 16 de agosto del 2000, al manifestar que no se cuenta con recursos económicos para hacer frente a la adquisición de esas fincas. Afirman que el Refugio Nacional de Vida Nombre36271 sigue siendo un refugio de propiedad estatal, conforme a la categorización establecida en el artículo 82 de la ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre. En el expediente administrativo, consta solicitud expresa para que sus terrenos fueran expropiados, por lo que nunca aceptaron la transformación del refugio de estatal a mixto. Manifiestan que durante más de siete años, sus terrenos han figurado como zonas reservadas para fines de utilidad pública y la negativa de expropiarlos por parte del MINAE, ha afectado directamente su derecho de propiedad sobre las fincas ubicadas en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncito, por lo que solicitan que se declare con lugar el recurso.
2. 2Informa bajo juramento Elizabeth Odio Benito, en su calidad de Ministra de Ambiente y Energía (folio 34), que el Refugio Nacional de Vida Nombre36271 ostenta la categoría de Refugio Mixto desde 1994 sin que a la fecha haya sido impugnada formalmente dicha declaratoria ni en sede ordinaria ni en la sede constitucional. Señala que se trata de un área silvestre protegida que está conformada por algunos inmuebles de propiedad estatal y otros de propiedad privada. Indica que no existe ningún interés por parte del Estado en convertir dicha área silvestre protegida en propiedad estatal pues como se ha dicho reiteradamente, la propiedad cumple una función social ambiental y por ello es posible establecer limitaciones de interés social a la misma aún cuando pertenezca a particulares. Agrega que, en su oportunidad, según consta en el oficio DM-1445-2000 del 16 de agosto del 2000, se le indicó al señor Nombre36270 que los inmuebles de su familia incluidos dentro de los límites del Refugio de Vida Silvestre Limoncito, no se encuentran bajo la administración de ese Ministerio por lo que esa entidad no está facultada para tomar decisiones sobre ellos, poseyendo su familia todos los atributos propios del dominio y quedando limitada la actividad de los funcionarios del área de conservación como autoridades de policía a velar porque en ellas se respeten las disposiciones vigentes para los inmuebles particulares en lo que se refiere a la protección del ambiente y de los recursos naturales.Reitera diciendo que ni la señora Nombre36268 ni su hermano Nombre36270 o sus representados, han sido despojados de ninguno de los atributos de dominio sobre los inmuebles en cuestión, con lo cual, los recurrentes han tenido en todo momento la posibilidad de accionar ante la sede judicial correspondiente para ejercer las acciones reivindicatorias o interdictales en defensa de su propiedad contra aquellos que consideren ilegítimos poseedores, lo cual a la fecha no han realizado pues no consta en los archivos de ese Ministerio que se hayan interpuesto dichas acciones ni que se hayan interpuesto denuncias penales por usurpación de esos inmuebles. Agrega que los recurrentes no pueden pretender que el Estado asuma la defensa judicial de inmuebles que ni siquiera están sometidos voluntariamente al régimen forestal pues para ello el ordenamiento jurídico otorga facultades suficientes a los particulares.Señala que en la más reciente gestión del recurrente Nombre36270 ante ese Ministerio, claramente se le informó que no es entendible que pretenda que ese Ministerio asuma una competencia que no tiene y se le recordó que aún cuando la usurpación de tierras propiedad privada es un delito de acción pública, por las circunstancias de este tipo de delitos que incluso puede ser consentido, le corresponde a los dueños presentar en las instancias judiciales las acusaciones penales por esos hechos y solicitar el desalojo y demolición de las construcciones. Indica que ese Ministerio no ha privado ni limitado a los recurrentes en el ejercicio pleno y efectivo de sus derechos constitucionales como lo han querido hacer ver a la Sala, sino que, por el contrario, ha sido su propia inacción y desuso de los medios ordinarios establecidos en la legislación costarricense, lo que en alguna medida podría estar afectando sus intereses.
3. 3En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta el magistrado Mora Mora; y,

Considerando:

I.Alegan los recurrentes que sus propiedades y las de sus representados, fueron incluidas, sin su consentimiento y a través de Decreto Ejecutivo, dentro del Refugio Nacional de Visa Nombre36271, que es de propiedad estatal y a pesar de que han realizado numerosas gestiones para que se proceda a la expropiación de esos terrenos y de que el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía acepta el derecho que les asiste a ser expropiados, no existen recursos económicos para hacerle frente a la adquisición de esas fincas; situación que ocasiona una lesión a su derecho de propiedad.

II.A partir de la prueba aportada a los autos, no se ha logrado demostrar que se haya iniciado formalmente algún procedimiento expropiatorio por parte de la Administración, con lo cual, el punto medular de este recurso de amparo se circunscribe a determinar si respecto de las propiedades que alegan los recurrentes, existe alguna limitación que violente su derecho constitucional contenido en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política. Debe indicarse que las fincas aludidas están contenidas geográficamente dentro del llamado "Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Limoncillo", sin embargo, bajo juramento se indica que no se encuentran bajo la administración de ese Ministerio por lo que ese órgano no está autorizado para tomar decisiones respecto de tales inmuebles, con lo cual, los recurrentes y sus representados, poseen todos los atributos propios del dominio, quedando limitada la actividad de los funcionarios del área de conservación, como autoridades de policía, a velar porque en ellas se respeten las disposiciones legales vigentes para los inmuebles particulares en lo que se refiere a la protección al ambiente y especialmente de los recursos naturales.

De igual manera, bajo juramento se indica que no existe ningún interés por parte del Estado en convertir dicha área silvestre protegida en propiedad estatal además de que se carece del presupuesto necesario para realizar el pago respectivo, con lo cual, los recurrentes y sus representados, no han sido despojados, en ningún momento, de ninguno de los atributos de dominio sobre los inmuebles en cuestión.

III.A partir de lo anterior, bajo la fe de juramento con las consecuencias legales que ello implica, la Ministra del Ambiente y Energía indicó que sobre las propiedades en cuestión no pesa ninguna limitación. Aunado a lo anterior, se tiene que en la Ley N 7554 (LEY ORGANICA DEL AMBIENTE), en el párrafo tercero del artículo 37 se expresa:

"...Las fincas particulares afectadas, según lo dispuesto en este artículo, por encontrarse en parques nacionales, reservas biológicas y refugios de vida silvestre, quedarán comprendidas dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas estatales solo a partir del momento en que se hayan pagado o expropiado legalmente, salvo cuando en forma voluntaria se sometan al Régimen Forestal ...".

Lo anterior significa, tal y como lo ha señalado la Sala en anteriores ocasiones que, el Estado, mediante el Ministerio del ramo, no podrá ejercer las facultades de protección que establece el artículo 34 de la Ley mencionada, sobre terrenos que aún no hayan sido efectivamente adquiridos por los procedimientos respectivos, lo que debe entenderse para el caso que nos ocupa, la realización del procedimiento de expropiación con el pago correspondiente y el traspaso efectivo del bien al patrimonio del Estado; procedimiento que ni siquiera se ha iniciado por cuanto no existe interés del Estado en adquirir tales propiedades, respecto de las cuales, tampoco, se ha impuesto limitación alguna.

IV.De esta manera, en el caso bajo estudio, al no estar las propiedades de los recurrentes y de sus representados, bajo la administración del Estado y al no haberse demostrado la existencia de un acto administrativo concreto por medio del cual se haya limitado expresamente la propiedad o la posesión de alguno de los atributos propios del dominio que le corresponden a los respectivos propietarios de esos inmuebles, no se puede considerar la existencia de lesión alguna al derecho de propiedad tutelado por el artículo 45 constitucional y en ese sentido, lo que procede es declarar sin lugar el recurso.-

Por tanto:

Se declara sin lugar el recurso.

Eduardo Sancho G.

Nombre211, a.i.

Luis Paulino Mora M. Carlos M. Arguedas R.

Adrián Vargas B. José Miguel Alfaro R.

Susana Castro A. Alejandro Batalla B.

162*