Nullity of Interdictal Judgment for Failure to Join Indigenous AssociationNulidad de sentencia interdictal por falta de integración de Asociación Indígena

*200000570419AG* INTERDICTO ACTOR/A:

[[Nombre1] ] DEMANDADO/A:

[[Nombre2] ] VOTO N ° 394-F-2022 **TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- At seventeen hours forty-seven minutes on the twenty-second of April two thousand twenty-two.-** **INTERDICT PROCEEDING** established by [[Nombre1] ], older adult, [...]; against [[Nombre2] ], of legal age, in a common-law marriage, homemaker, indigenous person of the Nögbe or Guaymi ethnic group, [...]. Acting as public defender for the plaintiff is attorney Joselyn Cordero Castillo, bar association number twenty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-two; for the defendant [[Nombre2] ], attorney Andrés Daniel Zamora Solera, whose qualifications are unknown in the record. Processed before the Juzgado Agrario of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores.- Drafted by Judge Castro García ; and, **CONSIDERANDO:** **I. Of the claims** : According to the complaint filed in the virtual desk of the Juzgado Agrario of Corredores, on the second of April two thousand twenty, the plaintiff [[Nombre1] ], requests that the judgment declare the following: "*The present action is granted in all its aspects and the defenses raised by the defendant are dismissed. That possession of the plaintiff's property be restored. That the defendant be ordered to refrain from disturbing, personally or through third parties, the possession exercised by the plaintiff on the property in dispute, under warning of being prosecuted for the crime of disobedience to authority. That costs be borne by the defendant.*" (digital file/petitions/date 04/02/2020 03:16:22).

**II. Defenses raised** . The defendant [[Nombre2] ], as recorded in the proceeding incorporated on 04/29/2020 04:35:42, was duly notified. In the brief incorporated on 05/06/2020, she answers the complaint and raised the defenses of statute of limitations (caducidad), lack of standing to sue (falta de legitimación activa), and lack of standing to be sued (falta de legitimación pasiva).

**III.** Judge Juan Carlos Castillo López, of the Juzgado Agrario of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores, in judgment number 151-2021 at thirteen hours twelve minutes on the sixteenth of June two thousand twenty-one, resolved: “***POR TANTO** : In accordance with the foregoing and Articles 1, 2 subsection b) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, Article 106.3 and 73.1 both of the Código Procesal Civil, **THIS DEMAND IS DENIED** and consequently the plaintiff's claims are rejected. Regarding the defenses of statute of limitations, lack of standing to sue and lack of standing to be sued, they are upheld, and lack of right on the part of the plaintiff is declared sua sponte. Both costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. The parties are warned that this judgment admits an appeal, which must be filed before this Court within five days. Within that same period and before this Jurisdictional Body, the factual or legal grounds on which the appellant bases its disagreement must be stated verbally or in writing, under warning of declaring the appeal inadmissible, pursuant to Articles 500 and 501 subsection c) and d) of the Código de Trabajo, Votos number 5798 at 16:21 hours on August 11, nineteen ninety-eight and 1306 at 16:27 hours on February 23, 1999, both of the Sala Constitucional and Voto number 386 at 14:20 hours on December 10, 1999. If any of the parties is going to file an appeal against this resolution, they must also submit the appeal in electronic format.*" **IV.-** The Public Defender of the plaintiff [[Nombre1] ], attorney Andrés Daniel Zamora Solera, filed an appeal. As grievances, he refutes that the possessory action (interdictal) complaint he filed against [[Nombre2] ] was denied. He is ordered to pay the resulting personal and procedural costs. As a first claim, he invokes a lack of evidentiary reasoning since the judgment does not contain a broad and detailed analysis of each piece of evidence incorporated into the process. Reference is only made to the testimonial evidence collected; without evaluating the rest of the evidence. Regarding the documentary evidence, it was only stated not to be of interest since the Asociación de Desarrollo was not a party to the process. Regarding the defendant's confession evidence, it was reasoned not to be of interest in proceedings of this nature since the discussion of final possession (posesión definitiva) issues is prohibited. And the statement from his client's confession is considered hardly credible, as it was indicated that the defendant is on the land because she was the common-law partner (compañera sentimental) of one of the plaintiff's sons. He claims that this is a serious error, because according to Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the judgment is required to resolve all points submitted for debate with the mandatory assessment of the evidence; which he believes did not happen in the contested resolution. He reproaches that the defendant's confession confirms the Asociación de Desarrollo asked the defendant to vacate the land because it did not belong to her. Which, while it could determine a definitive possession (posesión definitiva) as concluded, could also establish that the defendant did not have current and momentary possession of the land. Her entry being arbitrary and in bad faith. He outlines that the plaintiff's confession testimony exposes the donation of one hectare of land to his son, who at the time was the defendant's common-law partner. This was confirmed by the testimonies of [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ]. However, the defendant illegitimately dispossessed (despojó) the plaintiff of the rest of the land, measuring six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. It is clear the defendant remained in the area, because she inhabited the one hectare of land that had been donated, however, it cannot be assessed that this situation implies she maintained possession of the entire area of the farm. He claims that with the declaration of the defendant's witness [[Nombre6] ], known as [[Nombre7] ], the judgment does not determine if the witness could possibly have an interest in the matter, as he is the defendant's common-law partner and lives with her. The testimonial statements of [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ] are consistent in affirming that the defendant inhabited a one-hectare sector of the land, the rest was constantly worked by the plaintiff. And he had to, for health reasons, get away from the place a little; without ever having abandoned it. As a grievance, he also refutes that the judicial inspection was carried out one year after the acts of disturbance took place. Which may slightly vary the conditions that existed at the time. He appeals that an erroneous assessment was made regarding the statute of limitations (caducidad) of the process, since in the ninth recital, it determines: "(...) if this action was filed on April 1, 2020 and the taking of testimonial evidence was carried out on January 12, 2021, the defendant had already far exceeded the three months indicated by law to determine the action was time-barred (...)". He contests that the statute of limitations is computed from the occurrence of the disturbing act to the filing of the complaint. Not in the manner carried out in the appealed judgment. He reproaches that it is true the defendant remained in one sector of the land, not in the rest of the plaintiff's property. This is concluded from the statement of witnesses [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ], who are clear when indicating that although the defendant was in one part of the land, it was at the end of January 2020 that she entered the entire farm, without any authorization from the plaintiff or the Asociación de Desarrollo. And the complaint is filed within the three months required by law from when the disturbing acts occurred. He claims regarding standing to sue and be sued (legitimación activa y pasiva), there is an erroneous interpretation by determining the absence of dispossession (despojo) and reasoning that the defendant was in the zone in dispute because she maintained a sentimental relationship with a son of the plaintiff. However, both the plaintiff's confession and the witnesses' statements are clear that the donated area only covered one hectare of land and not the total. While there is no dispossession (despojo) of that sector, there is denial of the rest of the area; which was maintained in the plaintiff's possession. In reference to costs, he reproaches being condemned in both costs citing only Article 73.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, without any reasoning being provided. He refutes that the plaintiff resorted to the judicial route due to the existing disturbance on his land. The same which was accredited by the witnesses offered. Therefore, he acted in good faith and with sufficient grounds to litigate: Reason for which he must be exonerated from paying costs, according to Article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Alternatively, he be condemned with the application of a lower percentage around 5% and not more than 15%, according to canon 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. He indicates that not all points under debate were resolved nor was a correct analysis of the evidence offered provided. He requests his appeal be upheld or the contested resolution be annulled. That the complaint be granted and he be exonerated from paying both costs of the process (see virtual desk of the Juzgado Agrario of Corredores, petitions incorporated on 06/23/2021 at 09:01:33).- **V-** A ruling regarding the list of proven and unproven facts is omitted, given the manner in which this case is resolved.

**VI-** In the specific case, based on the procedural ordering powers of this Court under Article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 592 of the Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily (Article 26 and 60 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), irremediable procedural defects are observed at this Instance that cause the nullity of the appealed resolution. The aforementioned fundamentally because the material and factual possession of a property is under discussion, which, according to the record, is located in the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa. Site in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección1] , of the canton of Osa, seventh of the province of Puntarenas. With an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. Whose administration corresponds to the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna. Upon review of the record, it is verified that the procedural phases were completed and a final judgment was issued; without calling the aforementioned Association to the file under any condition. Note that the object of the process is the de facto possession involving a non-indigenous person and an indigenous person of a farm subject to the administration of the Association. Therefore, the decision issued, given the special communal nature of indigenous property (propiedad indígena), the way the content of the exercise of indigenous property rights is understood, and the central position of its administrator, it becomes necessary for it to be a party under the figure of interested third party (tercera interesada). Because in the resolution of this conflict, the regime of communal property and possession must be considered, always in safeguarding the interests of these groups of inhabitants and especially of their territories. The foregoing in accordance with the Ley Indígena and ILO Convention 169. According to the initial petition filed before judicial courts on April 2, 2020, and acting under the legal sponsorship of the Public Defense, [[Nombre1] ], who identifies himself as an 81-year-old older adult, sues [[Nombre2] ], filing a possessory action for restitution (demanda interdictal de restitución). He describes in the facts, being the possessor of land located in indigenous territory, with agricultural nature. Located in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección2] , Osa [Dirección3] of the province of Puntarenas. With an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. Property acquired more than forty years ago from [[Nombre8] ]. He described as acts performed on the land: various crops and cattle pastures. He indicated that six months earlier, due to a health condition, he had to leave the property for a time, to receive treatment at the Hospital de Ciudad Neily for suffering from cataracts. Without ceasing to attend to the property and maintain it. He described that on January 24, 2020, he came to the farm for usual maintenance tasks and found [[Nombre2] ]. She explained on her part the farm belongs to her, but she threatened him with a machete. In view of the above, on January 27, 2020, he requested protection measures against Mrs. [[Nombre2] ] and initiated an action before the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna Guaymí de Osa de Sierpe de Puntarenas. They issue official letter number 7-01/02/2020, stating they inform [[Nombre2] ] to vacate the property and recognizing his possession of the land, to which she refused. He requests the restitution of his land and that the defendant be warned to refrain from disturbing his possession (complaint in digital file/petitions/date: 04/02/2020 03:16:22). For her part, the defendant [[Nombre2] ], who indicates being an indigenous person of the Ngöbe or Guaymí Ethnic Group, from the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa, not speaking Spanish, and having been assisted by an interpreter, denied the complaint. She cited that the plaintiff is not an indigenous person. The entire area claimed is part of the Alto Laguna de Osa Indigenous Territory. She cites that in the year 2001 she lives in a common-law marriage with the plaintiff's son [[Nombre9] ], and his father verbally donated to the children they had in common, the plaintiff's grandchildren, the entirety of the area described here. Since the year 2001 she is the indigenous possessor of the entire area in dispute, through possessory acts (actos posesorios) of care, maintenance, planting of plantain, banana. She built a dwelling house with [[Nombre9] ], her former partner and father of her children. She denies possessory acts (actos posesorios) by the plaintiff, since in the year 2001, upon donating, he moved to live with his daughter [[Nombre10] ] in La Palma de Puerto Jiménez. Without having possessed that area immediately or mediately in the last fifteen years. She refutes that five years ago she separates from [[Nombre9] ] and a year ago she filed a child support process against him. Reason why [[Nombre1] ] got upset and tries to deprive her of the land he had donated to his children since the year 2001; which he stated in front of his children at her house. She accepts that in January 2020 the plaintiff came to her house aggressively, asked her to leave the property with all her family, since he was going to return to live on that land. She pointed out that he had violent conduct and tried to assault her in the presence of her children, but she did not allow it, and she denies that she was carrying a machete. She mentions that before January 2020, she had never been disturbed in her legitimate indigenous possession, which she has exercised together with her family nucleus. She argues that the farm does not belong to him as he is not an indigenous person and according to Decreto Ejecutivo no. 20469-G of 1991, that property is part of the Alto Laguna Osa Indigenous Territory. She invokes Article 3 and 5 of the Ley Indígena 6172 of 1977. Therefore, the plaintiff lacks the right to request the restitution of a possession he lost more than fifteen years ago. Regarding the protection measures filed against her, she mentions that she only learned of them on the day the complaint was drafted, when her Public Defender and the interpreter who assisted her explained them to her. Because when the document was given to her, no one translated or interpreted it for her. According to what she is cited, it was resolved on January 27, 2020, by the Juzgado Contravencional de Puerto Jiménez, acting by operation of law as a Domestic Violence court, that she must not disturb the plaintiff in different ways, but it does not order her to leave the farm. Where the plaintiff does not live, but she does. She raised the defenses of statute of limitations (caducidad) because the plaintiff has not possessed the property since the year 2001, but rather she has (digital file/petitions/date 04/02/2020 03:16:22). With the complaint, the plaintiff provided documentary evidence consisting of an official letter number N 01-02/20 issued by the Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Noegbe Guaymi de Osa, whereby it notifies the defendant that by virtue of the situation reported by [[Nombre1] ] to the Association, the Board of Directors, according to the agreement in Article 6 of Act No. 43, requests she vacate the property no later than February 2, 2020 (digital file/petitions/date: 04/02/2020 03:16:22 02). Therefore, the fact that the farm in dispute is part of Indigenous Territory is not debatable. This Chamber considers that although, in accordance with the provisions of Article 106 of the current Código Procesal Civil, applicable to this process supplementarily (Article 26 of Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitory I.3 of Ley 9343 and II of Ley 9342), it is established that in possessory actions (interdictos) only matters of current and momentary possession of real estate will be discussed, without affecting issues of property or definitive possession (posesión definitiva), the particular form of exercise of property rights and possession within indigenous territories requires that the Association responsible for the lands located in the domains of the Ngöbe Ethnic Group be called as an interested third party (tercero interesado). The foregoing, pursuant to numerals 22 and 40 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 22.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, used supplementarily in this matter (Article 26 of Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitory I.3 of Ley 9342 and II of Ley 9342 and Ley Indígena). This Instance points out that the interests of the community to which the property and the de facto and definitive possession (posesión de hecho y definitiva) of the farm in dispute belong, may be affected when by a judicial resolution from a process in which it did not participate or have knowledge, it is dictated which person is or is not the material possessor. And that this could invalidate present or de facto acts, in which it could have decided regarding material and de facto possession. Hence, it is justified that prior to issuing the final judgment, the Association, in its capacity as representative of the Ngöbe Ethnic Group regarding the administration of its territory, be informed of the existence of this process and subsequently of the judgment that may be issued.

**POR TANTO** Judgment number 151-2021 at thirteen hours twelve minutes on the sixteenth of June two thousand twenty-one is annulled. The Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Ngöbe Guaymi de Osa shall be considered as a legally interested third party (tercera interesada legal). The Lower Court shall proceed, prior to issuing a new judgment, to readjust the procedures and notify it of the existence of this process and summon it in such condition.

*XHZ8FFGOCAI61* [Nombre11] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *MTEGOU47CQGQ61* [Nombre12] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *5XG7QRZQOKA61* [Nombre13] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Due to the incorporation of orality in agrarian matters, if it is the party's wish for the appellate court to grant them an oral hearing, they should make this known in the same notice of appeal, or otherwise provide an email address where they can be notified.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">THAT IS ALL. LET IT BE NOTIFIED</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">."</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> (see virtual desk of the Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, associated documents, first-instance judgment filed on 16/06/2021 13:12:02).</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">IV.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">The Public Defender of the plaintiff [[Nombre1] ], attorney Andrés Daniel Zamora Solera, filed a notice of appeal. As </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">grievances he refutes</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">, the possessory action claim filed against [[Nombre2] ] is declared without merit. He is ordered to pay the resulting personal and procedural costs. As a </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">first claim, he invokes the lack of evidentiary reasoning</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> since the ruling does not contain a broad and detailed analysis of each of the evidentiary elements incorporated into the process. Only reference is made to the testimonial evidence gathered; without evaluating the rest of the evidence. Regarding the documentary evidence, it was only stated that it was not of interest because the Asociación de Desarrollo was not a party to the process. In relation to the defendant's confession, it was reasoned that it is of no interest in processes of this nature since the discussion of matters of definitive possession is barred. And his client's confession is considered not very credible, because it was indicated that the defendant is on the land because she was the sentimental partner of a son of the plaintiff. He claims that the foregoing is a serious error, since pursuant to article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the judgment is required to resolve all points submitted to debate with the mandatory assessment of the evidence; which he estimates did not happen in the contested resolution. He points out, with the confession of the defendant, it is confirmed that the Asociación de Desarrollo asked the defendant to vacate the land because it did not belong to her. Which, while it could determine a definitive possession as concluded, could also establish that the defendant did not have current and momentary possession of the land. Her entry being arbitrary and in bad faith. He outlines, in the plaintiff's confession, the donation of one hectare of land to his son, who at the time was the sentimental partner of the defendant, is explained. Which was confirmed with the testimonies of [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ]. However, the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the rest of the land, which measures six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. It is clear that the defendant remained in the area, because she inhabited the hectare of land that had been donated, however, it cannot be assessed that this situation implies that she maintained possession of the complete area of the property. He claims, with the statement of the defendant's witness [[Nombre6] ], known as [[Nombre7] ], the judgment does not determine if the witness could eventually have an interest in the matter, as he is the sentimental partner of the defendant and lives with her. The testimonial statements of [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ], are consistent in affirming that the defendant inhabited a one-hectare sector of the land, the rest was worked by the plaintiff constantly. And he had to, for health reasons, distance himself a little from the place; without ever having abandoned it. As a </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">grievance he also refutes that the judicial inspection was carried out one year after the disturbing acts occurred.</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> Which means that the conditions that existed at the time may vary somewhat. He appeals, an </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">erroneous assessment is made regarding the expiry (caducidad) of the process,</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> since in recital nine, it determines: "(</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">...) if this action was filed on April 1, 2020, and the reception of testimonial evidence was carried out on January 12, 2021, the defendant had already far exceeded the three months indicated by law to be able to determine that the action was time-barred (...)".</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> He contests, the expiry (caducidad) is computed from the occurrence of the disturbing act until the filing of the claim. Not in the manner carried out in the appealed judgment. He points out, it is true that the defendant remained in one sector of the land, not in the rest of the plaintiff's property. Which is concluded from the statements of witnesses [[Nombre4] ] and [[Nombre5] ]. They are clear when they indicate that although the defendant was in one part of the land, it was at the end of January 2020 that she entered the entire farm, without any authorization from the plaintiff or the Asociación de Desarrollo. And the claim is filed within the three months established by law from when the disturbing acts occurred. He claims </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">regarding the standing to sue (legitimación activa y pasiva),</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> an erroneous interpretation is set forth by determining the nonexistence of the dispossession and reasoning that the defendant was in the area under dispute because she maintained a sentimental relationship with a son of the plaintiff. However, both the plaintiff's confession and the witnesses' statements are clear that the donated area only covered one hectare of land and not the entirety. While there is no dispossession of that sector, there is deprivation of the rest of the area; which remained in the plaintiff's possession. In reference to </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">costs, </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">he points out that he is ordered to pay both costs, citing only article 73.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, without a reasoned basis. He refutes, the plaintiff goes to court due to the existing disturbance on his land. The same that was accredited by the witnesses offered. Therefore, he acted in good faith and with sufficient motives to litigate: For which reason he must be exonerated from the payment of costs, according to article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Alternatively, he be ordered to pay a lower percentage around 5% and no more than 15%, according to canon 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. He indicates that not all the points under debate were resolved, nor was a correct analysis of the evidence offered rendered. He asks that his appeal be upheld or the contested resolution be annulled. That the claim be granted and he be exonerated from the payment of both costs of the process (see virtual desk of the Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, documents filed on 23/06/2021 time 09:01:33).-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:34pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">V- </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">A ruling regarding the list of proven and unproven facts is omitted, given the manner in which this case is resolved. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">VI- </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">In the specific case, based on the case-management powers of this Tribunal according to article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and article 592 of the Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily (article 26 and 60 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), irremediable procedural defects are observed at this Instance that produce the nullity of the appealed resolution. The foregoing fundamentally because the material and de facto possession of a property is under discussion, which, according to the case file, is located in the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa. Located in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección1] , of the canton of Osa, seventh of the province of Puntarenas. With an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. Whose administration corresponds to the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna. From the review of the case file, it is verified that the procedural phases were completed and a judgment on the merits was issued; without the referred Association being joined to the file under any condition. Note, the object of the process is the de facto possession involving a non-indigenous person and an indigenous person of a farm subject to the administration of the Association. Therefore, the decision that is issued, given the special communal nature of indigenous property, the way in which the content of the exercise of indigenous property rights is understood, and the central position of its administrator, it becomes necessary for it to be a party as a third party with a legitimate interest (tercera interesada). Because in the solution of this conflict, the regime of common property and possession must be considered, always safeguarding the interests of these groups of inhabitants and especially of their territories. The foregoing in accordance with the Ley Indígena and Convention 169 of the ILO. </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">According to the initial brief</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> filed before judicial courts on April 2, 2020, and acting under the legal sponsorship of the Public Defense, </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">[[Nombre1] ]</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> who identifies himself as an 81-year-old senior citizen, sues [[Nombre2] ], filing a possessory action for restitution. He describes in the facts, being the possessor of a land located in indigenous territory, with an agricultural nature. Located in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección2] ,</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">Osa [Dirección3] of the province of Puntarenas. With an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. Property acquired more than forty years ago from [[Nombre8] ]. He described as acts carried out on the land: various crops and cattle pastures. He indicated that six months earlier, due to a health issue, he had to leave the property for a time, to be treated at the Hospital de Ciudad Neily for suffering from cataracts. Without failing to attend the property and maintain it. He described, on January 24, 2020, he appears at the farm for usual maintenance work and finds [[Nombre2] ]. She explains on her part that the farm belongs to her, but threatens him with a machete. In view of the foregoing, on January 27, 2020, he requests protection measures against Mrs. [[Nombre2] ] and initiated a proceeding before the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna Guaymí de Osa de Sierpe de Puntarenas. Which issues official letter number 7-01/02/2020, where it is recorded that they notify [[Nombre2] ] to vacate the property and recognize his possession of the land, which she refused. He requests the restitution of his land and that the defendant be warned to refrain from disturbing his possession (claim in digital file/briefs/date: 02/04/2020 03:16:22). For her part, the defendant [[Nombre2] ]</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">,</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> who</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">indicates she is an indigenous person of the Ngöbe or Guaymí Ethnicity, from the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa, does not speak Spanish and was assisted by an interpreter, denied the claim. She cited that the plaintiff is not an indigenous person. The entire area he claims is part of the Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna de Osa. She cites, in the year 2001 she lives in a common-law marriage with the plaintiff's son [[Nombre9] ], and his father verbally donated to the children they had in common, the plaintiff's grandchildren, the entirety of the area described herein. Since the year 2001, she is the indigenous possessor of the entire area under dispute, through possessory acts of care, maintenance, planting of plantain, banana. She built a dwelling house with [[Nombre9] ], her former partner and father of her children. She denies possessory acts by the plaintiff, since from the year 2001 upon donating, he moves to live with his daughter [[Nombre10] ] in La Palma de Puerto Jiménez. Without in the last fifteen years, having possessed that area immediately or mediately. She refutes, five years ago she separated from [[Nombre9] ] and a year ago she filed a child support process against him. Reason why [[Nombre1] ] got upset and seeks to deprive her of the land that he had donated to his children since the year 2001; which he stated in front of his children at her house. She accepts that in January 2020, the plaintiff came to her home aggressively, asked her to leave the property with all her family, since he was going to return to live on that land. She pointed out that he had a violent conduct and tried to attack her in the presence of her children, but she did not allow it, and denies that she was carrying a machete. She mentions, before January 2020, she had never been disturbed in her legitimate indigenous possession, which she has exercised together with her family nucleus. She argues, the farm does not belong to him since he is not an indigenous person and according to Decreto Ejecutivo no. 20469-G of 1991, that property is part of the Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna Osa. She invokes articles 3 and 5 of the Ley Indígena 6172 of 1977. Therefore, the plaintiff lacks the right to request restitution of a possession he lost more than fifteen years ago. Regarding the protection measures filed against her, she mentions, she only found out about them on the day the claim was prepared, when her Defender and the interpreter who assisted her explained them to her. Because when they handed her the document, no one provided a translation or interpretation of it to her. That according to what they cite to her, it is resolved on January 27, 2020, by the Juzgado Contravencional de Puerto Jiménez, acting by ministry of law as a domestic violence court, that she must not disturb the plaintiff in different modalities, but they do not order her to leave the farm. Where the plaintiff does not live, but she does. She raised the defenses of expiry (caducidad) because the plaintiff has not possessed the property since 2001, but rather she has (digital file/briefs/date 02/04/2020 time 03:16:22). With the claim, the plaintiff contributed documentary evidence consisting of official letter number N 01-02/20 issued by the Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Noegbe Guaymi de Osa, where it notifies the defendant that by virtue of the situation reported by [[Nombre1] ] to the Association, the Board of Directors, according to the agreement with article 6 of Acta N°43, asks her to vacate the property no later than February 2, 2020 (digital file/briefs/date: 02/04/2020 03:16:22 02). Therefore, the fact that the farm under dispute is part of an Indigenous territory is not debatable. </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">This Chamber considers</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> that although, in accordance with the provisions of article 106 of the current Código Procesal Civil, applicable to this process supplementarily (article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitory Provisions I.3 of Law 9343 and II of Law 9342), it is established that in possessory actions (interdictos), only matters of current and momentary possession of real property may be discussed, without affecting questions of ownership or definitive possession, </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">the particular form of exercising the right of ownership and possession within indigenous territories requires that the Association responsible for the lands located in the domains of the Ngöbe Ethnicity be joined as a third party with a legitimate interest</span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">. The foregoing, in function of the provisions of numerals 22 and 40 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 22.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, of supplementary use in this matter (article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitory Provisions I.3 of Law 9342 and II of Law 9342, and Ley Indígena). This Instance points out that the interests of the community to which the ownership and de facto and definitive possession of the farm under dispute belongs, may be affected when through a judicial resolution of a process in which it did not participate or have knowledge, it is determined which person is or is not the material possessor. And that this could invalidate present or de facto acts, in which it might have decided regarding material and de facto possession. Hence, it is justified that prior to issuing a judgment on the merits, the Association be informed, in its capacity as representative of the Ngöbe Ethnicity regarding the administration of its territory, of the existence of this process and subsequently the judgment that may be issued. </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">THEREFORE (POR TANTO)</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana; color:#010101\">Judgment number 151-2021 of thirteen hours twelve minutes of June sixteenth, two thousand twenty-one, is annulled. The Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Ngöbe Guaymi de Osa is considered a legal third party with a legitimate interest. The Trial Court shall proceed, prior to issuing a new judgment, to readjust the procedures and notify it of the existence of this process and summon it in such condition.</span></p> </p>

**VI.-** [...] **This Chamber considers** that although, pursuant to the provisions of article 106 of the current Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), applicable to this proceeding on a supplementary basis (article 26 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), Transitory Provision I.3 of Law 9343 (Ley 9343) and II of Law 9342 (Ley 9342)), it is established that in possessory actions (interdictos) only matters of current and momentary possession of real property may be discussed, without affecting issues of ownership or definitive possession, **the particular form of exercising the right of ownership and possession within indigenous territories requires that the Association responsible for the lands located in the domains of the Ngöbe Ethnic Group be called as an interested third party.** .

It appeals, an <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">erroneous assessment is made regarding the expiration of the action,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> since in the ninth Whereas Clause, it determines: "(</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-style:italic; color:#010101">...) if this action was filed on April 1, 2020, and the reception of the testimonial evidence took place on January 12, 2021, the defendant had already far exceeded the three months indicated by law for the action to be deemed expired (...)".</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> It contests that the expiration is computed from the occurrence of the disturbing act until the filing of the claim, not in the manner done in the appealed judgment. It alleges it is true that the defendant was occupying a sector of the land, not the rest of the plaintiff's property. This is concluded from the statements of witnesses [[Name4]] and [[Name5]], who are clear when they indicate that while the defendant was on a part of the land, it was at the end of January 2020 that she entered the entirety of the farm, without any authorization from the plaintiff or the Asociación de Desarrollo. And the claim was filed within the three months established by law from when the disturbing acts occurred. It claims </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">regarding the standing to sue and be sued,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> an erroneous</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> interpretation is presented by determining the non-existence of the dispossession (despojo) and reasoning that the defendant was in the disputed area because she had a romantic relationship with a son of the plaintiff. However, both the plaintiff's confession and the witnesses' statements are clear that the donated area only covered one hectare of land and not the entirety. Even if there is no dispossession of that sector, there is indeed dispossession from the rest of the area, which the plaintiff maintained in possession. In reference to </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">costs, </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">it alleges it was condemned to pay both costs citing only Article 73.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, without any substantiation. It refutes, the plaintiff resorted to the judicial process due to the existing disturbance on his land, which was accredited by the offered witnesses. Therefore, he acted in good faith and with sufficient grounds to litigate, which is why he must be exonerated</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">from the payment of costs, according to Article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Alternatively, he be condemned with the application of a lower percentage around 5% and not greater than 15%, according to canon</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. It indicates that not all the points under debate were resolved, nor was a correct analysis of the offered evidence made. It requests that its appeal be granted, or the challenged resolution be annulled, the claim be declared with merit, and it be exonerated from the payment of both costs of the proceeding (see the virtual desk of the Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, documents incorporated on 06/23/2021 at 09:01:33).-</span> <span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">V- </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">A ruling on the list of proven and unproven facts is omitted, given the manner in which this case is resolved. </span> <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VI- </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">In the specific case, based on the procedural ordering powers of this Tribunal according to Article 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 592 of the Código de Trabajo, applied supplementarily (Article 26 and 60 of the</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), irremediable procedural defects are observed in this Instance that produce the nullity of the appealed resolution. The foregoing is fundamentally because what is under discussion is the material and de facto possession of a property that, according to the case record,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> is located in the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa, located in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Address1] ,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">of the cantón of Osa, seventh of the province of Puntarenas, with an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters, whose administration corresponds to the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna. From the review of the case record, it is verified that the procedural phases were completed and a judgment on the merits was issued, without the referred Association being called under any condition to the file. It should be noted that the subject matter of the proceeding is the de facto possession involving a non-indigenous person and an indigenous person of a farm subject to the administration of the Association. Therefore, the decision issued, given the special communal nature of indigenous property, the manner in which the content of the exercise of indigenous property rights is understood, and the central position of its administrator, makes it necessary for it to be a party under the figure of a third party with an interest (tercera interesada), since in the resolution of this conflict the regime of common property and possession must be considered, always safeguarding the interests of these groups of inhabitants and especially their territories. The foregoing is in accordance with the Ley Indígena and Convention 169 of the ILO. </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">According to the initial document</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> filed before the courts on April 2, 2020, and acting under the legal sponsorship of the Defensa Pública, </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">[[Nombre1]]</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">, who identifies himself as an elderly adult of 81 years, files an action against [[Nombre2]], bringing an interdictal claim for restitution (demanda interdictal de restitución). He describes in the facts that he is the possessor of a land located in indigenous territory, with an agricultural nature, located in Las Vegas de Pavo, [Address2] ,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">Osa [Address3] of the province of Puntarenas, with an area of six hundred eighty-eight thousand six hundred forty-six square meters. Property acquired more than</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> forty years ago from [[Nombre8]]. He described the acts carried out on the land as: various crops and cattle pastures. He indicated that six months before, due to a health issue, he had to leave the property for a time to receive treatment at the Hospital de Ciudad Neily for cataracts, without ceasing to attend the property and maintain it. He described that on January 24, 2020, he came to the farm for usual maintenance work and</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> encountered</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> [[Nombre2]]. He explained that the farm belonged to him, but she threatened him with a machete. In view of the above, on January 27, 2020, he requested protection measures against Ms. [[Nombre2]] and initiated action before the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna Guaymí de Osa de Sierpe de Puntarenas, who issued</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> official letter number 7-01/02/2020, stating that they notified [[Nombre2]] to vacate the property and recognized his possession of the land, which she refused. He requests the restitution of his land and that the defendant be warned to refrain from disturbing his possession (claim in digital file/writings/date: 04/02/2020 03:16:22). For her part, the defendant [[Nombre2]]</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> who</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> indicates she is an indigenous person of the Ngöbe or Guaymí Ethnic Group, from the indigenous territory of Alto Laguna Osa, does not speak Spanish, and was assisted by an interpreter, denied the claim. She cited that the</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> plaintiff is not an indigenous person, and the entire area he claims is part of the Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna de Osa. She cites that in 2001 she was living in a common-law marriage with the plaintiff's son [[Nombre9]], and his father verbally donated to the children they had in common, grandchildren of the plaintiff, the entirety of the area described herein. Since 2001, she is the indigenous possessor of the entire area in dispute, through possessory acts of care, maintenance, and planting of plantain and banana. She built a dwelling with [[Nombre9]], her former partner and father of her children. She denies possessory acts by the plaintiff, since from 2001, upon donating, he moved to live with his daughter [[Nombre10]] in La Palma de Puerto Jiménez, without having possessed that area immediately or mediately in the last fifteen years. She refutes that five years ago she separated from [[Nombre9]], and a year ago she filed a child support claim against him, the reason why [[Nombre1]] became upset and seeks to deprive her of the land he had donated to his</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> children since 2001, which he stated in front of her children at her house. She accepts that in January 2020 the plaintiff arrived at her home aggressively, asking her to leave the property with her entire</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> family, since he was going to return to live on that land. She noted that he had violent conduct and attempted to assault her in the presence of her children, but she</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> did not allow it, and denies that she was carrying a machete. She mentions that before January 2020, she had never been</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> disturbed in her legitimate indigenous possession, which she has exercised together with her family nucleus. She argues that the farm does not belong to him, as he is not an indigenous person, and according to Decreto Ejecutivo no. 20469- G of 1991, that property is part of the Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna Osa. She invokes Articles 3 and 5 of the Ley Indígena 6172 of 1977, meaning</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> the plaintiff lacks the right to request restitution of a possession he lost more than fifteen years ago. Regarding the protection measures filed against her, she mentions that she only learned of them on the day the claim was drawn up, when her Public Defender and the interpreter who assisted her explained them to her, because when they gave her the document, no one provided translation or interpretation of it. That according to what they cite to her,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> it was resolved on January 27, 2020, by the Juzgado Contravencional de Puerto Jiménez, acting by operation of law as a domestic violence court, that she must not disturb the plaintiff in various ways, but it does not order her to leave the farm, where the plaintiff does not live, but she does. She filed the defenses of expiration because the plaintiff has not possessed the property since 2001, but she has (digital file/writings/date 04/02/2020 at 03:16:22). With the claim, the plaintiff provided documentary evidence consisting of an official letter number N 01-02/20 issued by the Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Noegbe Guaymi de Osa, where it notifies the defendant that, under the situation reported by</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> [[Nombre1]] to the Association, the Junta Directiva, according to the agreement with Article 6 of Acta N°43, requests that she vacate the property no later than February 2, 2020 (digital file/writings/date: 04/02/2020 03:16:22 02). Therefore, the fact that the farm in dispute is part of indigenous territory is not arguable. </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">This Chamber considers</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> that although, pursuant to the provisions of Article 106 of the current Código Procesal Civil, applicable to this proceeding supplementarily (Article 26 of Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitorio I.3 of Ley 9343 and II of Ley 9342), it is established</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> that in interdicts (interdictos), only matters of current and momentary possession of immovable property may be discussed, without affecting questions of ownership or definitive possession, </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the particular form of exercising the right of property and possession within indigenous territories requires that the Association responsible for the lands located in the domains of the Ngöbe Ethnic Group be called as a third party with an interest (tercero interesado)</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">. The foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of numerals 22 and 40 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria and 22.1 of the Código Procesal Civil, used supplementarily in this matter (Article 26 of Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitorio I.3 of Ley 9342 and II of Ley 9342 and Ley Indígena). </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">This Instance notes that the interests of the community to which the ownership and de facto and definitive possession of the farm in dispute belong may be affected when, by a judicial resolution in a proceeding in which it had no participation or knowledge, it is determined which person is the material possessor or not. And that this may invalidate present or de facto acts in which it might have decided regarding material and de facto possession. Hence,</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> it is justified that, prior to issuing the judgment on the merits, the Association, in its capacity as representative of the Ngöbe Ethnic Group regarding the administration of its territory, be informed of the existence of this proceeding and subsequently of the judgment that may be issued.</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101"> </span> <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">POR TANTO</span> <span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">Judgment number 151-2021 of thirteen hours twelve minutes on June sixteen, two thousand twenty-one, is annulled. Let the Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Ngöbe </span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">Guaymi de Osa be considered a legal third party with an interest (tercera interesada legal). Let the Trial Court, prior to issuing a new judgment, readjust the procedures, notify it of the existence of this proceeding, and summon it in such capacity.</span> </span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:585pt; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="graphic" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="graphic" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">*XHZ8FFGOCAI61*</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">XHZ8FFGOCAI61</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">[Nombre11]</span><span style="color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#010101">- JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="graphic" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">*MTEGOU47CQGQ61*</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">MTEGOU47CQGQ61</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">[Nombre12]</span><span style="color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#010101">- JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">*5XG7QRZQOKA61*</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">5XG7QRZQOKA61</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">[Nombre13]</span><span style="color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#010101">- JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="width:195.5pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%; font-size:12pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:#010101">EXP: EXPN1</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; text-align:center"><span style="color:#010101">II Circuito Judicial San José, [Dirección4] ,</span><span style="color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#010101">, [Dirección5]</span><span style="color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="color:#010101">de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Católica Teléfonos: [Telf1]. Fax: [Telf2] ó [Telf3]. Correo electrónico: [...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:#010101">&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>

*200000570419AG* INTERDICTO ACTOR/A:

[[Nombre1] ] DEMANDADO/A:

[[Nombre2] ] VOTO N ° 394-F-2022 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las diecisiete horas cuarenta y siete minutos del veintidós de abril de dos mil veintidós.- PROCESO INTERDICTAL establecido por [[Nombre1] ], adulto mayor, [...]; contra [[Nombre2] ], mayor, en unión de hecho, ama de casa, persona indígena de la etnia Nögbe o Guaymi, [...]. Actúa como defensora pública del actor, la licenciada Joselyn Cordero Castillo, colegiada número veintiocho mil novecientos cuarenta y dos; de la demandada [[Nombre2] ], el licenciado Andrés Daniel Zamora Solera, de calidades desconocidas en autos. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur, Corredores.- Redacta la jueza Castro García ; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.De las pretensiones : De acuerdo con la demanda incorporada en el escritorio virtual del Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, el dos de abril de dos mil veinte, el actor [[Nombre1] ], pide se declare en sentencia lo siguiente: "Con lugar la presente acción en todos sus extremos y sin lugar las excepciones que oponga la parte demandada. Que se restituya la posesión sobre la propiedad del actor. Que se ordene a la demandada abstenerse de perturbar de manera personal o por terceras personas, la posesión ejercida por el actor en la propiedad en litis, bajo apercibimiento de perseguirle causa por el delito de desobediencia a la autoridad. Sean las costas a cargo de la parte demandada." (expediente digital/escritos/fecha 02/04/2020 03:16:22).

II.Excepciones deducidas . La demandada [[Nombre2] ], según consta en acta incorporada el 29/04/2020 04:35:42, fue debidamente notificada. En el memorial incorporado el 06/05/2020 contesta la demanda e interpuso las excepciones de caducidad, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva.

III.El juez Juan Carlos Castillo López, del Juzgado Agrario de Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur, Corredores, en sentencia número 151-2021 de las trece horas doce minutos del dieciséis de junio de dos mil veintiuno, resolvió: “POR TANTO: De conformidad con lo expuesto y artículos 1, 2 inciso b) de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Agraria, Artículo 106.3 y 73.1 ambos del Código Procesal Civil SE DECLARA SIN LUGAR la presente demanda y en consecuencia se rechazan las pretensiones del actor. En cuanto a las excepciones de caducidad, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva las mismas se acogen, de oficio se declara falta de derecho por parte del actor. Ambas costas son a cargo de la parte actora. Se le advierte a las partes que esta sentencia admite recurso de apelación, el cual deberá interponerse ante este Juzgado en el término de cinco días. En ese mismo plazo y ante éste Órgano Jurisdiccional se deberán exponer en forma verbal o escrita los motivos de hecho o de derecho en que la parte recurrente apoya su inconformidad, bajo el apercibimiento de declarar inadmisible el recurso, según los artículos 500 y 501 inciso c) y d) del Código de Trabajo, Votos número 5798 de las 16-21 horas del 11 de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y ocho y 1306 de la 16:27 horas del 23 de Febrero de 1999, ambos de la Sala Constitucional y Voto número 386 de las 14:20 horas del 10 de diciembre de 1999. Si alguna de las partes va a presentar recurso de apelación contra esta resolución deberá remitir además, el recurso de apelación por formato electrónico. Por motivo de la inserción de la oralidad en materia agraria, si es el deseo de la parte que el Tribunal de alzada les confiera una audiencia oral, lo hagan saber en el mismo escrito de apelación, o en su defecto señalar un correo electrónico en donde se les pueda notificar.- ES TODO. NOTIFÍQUESE." (ver escritorio virtual del Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, documentos asociados, sentencia de primera instancia incorporada el 16/06/2021 13:12:02).

IV.- El Defensor Público del actor [[Nombre1] ] , licenciado Andrés Daniel Zamora Solera, interpuso recurso de apelación. Como agravios refuta, se declara sin lugar la demanda interdictal que interpusiera contra [[Nombre2] ]. Se le condena al pago de las costas personales y procesales ocasionadas. Como primer reclamo invoca la falta de fundamentación probatoria al no constar en el fallo un análisis amplio y detallado de cada uno de los medios probatorios incorporados al proceso. Solo se hace referencia a la prueba testimonial recabada; sin valorar el resto de probanzas. Sobre la documental solo se manifestó no resultar de interés por cuanto la Asociación de Desarrollo no formaba parte del proceso. En relación con la prueba confesional de la demandada, se razonó no interesar en procesos de esta naturaleza al estar vedada la discusión de temas de posesión definitiva. Y se considera poco creíble la declaración de la confesional de su representada, por cuanto se indicó que la demandada se encuentra en el terreno por haber sido compañera sentimental de un hijo del actor. Reclama que lo anterior es un grave yerro, pues al tenor del artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, se exige que la sentencia resuelva todos los puntos sometidos al debate con la obligatoria apreciación de la prueba; lo que estima no sucedió en la resolución combatida. Acusa, con la declaración confesional de la parte demandada se confirma que la Asociación de Desarrollo le solicitó a la demandada desalojara el terreno por cuanto no le pertenecía. Lo que si bien, podría determinar una posesión definitiva como se concluyó, también podría establecer que la demandada no tenía posesión actual y momentánea del terreno. Siendo su ingreso arbitrario y de mala fe. Esboza, en la declaración confesional del actor se expone sobre la donación de una hectárea de terreno a su hijo, quién en su momento era el compañero sentimental de la demandada. Lo cual se confirmó con los testimonios de [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] y [[Nombre5] ]. Sin embargo, la accionada despojó ilegítimamente al actor del resto de terreno, que mantiene una medida de seiscientos ochenta y ocho mil seiscientos cuarenta y seis metros cuadrados. Es claro que la demandada se mantenía en la zona, por cuanto habitaba la hectárea de terreno que había sido donada, sin embargo, no puede valorarse que esta situación implique que mantenía la posesión del área completa del fundo. Reclama, con la declaración del testigo de la demandada [[Nombre6] ], conocido como [[Nombre7] ], la sentencia no determina si eventualmente podría existir interés del testigo en el asunto, al ser la pareja sentimental de la demandada y habita con ella. Las declaraciones testimoniales de [[Nombre3] ], [[Nombre4] ] y [[Nombre5] ], son contestes en cuanto afirman, la demandada habitaba un sector de una hectárea del terreno, el resto era trabajada por el actor de forma constante. Y debió, por motivos de salud, alejarse un poco del lugar; sin nunca haberlo abandonado. Como agravio también refuta el reconocimiento judicial se realizó, un año después de la realización de los actos perturbatorios. Lo que genera que puedan variar un poco las condiciones que existían en su momento. Apela, se realiza una valoración errada sobre la caducidad del proceso, ya que en considerando noveno, determina: "(...) si esta acción se interpuso el 1° de abril del 2020 y la recepción de la prueba testimonial se efectuó el 12 de enero del 2021, ya la demandada había superado con creces los tres meses indicados por ley para poder determinar que estaba caduca la acción (...)". Combate, la caducidad se computa desde el acaecimiento del hecho perturbatorio hasta la presentación de la demandada. No de la forma realizada en la sentencia recurrida. Acusa, ser cierto que la accionada se mantenía en un sector del terreno, no en el resto del inmueble del actor. Lo que se concluye del dicho del testigo [[Nombre4] ] y [[Nombre5] ]. Que son claros cuando indican que si bien la demandada se encontraba en una parte del terreno, fue a finales del mes de enero del 2020 que entró en la totalidad de la finca, sin ninguna autorización del actor o la Asociación de Desarrollo. Y la demanda se presenta dentro de los tres meses de ley desde que se produjeron los actos perturbatorios. Reclama sobre la legitimación activa y pasiva, se expone una errada interpretación al determinarse la inexistencia del despojo y razonar que la accionada se encontraba en la zona en litis pues mantenía una relación sentimental con un hijo del actor. Sin embargo, tanto la confesional del actor como las declaraciones de los testigos, son claros que el área donada únicamente abarcaba una hectárea de terreno y no la totalidad. Si bien no existe despojo de ese sector, sí existe se le privó del resto del área; la cual se mantenía en posesión del actor. En referencia a costas, acusa que se le condena en ambas costas citándose únicamente el artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil, sin que mediara una fundamentación. Refuta, el actor acude a la vía judicial ante la perturbación existente en su terreno. Misma que fue acreditada por los testigos ofrecidos. Por lo que actuó de buena fe y suficientes motivos para litigar: Razón por la cual ha de exonerarse del pago de las costas, según el artículo 55 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria.Subsidiariamente, se le condene con la aplicación a un porcentaje menor que ronde el 5% y no mayor al 15 %, según el canon 56 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Indica que no fueron resueltos todos los puntos objeto de debate ni se vertió un análisis correcto de la prueba ofrecida. Pide se acoja su recurso o se anule la resolución impugnada. Se declare con lugar la demanda y el exonere del pago de ambas costas del proceso (ver escritorio virtual del Juzgado Agrario de Corredores, escritos incorporado el 23/06/2021 hora 09:01:33).- V- Se omite pronunciamiento respecto al elenco de hechos probados y no probados, dada la forma en que se resuelve en este caso.

VI- En el caso concreto, con fundamento en las facultades de ordenamiento del proceso de este Tribunal según el artículo 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria y 592 Código de Trabajo, aplicado supletoriamente (artículo 26 y 60 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), se observan vicios del procedimiento insubsanables en esta Instancia que producen la nulidad de la resolución recurrida. Lo anterior fundamentalmente por estar en discusión la posesión material y de hecho de una propiedad que, según los autos, se ubica en el territorio indígena de Alto Laguna Osa. Sito en Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección1] , del cantón de Osa séptimo de la provincia de Puntarenas. Con área de seiscientos ochenta y ocho mil seiscientos cuarenta y seis metros cuadrados. Cuya administración corresponde a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna. De la revisión de los autos, se constata que se cumplieron las fases procesales y se dictó sentencia de fondo; sin que se llamara a la Asociación referida bajo ninguna condición al expediente. Nótese, el objeto del proceso lo es la posesión de hecho que involucra a una persona no indígena y una indígena de una finca sujeta a la administración de la Asociación. Por lo que la decisión que se emite, dada la especial naturaleza comunal de la propiedad indígena, la forma en que entendido el contenido del ejercicio del derecho de propiedad indígena y la posición central de su administradora, se torna necesario que sea parte bajo la figura de tercera interesada. Pues en la solución de este conflicto ha de considerarse el régimen de propiedad común y posesión, siempre en resguardo de los intereses de estos grupos de pobladores y en especial de sus territorios. Lo anterior acorde con la Ley Indígena y Convenio 169 de la OIT. Según el escrito inicial presentado ante estrados judiciales el 2 de abril del 2020 y actuando bajo el patrocinio letrado de la Defensa Pública, [[Nombre1] ] quien se identifica como adulto mayor de 81 años, acciona contra [[Nombre2] ], incoando una demanda interdictal de restitución. Describe en los hechos, ser el poseedor de un terreno ubicado en territorio indígena, con naturaleza agrícola. Sito en Las Vegas de Pavo, [Dirección2] , Osa [Dirección3] de la provincia de Puntarenas. Con área de seiscientos ochenta y ocho mil seiscientos cuarenta y seis metros cuadrados. Inmueble adquirido hacía más de cuarenta años de [[Nombre8] ]. Describió como actos realizados en el terreno: cultivos varios y pasturas de ganado. Indicó seis meses antes, por una afectación de salud, debió salir de la propiedad por un tiempo, para atenderse en el Hospital de Ciudad Neily por sufrir de cataratas. Sin dejar de asistir la propiedad y darle el mantenimiento. Describió, el 24 de enero del 2020 se apersona al fundo para labores de mantenimiento usuales y se encuentra a [[Nombre2] ]. Le explica por su parte la finca le pertenece, pero lo amenaza con un machete. En vista de lo anterior, el 27 de enero del 2020 solicita medidas de protección en contra de la señora [[Nombre2] ] e inició una gestión ante la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Alto Laguna Guaymí de Osa de Sierpe de Puntarenas. Que le expiden oficio número 7-01/02/2020, donde consta que le comunican a [[Nombre2] ] desaloje la propiedad y reconoce su posesión del terreno, a lo cual se negó. Pide la restitución de su terreno y se le advierta a la demandada abstenerse de perturbar su posesión (demanda en expediente digital/escritos/fecha: 02/04/2020 03:16:22). Por su parte, la demandada [[Nombre2] ], quien indica ser persona indígena de la Etnia Ngöbe o Guaymí, del territorio indígena de Alto Laguna Osa, no hablar español y haber sido asistida por una intérprete, negó la demanda. Citó que el actor no es persona indígena. Toda el área que reclama es parte del Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna de Osa. Cita, en el año 2001 habita en unión de hecho con el hijo del actor [[Nombre9] ], y su padre le donó verbalmente a los hijos que tenían en común, nietos del actor, la totalidad del área acá descrita. Desde el año 2001 es poseedora indígena de la totalidad del área en litis, mediante actos posesorios de cuido, mantenimiento, siembra de plátano, banano. Construyó una casa de habitación con [[Nombre9] ], su antigua pareja y padre de sus hijos. Niega actos posesorios del accionante, pues desde el año 2001 al donar se traslada a vivir con su hija [[Nombre10] ] en la Palma de Puerto Jiménez. Sin que en los últimos quince años, hubiera poseído esa área de manera inmediata o mediata. Refuta, hace cinco años ella se separa de [[Nombre9] ] y hace un año le interpuso un proceso de pensión alimenticia. Razón por la cual [[Nombre1] ] se molestó y pretende privarle del terreno que él le había donado a sus hijos desde el año 2001; lo cual lo manifestó delante de sus hijos en su casa. Acepta que en enero del 2020 llegó el actor a su vivienda de forma agresiva, le pidió saliera de la propiedad con toda su familia, ya que él se iba a devolver a vivir a ese terreno. Señaló que tuvo una conducta violenta e intentó agredirle en presencia de sus hijos, pero no lo permitió y niega que ella portara un machete. Menciona, antes de enero del 2020, nunca había sido perturbada en su posesión legítima indígena, que ha ejercido junto con su núcleo familiar. Arguye, la finca no le pertenece al no ser persona indígena y según Decreto Ejecutivo no. 20469- G de 1991, esa heredad es parte del Territorio Indígena Alto Laguna Osa. Invoca el artículo 3 y 5 de la Ley Indígena 6172 de 1977. Por lo que el actor carece de derecho a solicitar se le restituya, una posesión que perdió hace más de quince años. Respecto a las medidas de protección que le interpusieron menciona, de las mismas se entera hasta el día en que se confecciona la demanda, cuando su Defensora y la interprete que le ha asistido, le han explicado. Pues cuando le entregaron el documento, nadie le realizó traducción o interpretación del mismo. Que según le citan, se resuelve en fecha 27 de enero del 2020 por el Juzgado Contravencional de Puerto Jiménez, actuando por ministerio de ley como de violencia doméstica, es que, no debe perturbar al actor en diferentes modalidades, pero no le ordenan salir del fundo. Donde no vive el actor, sino ella. Interpuso las excepciones de caducidad por no poseer el actor la propiedad desde el año 2001, sino ella (expediente digital/escritos/fecha 02/04/2020 hora 03:16:22). Con la demanda aportó prueba documental el actor consistente en un oficio número N 01-02/20 emitido por la Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Noegbe Guaymi de Osa, donde le notifica a la demandada que en virtud de la situación acusada por [[Nombre1] ] a la Asociación, la Junta Directiva según el acuerdo con el artículo 6 de la Acta N°43, le solicita se desaloje la propiedad a más tardar el 2 de febrero del año 2020 (expediente digital/escritos/fecha: 02/04/2020 03:16:22 02). Por lo que no es discutible el hecho de que la finca en litis es parte de territorio Indígena. Considera esta Cámara que si bien, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 106 del vigente Código Procesal Civil, aplicable a este proceso en forma supletoria (artículo 26 de Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitorio I.3 de Ley 9343 y II de Ley 9342) se establece en los interdictos sólo procederán discutirse sobre temas de posesión actual y momentánea de bienes inmuebles, sin que se afecten cuestiones de propiedad o de posesión definitiva, la particular forma de ejercicio del derecho de propiedad y posesión dentro de territorios indígenas exige que se llame en condición de tercero interesado a la Asociación responsable de los terrenos ubicados en los dominios de la Etnia Ngöbe. Lo anterior, en función de lo dispuesto en el numerales 22 y 40 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria y 22. 1 del Código Procesal Civil, de empleo supletorio en esta materia (artículo 26 de Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, Transitorio I.3 de Ley 9342 y II de Ley 9342 y Ley Indígena). Se señala por esta Instancia que los intereses de la comunidad a la cual pertenece la propiedad y posesión de hecho y definitiva de la finca en litis, pueden resultar afectados cuando por una resolución judicial de un proceso en el que no tuvo participación ni conocimiento, se dicte qué persona es la poseedora material o no lo es. Y que ello puede invalidar actos presentes o de hecho, en los cuales pudiera haber decidido respecto a la posesión material y de hecho. De ahí, que sea justificado que previo a emitirse la sentencia de fondo, se ponga en conocimiento a la Asociación en su condición de representante de la Etnia Ngöbe en cuanto la administración de su territorio, la existencia de este proceso y posteriormente la sentencia que llegara a emitirse.

POR TANTO

Se anula la sentencia numero 151-2021 de las trece horas doce minutos del dieciséis de junio de dos mil veintiuno. Téngase como tercera interesada legal a la Asociación Desarrollo Integral Alto Laguna Ngöbe Guaymi de Osa. Proceda el Juzgado de Instancia, previo a emitir nueva sentencia, a readecuar los procedimientos y notificarle de la existencia de este proceso y citarla en tal condición.

*XHZ8FFGOCAI61* [Nombre11] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *MTEGOU47CQGQ61* [Nombre12] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *5XG7QRZQOKA61* [Nombre13] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A