No Right to Title Lands within Forest Reserve but Right to Improvements for Good-Faith PossessionImprocedencia de titular tierras dentro de Reserva Forestal y derecho a mejoras por posesión de buena fe

**TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA** Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Correo Electrónico ...01 Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A Dirección218( ) **EXPEDIENTE:** 20-0002884-1027-CA **PROCESS:** CONOCIMIENTO **PLAINTIFFS:** Nombre111167 and Nombre23709 **DEFENDANT:** EL INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, EL ESTADO, and EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN **Nº 055-2022-IV** **FOURTH SECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO.** Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A, Dirección01, at seven thirty on the thirtieth of May, two thousand twenty-two.

Proceso de Conocimiento filed by Mr. Nombre111167, who is of legal age, married, a cattle rancher, identification number CED87830, and Mrs. Nombre23709, who is of legal age, married, a pensioner, with identification number CED87831, both residents of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Asentamiento Cubujuquí, against the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, hereinafter INDER, represented by Licenciado Natanael José Barrantes Azofeifa, bar number 19857, EL ESTADO represented by Licenciada Rosario León Yannarella, and the SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN, hereinafter SINAC, represented by Licenciado Guillermo Corrales Cordero, bar number CED87832. Licenciada Julissa Rodríguez Rojas, bar number 22668, appears as the special judicial representative of the plaintiffs.

**RESULTANDO:** I.- By writ received on June 11, 2020, and corrected on the 18th of that same month and year, the plaintiffs' representative filed a claim against INDER, the claims of which were specified at the preliminary hearing held on November 11, 2020, as follows: "...1. That the property subject-matter of this process be adjudicated in our name and that we be granted the Public Deed for the same, just as has been possible for other adjudicatees and their properties in the same Asentamiento. In the alternative, should the aforementioned farm not be adjudicated in our name, we request reimbursement for each and every one of the accessions and improvements we have made to the property during the time we have possessed it in good faith, as good heads of household, a possession which, as we have been demonstrating, has been held as owners. 2. That the defendant party be ordered to pay the damages caused to us. Likewise, I request that the defendant party be ordered to pay the future damages arising from the consequences of a potential eviction, which we will liquidate in the corresponding sentence execution proceeding. 3. That the defendant party be ordered to pay both sets of procedural costs in this case. 4. That the defendant party be ordered to pay us the subjective moral damage caused to us...". The subjective moral damage was specified in their claim. (See image 278 of the judicial file and the electronic record of the Preliminary Hearing).

II.- By ruling at 09:56 on June 19, 2020, the Tribunal joined El Estado and SINAC ex officio, and all parties involved in the procedural legal relationship were given notice. (See images 287 to 290 of the digital judicial file).

III.- Once the legal notice was given, INDER's representative answered the claim negatively and, in its defense, raised the exceptions of statute of limitations, lack of active and passive standing, and lack of right. For its part, SINAC's representative also rejected the claim and raised the defenses of lack of standing and lack of right. Finally, the State's representative also rejected the claim and raised the exception of lack of right. (See images 483 to 579, 772 to 788, and 798 to 814 of the digital judicial file).

IV.- The Preliminary Hearing was held on November 11, 2020, with the attendance of the parties' representatives. The claim was defined in the terms of the first resultando of this judgment. The exception of statute of limitations was reserved to be heard in the judgment. The disputed and undisputed facts relevant to the resolution of the case were determined, and the documentary evidence and testimonial evidence of Messrs. Nombre111168, Nombre111169, Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, and Didier Rodríguez Salazar were admitted. (Images 1109 to 1113 of the judicial file. Electronic record of the aforementioned Hearing).

V.- The Oral and Public Trial was held starting at 8:30 on May 11, 2022, during which the opening arguments were heard, the testimonial evidence of Messrs. Nombre111168, Nombre111169, Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, and Didier Rodríguez Salazar was presented, and finally the parties delivered their closing arguments. (Compact disc record of the Complementary Hearing).

VI.- This judgment is rendered, after deliberation by the members of the Tribunal, within the fifteen-day period established in Article 111.1 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo—this matter having been declared complex—without observing any grounds capable of invalidating the proceedings.

Drafted by Judge Salas Leitón, with the affirmative vote of judges Reyes Castillo and Baltodano Gómez.

**CONSIDERANDO:** I.- ON THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT FOR BETTER JUDGMENT: At the preliminary hearing held on November 11, 2020, the representative of the plaintiff party offered, as evidence for better judgment, a copy of the plat visible at image 1094 of the digital judicial file and a photograph of the visitor log books of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, which was reserved to this Tribunal. (See images 300 to 482 of the digital judicial file). Regarding the admissibility of evidence for better judgment, it must be noted that it is a reiterated criterion of the jurisprudence of the Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia that its rejection does not cause defenselessness to the parties, and its admission or rejection by the Tribunal is without recourse. Among other judgments, the relevant parts of Voto N° 547-F-2002 of 16:00 hours on July 12, 2002, are transcribed, in which that Chamber stated: "(…) IV.- Multiple precedents of this Chamber, referring to evidence for better judgment, have indicated that this is the judge's evidence, not the parties'. Consequently, the decision to gather it is discretionary for the jurisdictional body, and it may be dispensed with without any need for a resolution. Ergo, the omission of a pronouncement in its regard, precisely because the evidentiary stage has been surpassed, in which the parties must prove the facts constituting their right as imposed by the rules on the burden of proof, and that stage having precluded, it will be the exclusive authority of the judge to determine whether new evidence necessary for the correct decision of the litigation should be added to the record. Among many other resolutions, the following can be consulted: 59 at 15:20 on May 31, 1996, 23 at 14:20 on March 4, 1992, 34 at 10:45 on May 28, 1993, and 83 at 14:40 on December 22, 1993. (…)”. In the specific case, the Tribunal considers that the evidence offered as evidence for better judgment is relevant, and it is therefore admitted.

II.- PROVEN FACTS.- Of importance for the resolution of this litigation, the following are considered duly accredited: 1) That by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961-A of June 26, 1975 (effective from July 11, 1975), the "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central" was created, and it declared inalienable the national lands located within the delimitation indicated in its first article. (Undisputed fact). 2) In Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, at the request of ITCO, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 6235-G was published, ordering the expropriation of farm number 57748 of the Partido de Heredia, with an area of 5 thousand hectares and owned by the company Cubujuquí Ltda. (See image 761 of the digital judicial file). 3) Within the acquisition proceedings for farm number Placa19616 of the Partido de Heredia, the Board of Directors of ITCO, by article II of Session No. 2008 held on September 1, 1976, authorized the Executive President of that Institution to appear before the Notary of ITCO and acquire said property with an area of 5 thousand hectares and for an amount of 4,344,284.20 million colones. (See image 759 of the digital judicial file). 4) That farm No. 57748 was registered in the name of ITCO on January 28, 1986, describing its nature as agricultural land, houses, and streets, located in Dirección13209, province of Heredia. (See folio 85 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 5) That Mr. Nombre111168, identification number CED87833, between 1972 and 1973 entered into possession of approximately 80 hectares that formed part of farm No. 57748 of the Partido de Heredia. Possession that was transferred in parts over time to third parties. That the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 was part of that farm, and came into the hands of Mr. Nombre111167 around 20 years ago, and that when Mr. Nombre111167 and his wife arrived at the site, there was only pastureland. (Statement of Mr. Nombre111168). 6) That according to Public Deed No. 88 of October 21, 2018, executed by Notary Public Julissa Rodríguez Rojas, Mr. Nombre111170, identification number CED87834, sold on June 9, 2000, to the plaintiffs, for the sum of 15 million colones, the right of possession of the farm located in the province of Heredia, Cantón Sarapiquí, District Horquetas Cubujuquí A, with plat H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7 hectares 6841 square meters, and identified by INDER as parcel 74-A-4. (See folio 68 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 7) That on October 27, 2006, Registered Plat No. H-1107776-2006 was inscribed, which described a property located in Cubujuquí Sector A, District 3, Horquetas, Cantón No. 10, Sarapiquí, Province of Heredia, with an area of 7ha.6841.22m2 in possession of Nombre111170 and sold to Mr. Nombre111167. A property that is part of the INDER property registered under real folio No. 4057748-000, which has an area of 2,780,630.32 mts2. That on the front of said plat, MINAE indicated in Visado No. 0880-2006 that, based on the location shown on that plat, the property described is located within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central by approximately 90%, according to D.E.5386-A and the amendment of October 28, 1975. (See folio 1 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 8) By official communication OSH-0096-2015 of February 9, 2015, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí summoned—among other neighbors of Asentamiento Cubujuquí—Mr. Nombre111167, as an occupant in said Asentamiento, to a meeting to inform them about the topography work that INDER was carrying out at that time in that Asentamiento. The meeting was held on February 10, 2015, at which the demarcation being carried out on the line dividing Asentamiento Cubujuquí from the Área de Conservación de la Cordillera Volcánica Central was explained. (See folios 3 and 4 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 9) By official communication OSH-4492015 of July 30, 2015, the Subregional Office of Horquetas informed the Head of Sarapiquí Heredia and Sarapiquí Alajuela Territory that the parcel occupied by Mr. Nombre111167 opposed the surveyor entering the parcel to take measurements and demarcate the dividing line of the Asentamiento with the D.E. Area of the Cordillera Volcánica Central. (See folios 5 and 6 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 10) By note submitted on August 5, 2015, the plaintiffs, residents of Dirección13210, Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Heredia, requested the Regional Office of INDER in Sarapiquí to grant them the title deed pursuant to Article 85.c) of Law No. Placa4583 for the property described in Registered Plat No. 1107776 of 2006. (See folio 07 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 11) The Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas, by official communication OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, consulted the Headquarters of the Área Cordillera Volcánica Central as to whether the plot located in Cubujuquí, according to registered plat No. 1107776-2006, is located or not within the protected wild areas administered by MINAET, or if it forms part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (See folios 10 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 12) The Subregional Office of INDER in Sarapiquí, by official communication OSH-0689-2015 of August 18, 2015, requested the Head of Agroeconomical Studies and Appraisals to prepare the certificate of compliant land use (uso conforme de suelo) for the plot described in registered plat No. H-1107776-2006. (See folio 11 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 13) The Headquarters of the Área Cordillera Volcánica Central of SINAC, by official communication Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, responded to the information requested in official communication OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015; indicating that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575 and its amendments, and with official communication Placa19618 of August 20, 2015, prepared by Ing. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, which refers to the field visit, the parcel with plat No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is within the protected wild areas administered by MINAE, forming part, in this case, of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (See images 794 to 796 of the digital judicial file and folio 12 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 14) The Head of Agroeconomical Studies and Appraisals prepared the "Inspection Certificate for Land Titling" for the plot described in registered plat No. Placa19619, issued by Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró, Bar no. CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801, in which he indicated that 100% COMPLIANT LAND USE (USO CONFORME DEL SUELO) has been exercised on the parcel farmed by Mr. Nombre111167, for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology. The certification indicated that on the plot there is a 1/2 hectare plantation of peach palm in good phytosanitary condition, 36 mts2 of banana, an 80 mts2 dwelling in good condition, and another 140mts2 dwelling in good or fair condition. Pastureland, 8 cows, one horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, corral, shed, stable, etc. (See folios 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 15) The Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial Horquetas, by official communication OTHO-0715-2018 of September 12, 2018, noted that according to the information contained in that plat, it belongs to farm number Placa3972 of the Partido de Heredia in the name of INDER and belongs to a plot known by the Territorial Office as parcel No. 74-C of Asentamiento Cubujuquí, Precarious Sector; however, there is no document in the file indicating its actual location and whether, being part of the Asentamiento, its numbering, and therefore it requested the Oficina de Información y Registro de Tierras to inform whether the land described in plat H-1107776-2006 was located within an INDER settlement, that its registry-cadastral information was correct, and to define its numbering. The foregoing was due to the titling request filed by Mr. Nombre111167 pursuant to Article 85.c of Law No. 9036. (See folio 29 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 16) That Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales conducted the inspection of parcel 74-A-4 on September 18, 2018, and signed the "Titling Form" in which he recommended titling the plot referenced as a parcel, with registered plat No. Placa19619 and with an area of 7ha6841.22mts2, which forms part of Farm No. 4-57748-00 of the Partido de Heredia in the name of INDER, and calculated its transfer in the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer to their name of the referred property under the terms of Laws No. 2825, No. 7142, and No. 9036. (See folios 101 to 103 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 17) The Oficina de Información y Registro de Tierras of INDER, by official communication IRT-0806-2018 of September 25, 2018, responded to the information requested in official communication OTHO-0715-2018, indicating that according to the cartographic location of the plat, the plot forms part of parcel 74-A of the Asentamiento Cubujuquí. That the registry information shown on the plat corresponds to that of the parent farm of the settlement (Farm No. Placa3972 in the name of INDER) and that it would be identified as parcel 74-A-4, which, according to the cartographic location of registered plat H-1107776-2006, is affected by the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central. Information reiterated in official communication IRT-0808-2018 of September 25, 2018 (See folios 31 and 32 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 18) The Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas responded to the titling request filed by the plaintiffs through official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, in which it indicated that the property was affected by the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, so its titling was not legally feasible. That of the total property, only an area of 1771 mts2 was outside said reserve, and therefore they should indicate whether they wished to continue with the proceedings so that that portion of land would be titled to them. (See folios 37 to 40 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 19) The Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas, by official communication OTHO-755-2018 of September 28, 2018, addressed the Headquarters of SINAC-MINAE of Sarapiquí, according to what was indicated by that office in official communications No. Placa19617 and Placa19618, both of August 20, 2015, and noted that, taking into consideration that the property described in registered plat No. 1107776-2006 is located within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and as a protected wild area and therefore part of the PNE, administered by MINAE, it requested—in adherence to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575 and its Amendments—that institution proceed to delimit the indicated land by visiting the boundaries of the cited area. (See folio 58 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4 Volume I and 122 of the digital judicial file). 20) By note dated October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs requested to continue proceedings for the entirety of the property described in registered plat No. H-1107776-2006. (See folios 42 to 76 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 21) The Subregional office of ACAHN, by official communication SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of January 29, 2019, indicated to the Head of the Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas that, in response to official communication OTHO-755-2018, referring to the request for delimitation of the lands forming part of the PNE located within plat No. H-1107776-2006, given that the property is located more than 90% within the limits of the RFCVC; said request should be processed before the office of the Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo. (See folio 147 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4 Volume I). 22) The Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas, by official communication OTHO-095-2019 of January 31, 2019, sent the documentation referring to the titling request filed by the plaintiffs to the Legal Advisory office of the Regional Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and requested a report be prepared on the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4 (formerly known as 74-C) of Asentamiento Cubujuquí. (See folios 109 to 126 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 23) By official communication AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, the Dirección Regional Huetar Norte and the Legal Advisory office, after gathering the necessary information, recommended rejecting the filed request based on the fact that the property for which titling was requested, according to the certificate issued by MINAE No. Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, forms part of the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, and therefore Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (See folios 145 to 154 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 24) The Oficina de Fiscalización y Servicios Agrarios, by official communication FSA-655-2019 of July 31, 2019, forwarded official communication AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, to the Executive Presidency of INDER, and in turn, that Presidency, by official communication A-PE-1004-2019 of August 8, 2019, forwarded it to the Board of Directors of INDER for final resolution. (See folios 157 and 158 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 25) The Board of Directors of INDER, in its Article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, heard the matter and rejected it based on the fact that the property requested to be titled and registered forms part of the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, and therefore as part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, making it impossible to grant the request. An agreement notified to the email of Licenciada Julissa Rodríguez Rojas on October 3, 2019. (See folios 159 to 169 and 184 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4). 26) The Dirección del Área de Conservación Central of SINAC, through official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, stated that according to official communications OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to registered plat H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. (See images 789 to 791 of the digital judicial file). 27) That the plaintiffs have been possessors since the year 2000 of the parcel that has been identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4, located in Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, with registered plat No. H-1107776-2006 with an area of 7 has 6841.22 mts2, which forms part of Farm No. Placa19620 of the Partido de Heredia in the name of INDER, which they have used as a dwelling and on which they have developed agricultural and livestock activities. (Testimony of Mr. Nombre111168 and Inspection Certificate for Land Titling No. 18015801 at folios 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4).

III.- NON-PROVEN FACTS. The record being devoid of evidence, the following is considered unproven: 1) That when the plaintiffs acquired the property described in plat H-1107776-2006 in June 2000, they had knowledge that this land was affected in any percentage by the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, and that despite this they acquired it at their own account and risk. (No evidence to this effect is found). 2) That the Regional Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí had managed, with the Headquarters of the Área Cordillera Volcánica Central of SINAC, before the issuance of official communication OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, the determination of the limits of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central with respect to its property, number H-57748-000 of the Partido de Heredia. (No evidence to this effect is found). 3) That between June 2000 (the date the property was acquired by the plaintiffs) and the issuance of official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018 (in which the plaintiffs were informed of the situation regarding the limits of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central), the Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí had warned the plaintiffs that the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 was affected by the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, making its titling legally unfeasible. (No evidence to this effect is found). 4) That the occupation by the plaintiffs of the property described in registered plat No. H-1107776-2006 since the year 2000 had been in bad faith. (No evidence to this effect is found). 5) That the buildings erected on parcel No. 74-A-4 were built after the issuance of Registered Plat No. H-1107776-2006, on the reverse of which MINAE indicated that the property described therein formed part of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. (No evidence to this effect is found).

IV.- PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCESS: In summary and without prejudice to the literal nature of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Tribunal, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below in this section to the relevant extent: 1) PLAINTIFFS: That Mr. Nombre111168 entered into original possession in 1973 of a farm located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí with an area of approximately 80 hectares. That subsequently Nombre111168 segregated and sold part of that farm to the individual identified only as Nombre111171, who in turn sold it to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170. That in this manner, a right of possession has been exercised over the original 80-hectare farm and its subsequent segregated portions for more than 40 years. That in 1978, the State acquired a farm in the Cubujuquí zone which was transferred to ITCO, now INDER, to be granted to farmers in parcels, and for this reason INDER established the so-called "Asentamiento Cubujuquí", with the original property and its subsequent segregations forming part of said project. They indicated that in 1999 they entered into negotiations with Mr. Nombre111170 to acquire his right over the property, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares, when said property already formed part of Asentamiento Cubujuquí, identified by INDER as parcel No. 74-A-4, a situation accredited by the sketch prepared in 1978 by ITCO personnel at that time. They alleged that before acquiring said right, they appeared before INDER to inquire about its situation, and Mr. Manuel Picado, an official of that institution, recommended they buy it, which gave them peace of mind, and that is why they acquired the right of possession from Mr. Nombre111170, identification number CED87834, in June 2000 through a public deed, and that to date they have possessed the farm publicly, peacefully, and as owners for more than 19 years. That they acquired the property so that INDER would title it to them, as it did for other families in the area. That for titling purposes, they prepared Registered Plat No. H-1107776-2006; however, an official of MINAE, without further studies, stamped on the back a seal stating that the land was affected by the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. That in 2015, INDER, based on what was indicated on that seal, requested MINAE to state whether the property was located within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, and MINAE, by official communication Placa19617 MINAE, reported the effective status of the property being affected by said reserve. That on October 2, 2018, INDER informed them that the property was located within the Área Silvestre Protegida administered by MINAE and that it forms part of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, and that of the total area of the property, only 1771 mts2 were outside said zone, so they were consulted whether they wished to continue with the titling proceedings for that portion of land; however, on October 22, 2018, they requested INDER to continue with the titling proceedings for the entirety of the parcel and not just the indicated portion. That finally, by official communication OTHO-0680-2019 of October 3, 2019, the Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas de Sarapiquí notified them that the Board of Directors of INDER, by agreement of August 28, 2019, recommended not to title parcel No. 74-A-4 due to lack of certification from MINAE; however, according to what they stated, the property is located very far from the protected zone.

They also indicated that about 16 years ago the State expropriated a number of possessors, but not them, and further that Mr. Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, ---an INDER official--- commented on the possibility for some possessors to be relocated, but they were excluded. They indicated that the activity carried out on the parcel is agricultural, dedicated to livestock and farming. That due to lacking a deed, SENASA did not renew their permits for cattle fattening, and proof of this is the CVO that expired on July 2, 2013, and they could not renew it due to the lack of that requirement. That during all the years in which they have possessed the property, they have dedicated themselves to introducing improvements such as a house, with 3 rooms, fibrolite ceiling, ceramic floor, enclosed with railings. Etc. Another house of 2 floors, etc. They alleged that the parcels they identified as Nos. 59, 64, 65, 68, 73, 77, and 78 ---which are located further inside than parcel 74-A-4--- in the area protected by the State; were granted deeds. That in the month of January 2015, INDER officials appeared at their parcel and indicated to them that they would place some boundary markers and that above those markers the property belonged to MINAE. They indicated that the placement of those markers was not done in a technical manner nor did it coincide with the real information contained in Decree No. 38975-MAG. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs requested that the judgment order the defendants to adjudicate parcel No. 74-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and, in the event of not being able to do so; that they be paid for all accessions and improvements introduced to the property since they possessed it in good faith, as well as recognition of present and future damages and losses. Arguments that were reiterated in the supplementary oral and public trial hearing. 2) The State representation opposed the lawsuit and therefore the claims of the plaintiffs based on the following: That the plaintiffs consider that INDER errs in denying them the land titling request and base such position on the fact that when resolving their situation, their property right, since for almost 20 years they acquired the farm whose title they claim, and on it they develop agricultural activities and furthermore have built the dwelling they currently inhabit with their spouse and children, as well as another where their daughter-in-law and grandchildren live. A situation that implies, ---in their opinion---, the legality of their possession, and generated a right for them, which is being affected by INDER's action in not registering the property in their name, under the allegation that part of the land forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area, all to their detriment and that of their family. That the plaintiffs filed before INDER a land titling request, in accordance with paragraph 85 subsection c) of Law No. Placa4583, this specifically regarding the property, which they indicate they bought and have possessed for almost 20 years; however, it is relevant to point out that, since 1975, the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve was created, which comprises several lands within which is found a portion of more than 90% of the land for which the plaintiffs request titling. That the plaintiffs indicated that the land in question belongs to the Cubujuquí Campesino Settlement, which are lands that belong to INDER. And in their specific case, from the information contained in the administrative file regarding parcel No. 74-A-4, which according to its cadastral map is pastureland with a stream that crosses the property from west to east, and whose map, No. H-1-110776-2006, bears the seal of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, with approval No. 0880-2006, and indicates that, according to its location, it is within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve by approximately 90%, a map that is registered for cadastre purposes. That during the land titling process initiated by the plaintiffs, it was determined that of the total property, approximately 1771 m² were outside the Conservation Area, and by official letter No. OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, they were asked to indicate whether they maintained the titling request for the entirety of the farm or only for that portion of land that is outside the aforementioned conservation area, responding by note of October 22, 2018, that they maintained their request for the entirety of the property. That under this context, INDER rejected their request. That in the present case, what the plaintiff seeks is for the property owned by the State to be titled to them, as it belongs to the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area, which is clearly improper, whether in administrative or judicial proceedings, a situation that makes their lawsuit improper. That due to the nature of the subject matter of the proceeding, it is necessary to refer to public domain assets –or State assets– and, in that regard, to their nature and characteristics. That jurisprudence has been clear in indicating: “(…) IV.-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSETS: “(…) Public domain assets are characterized as being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable, consequently, outside the commerce of men. On the subject, the Constitutional Chamber has expressed: / “II.-THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE LEGAL MEANS TO INTEGRATE IT.- Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime distinct from that governing private domain, which, besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and manifested in the direct or indirect use that every person may make of them. Doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets, public domain assets, public things, public assets, or demanial assets. Regarding this concept, the Chamber stated in its Judgment No.189-F-S1-2011, of nine hours fifteen minutes on March three, two thousand eleven, the following: / “VI.-…Therefore, it is fundamental to refer to the concept of public domain and in particular to the scope of Article 261 of the Civil Code, which differentiates between private public assets, as well as the criteria based on which a distinction can be made between both. In this regard, it establishes: “Public things are those which, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility and those from which everyone can benefit by being open to public use. All other things are private and subject to particular ownership, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who, in such case, as civil persons, do not differ from any other person.” As can be extracted, the definition of private assets is made in a residual manner, that is, all those that do not present any of the characteristics indicated for demanial assets belong to this category. Constitutional jurisprudence, taking into account the provisions of the cited norm, has referred to the assets that make up the public domain in the following terms: “are those that have a nature and legal regime diverse from private assets, which are governed by the right of property under the terms of Article 45 of the Political Constitution; insofar as by express will of the legislator they are affected to a special destiny of serving the community, that is, the public interest, and which, therefore, cannot be the object of private property, so that they are outside the commerce of men, whereby they cannot belong individually to private parties, nor to the State, in a strict sense, since the latter is limited to their administration and guardianship(…) Thus, these are assets whose ownership is held by the state in its condition as administrator; it must be understood that these are assets belonging to the Nation, thereby forming part of the public patrimony; and which, due to their special legal nature, present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, the right of property over them cannot be acquired, not even of mere possession; that is, they cannot be acquired through adverse possession (usucapión), nor can they be lost by prescription; for which reason, the use permits that the Administration grants over them always have a precarious nature, which means they can be revoked for reasons of opportunity or convenience at any time by the Administration – under the terms provided in Articles 154 and 155 of the General Law of Public Administration –, and the concessions themselves that are granted over them for their exploitation can be canceled through the appropriate procedure; they are unattachable, meaning they cannot be subject to any encumbrance or attachment, neither by private parties, nor by the Administration, and they are inalienable, which translates to the condition that they are outside the commerce of men, hence they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither for free nor for valuable consideration, neither by private parties, nor by the State, so that they are exempted from the commerce of men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Furthermore, their use and exploitation is subject to police power, inasmuch as, being assets that cannot be the object of possession and much less of property, their utilization and exploitation is possible only through duly authorized acts, whether by concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the Public Administration. Thus, it comprises immovable property that has a nature and legal regime virtually opposite to private property that derives from the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution (Ruling 2007-2408 of 16 hours 13 minutes on February 21, 2007) (Highlighting is ours) (Administrative Litigation Court, Section V, Resolution No. 2 of ten hours on January 18, 2012.) That as provided by that same Court (in the transcribed judgment), demanial assets, due to their special nature, form part of the public patrimony, and in that order, are imprescriptible, inalienable, and unattachable. That is, they are not subject to appropriation by private parties, nor even to be occupied. That based on this, it is clear that, in the present case, the plaintiff holds no right over the land that forms part of the Area of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve and which they currently occupy, and based on that, it cannot be titled in their name as requested. That in this sense, INDER was clear in the titling process in question, this in accordance with what is indicated in agreement No. 37 of session No. 22, held on August 26, 2019, and in what is of interest to the case: “…THIRD: From the relationship of facts that have been evaluated throughout this recommendatory resolution, sufficient legal elements emerge, demonstrating that Mr. Nombre111167 and Mrs. Nombre23709, have carried out an occupation beyond the decennial period on parcel No. 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement, personally, quietly, publicly, peacefully, uninterruptedly, that their possession has been notorious, and that they have given the land use in accordance with its capacity and nature. This in accordance with the provisions of Article 85 subsection \"c\" of the cited legal framework. The foregoing demonstrates that although the applicants legally meet all the requirements stipulated in the Procedures of subsection c) of Article 85 of INDER Law 9036, it is not possible to recommend the titling of the land because according to the certification issued by MINAE in official letter 05-1338-15 dated August 20, 2015, issued by Eng. Luis Fernando Salas Sarkis, in his capacity as Head of the Sarapiquí Department of the National System of Conservation Areas of MINAE, certifies that the property is indeed within the protected wild areas administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, thus, for this reason it Does form part of the State Natural Heritage." That by official letter OTHO-924-2018 dated November 29, 2018, the following official letter Placa19617 was communicated to the administered parties: \"...FOURTH: Consequently, despite the appellants having met the requirements established in the Procedures of subsection c) of Article 85 of INDER Law 9036, this Legal Advisory Office, having evaluated all the evidence and the facts giving rise to this request and considering that legally it is not proper since parcel No. 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement is within the protected wild areas administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), in this case forming part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED for the Convalidation of the public property adjudication procedures, titling, and registration in the Public Property Registry, of parcel No. 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement submitted by Mr. Nombre111167, identification number CED87830 and Mrs. Nombre23709, identification number CED87831…”. That from what has been indicated, it is clear that the plaintiff seeks to title lands that are State Natural Heritage, which is openly improper. That in this sense, the very nature of the assets subject to the proceeding makes the plaintiff's claim for compensation improper, but not only that, the mere occupation of the land does not give them any right to a claim, and much less when in this case there is no connection between what was done by the Administration, which clearly appears legal, in relation to the damage claimed. This being the case, the lawsuit and the damages sought must be rejected. 3) For its part, the SINAC representation indicated: That from the statement of facts and background, and from the corresponding documentation, the described land is located within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve with an affection of more than 90%. That Article 121 subsection 14) of the Political Constitution generically regulates matters concerning public domain assets, by providing that assets belonging to the Nation may only definitively leave its domain through authorization from the Legislative Assembly. That from this constitutional conception, at the doctrinal and jurisprudential level, the position of advisory and jurisdictional bodies has been consolidated and developed to the effect that public domain areas are assets belonging to the community in the broadest sense of the concept, and are destined to satisfy the public interest. That jurisdictional, administrative, and constitutional jurisprudence has been unanimous in establishing the traditional classification of assets under the guardianship of administrations, into demanial assets, which are those regulated by a special legal regime and permanently destined for public use, or have been affected by law to a public purpose, such as areas destined for parks in urban and rural centers, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), national highways, and the natural heritage, which is why such assets possess particular characteristics such as imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability. That in judgment No. 3667 of 14:54 on May 7, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber set forth its jurisprudential line on the matter as follows: \"(…) Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special and distinct legal regime from that governing private domain, which, besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and that manifests in the direct or indirect use that every person may make of them. Doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets, demanial assets, public things, public assets, or demanial assets. (…)\" (Underlining is not in the original) That following this line of thought, by express provision of Article 262 of the Civil Code, public, demanial, or public domain areas are outside the commerce of men and, therefore, no one may exercise over them rights of property or use by the passage of time, nor are they susceptible to encumbrances or possession under the terms of Civil Law, as reiterated by that Chamber in judgment number 5977-93, of 15:45 hours on November 16, 1993: \"(…) The public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny to serve the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets, demanial assets, public goods or things, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are destined for a public use and subjected to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes interdicts to recover the domain. As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to exploitation can be acquired, though not a right to property (…)\" (Underlining is not in the original) That from this perspective, due to their legal nature, public domain assets cannot be subject to dominion, possession, or appropriation by private parties, neither for free nor for valuable consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor acquired by adverse possession (usucapión); it is also not legally possible to modify their destination; nor can they be used for a purpose different from that established by the legal system, with their protection and administration corresponding to the State in representation of public interests. Ergo, use by third parties shall not create any right in their favor. That in accordance with the above, constitutional jurisprudence has been clear in establishing that the special protection established in the legal system for public domain assets is applicable to the natural heritage of the Nation, taking into account that said heritage helps to ensure the fundamental rights of inhabitants to have a better quality of life, within the context of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided for in the domestic legal system and international instruments ratified by the country. That in judgment number 2003-03840 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, the same Chamber indicated: (…) Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected for public use or enjoyment, and envelops said guardianship with even greater care when regulating environmental public assets. The foregoing implies that if the transposition alleged by the plaintiff in the Regulating Plan of the Coastal Zone of Playa Platanares and the Preciosa-Platanares Mixed Category National Wildlife Refuge had occurred, the Regulating Plan would be contrary (at least regarding the regulation of the part of the Refuge) to the norm originating from Articles 121 subsection 14 and 89 of the Political Constitution, since a regulatory act would be disaffecting part of a demanial asset. (…) (Underlining does not correspond to the original. In this regard, also consult judgment number 05266-2009 of 12:24 hours on March 27, 2009). That thus, the Political Constitution and the Law emphasize that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to protect and improve the quality of life of inhabitants, granting them the classification of demanial assets of the Nation, which is why (as with public domain assets in general) they are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable. That along the same line, with the enactment of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) number 7575 of February 13, 1995, and other regulatory bodies in which our legal system developed the provisions set forth in the Political Constitution and instruments of International Law for the protection and guardianship of the State Natural Heritage, establishing the intangibility of protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas). Such is the case with the provisions of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law when indicating: ARTICLE 13.- Conformation and administration. The State Natural Heritage shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, of the farms registered in its name, and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other entities of the Public Administration, except immovable property that guarantees credit operations with the National Banking System and enters to form part of its patrimony (…). ARTICLE 14.- Unattachable and inalienable condition of the natural heritage. The forest lands and forests that constitute the State Natural Heritage, detailed in the preceding article, shall be unattachable and inalienable; their possession by private parties shall not create any right in their favor, and the replevin action of the State for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry by means of possessory information, and both the invasion and the occupation thereof shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this law. That the jurisprudential development of the Constitutional Chamber has established that the State Natural Heritage is composed of two important components: on one hand, the Protected Wild Areas (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo); understood as such being forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments, according to the regulation provided in Articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Forestry Law; 32 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 22, 28, and 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law; 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law, and on the other hand; the State Natural Heritage is also composed of other forests and forest lands or lands of forest aptitude belonging to the State and public institutions (Article 13 of the Forestry Law), which have an immediate legal affection. That regarding what has been stated concerning the components that make up the Natural Heritage, in judgment number 2003-03840 of 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber stated: (…) According to the classification given by environmental regulations, the forest or natural heritage of the State is composed of forest reserves, biological reserves, protective zones, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Article 32 of the Organic Law of the Environment, number 7554, of September eighteen, nineteen ninety-five). (…) Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected for public use or enjoyment, and envelops said guardianship with even greater care when regulating environmental public assets (…) (In this regard, also consult judgment number 05266-2009 of 12:24 hours on March 27, 2009). That as can be observed, protected wild areas are incorporated into the natural heritage of the Nation regardless of their management category, whether they be national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, national wildlife refuges, protective zones, natural monuments, and natural wetlands; moreover, it is enshrined in Articles 35 and 38 of the Organic Law of the Environment, in which the legislator generally regulated the objectives for the creation, administration, and surveillance of Protected Wild Areas. That likewise, when lands covered by any of the indicated management categories are under the administration and/or guardianship of a public entity, they automatically become part of the State Natural Heritage, as provided by Articles 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law. Ergo, appropriation, use, or enjoyment by private parties is not permissible, neither for free nor for valuable consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor acquired by adverse possession (usucapión); it is also not legally possible to modify their destination; and the use by third parties and their possession shall not create any right in their favor. That the Constitutional Chamber indicated in Ruling No. 2988-99 the legal impossibility for private parties to possess and acquire public domain assets by adverse possession (usucapión): “When an asset is integrated into the public domain regime, it acquires a series of essential characteristics such as inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unattachability. From these conditions it follows that these assets are not expropriable, since expropriation would imply alienation and they are inalienable. Likewise, adverse possession (usucapión) is also not a means to acquire them; things that are inalienable by being outside the commerce of men are not subject to possession by private parties, and, therefore, are imprescriptible as long as they retain such character or the public utility destiny to which they are affected.” (Ruling No. 2988-99) “The public domain is composed of assets that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest.- These are the so-called dominical assets, demanial assets, public goods or things or public assets, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are destined for a public use and subjected to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of express norm.- Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes interdicts to recover the domain.- As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to exploitation can be acquired, though not a right to property.” (Ruling No. 2306-91, a precedent repeatedly cited in this forum). That furthermore, the Constitutional Chamber refers to demanial assets which are inalienable and imprescriptible: “It is clear that, since they are demanial assets, they are not susceptible to being possessed, and much less, for ownership over them to be acquired, which is explained by the typical characteristics of these assets: inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unattachability.” (Ruling No. 454-2006). “It must be emphasized that demanial assets are inalienable and imprescriptible, and that their occupation cannot generate any right in favor of the occupier, regardless of the time during which such occupation has been prolonged.” (Ruling No. 18836-2014). “On the attributes of demanial assets: Ownership of public domain assets is held by the State in its condition as administrator, whereby it must be understood that they are assets belonging to the \"Nation\" and form part of the public patrimony; and which, due to their special legal nature, present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, the right of property over them cannot be acquired, not even of mere possession; that is, they cannot be acquired through adverse possession (usucapión), nor can they be lost by prescription… and they are inalienable, which translates to the condition that they are outside the commerce of men; hence they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither for free nor for valuable consideration, neither by private parties, nor by the State, so that they are exempted from the commerce [sic] of men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Furthermore, their use and exploitation is subject to police power, inasmuch as, being assets that cannot be the object of possession, and much less of property, their utilization and exploitation is possible only through duly authorized acts, whether by concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the Public Administration. Thus, it comprises immovable property that has a nature and legal regime virtually opposite to private property, which derives from the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution.” (Ruling No. 3113-2009). \"Lands that constitute National Reserves that have forests are considered State Patrimony, in their condition as Public Demanio, which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability.\" In the Forest Patrimony of the State, the right of possession is denied to private parties (Agrarian Tribunal No. 332 of 16 hrs. 20 min. on July 7, 2000, and note to ruling 49 of 13 hrs. on January 31, 2002).

That the First Chamber referred to the imprescriptibility of public domain as follows: “(…) possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time during which it has been possessed (…)” (judgment No. 7 of 15 hours 5 minutes of January 20, 1993, Considerando IV) and the Constitutional Chamber also ruled on possession by private individuals over public domain or demanial assets with inalienable characteristics: "...If at the time of the affectation there is no prior, legally useful ten-year possession, the title applicant cannot argue an acquired patrimonial right, since usucapion had not been consolidated prior to the demanial affectation of the lands. It is absolutely improper to 'grant title to private individuals who have been occupying public assets over which they cannot exercise any act of possession, nor acquire any right over them, since, being public or demanial assets, they are imprescriptible and inalienable.'" (Constitutional judgment No. 18836-2014). Furthermore, according to the current Forest Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575 of February 13, 1996, those forming part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) include, among others, the forests and forest lands of national reserves, as well as farms belonging to autonomous institutions and other agencies of the Public Administration, except those that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its patrimony. When appropriate, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which is charged with its administration, shall register the properties in the Public Property Registry, through the Office of the Attorney General, as individual farms in the name of the State (article 13). The forest lands and forests described above are unseizable, inalienable, and the revendication action of the State is imprescriptible. Possession by private individuals does not cause any right in their favor, nor can they title and register them in their name in the Registry (article 14). The Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 07294-98 of October 13, 1998, determined that: “It should not be forgotten that, ultimately, both Law No. 4465 -now repealed- and Decree No. 17023-MAG are nothing but the development of the content of article 50 of the Constitution, so that, even when the immediate regulations that gave foundation to the decree have been replaced by others, it subsists both for having been promulgated under the protection of the regulations in force at the time, and for having its ultimate foundation in the cited constitutional article.” … Secondly, that, by reason of the foregoing, the establishment of a protected wild area by decree cannot give rise to the violation of the principle of areas not established by the decree but by norms that also have legal rank which, moreover, develop a constitutional principle. …Having said that, it is clear that the legal rule contained in judgment number 2004-08928 of August 18, 2004, is the one explained above: that it is legally possible to establish, by means of a decree, protected wild areas that include lands affected by a law to a purpose, a destination, and a public use different from that of the legal regime of the area being established. … the establishment of a protected wild area by administrative act entails the inapplication of any legislation, even the specific one for the geographic area in question, that opposes the legislation regulating the protected wild area, since the application of the latter implies fulfilling the constitutional duty stated in numeral 50…The same must be said regarding law number 7915 of September 21, 1999, which partially reformed law number 5582…” That, by the foregoing, the assets comprising the Natural Heritage of the State bear the characteristics proper to public domain assets: imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unseizability. Based on all the foregoing, I request that the filed claim be declared without merit, with the imposition of both costs to be borne by the plaintiff, as well as the interest they generate until their effective payment. 4) The representation of INDER also rejected the terms of the claim and the pretensions of the parties, reiterating what the state representation and SINAC responded. It stated in summary that, INDER has never recognized any right, not even of possession, of the plaintiffs over parcel 74-A-4. That the Board of Directors of INDER in its article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019 rejected the petition submitted because the land forms part of the PNE, and that rather their possession of the property becomes illegitimate as said property forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central) since the year 1975, belonging to the State and transferred to INDER in the year 1976 and registered in the name of INDER in the year 1986. The foregoing because the land described in cadastral plan No. Placa19619 is part of farm No. 57748-000 and, given that said property forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore PNE, it is legally impossible to title it in the name of private individuals pursuant to the provisions of articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), the proper course of action being instead to transfer said property to MINAE-SINAC as its administration corresponds to it. That in this manner INDER cannot title parcels that form part of the Natural Heritage of the State and that in the present case the lands that the plaintiffs request be titled to them form part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve since the year 1975. That said Reserve comprised lands belonging to the State and to INDER since the year 1976, so that according to articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) they were automatically affected to the Natural Heritage of the State. That for their part, articles 14 and 58.a of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) and 8 of the ITCO Law, penalized any type of possession over that type of assets, so their claim for compensation for improvements would also not proceed, since said property, upon becoming affected to the PNE, enjoys the characteristics proper to such assets, namely, imprescriptibility, unseizability, inalienability, and therefore any possession over said properties does not produce any right, neither of ownership, nor of possession, since the plaintiffs do not manage to prove their legitimate possession in an original manner, nor derived, of the properties with: 1) At least 10 years before the issuance of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975 and No. 3586 also of 1975. 2) At least 10 years before being property of the State or of ITCO because Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 4465 of November 25, 1969 ---which already regulated what refers to the Natural Heritage of the State---, defined in its article 18 that the PNE is constituted by Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves. And that for its part article 19 affected to the ends of that law all forests and forest lands situated in: a) Lands considered as natural reserves. b) Rural farms of the private domain of the State, as currently provided by Law 7575 and its reforms. That by reason of said normative framework it is legally impossible for INDER to grant property titles --as the plaintiffs intend---, within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. That in this line of thought the Office of the Attorney General has indicated it in its Legal Opinion No. OJ-064-02 of April 30, 2002. That for its part the Constitutional Chamber in its vote No. 3905-1993 indicated that if for reasons of public interest it has the power to limit the attributes of private property, with greater reason the lands owned by INDER. That by reason of the provisions of article 14 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), INDER is forbidden from titling lands that form part of the Natural Heritage of the State to private individuals. Regarding the claim for titling, this representation indicated that it does not proceed by virtue of: 1) The State, by E.D. No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated the property of Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda. registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the district of Heredia No. Placa19616 and subsequently transferred it to INDER so that the portions of said farm that constituted PNE were affected by operation of law to the provisions of articles 13, 14, and 15 of Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its reforms. 2) The plaintiffs stated that they acquired the asset in the year 2000, which is a date after the creation of the reserve, so they already had knowledge that what was acquired was part of the PNE and impossible to appropriate by private individuals. And that compensation for the right of possession and improvements claimed also does not proceed because the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) in its articles 13, 14, 15, and 58.a) and 8 of the ITCO Law and its reforms penalize any type of possession over the PNE.

V.- ON THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION: The representation of INDER raised in its defense the exception of prescription, indicating that the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve was created since the year 1975 and the State managed an expropriation over farm No. H-57748-000, nonetheless the present claim was filed until the year 2019, that is, more than 40 years after the property was expropriated, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of article 868 of the Civil Code (C.C.), the right to claim is prescribed. Coupled with the fact that the plaintiffs acquired an alleged right of possession in the year 2000, that is, 19 years before the claim was filed. Moreover, article 198 of the LGAP establishes a period of 4 years for this type of claims. In the present case we have it established that the plaintiffs acquired in the year 2000 from Mr. Nombre111170 the property located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement (Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí) located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, for the sum of 15 million colones and which was described in cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006. It was also established that this property is part of the farm of the District of Heredia No. 57748, expropriated at the request of ITCO pursuant to Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 6235-G, published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976. Then, it was also established that the plaintiffs submitted an application for titling of said property before the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí on August 05, 2015, and for these purposes they provided Cadastral Plan No. Placa19619. That by reason of said application, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas, by official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 07, 2015, consulted the Headquarters of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006, was or was not located within the protected wild areas administered by MINAET, or if they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State and that Headquarters, by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, answered that the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí of Horquetas, is found within the protected wild areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State. It was also established that it was not until official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018 that the Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas officially communicated to the plaintiffs the situation of the property with respect to the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and the Board of Directors of INDER in its article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, definitively rejected the titling application of said parcel for that reason. Faced with that situation, the plaintiffs filed a proceeding before this Jurisdiction on June 11, 2020, requesting that in judgment: 1) They be adjudicated the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4. 2) In default thereof, they be paid for the accessions and improvements introduced to the land, as well as payment for subjective moral damages and the damages and losses caused and those that might be caused to them by an eventual eviction. So that from the list of claims, they are referenced to ordering in judgment conduct of doing and subsidiarily compensation, for formal activity of INDER contained in the agreement taken by its Board of Directors in which it rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs, the date of issuance of which is August 26, 2019. Thus, given that the plaintiffs filed an ordinary claim on June 11, 2020, their right to claim the indicated patrimonial compensation is not prescribed, because between August 26, 2019 and June 11, 2020 the period indicated in article 198 of the LGAP did not elapse, therefore the exception of prescription is rejected.

VI.- BASIS OF THE CLAIM AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS TRIBUNAL: Based on the literalness of the arguments provided by the parties, which were studied in their entirety by this Tribunal, we proceeded to the analysis of the present matter based on the facts alleged and the evidence established. In this regard, we have that the plaintiffs filed a claim indicating that Mr. Nombre111168 entered into possession in the year 1973 of a farm of approximately 80 hectares located in the locality of Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí. That subsequently Mr. Nombre111168 sold part of said farm to the individual identified only as Nombre111171, asserting that he sold to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170. That in this way, over the original 80-hectare farm and its subsequent segregations, a right of possession of more than 40 years was exercised. It indicated that its represented parties entered in the year 1999 into a negotiation with Mr. Nombre111170, to acquire his right of possession over the property described in plan H-1107776-2006, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares, ---when said property already formed part of the Cubujuquí Settlement identified by INDER as parcel No. Placa19621---. Situation that was established with the sketch made in the year 1978 by officials of what was then ITCO. It stated that in the year 2000 its represented parties, on the advice of an official of INDER, acquired said parcel and initiated procedures before that institution aimed at achieving its titling, however, the Board of Directors of INDER resolved in its article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019 that their application was legally improper by virtue of the fact that around 90% of the land was located within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore PNE under the custody of MINAE-SINAC, and therefore they requested that in judgment, INDER be ordered to title the cited parcel to them or, in default thereof, that they be ordered to be paid for the accessions and improvements that, in good faith, they introduced to the asset during the time they have possessed it as owners. In this way, they filed their claim, on the basis of possession exercised in good faith over the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement of Horquetas de Sarapiquí. Possession that traces back from when Mr. Nombre111168 entered the area, up to the one transferred to them by Mr. Nombre111170 and which they indicated exceeds 40 years. They requested that in judgment, INDER be ordered to grant them the public deed over the property or, in default thereof, to pay them for the accessions and improvements that, in good faith, they introduced to the asset during the time they have possessed it as owners. For their part, the defendants oppose the granting of the public deed for the cited parcel, indicating that what was resolved by INDER in denying the public deed conforms to the legal system since the property is located more than 90% within the area of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore Natural Heritage of the State. And that in this sense, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber has established that the Natural Heritage of the State is composed of two important components: on one hand, the Protected Wild Areas (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo); understanding as such forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments, according to the regulation provided in articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal); 32 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 22, 28 and 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law; 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law and on the other; the Natural Heritage of the State is made up of the other forests and forest lands or lands of forest aptitude belonging to the State and public institutions (article 13 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal)), which have an immediate legal affectation. Regarding the subsidiary claim (that in case the granting of the deed does not proceed, they be compensated for all accessions and improvements), they indicated that they are not entitled to them because the occupation is over a property that forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State and that mere occupation does not generate any right for them. Criterion of the Chamber: As indicated supra, the object of the present claim is so that in judgment: 1. The plaintiffs be adjudicated the parcel located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement identified as No. 74-A-4 and, to that extent, its public deed. 2. That in case said parcel cannot be adjudicated to them, they be paid for the accessions and improvements that they have introduced to the asset during the time they have possessed it in good faith. 3. That they be paid for the damages and losses caused to them by an eventual eviction and the subjective moral damages caused. By reason of the foregoing, this Chamber will analyze in order each one of said claims according to the facts that have been established in light of the applicable legal system. A) On the request for titling of the property: Analyzed what was resolved by the Board of Directors of INDER in article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019 (which has not been challenged in the present claim), it conformed to law because it has been established that: i) The Costa Rican State, in protection of the environment, granted in articles 18, 19, and 28 of the "Forest Law (Ley Forestal)" No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, a special protection over the Forest Heritage of the State. Its article 18 provided: "The Forest Heritage of the State is constituted by the National Reserves, Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves." Its article 19: "All forests and forest lands situated in: a) Lands considered as National Reserves; and b) Rural farms of the private domain of the State, those belonging to municipalities and autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, are affected to the ends of this law." Said Law was reformed by Law No. 7174 "Forest Law (Ley Forestal)" of June 28, 1990, and in its article 32 it was provided: "The forest heritage of the State is constituted by all forests and forest lands of national reserves, of areas declared inalienable, of farms registered in its name and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other agencies of the Public Administration." For its part, article 33) "The forest lands and forests that constitute the forest heritage of the State, detailed in the previous article, shall be unseizable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the revendication action of the State for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry by means of possessory information; their invasion and occupation shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of this law of forest aptitude, they shall be automatically incorporated into the forest heritage of the State." Finally, the "Forest Law (Ley Forestal)" No. 7575 of March 16, 1996, (Which reformed the previous ones) provided in its article 13): "Constitution and administration. The natural heritage of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of national reserves, of areas declared inalienable, of farms registered in its name and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other agencies of the Public Administration, except properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its patrimony. The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall administer the heritage. When appropriate, through the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, it shall register the lands in the Public Property Registry as individualized farms owned by the State. Non-governmental organizations that acquire real estate with forest or of forest aptitude, with funds coming from donations or the public treasury, which have been obtained in the name of the State, must transfer them to its name." And article 14): "Unseizable and inalienable condition of the natural heritage. The forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State, detailed in the previous article, shall be unseizable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the revendication action of the State for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry by means of possessory information and both the invasion and the occupation of them shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of this law." In this way, the regulations that protect the Forest Heritage of the State since the year 1969 included within said assets the forest aptitude lands belonging to the central State and its decentralized institutions, such as INDER. ii) The Costa Rican State, in pursuit of environmental protection, by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, reformed by Decree No. 5386 of October 28, 1975, created the "Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve", its article 1 indicating: "The Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve is established, which comprises the territory located within the following demarcation (according to 1:50000 topographic maps IGN: Río Cuarto 3347 II, Poás 3346 I, Barva 346 II, Abra 3345 I, Río Sucio Placa19614, Guápiles 3446 IV, Carrillo Placa19615, Istarú 3445 IV, Guácimo 3446 I, Bonilla 3446 II, Tucurrique 3445 I)." For its part, article 3: "The national reserves found within the above delimitation are declared inalienable." Article 4: "The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic shall register the State lands of this Reserve in the Public Registry, as an individualized farm of the National Heritage." Its article 7: "The farms registered in the Public Registry and those protected by ten-year possession, established within the limits of the reserve are automatically subjected to the Forest Regime." Finally, its article 8: "The farms not included in the previous article shall form part of the forest heritage of the State, following the legal procedures." iii) At the request of the then ITCO (today INDER), the Executive Branch, by Decree No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated from Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda., the property registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the district of Heredia No. 57748 with the aim of generating an agrarian solution and granting parcels to farmers in the project called "Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement" located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. iv) That the plaintiff parties acquired from Mr. Nombre111170 in the year 2000 the property described in plan No. H-1107776-2006, and identified by INDER as parcel No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement and that within the titling procedures, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas, by official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 07, 2015, consulted the Headquarters of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006, is or is not located within the protected wild areas administered by MINAET, or if they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State. For its part, the Headquarters of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area responded to the request by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015; in which it indicated that in accordance with the provisions of articles 13, 14, and 15 of Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its reforms and official letter Placa19618 of August 20, 2015, prepared by Eng. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, which refers to the field visit; the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí of Horquetas, is found within the protected wild areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State. For its part, the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC by official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, specified that according to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to cadastral plan H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. In this way, it has been established beyond any doubt that the land described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006, which corresponds to the parcel of the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement in Horquetas de Sarapiquí identified as No. 74-A-4, is located 98% within the boundaries of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. This situation makes it legally impossible to grant a public deed over said property, because upon said property forming part of the cited reserve, the land forms part of it by operation of law, and cannot be titled in the name of private individuals, since it is clear that they are affected by the characteristics proper to these properties, namely, being assets over which positive prescription does not operate, they are unseizable and inalienable. In this line, one can delve into the judgments issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Nos. 1070-F-S1-2010, 1088-F-S1-2011 and 1675-F-51-2012, as well as judgments of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 17659-2008, 21258-2010 and 16938-2011, among many others, in which these judicial instances have indicated that over the Natural Heritage of the State, as part of public domain assets, it is not possible for private individuals to exercise any type of possession or property, from which it also derives that it is also not viable to acquire property by usucapion or positive prescription, even if they had been on such lands for more than ten years, much less that an Administration can adjudicate them in favor of a private individual. By reason thereof, the claim for titling is improper. B) On the request for recognition of improvements and accessions: According to what was established, we have: 1) That between the years 1972 and 1973, Mr. Nombre111168 entered into possession of a farm of approximately 80 hectares located in the zone of Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, which was sold in parts to the individual identified as Nombre111171, to Mr. Nombre84914 and to Mr. Nombre111170, and the latter sold in the year 2000 to the plaintiffs the property described in Cadastral Plan No. H-1107776-2006. Land that is part of Farm No. 4-57748-000 expropriated by the State at the request of the then ITCO to grant in parcels to peasants and that INDER identified as parcel No. 74-A-4, with an area of 7has. 6841.22mts2 dedicated to agricultural activity and housing. 2) That by official letter OSH-0096-2015 of February 09, 2015, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí summoned ---among other residents of the Cubujuquí Settlement---, Mr. Nombre111167 as an occupant in said Settlement to a meeting in order to inform them about the surveying work that INDER was carrying out at that time in that Settlement. 3) That within the titling procedures initiated by the plaintiffs before INDER, it was determined: a) That the Subregional Office of INDER in Sarapiquí, by official letter OSH-0689-2015 of August 18, 2015, requested the Headquarters of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals to prepare the certificate of compliant land use (uso conforme) of the property described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006; and that Headquarters prepared the "Inspection Certificate for Land Titling" of the property described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró License CIA-5525 dated April 12, 2018 with consecutive entry number 18015801; in which it indicated that on the parcel exploited by Mr. Nombre111167, 100% COMPLIANT LAND USE has been exercised, for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the property there is a plantation of 1/2 hectare of peach palm in good phytosanitary condition, 36 mts2 of plantain, a dwelling house of 80 mts2 in good condition and another of 140mts2 in good or fair condition.

Pasture with grass, 8 cows, one horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, a corral, a shed, a stable, etc. b) Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales conducted the inspection of Dirección13211 on September 18, 2018, and signed the "Titling Sheet" (Ficha de Titulación) in which he recommended titling the referenced property in the name of the plaintiffs, with cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 and an area of 7 hectares 6841.22 square meters, which forms part of Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 in the name of INDER, and calculated its transfer in the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referenced property under the terms of Law No. 2825, Law No. 7142, and Law No. 9036. c) That by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, amended by Decreto No. Placa19622 of October 28, 1975, the "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central" was created. d) By Decreto No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, finca No. 4-57748-000, property of Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda., registered in the Public Registry at Tomo 1792, Folio 128, Asiento 2 of the partido de Heredia, was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO, in order to generate an agrarian solution and grant parcels to farmers in the project called "Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí" located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. e) The Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central, by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, reiterated by the Dirección del Área de Conservación Central of SINAC through official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020; indicated that pursuant to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338, ---referring to cadastral map H-1107776-2006---, the property described therein is located 98% within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. f) By official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, the Oficina Territorial of INDER in Horquetas informed the plaintiffs that the titling request was not proceeding because the property was affected by the Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Thus, according to the accredited and here referenced facts, it is clear that although since the year 1975 the "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central" was created, and ITCO acquired finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 in order to create the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and deliver parcels to farmers; it was not until August 20, 2015, that SINAC by official letter Placa19617, indicated to INDER that the land described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 was within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Information that was reiterated in official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Dirección del Área de Conservación Central of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of said situation by INDER through official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018. So that the plaintiffs had certainty of the geographical situation of parcela No. 74-A-4 until September 28, 2018, even though their acquisition occurred since the year 2000. A parcel that was acquired with the hope that it would be titled to them by INDER because it was within the Proyecto Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. As things stand, for this Court the acquisition and possession that the plaintiffs exercised over said property was done in good faith, since it must not be lost sight that: 1) Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO for the creation of the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and to be distributed in parcels. 2) That the parcel described in Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006, forms part of said finca, which was acquired by the plaintiffs in the year 2000 and they made conforming use according to the "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525 dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 1801580, to the point that Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales conducted the inspection of the parcel Dirección13212 on September 18, 2018, and signed the "Titling Sheet" (Ficha de Titulación) in which he recommended titling the referenced property in the name of the plaintiffs; however, it was not possible because said property forms 98% of its area part of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, which was formally notified to the plaintiffs until September 28, 2018, by official letter OTHO-758-2018 of the Oficina Territorial of INDER in Horquetas. Based on the accredited facts and the provisions of articles 328, 329, 332, 508 and 509 of the Civil Code, it is now appropriate to analyze the appropriateness or not of the subsidiary claim consisting of the patrimonial recognition claimed by the plaintiffs for accessions (accesiones) and improvements (mejoras), since the plaintiffs' intention to at least recover the economic funds invested in the parcel identified as No. Placa19621 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí could not be disregarded either. Now then, before referring to that extreme, it is pertinent to bring up what the Sala Primera has indicated in this regard and which, due to its importance, is cited in extenso: "...VIII.- Now then, defined the need to rule on the claim for recognition of the improvements introduced to the property in question, it is necessary to determine which of those investments made are typical of improvements and which correspond to the institute of accession (accesión). Likewise, it is necessary to establish which ones correspond to improvements over which the defendant may exercise retention (retención), as an effect derived from the ordered revindication. Improvements can be necessary or useful. Regarding the first, this Chamber has established that the so-called 'necessary improvements' (mejoras necesarias), refer to all those indispensable expenses for the conservation of the thing, but that do not increase its venal value. They are carried out with the purpose of preventing its deterioration or ruin, since if not carried out, such a negative effect would ensue. Their purpose is not to achieve a greater value of the thing, but to keep it in good condition. They are called necessary, because they must be executed only so that the good does not deteriorate and does not diminish its yield. On the contrary, useful improvements (mejoras útiles) do increase the venal value of the thing, as they are introduced with the desire to improve it, increase the utilities. They benefit any possessor and not only the one who makes them. This is because they generate a surplus value by increasing the value of the thing. The Civil Code develops this distinction in article 332, since it qualifies necessary ones as those indispensable expenses for the conservation of the thing and useful ones as those that increase its venal value (in relation, judgment No. 13 of 10 hours on January 29, 1993, and No. 68 of 14 hours 40 minutes on June 30, 1998.) Regarding said improvements, there are substantial differences depending on the possessor of good or bad faith. In accordance with the provisions of numeral 328 of the Civil Code in relation to 330 ibidem, the reivindicated possessor has the right to recognition of both useful and necessary improvements, by virtue of which, and until effective payment, they shall have the right of retention, over both, when possession has been in good faith, and only over necessary ones, when possession has been in bad faith. On the other hand, sumptuary or purely decorative improvements (mejoras suntuarias o de puro adorno) may be removed by the possessor of good faith (ius tollendi), always provided that such action does not cause deterioration to the good and always provided that the legitimate possessor does not prefer to keep them, paying the value they would have after separation..." (Sala Primera No. 233 of April 14, 2005). In this way, according to the provisions of articles 328, 330 and 332 of the Civil Code, the possessor of good faith, who is reivindicated, has the right to recognition of both useful and necessary improvements. Regarding "accession" (accesión), that Chamber indicated in the cited vote: "...IX.-Regarding the institute of accession (accesión), what is of interest for these effects is that established regarding real estate, specifically concerning construction on another's land. When one has built, planted or sown on someone else's land, the Civil Code establishes a distinction based on whether the construction has been done without the owner's consent (article 508) or with the 'knowledge and patience' (a ciencia y paciencia) of the latter (article 509). When there has been no consent, the owner of the land acquires the building or plantation, indemnifying the value of the materials and labor, excluding from payment the greater value of the farm; but may also choose to demand the elimination or destruction of what was incorporated, and payment of the damages caused, except in the case of one who, in good faith, built, sowed or planted, as here destruction does not proceed, with the owner of the property having the option of reimbursing the value of the materials and work, or paying a sum equal to or greater than the value acquired by the farm (article 508). On the other hand, if the works were carried out 'with the knowledge and patience' (a ciencia y paciencia) of the owner, the latter may acquire the plantation or building, paying the value if it suits him, but may also opt (Sic) for the constitution of co-ownership (copropiedad) between both, setting the quotas based on the contributions of one and the other (article 509). This collegiate body has established that in the case of express consent of the owner for the incorporation of things onto his property, there is no accession (accesión), because accession constitutes a form of original acquisition of property rights, and one is not in the presence of that hypothesis but of a contractual form from which reciprocal rights and obligations derive. Although the incorporation of things occurs, the way to determine ownership will depend on the will of the parties, and in the express absence of this, on the rules of obligations (articles 627 and following), the general principles of Law and equity (articles 4 and 11 of the Civil Code, respectively). (On this matter, judgment No. 751 of 10 hours 20 minutes on October 6, 2000.) (Sala Primera No. 233 of April 14, 2005). In the case under analysis, it is the criterion of this Chamber that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and built and established an agrarian activity in full view and patience (a vista y paciencia) of INDER, since both they and INDER's own agents were unaware that the land described in Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2007 and which was identified by INDER as Parcela No. 74-A-4 formed part of the Reserva Forestal Cadena Volcánica Central, and it is also accredited, that INDER had certainty of this situation only until SINAC by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, communicated to INDER that the land described in cadastral map No. Placa19619 was within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Information that was reiterated in official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Dirección del Área de Conservación Central of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of said situation by INDER until September 28, 2018, through official letter OTHO-758-2018. In this way, in this Chamber's criteria, the plaintiffs assumed between the year 2000 and September 27, 2018, that the parcel identified under No. 74-A-4 was not part of the indicated Forest Reserve, and therefore they did not act in bad faith. On the contrary, it is held that the activity developed according to the certification of conforming use of the lands was carried out in accordance with what is provided for the parcels owned by INDER in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. Now, regarding improvements (useful and necessary) and the figure of real estate accession, the Chamber in the same vote delimited the figure between improvements and accessions as follows: "...Regarding the other investments, they constitute buildings, fruit tree crops and additions to another's real estate property, which were made without the owner's consent (article 508 of the Civil Code) and against which, the plaintiff has shown opposition (claim No. 4 of the lawsuit, folio 100). From this standpoint, these investments made by Mr. .... and his family (verified in proven fact No. 5 of the trial court's judgment) represent a benefit for the possession they have been exercising on the property in conflict and the activity they carry out, but they cannot be associated with a conservation of the real estate property. They also cannot be considered as useful improvements, given that for them to be held as such, it must have been demonstrated that the additions were made to already existing goods. Indeed, improvements have a different regulation and connotation than new plantations or constructions that a person makes on someone else's land, so both figures must be differentiated. Improvements are governed by a principle of accessoriality, as they are carried out to expand, modify or repair a pre-existing thing. Thus, with reference to a property destined for agrarian production, they could be considered as improvements, the replacement, increase, modification or betterment of pre-existing plants or crops; arrangement of the infrastructure with which the agrarian activity is developed, among others. In opposition, new buildings, constructions or permanent crops (of fruit trees) carried out on someone else's land where there were no works of that nature, or if they existed they were completely separate from the new ones, cannot be held as improvements in the legal sense of the term, even though they 'improve the property', so in these matters, the figure of accession of real estate (accesión de bienes inmuebles), or real estate accession, is applicable. (Along this line are oriented judgments No. 1 of 14 hours 55 minutes on January 6, 1993, No. 65 of 14 hours 40 minutes on August 17, 1994, and No. 4 of 14 hours 45 minutes on January 28, 1998). In this line of thought, this Chamber, in judgment No. 37 of 14 hours 55 minutes on April 10, 1996, stated: 'Buildings erected on land, in good legal technique, cannot be deemed improvements. The latter constitute increases, repairs or favorable changes to pre-existing goods, concerning which, depending on whether they are possessors of good or bad faith, reimbursement may be requested in case of return of the good, when the owner has not held possession. The regulation of payment for improvements is contained in articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code, and may be agreed upon in those cases in which accession by sowing or building on another's farm does not occur. If accession occurs, the applicable regime will be that provided by articles 508 and 509, as appropriate.' According to the cited precedents, the buildings, permanent crops and other contributions made by the appellant Name111172 within the property in question cannot simply be considered as increases, repairs or beneficial changes to goods that existed before their entry into possession, since it has not been proven in the records that there existed on the property in conflict, plantations that were improved, an aspect that in accordance with what has been indicated, is fundamental for such investments to be qualified as improvements. From this, it follows that it is not feasible to apply to the case the regulations governing improvements, but rather those specific to real estate accession (accesión inmobiliaria)." (Sala Primera No. 233 of April 14, 2005). (Emphasis is ours). According to what was indicated in the cited resolution, it must then be analyzed in each case whether, in the face of a claim of this type, one is facing improvements (utiles and necessary) according to what is provided in articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code or facing the figure of real estate accession (accesión inmobiliaria) in accordance with what articles 508 and 509 of the same normative body indicate. In the case under analysis, it was accredited by the Jefatura de Estudios Agroeconómicos y Avalúos in its "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525 dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801; in parcela No. 74-4-A exploited by Mr. Name111167, conforming land use (USO CONFORME DEL SUELO) has been exercised 100% for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the property there is a plantation of 1/2 hectare of peach palm (palmito) in good phytosanitary condition, 36 square meters of plantain, a dwelling house of 80 square meters in good condition and another of 140 square meters in good or fair condition. Pasture with grass, 8 cows, one horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, a corral, a shed, a stable, etc. (See folios from 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of parcela No. Placa19621). So it was a possession of an agrarian nature and the works and structures erected by the plaintiffs, and regarding which the nature of improvements or additions typical of the institute of accession must be specified. So that the making of replantings (repastos) or cleaning of already existing ones at the time of their entry into the property in the year 2000 will be considered improvements carried out by the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, the plantations, constructions, stables, livestock raising will be accessions. Works erected and developed by the plaintiffs after their entry into the farm. So that under the protection of what is provided by numerals 328 and 330 of the Civil Code, the necessary improvements indicated must be recognized by the owner of the land, with the plaintiffs, as authors of said works, having the right of retention (derecho de retención) up to the value of the same. As for the referred accessions, their recognition must be carried out in accordance with what article 509 of the Civil Code provides. The foregoing because, as indicated, it was proven that the plaintiffs occupied since the year 2000 parcela No. Placa19621 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, which is part of the INDER property, registration number of the Partido de Heredia under No. Placa19623, in which the plaintiffs developed, in full view and patience of INDER, an agrarian activity and erected the structures that were indicated in the "Certificado de Uso Conforme de Suelo" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525 dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801, without bad faith on their part, reason for which they must be indemnified in accordance with the quantification established in the sentence execution process. As things stand, verifying the appropriateness of the plaintiffs' right, the obligation is imposed on INDER to pay them the investment made by them on the land corresponding to parcela No. 74-A-4 for the following necessary improvements: making of replantings or cleaning of already existing ones. Likewise, the accessions must be recognized to them, consisting of the buildings and crops, according to the quantification carried out in the execution of this ruling, with the right to retention over the same. And it must be considered that according to article 48 of the INDER Law No. 9036, that institution is obligated to pay for useful and necessary improvements and accessions made in good faith. And it is reiterated, in the present case it was accredited that at the request of ITCO, the Executive Branch expropriated from the company Cubujuquí S.A. the property known as Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí in the year 1976 through Decreto No. 156 of August 17, 1976, and that since the year 1972, Mr. Name111168 had been occupying part of that farm, and in the end, part of that property was acquired in the year 2000 by the plaintiffs herein, who from that date entered the land and established an agrarian activity according to the land use (uso de suelo) as indicated in the "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525 dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801. Likewise, Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales conducted the inspection of parcel 74-A-4 on September 18, 2018, and signed the "Titling Sheet" (Ficha de Titulación) in which he recommended titling the property referenced as a parcel, with cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7ha6841.22mts2, which forms part of Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 in the name of INDER and calculated its transfer in the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referenced property under the terms of Law No. 2825, Law No. 7142, and Law No. 9036. In this way, the recognition of useful and necessary improvements and of accessions is a criterion imposed by the supra-referenced regulations, but it is also imposed for reasons of equity, since it is also on record that the plaintiffs were officially notified by INDER about the situation of the adjacency of parcel 74-A-4 with the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central until September 28, 2018, through official letter OTHO-758-2018. Thus it was accredited that the plaintiffs have exercised possessory acts over the cited parcel in good faith, which has a part of permanent crops and another of pasture. That the crop is peach palm (palmito) and plantain. With 8 cows, one horse, 40 hens, 2 dwelling houses, a corral, a stable. With well-marked boundaries: on the East with dead posts, with 6 strands of barbed wire. On the South with dead posts with 4 strands of barbed wire. On the North with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire and on the West also with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire. All this information is in the administrative file at folios 13 to 28. There is also no record that INDER ever reclaimed possession of parcela No. 74-A-4 from the plaintiffs at any historical moment. In this way, the recognition and payment of the necessary improvements and accessions is a consequence of the fact that INDER always respected the exercise of possession by the plaintiffs over the cited parcel. Later, it is clear that INDER concerned itself with specifying the boundaries with the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, when by official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, the Oficina Subregional of INDER in Horquetas, consulted the Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral map No. 1107776-2006, was located or not within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET-SINAC, or if they form part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, and the Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central of SINAC by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, answered the required information indicating that the parcel with map No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, and it was not until by official letter OTHO-755-2018 of September 28, 2018, that the Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial of Horquetas requested the Jefatura of SINAC-MINAE of Sarapiquí to proceed with the institution to delimit the indicated land, and by official letter SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of January 29, 2019, it was indicated that said request should be managed before the office of Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo. So that despite the fact that the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central was created since the year 1975, and the expropriation of Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí occurred since the year 1976 by Decreto No. 156 of August 17, 1976; it was not until September 28, 2018, that INDER formally requested to delimit the land described in map H-1107776-2006 with respect to the indicated forest reserve. A corollary of the above is that, according to what has been indicated, the improvements and accessions must be recognized to the plaintiffs, which must be liquidated and estimated in the judgment execution phase, for lacking elements in this regard. As for the present or future damages claimed in the event of an eventual eviction (desalojo), this extreme is rejected by virtue of the fact that the damages are immersed in the recognition made by the Court by granting the subsidiary claim for the reasons explained above. Finally, subjective moral damage (daño moral subjetivo) is also rejected, since the fact that other neighbors in the area were granted title to their property is due to the fact that their properties possibly do not form part of the Forest Reserve. Furthermore, none of the cases of the plaintiffs' neighbors forms part of the object of this proceeding, and therefore the reasons why titling occurred or did not occur are unknown. Later, the plaintiffs must not lose sight of the fact that they acquired a right of possession from Mr. Name111170, not bare ownership (nuda propiedad), and that the consolidation of the property right over parcela 74-A-4 required titling by INDER, which could not be for an objective reason, since indeed the property corresponded in approximately 98% to the forest reserve. In this way, what they had with respect to said farm was an expectancy rather than a duly consolidated real right. A situation that does not exclude the recognition of the improvements and accessions made on the farm, but does exclude the claimed subjective moral damage. Finally, in accordance with what was indicated by the Sala Constitucional in its vote No. 1963-2012 of February 15, 2012, once this judgment is final and once the improvements and accessions have been paid, the eviction of the occupants from the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 must be managed, exclusively in the portion of land that forms part of the "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central" under administration of SINAC of the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET). Likewise, MINAET and SINAC must make the necessary signs that allow identifying the property as Patrimonio Natural del Estado.

VII.- EXCEPTIONS: The representations of SINAC and the State opposed in their defense the exceptions of lack of passive legitimation ad causam (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva) and lack of right (falta de derecho), which must be accepted in light of what the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia has indicated when it has stated: "In other words, the procedural mandate orders only that both the body with legal personality and the State or entity to which it belongs be incorporated into the judicial discussion. It is then up to the judge, in accordance with the substantive rules, to determine whether the questioned act, conduct or indolence was developed or not under personality, thus establishing whether it is the body that must respond with its own pecuniary resources, or if it is the entity or the State to which the duty to repair must be attributed." (Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes on November eleven, two thousand ten. In the same sense, Judgment No. 883-F-S1-2011 of nine hours five minutes on July twenty-eight, two thousand eleven). "(...) if it is determined that the challenged act constitutes the exercise of an own and exclusive competence of the so-called 'body-person' (órgano-persona), as a logical and natural consequence, it is appropriate to declare a lack of right (falta de derecho) regarding the entity to which it is attached. In this sense, it is important to indicate that granting legal personality to an entity or body has as an immediate consequence the constitution of them as an ultimate and sole center for the imputation of the effects of their actions or omissions." (Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes on November eleven, two thousand ten). In the present matter, it is clear that there is no conduct attributable to either the State or SINAC in what was acted upon and questioned by the plaintiffs. Conduct that was specific to INDER in the exercise of its competencies and for which it must respond individually. The representation of INDER opposed the exceptions of prescription (prescripción), lack of active and passive legitimation (falta de legitimación activa y pasiva) and lack of right (falta de derecho). Regarding the exception of prescription, this Court pronounced itself in Considerando V. On the exception of lack of legitimation, it must be noted that legitimation constitutes the capacity, the aptitude to be a party in a specific proceeding, as a passive party, depending on the conditions that, for such effect, procedural law prescribes in relation to the claim filed. Now, legitimation stems either from the legal-administrative relationship established between the plaintiff and the Administration, or from the law, according to what they have established in this regard. And it is that in a proceeding there are two types of legitimation, for the cause (ad causam) and for the proceeding (ad procesum). The first (ad causam) involves verifying whether the person filing the lawsuit has, legally speaking, a right to claim, that is; the legitimated party is that person who, in terms of substantive law, has a certain legal relationship with the object of the proceeding, that is, the claim.

The second (ad processum) consists of a procedural matter, in other words, whether the person appearing has the capacity to act in accordance with the law or whether they are acting for another with the appropriate type of legal representation under our regulations. In the present case, it was accredited that the plaintiffs acquired parcel No. 74-A-4 in the year 2000, located in the Cubujuquí Settlement of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, and in the year 2015 filed a titling request before INDER. Which request was denied for the reasons indicated. In this way, an administrative legal relationship was generated between the plaintiffs and INDER, and therefore the plaintiffs have active standing to bring action and INDER to be sued, which is why said preliminary objection is rejected. Finally, regarding the preliminary objection of lack of right, returning to what was stated by our First Chamber, it is necessary to demonstrate the facts, as a fundamental part thereof, because from what is determined in that section, it may be inferred whether or not the legal bases exist for what is sought. Having accredited partial rights of the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to partially grant the indicated preliminary objection.

VIII.- COSTS: Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party solely by virtue of being so, a declaration that must be made even ex officio, pursuant to the provisions of that same rule, in accordance with paragraph 119.2 ibidem. Relief from this cost award is only viable: a) when, in the judgment of the Tribunal, there are sufficient grounds to litigate; b) when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or else, c) when plus petitio occurs, that is, when the difference between the amount claimed and the amount ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the complaint are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (paragraph 194 ibidem). In this specific case, this Collegiate Body does not find that we are facing any of the aforementioned exceptions that would allow the postulate of imposing costs on the losing party to be broken, and therefore, it is appropriate to order INDER to pay both costs of this Proceeding. The quantum thereof will be determined in the Judgment Execution Stage at the request of the prevailing party. With respect to the portion of the complaint directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without a special award of costs, because both parties were joined ex officio by the Processing Judge.

WHEREAS (POR TANTO):

The evidence for better resolution is admitted. The preliminary objection of the statute of limitations of the right is rejected. With respect to the portion of the complaint directed against the State and SINAC, the preliminary objections of lack of passive ad causam standing and Lack of Right are granted. By reason thereof, the complaint filed against both representations is declared without merit. Regarding INDER, the preliminary objection of lack of passive standing is rejected, and the preliminary objection of Lack of Right is partially granted, and consequently, the complaint against said entity is declared partially with merit, it being understood denied in all that is not expressly granted, as follows: i) INDER is ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the improvements and accessions (mejoras y accesiones) made on parcel No. Placa19621, which shall be calculated and estimated in the execution of judgment and over which the plaintiffs shall have a right of retention until their effective payment. ii) INDER is ordered to pay the plaintiffs both costs of this Proceeding. The quantum thereof shall be determined in the Judgment Execution Stage at the instance of the prevailing party. iii) With respect to the portion of the complaint directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without a special award of costs. NOTIFY. José Iván Salas Leitón. Judith Reyes Castillo. Elías Baltodano Gómez. Judges.

*GLXZQYY8BWC61* JOSE IVAN SALAS LEITON - DECISION-MAKING JUDGE *JKZAIGDBXP061* JUDITH REYES CASTILLO - DECISION-MAKING JUDGE *T0HQ1D47WQLI61* ELIAS BALTODANO GOMEZ - DECISION-MAKING JUDGE 16) That on September 18, 2018, Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales inspected plot 74-A-4 and signed the "Title Sheet (Ficha de Titulación)" in which he recommended titling the property referenced as a plot, with cadastral map No. Placa19619 and an area of 7ha6841.22mts2, in the name of the plaintiffs, which forms part of the Heredia Party Property No. 4-57748-00 in the name of INDER, and calculated its transfer at the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARATION BY THE PARTY (DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE)", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referred property under the terms of Law No. 2825, No. 7142, and No. 9036. (See folios 101 to 103 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 17) The INDER Office of Information and Land Registry (Oficina de Información y Registro de Tierras), by official letter IRT-0806-2018 of September 25, 2018, responded to the information requested in official letter OTHO-0715-2018, in which it was indicated that according to the cartographic location of the map, the property forms part of plot 74-A of the Cubujuquí settlement (asentamiento). That the registry information shown on the map corresponds to that of the parent property of the settlement (Property No. Placa3972 in the name of INDER) and that it would be identified as plot 74-A-4, which, according to the cartographic location of cadastral map H-1107776-2006, is affected by the Protected Wilderness Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve (Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central). Information reiterated in official letter IRT-0808-2018 of September 25, 2018 (See folios 31 and 32 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 18) The INDER Territorial Office (Oficina Territorial) in Horquetas responded to the titling request made by the plaintiffs by official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, in which it indicated that the property was affected by the Protected Wilderness Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), so its titling was not legally viable. That of the total property, only an area of 1771 mts2 was outside said reserve and therefore they should indicate if it was their wish to continue with the proceedings for the purpose of titling said portion of land. (See folios 37 to 40 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 19) The Territorial Development Office (Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial) of Horquetas, by official letter OTHO-755-2018 of September 28, 2018, addressed the SINAC-MINAE Headquarters of Sarapiquí in accordance with what was indicated by that office in official letters No. Placa19617 and official letter Placa19618, both of August 20, 2015, and noted that taking into consideration that the property described by cadastral map No. 1107776-2006 is located within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central) and as a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) and therefore part of the PNE, administered by MINAE, it requested ---in accordance with the provisions of articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its Reforms--- that said institution proceed to delimit the indicated land by visiting the boundaries of the cited area. (See folio 58 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4 Volume I and 122 of the digital judicial file). 20) By note dated October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs requested to continue with the proceedings for the entirety of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006. (See folios 42 to 76 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 21) The Subregional Office of the ACAHN, by official letter SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of January 29, 2019, indicated to the Head of the Territorial Development Office of Horquetas that, in response to official letter OTHO-755-2018, referring to the request for delimitation of the lands that form part of the PNE located within map No. H-1107776-2006, given that the property is located more than 90% within the limits of the RFCVC, said request must be processed before the Braulio Carrillo National Park (Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo) office. (See folio 147 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4 Volume I). 22) The INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas, by official letter OTHO-095-2019 of January 31, 2019, forwarded the documentation referring to the titling request made by the plaintiffs to the Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Legal) of the INDER Regional Office (Oficina Regional) in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and requested that it prepare a report on the titling of plot No. 74-A-4 (formerly known as 74-C) of the Cubujuquí Settlement (Asentamiento Cubujuquí). (See folios 109 to 126 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 23) By official letter AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate (Dirección Regional Huetar Norte) and the Legal Advisory Office, after gathering the necessary information, recommended denying the request made based on the fact that the property for which titling was requested, according to the certification issued by MINAE No. Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, the requested property forms part of the Protected Wilderness Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore the Natural Heritage of the State. (See folios 145 to 154 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 24) The Office of Oversight and Agrarian Services (Oficina de Fiscalización y Servicios Agrarios), by official letter FSA-655-2019 of July 31, 2019, forwarded official letter AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, to the Executive Presidency (Presidencia Ejecutiva) of INDER, and in turn, that Presidency, by official letter A-PE-1004-2019 of August 8, 2019, forwarded it to the INDER Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) for its final resolution. (See folios 157 and 158 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 25) The INDER Board of Directors, in its Article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, considered the matter and rejected it based on the fact that the property requested to be titled and registered forms part of the Protected Wilderness Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore as part of the Natural Heritage of the State, they were unable to accede to what was requested. An agreement that was notified to the email of Attorney Julissa Rodríguez Rojas on October 3, 2019. (See folios 159 to 169 and 184 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4). 26) The Directorate of the Central Conservation Area (Dirección del Área de Conservación Central) of SINAC, by means of official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, stated that according to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to cadastral map H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central). (See image from 789 to 791 of the digital judicial file). 27) That the plaintiffs have been possessors since the year 2000 of the plot that has been identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Campesino Settlement (Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí) in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, with cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 with an area of 7has 6841.22mts2, which forms part of the Heredia Party Property No. Placa19620 in the name of INDER, which they have used as a dwelling and on which they have developed an agricultural and livestock activity. (Testimony of Mr. Nombre111168 and Certificate of Inspection for Land Titling No. 18015801 at folios 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of plot No. 74-A-4).

III.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. The record being devoid of proof, the following is considered undemonstrated: 1) That when the plaintiffs acquired the property described in map H-1007776-2006 in the month of June 2000, they had knowledge that this land was affected in any percentage by the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and even so acquired it at their own risk. (No proof in this regard is located). 2) That the INDER Regional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí had processed before the Headquarters of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Area (Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central) of SINAC, prior to the issuance of official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, the determination of the limits of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve with respect to its Heredia Party property No. H-57748-000. (No proof in this regard is located). 3) That between the month of June 2000 (date of acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs) and the issuance of official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018 (in which it informed the plaintiffs of the situation regarding the limits of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve); the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí warned the plaintiffs that the plot identified by INDER under No. 74-A-4 was affected by the Protected Wilderness Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State, for which reason its titling was not legally viable. (No proof in this regard is located). 4) That the occupation by the plaintiffs of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 since the year 2000 was undertaken in bad faith (mala fe). (No proof in this regard is located). 5) That the buildings erected on plot No. 74-A-4 were built after the issuance of Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006, on the reverse of which MINAE indicated that the property described therein formed part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. (No proof in this regard is located).

IV.- ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES AND OBJECT OF THE PROCESS: In summary and without prejudice to the literalness of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Tribunal, each of the parties alleges the following, detailed in this section concerning what is relevant: 1) PLAINTIFFS: That Mr. Nombre111168 entered into original possession in 1973 of a property located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí with an area of approximately 80 hectares. That subsequently Nombre111168 segregated and sold part of that property to the gentleman identified only as Nombre111171, who in turn sold it to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170. That in this way, over the original 80-hectare property and its subsequent segregations, a right of possession has been exercised for more than 40 years. That by 1978 the State acquired a property in the Cubujuquí zone which was transferred to ITCO, today INDER, to be granted to farmers in plots and for this reason INDER constituted the so-called "Cubujuquí Settlement (Asentamiento Cubujuquí)", the original property and its subsequent segregations forming part of said project. They indicated that in 1999 they entered into negotiation with Mr. Nombre111170, to acquire his right over the property, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares and when said property already formed part of the Cubujuquí Settlement identified by INDER as plot No. 74-A-4, a situation that is accredited in the sketch drawn up in 1978 by officials of ITCO at that time. They alleged that before acquiring said right, they appeared before INDER to ask about its situation and Mr. Manuel Picado, an official of said institution, recommended they buy it, which gave them peace of mind and for that reason they acquired the right of possession from Mr. Nombre111170, ID No. CED87834, in the month of June 2000 by public deed and that to date they have possessed the property for more than 19 years in a public, peaceful manner and as owners. That they acquired the property so that INDER would title it for them, as it did with other families in the area. That for titling purposes they drew up Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006, however a MINAE official, without further study, stamped a seal on the back saying that the land was affected by the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. That in 2015, INDER, based on what was indicated in said seal, requested MINAE to pronounce on whether the property was within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and MINAE, by official letter Placa19617 MINAE, informed about the effective affectation of the property to said reserve. That on October 2, 2018, INDER communicated to them that the property was within the Protected Wilderness Area administered by MINAE and that it forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and that of the total area of the property, only 1771 mts2 were outside said zone, so they consulted them if they wished to continue with the titling proceedings for said portion of land, however on October 22, 2018, they requested INDER to continue with the titling proceedings for the entirety of the plot and not only for the indicated portion. That finally, by official letter OTHO-0680-2019 of October 3, 2019, the Territorial Development Office of Horquetas de Sarapiquí notified them that the INDER Board of Directors, by agreement of August 28, 2019, recommended not titling plot No. 74-A-4 due to lack of certification from MINAE, however they stated that the property is located very far from the protected zone. They also pointed out that about 16 years ago the State expropriated a number of possessors, but not them, and furthermore that Mr. Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, ---an INDER official--- commented on the possibility for some possessors to be relocated, but they were excluded. They indicated that the activity carried out on the plot is agrarian, dedicated to livestock and agriculture. That due to lacking a deed, SENASA did not renew their permits for cattle fattening and proof of this is the CVO that expired on July 2, 2013, and they could not renew it due to lack of that requirement. That during all the years they have possessed the property, they have dedicated themselves to introducing improvements such as a house, with 3 rooms, fibrolit ceiling, ceramic floor, enclosed with fences, etc. Another house of 2 floors, etc. They accused that the plots they identified as Nos. 59, 64, 65, 68, 73, 77, and 78 ---which are located further inside than plot 74-A-4--- in the zone protected by the State, were granted a deed. That in the month of January 2015, INDER officials appeared at their plot and indicated that they would place some markers (mojones) and that above those markers the property belonged to MINAE. They indicated that the placement of those markers was not done in a technical manner nor did it coincide with the real information contained in Decree No. 38975-MAG. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs requested that the judgment order the defendants to award plot No. 74-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and, if unable to do so, that all accessions (accesiones) and improvements introduced to the property since they possessed it in good faith (buena fe) be compensated, as well as the recognition of present and future damages (daños y perjuicios). Arguments that were reiterated in the supplementary oral and public trial hearing. 2) The state representation opposed the lawsuit and therefore the claims of the plaintiffs for the following reasons: That the plaintiff party considers that INDER errs in denying their request for land titling and bases this position on the fact that when resolving their situation, their right of property, since they acquired the property whose title they seek almost 20 years ago, and on it they carry out agricultural activities and also have built the dwelling they currently inhabit with their wife and children, as well as another where their daughter-in-law and grandchildren live. A situation that implies, ---in their view---, the legality of their possession, and generated a right, which is being affected by INDER's action of not registering the property in their name, under the allegation that part of the land forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central), all to their detriment and that of their family. That the plaintiff party submitted to INDER a request for land titling, in accordance with subsection c) of section 85 of Law No. Placa4583, specifically regarding the property they indicate they bought and have possessed for almost 20 years; however, it is relevant to note that, since 1975, the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve was created, which comprises several lands, among which is a portion of more than 90% of the land for which the plaintiff party requires titling. That the plaintiffs indicated that the land in question belongs to the Cubujuquí Campesino Settlement (Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí), which are lands that belong to INDER. And in their specific case, from the information contained in the administrative file concerning plot No. 74-A-4, which according to its cadastral map is pastureland (potrero) with a ravine (quebrada) that crosses the property from west to east and whose map, No. H-1-110776-2006, bears the seal of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), with visado No. 0880-2006, and indicates that, according to its location, it is within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve by approximately 90%, a map that is registered for cadastral purposes. That during the land titling process initiated by the plaintiff party, it was determined that of the total property, around 1771 mts2 were outside the Conservation Area and by official letter N° OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, they were asked to indicate whether they maintained the titling request for the entirety of the property or only for that portion of land that is outside the cited conservation area, replying by note of October 22, 2018, that they maintained their request for the entirety of the property. That under this context, INDER rejected their request. That in the present case, what the plaintiff seeks is to be titled a property that is owned by the State, as it belongs to the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area, which is clearly improper, whether in administrative or judicial proceedings, a situation that makes their lawsuit improper. That due to the nature of the object of the process, it is necessary to refer to public domain assets –or State assets– and in that regard, to their nature and characteristics. That the jurisprudence has been clear in stating: “(…) IV.-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSETS: “(…) Public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable, consequently, outside the commerce of men. On the subject, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has expressed: “II.-THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE LEGAL MEANS TO INTEGRATE IT.- Public domain (dominio público) is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime, different from that which governs private domain, which besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for purposes of public utility and which is manifested in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them. The doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets (bienes dominicales), public things (cosas públicas), public assets (bienes públicos), or demanial assets (bienes demaniales). On this concept, the Chamber expressed in its Judgment No. 189-F-S1-2011, of nine hours fifteen minutes of March three, two thousand eleven, the following: “VI.-…Therefore, it is fundamental to refer to the concept of public domain and in particular to the scope of article 261 of the Civil Code, which differentiates between public and private assets, as well as the criteria based on which one can distinguish between both. In this regard, it establishes: “Public things (cosas públicas) are those that, by law, are permanently destined to any service of general utility and those from which all can benefit by being given over to public use. All other things are private and objects of particular property, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who, in this case, as civil persons, do not differ from any other person”. As can be extracted, the definition of private assets is made in a residual manner, that is, all those that do not present any of the characteristics indicated for demanial assets belong to this category. Constitutional jurisprudence, taking into account what is prescribed by the cited norm, has referred to the assets that make up the public domain in the following terms: “they are those that have a nature and legal regime diverse from private assets, which are governed by the right of property under the terms of article 45 of the Political Constitution; whereas by express will of the legislator they are affected to a special destiny of serving the community, that is, the public interest, and that, for this reason, they cannot be the object of private property, so that they are outside the commerce of men, for which reason they cannot belong individually to private individuals, nor to the State, in a strict sense, since the State is limited to its administration and guardianship (…) Thus, these are assets whose ownership the state holds in its capacity as administrator, it must be understood that these are assets that belong to the Nation, with which they form part of the public patrimony (patrimonio público); and that, due to their special legal nature, they present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, the right of property over them cannot be acquired, not even mere possession, that is, they cannot be acquired through usucapion (usucapión), nor can they be lost by prescription; for which reason, the use permits that the Administration grants over them always have a precarious nature, which means they can be revoked for reasons of opportunity or convenience at any time by the Administration- under the terms provided for in articles 154 and 155 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)-, and the same concessions granted over them for their use can be canceled by a procedure to that effect; they are unattachable, which means they cannot be the object of any lien or embargo, neither by private individuals, nor by the Administration, and they are inalienable, which translates into the condition that they are outside the commerce of men, hence they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither free of charge nor for consideration, nor by private individuals, nor by the State, so that they are excepted from the commerce of men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Furthermore, their use and exploitation is subject to police power, in that, as these are assets that cannot be the object of possession and much less of property, their utilization and exploitation is only possible through duly authorized acts, that is, by concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the public Administration. So it comprises immovable assets that have a nature and legal regime virtually opposite to private property that derives from the provisions of article 45 of the Constitution (Voto 2007-2408 of 16 hours 13 minutes of February 21, 2007) (The highlighting is ours) (Administrative Litigation Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), Section V, resolution No. 2 of ten hours of January 18, 2012.) That as that same Tribunal provided (in the transcribed judgment), demanial assets, by their special nature, form part of the public patrimony, and in that order, they are imprescriptible, inalienable, and unattachable. That is to say, they are not subject to appropriation by private individuals and not even to being occupied. That based on this, it is clear that, in the present case, the plaintiff holds no right over the land that forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve Area and that they currently occupy, and based on that, it cannot be titled in their name as they request. That in this sense, INDER was clear in the titling process at hand, this in accordance with what was indicated in agreement No. 37 of session No.

22, held on August 26, 2019, and, in what is of interest to the case: "…<span style="font-style:italic">THIRD: From the account of</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">facts that have been assessed throughout this recommendatory resolution, sufficient legal elements emerge demonstrating that Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">and Mr. Nombre23709</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">have carried out an occupation exceeding ten years on parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement, in a personal, quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner, that their possession has been notorious, and that they have used the property in accordance with its capacity and nature. This is pursuant to the provisions of Article 85, subsection "c" of the aforementioned legal framework. The foregoing demonstrates that, although the applicants legally meet all the requirements stipulated in the Procedures of subsection c) of Article 85 of INDER Law 9036, it is not possible to recommend the titling of the property because, according to the certification issued by MINAE in official letter 05-1338-15 dated August 20, 2015, issued by </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Engineer Luis Fernando Salas Sarkis, in his capacity as Head of the Sarapiquí Department of the National System of Conservation Areas of MINAE, it is certified that the property is indeed located within the wild protected area administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve; thus, for this reason, it does form part of the Natural Heritage of the State</span><span>." That by official letter OTHO-924-2018 dated November 29, 2018, the administered parties were notified of letter Placa19617: "...</span><span style="font-style:italic">FOURTH: Consequently, despite the appellants having met the requirements established in the Procedures of subsection c) of Article 85 of INDER Law 9036, this Legal Advisory Office, having assessed all the evidence and the facts giving rise to this request and considering that it is not legally admissible because parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement is within the wild protected areas administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), in this case forming part of the Cordillera Volcánica Forest Reserve, DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE PROCEEDING BE APPROVED for the Validation of the public property allocation procedure, titling, and registration in the Public Property Registry of parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement presented by Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">, ID number CED87830 and Mr. Nombre23709</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-style:italic">, ID number CED87831</span><span>…”. From the foregoing, it is clear that the filing party seeks to title lands that are part of the Natural Heritage of the State, which is manifestly inadmissible. That in this sense, the very nature of the assets subject to the proceeding makes the plaintiff's claim for compensation inadmissible, and not only that, but the mere occupation of the land does not grant them any right to a claim, much less when in this case there is no connection between the actions of the Administration—which are evidently lawful—and the claimed damage. This being the case, the lawsuit and the damages it requests must be rejected.</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> 3) For its part, the representation of SINAC indicated:</span><span> That from the account of facts and background, and from the corresponding documentation, the described land is located within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve with an affectation exceeding 90%. That Article 121, subsection 14) of the Political Constitution generically regulates matters concerning public domain assets (bienes de dominio público), by providing that the Nation's own assets may only definitively leave its domain by authorization of the Legislative Assembly. That from this constitutional conception, at the doctrinal and jurisprudential level, the position of the consultative and jurisdictional bodies has been consolidated and developed, in the sense that public domain areas are assets belonging to the community in the broadest sense of the concept and are intended to satisfy the public interest. That jurisdictional, administrative, and constitutional jurisprudence has been consistent in establishing the traditional classification of assets under the tutelage of the administrations, into demanial assets, which are those regulated by a special legal regime and permanently intended for public use, or have been affected by law to a public purpose, such as areas designated for parks in urban and rural centers, the maritime-terrestrial zone, national highways, and the natural heritage, which is why said assets possess particular characteristics such as imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability (inembargabilidad). That in judgment No. 3667 of 14:54 on May 7, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber set forth its jurisprudential line in this regard as follows: "(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime distinct from that governing private domain, which, in addition to belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and manifested in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them. Doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as fiscal assets, demanial assets, public things, public assets, or demanial assets</span><span>. (…)” (Underlining not in the original) That following this line of thought, by express provision of Article 262 of the Civil Code, public, demanial, or public domain areas are outside commerce among men and, therefore, no one may exercise property or use rights over them by the passage of time, nor are they susceptible to encumbrances or possession in Civil Law terms, as reiterated by this Chamber in judgment number 5977-93, at 15:45 hours on November 16, 1993: "(…) </span><span style="font-style:italic">Public domain is comprised of assets that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest. They are called fiscal assets, demanial assets, public goods or things, which do not belong individually to private persons and are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside commerce among men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, are affected to the service they provide, and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Noteworthy characteristics of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged or be susceptible to encumbrance in Civil Law terms, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover domain. As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right of use may be acquired, but not a property right</span><span> (…)" (Underlining not in the original) That from this perspective, by their legal nature, public domain assets are not susceptible to private ownership, possession, or appropriation, whether free of charge or for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor gained by adverse possession (usucapión); it is also not legally possible to modify their purpose; nor can they be used for a purpose different from that established by the legal system, with the State being responsible for their protection and administration in representation of public interests. Ergo, use by third parties shall not cause any right in their favor. That in accordance with the foregoing, constitutional jurisprudence has been clear in establishing that the special protection established in the legal system for public domain assets is applicable to the natural heritage of the Nation, considering that said heritage contributes to ensuring the fundamental rights of inhabitants to a better quality of life, within the context of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided for in the domestic legal system and international instruments ratified by the country. That in judgment number 2003-03840 at 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, the same Chamber stated: </span><span style="font-style:italic">(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected for public use or enjoyment, and this protection is even more carefully applied when regulating public environmental assets. The foregoing implies that, had the transposition alleged by the plaintiff occurred in the Regulatory Plan of the Coastal Zone of Playa Platanares and the Preciosa-Platanares Mixed Category National Wildlife Refuge, the Regulatory Plan would be contrary (at least regarding the regulation of the part of the Refuge) to the norm deriving from Articles 121, subsection 14, and 89 of the Political Constitution, since a regulatory act would be de-affecting part of a demanial asset</span><span style="font-style:italic">. (…) (Underlining does not correspond to the original. In this regard, also consult judgment number 05266-2009 at 12:24 hours on March 27, 2009). </span><span>That thus, the Political Constitution and the Law emphasize that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to safeguard and improve the quality of life of inhabitants, granting them the classification of demanial assets of the Nation, which is why (like public domain assets in general) they are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable. That along these same lines, with the enactment of Forest Law number 7575 of February 13, 1995, and other regulatory bodies in which our legal system developed the provisions set forth in the Political Constitution and instruments of International Law for the protection and safeguarding of the Natural Heritage of the State, establishing the intangibility of wild protected areas. That such is the case of the provisions of numerals 13 and 14 of the Forest Law when stating: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">ARTICLE 13.- Constitution and administration. The natural heritage of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of areas declared inalienable, of properties registered in its name, and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other agencies of the Public Administration, except for properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its heritage (…). ARTICLE 14.- Unattachable and inalienable condition of the natural heritage. The forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State, detailed in the preceding article, shall be unattachable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor, and the State's action for recovery of these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry by means of possessory information, and both the invasion and the occupation thereof shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of this law</span><span style="font-style:italic">.</span><span> That the jurisprudential development of the Constitutional Chamber has established that the Natural Heritage of the State is composed of two important components: on the one hand, the Wild Protected Areas (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree; understood as such are forest reserves, protected zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments, according to the regulation provided in Articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Forest Law; 32 of the Organic Environmental Law; 22, 28, and 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law; 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law; and on the other hand, the Natural Heritage of the State that is comprised of the other forests and forest lands or lands with forest aptitude belonging to the State and public institutions (Article 13 of the Forest Law), which have an immediate legal affectation. That in relation to the foregoing regarding the components that make up the Natural Heritage, in judgment number 2003-03840 at 14:02 hours on May 2, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber stated: (…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">According to the classification given by environmental regulations, the forest or natural heritage of the State is comprised of forest reserves, biological reserves, protected zones, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Article 32 of the Organic Environmental Law, number 7554, of September eighteenth, nineteen ninety-five). (…) Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected for public use or enjoyment, and this protection is even more carefully applied when regulating public environmental assets</span><span> (…) (In this regard, also consult judgment number 05266-2009 at 12:24 hours on March 27, 2009). That as can be observed, </span><span style="font-style:italic">wild protected areas are incorporated into the natural heritage of the Nation regardless of their management category</span><span>, whether they are national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, national wildlife refuges, protected zones, natural monuments, and natural wetlands; furthermore, it is enshrined in Articles 35 and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, in which the legislator generically regulated the objectives for the creation, administration, and monitoring of Wild Protected Areas. That in the same manner, when lands covered by any of the indicated management categories are under the administration and/or tutelage of a public entity, they automatically become part of the Natural Heritage of the State, as provided in Articles 13 and 14 of the Forest Law. Ergo, appropriation, use, or enjoyment by private individuals is not permissible, whether free of charge or for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor gained by adverse possession; it is also not legally possible to modify their purpose; and use by third parties and their possession shall not cause any right in their favor. That the Constitutional Chamber indicated in Vote No. 2988-99 the legal impossibility for private individuals to possess and acquire by adverse possession public domain assets: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">When an asset is integrated into the public domain regime, it acquires a series of essential characteristics such as inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unattachability. From these conditions, it follows that these assets are not expropriable, since that would imply alienation, and they are inalienable. Likewise, adverse possession is not a means to acquire them; inalienable things, being outside commerce among men, are not subject to possession by private individuals, and, therefore, are imprescriptible as long as they retain such character or the public utility purpose to which they are affected.” (Vote No. 2988-99) “Public domain is comprised of assets that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest.- These are the so-called fiscal assets, demanial assets, public goods or things, or public assets, which do not belong individually to private individuals and are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside commerce among men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, are affected to the service they provide, and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm.- Noteworthy characteristics of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged or be susceptible to encumbrance in Civil Law terms, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover domain.- As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right of use may be acquired, but not a property right.</span><span style="font-style:italic">” (Vote No. 2306-91, a precedent of repeated citation in this venue). </span><span>That furthermore, the Constitutional Chamber refers to demanial assets, which are inalienable and imprescriptible: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It is clear that, as they are demanial assets, they are not susceptible to being possessed, much less to having ownership acquired over them, which is explained by the typical characteristics of these assets: inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unattachability</span><span style="font-style:italic">.”</span><span> (Vote No. 454-2006). </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It should be emphasized that demanial assets are inalienable and imprescriptible, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">and that their occupation cannot generate any right in favor of the occupant, regardless of the time during which such occupation has lasted</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">.” (Vote No. 18836-2014). “On the attributes of demanial assets: Ownership of public domain assets is held by the State in its capacity as administrator, by which it must be understood that these are assets belonging to the 'Nation' and form part of the public heritage; and that, due to their special legal nature, they present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, the property right over them cannot be acquired, not even mere possession, i.e., they cannot be acquired through adverse possession, nor can they be lost by prescription… and they are inalienable, which translates into the condition that they are outside commerce among men; hence, they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither free of charge nor for consideration, neither by private individuals, nor by the State, thus they are exempt from commerce [sic] among men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Furthermore, their use and exploitation are subject to police power, since, as assets that cannot be the object of possession, much less of ownership, their utilization and exploitation are possible only through duly authorized acts, whether by concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the Public Administration. Thus, it comprises real estate having a nature and legal regime virtually opposite to private property, deriving from the provision of Article 45 of the Constitution.” (Vote No. 3113-2009). \"Lands that constitute National Reserves having forests are considered State Heritage, in their condition as Public Domain, which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability\". In the State Forest Heritage, the right of possession is denied to private individuals </span><span style="font-style:italic">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Agrarian Tribunal N° 332 at 16 hrs. 20 min. on July 7, 2000, and note to vote 49 at 13 hrs. on January 31, 2002</span><span>). That the First Chamber referred to the imprescriptibility of public domain in the following manner: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the possession exercised by private individuals does not generate any property right, regardless of the time during which possession has been held</span><span style="font-style:italic"> (…)” (judgment No. 7 of 15 hours 5 minutes on January 20, 1993, considering IV) </span><span>and the Constitutional Chamber also pronounced on the possession by private individuals of public domain or demanial assets with inalienable characteristics: \"..</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">.If at the time of affectation, there was no prior ten-year possession, legally useful, the titling party cannot argue an acquired patrimonial right, since adverse possession had not been consolidated prior to the demanial affectation of the lands. It is absolutely improper to “grant title to private persons who have been occupying public assets over which they cannot exercise any act of possession, nor acquire any right over them, since, being public or demanial assets, they are imprescriptible and inalienable</span><span style="font-style:italic">.\" </span><span>(Constitutional judgment No. 18836-2014). On the other hand, according to the current Forest Law, N° 7575 of February 13, 1996, the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, as well as the farms belonging to autonomous institutions and other agencies of the Public Administration, are part of the Natural Heritage of the State, among others, except those that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of their heritage. When applicable, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, entrusted with their administration, must register the properties in the Public Property Registry, through the Attorney General's Office, as individual farms in the name of the State (Article 13). The </span><span style="font-style:italic">forest lands and forests described above are unattachable, inalienable, and the State's action for recovery is imprescriptible. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor, nor may they title them and register them in their name in the Registry </span><span>(Article 14). The Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 07294-98 of October 13, 1998, determined that: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It should not be forgotten that, ultimately, both Law N° 4465—now repealed—and Decree N° 17023-MAG are merely developments of the content of Article 50 of the Constitution, so that, even if the immediate regulation that grounded the decree has been replaced by another, the decree subsists both because it was enacted under the regulation in force at the time and because its ultimate foundation lies in the cited constitutional article.”</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">… Secondly, that, for the foregoing reason, the establishment of a wild protected area by decree cannot give rise to the infringement of the principle of areas—it is not the decree but norms that also have legal rank that, moreover, develop a constitutional principle. …Having said that, it is clear that the legal rule contained in judgment number 2004-08928 of August 18, 2004, is the one explained above: that it is indeed legally possible to establish, by decree, wild protected areas that include lands affected by law to a purpose, destination, and public use different from that of the legal regime of the area being established. … the establishment of a wild protected area by administrative act entails the non-application of any legislation, even that specific to the geographic area in question, that opposes the legislation regulating the wild protected area, since the application of the latter implies compliance with the constitutional duty indicated in numeral 50… The same must be said regarding law number 7915 of September 21, 1999, which partially reformed law number 5582</span><span>…” That due to the foregoing, the assets comprising the Natural Heritage of the State possess the characteristics inherent to public domain assets: imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unattachability. Based on all the foregoing, I request that the filed lawsuit be declared without merit, with the imposition of both costs on the plaintiff, as well as the interest they generate until their effective payment. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4)</span><span> The representation of INDER also rejected the terms of the lawsuit and the parties' claims, reiterating what the state representation and SINAC responded. It indicated in summary that INDER has never recognized any right, not even of possession, of the plaintiffs over parcel 74-A-4. That the Board of Directors of INDER, in its Article 37 of Ordinary Session No. 22 of August 26, 2019, rejected the submitted proceeding because the land forms part of the PNE, and moreover, their possession of the property becomes illegitimate as said property forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve since 1975, belonging to the State and transferred to INDER in 1976 and registered in the name of INDER in 1986. The foregoing because the land described in cadastral plan No. Placa19619 is part of farm No. 57748-000, and said property being part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore PNE makes it legally impossible to title it in the name of private individuals pursuant to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law, it being more appropriate to transfer said property to MINAE-SINAC as its administration corresponds to them. That in this manner, INDER cannot title parcels that form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and in the present case, the lands that the plaintiffs request to be titled form part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve since 1975. That said Reserve comprised lands belonging to the State and INDER since 1976, such that in accordance with Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law, they were automatically affected to the Natural Heritage of the State. That for their part, Articles 14 and 58.a of the Forest Law and 8 of the ITCO Law penalized any type of possession over these types of assets, meaning their claim for compensation for improvements (indemnización de mejoras) would also not proceed, since said property, upon being affected to the PNE, enjoys the characteristics inherent to said assets, namely imprescriptibility, unattachability, inalienability, and therefore any possession over said properties does not produce any right, neither of ownership nor of possession, since the plaintiffs fail to prove their legitimate possession in an original or derivative manner over the properties with: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> At least 10 years prior to the issuance of Executive Decree No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, and No. 3586 also of 1975. 2) At least 10 years prior to being property of the State or of ITCO because Forest Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969 ---which already regulated matters concerning the Natural Heritage of the State---, defined in its Article 18 that the PNE is constituted by Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, Protected Zones, and Biological Reserves. And that for its part, Article 19 affected, for the purposes of that law, all forests and forest lands located in: a) Lands considered as natural reserves. b) Rural farms of the private domain of the State, just as Law 7575 and its amendments currently provide. That by reason of said regulatory framework, it is legally impossible for INDER to grant property titles</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces"> </span><span>---as the plaintiffs seek---, within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. That along this line of thought, the Attorney General's Office has indicated as much in its Legal Opinion No. OJ-064-02 of April 30, 2002. That for its part, the Constitutional Chamber, in its vote No. 3905-1993, pointed out that if for reasons of public interest it has the power to limit the attributes of private property, with greater reason may it do so for lands owned by INDER. That by reason of what Article 14 of the Forest Law provides, INDER is prohibited from titling to private individuals lands that form part of the Natural Heritage of the State. As for the claim for titling, said representation indicated that this does not proceed by virtue of the following: 1) The State, through E.D. No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No.

156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated the property of Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda., registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia registry section No. Placa19616, and subsequently transferred it to INDER, such that the portions of said farm that constituted PNE were affected by operation of law to the provisions established in Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its amendments. 2) The plaintiffs indicated that they acquired the property in the year 2000, which is a date subsequent to the creation of the reserve, such that they already had knowledge that what was acquired was part of the PNE and impossible for private individuals to appropriate. And that the compensation for the right of possession and improvements claimed is also not applicable because the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), in its Articles 13, 14, 15, and 58.a) and Article 8 of the ITCO Law and its amendments, penalizes any type of possession over the PNE.

**V.- CONCERNING THE EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION:** The representation of INDER raised in its defense the exception of prescription, indicating that the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve was created in 1975 and the State managed an expropriation of farm No. H-57748-000; however, the present complaint was filed in 2019, that is, more than 40 years after the property was expropriated, and therefore, in accordance with Article 868 of the Civil Code (C.C.), the right to claim is time-barred. Added to the fact that the plaintiffs acquired an alleged right of possession in the year 2000, that is, 19 years before the complaint was filed. Furthermore, Article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP) establishes a 4-year statute of limitations for this type of claim. In the present case, we have it as proven that the plaintiffs acquired, in the year 2000, from Mr. Nombre111170 the property located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, for the sum of 15 million colones, and which was described in cadastral survey plan No. 1107776-2006. It was also proven that this property is part of the farm in the Heredia registry section No. 57748, expropriated at the request of ITCO pursuant to Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 6235-G, published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976. Subsequently, it was also held as proven that the plaintiffs filed a land title application for said property before the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí on August 5, 2015, and for that purpose provided Cadastral Survey Plan No. Placa19619. That by reason of said application, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas, by official communication **OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015**, consulted the Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area as to whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral survey plan No. 1107776-2006, was or was not located within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET, or if it forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) and that Head Office, by official communication **Placa19617 of August 20, 2015**, replied that the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is located within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and, therefore, part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). It was also proven that it was not until official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, that the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas officially notified the plaintiffs of the property's situation regarding the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and INDER's Board of Directors, in its Article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, definitively rejected the land title application for said parcel for that reason. Faced with this situation, the plaintiffs filed a proceeding before this Jurisdiction on June 11, 2020, requesting in judgment: 1) That they be adjudicated the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4. 2) In the alternative, that they be paid for the actions and improvements introduced to the property, as well as payment for subjective moral damages and the damages and losses caused and those that may be caused to them by an eventual eviction. Thus, the set of claims are referenced to the court ordering, in its judgment, specific performance and, subsidiarily, compensatory measures for the formal activity of INDER contained in the agreement adopted by its Board of Directors rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs, the issuance date of which is August 26, 2019. Therefore, since the plaintiffs filed the ordinary complaint on June 11, 2020, their right to claim the stated property indemnity is not time-barred, because between August 26, 2019, and June 11, 2020, the period established in Article 198 of the LGAP did not elapse, and therefore the exception of prescription is rejected.

**VI.- BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS COURT**: Based on the literal content of the arguments provided by the parties, which were studied in their entirety by this Court, we proceeded to the analysis of the present matter based on the alleged facts and the admitted evidence. In this regard, we note that the plaintiffs filed a complaint indicating that Mr. Nombre111168 entered in 1973 into possession of a farm of approximately 80 hectares located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí. That subsequently, Mr. Nombre111168 sold part of said farm to the gentleman identified only as Nombre111171, asserting that the latter sold to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170. That in this way, over the original 80-hectare farm and its subsequent segregations, a right of possession of more than 40 years was exercised. They indicated that their clients entered in the year 1999 into a negotiation with Mr. Nombre111170 to acquire his right of possession over the property described in plan H-1107776-2006, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares, ---when said property already formed part of the Asentamiento Cubujuquí identified by INDER as parcel No. Placa19621---. A situation that was proven with the sketch prepared in 1978 by personnel from the then ITCO. They stated that in the year 2000, on the advice of an INDER official, their clients acquired said parcel and initiated proceedings before that institution aimed at achieving its titling; however, INDER's Board of Directors resolved in its Article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019, that their application was legally unfeasible because approximately 90% of the land was located within the *Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve* and, therefore, PNE under the guardianship of MINAE-SINAC, and they therefore requested that the judgment order INDER to grant them title to the cited parcel or, in the alternative, order that they be paid for the **improvements (accesiones)** and **betterments (mejoras)** that, in good faith, they introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it as owners. In this manner, they formulated their complaint based on a possession exercised in good faith over the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí. A possession that has been continuous from the time Mr. Nombre111168 entered the area until that which Mr. Nombre111170 transferred to them, and which they indicated exceeds 40 years. They requested that the judgment order INDER to grant them the public deed to the property or, in the alternative, that they be paid for the **improvements (accesiones)** and **betterments (mejoras)** that, in good faith, they introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it as owners. For their part, the defendants oppose granting the public deed for the cited parcel, indicating that INDER's decision to deny the public deed conforms to the legal system since the property is located, to an extent greater than 90%, within the area of the *Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve* and, therefore, is Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). And that in this sense, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has established that the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is composed of two important components: on the one hand, the Protected Wilderness Areas (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo); meaning forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments, according to the regulation provided in Articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal); 32 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 22, 28, and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law (Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales); 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) and on the other hand; the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) which is composed of the other forests and forest lands or lands of forest aptitude belonging to the State and public institutions (Article 13 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal)), which are subject to an immediate legal designation. Regarding the subsidiary claim (that if granting the deed is not applicable, they be compensated for all improvements (accesiones) and betterments (mejoras)), they indicated that this is not appropriate because the occupation is on a property that forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) and that mere occupation does not generate any right for them. **Criterion of the Chamber**: As indicated supra, the object of the present complaint is for the judgment to: **1.** Adjudicate to the plaintiffs the parcel located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí identified as No. 74-A-4 and, correspondingly, its public deed. **2.** In the event that said parcel cannot be adjudicated to them, that they be paid for the improvements (accesiones) and betterments (mejoras) they have introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it in good faith. **3.** That they be paid for the damages and losses caused by an eventual eviction and the subjective moral damages caused. By reason of the foregoing, this Chamber will analyze in order each of these claims according to the facts that have been held as proven in light of the applicable legal system. **A) Regarding the request for land titling of the property**: Analyzed the decision by INDER's Board of Directors in Article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019 (which has not been challenged in the present complaint) was in accordance with the law because it has been proven that: **i)** The Costa Rican State, in protection of the environment, granted, in Articles 18, 19, and 28 of the "***Ley Forestal***" No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, special protection over the Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado). Its Article 18 provided: "*The Forest Heritage of the State is constituted by the National Reserves, Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, the Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves*." Its Article 19: "*All forests and forest lands located in: a) Lands considered as National Reserves; and b) Rural farms under the private domain of the State, those belonging to municipalities and autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, are subject to the purposes of this law*." Said Law was amended by Law No. 7174 "Forest Law (Ley Forestal)" of June 28, 1990, and its Article 32 provided: "*The forest heritage of the State is constituted by all forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, of the farms registered in its name and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other bodies of the Public Administration*." In turn, Article 33): "*The forest lands and forests that constitute the forest heritage of the State, detailed in the previous article, shall be unattachable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the State's action to recover possession (acción reivindicatoria) for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry by means of possessory information proceedings; their invasion and occupation shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this law on forest aptitude, they shall be automatically incorporated into the forest heritage of the State*." Finally, the "Forest Law (Ley Forestal)" No. 7575 of March 16, 1996 (which reformed the previous ones) provided in its Article 13): "*Constitution and administration. The natural heritage of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, of the farms registered in its name and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other bodies of the Public Administration, except for properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets. The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall administer the heritage. When appropriate, through the General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República), it shall register the lands in the Public Property Registry as individualized farms owned by the State. Non-governmental organizations that acquire real estate with forest or of forest aptitude, with funds from donations or from the public treasury, that have been obtained in the name of the State, must transfer them to the name of the State*." And Article 14): "*Unattachable and inalienable condition of the natural heritage. The forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State, detailed in the previous article, shall be unattachable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the State's action to recover possession (acción reivindicatoria) for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry by means of possessory information proceedings and both the invasion and occupation of them shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this law*." In this way, the regulations that protect the Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) since 1969 included within such assets the lands of forest aptitude that belong to the central State and its decentralized institutions, such as INDER. **ii)** The Costa Rican State, in the interests of environmental protection, by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, amended by Decree No. 5386 of October 28, 1975, created the "***Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve***", indicating in its Article 1: "***The Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve is established, comprising the territory located within the following demarcation (according to IGN 1:50000 topographic maps: Río Cuarto 3347 II, Poás 3346 I, Barva 346 II, Abra 3345 I, Río Sucio Placa19614, Guápiles 3446 IV, Carrillo Placa19615, Istarú 3445 IV, Guácimo 3446 I, Bonilla 3446 II, Tucurrique 3445 I).*** " In turn, Article 3: "***The national reserves within the above delimitation are declared inalienable***." Article 4: "***The General Attorney's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) shall register the State lands of this Reserve in the Public Registry as an individualized farm of the National Heritage***." Its Article 7: "***Farms registered in the Public Registry and those protected by ten-year possession, established within the limits of the reserve, are automatically subject to the Forest Regime***." Finally, its Article 8: "***Farms not covered by the previous article shall form part of the forest heritage of the State, after the corresponding legal procedures***." **iii)** At the request of the then ITCO (today INDER), the Executive Branch, by Decree No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated from ***Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda***., the property registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia registry section No. 57748, with the aim of generating an agrarian solution and granting parcels to farmers in the project called "***Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí***" located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. **iv)** That the plaintiff parties acquired from Mr. Nombre111170 in the year 2000 the property described in plan No. H-1107776-2006, and identified by INDER as parcel No. 74-A-4 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, and that within the titling proceedings, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas, by official communication **OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015**, consulted the Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area as to whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral survey plan No. 1107776-2006, is or is not located within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET, or if it forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). For its part, the Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area responded to the request by official communication **Placa19617 of August 20, 2015**, in which it indicated that, adhering to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and its amendments, and to official communication Placa19618 of August 20, 2015, prepared by Eng. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, which refers to the field visit; the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is located within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and, therefore, part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). In turn, the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Central) of SINAC, by official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, specified that according to official communications OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to cadastral survey plan H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. In this manner, it has been proven beyond any doubt that the land described in cadastral survey plan No. H-1107776-2006, which corresponds to the parcel of the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí identified as No. 74-A-4, is located 98% within the boundaries of the *Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve*. This situation makes it legally impossible to grant a public deed for said property, as, by forming part of the cited reserve, the land is part of it by operation of law, and cannot be titled in the name of private individuals, as it is clear that they are subject to the characteristics proper to these properties, namely, being assets over which adverse possession (prescripción positiva) does not operate; they are unattachable and inalienable. In this line, we can delve deeper into the judgments issued by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, Nos. 1070-F-S1-2010, 1088-F-S1-2011, and 1675-F-51-2012, as well as judgments of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) Nos. 17659-2008, 21258-2010, and 16938-2011, among many others, in which these judicial instances have indicated that over the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), as part of the public domain assets, it is not possible for private individuals to exercise any type of possession or ownership, from which it also derives that acquiring ownership by usucaption or adverse possession (prescripción positiva) is also not viable, even if they had been on such lands for more than ten years, and much less can an Administration adjudicate them in favor of a private individual. For this reason, the land titling claim is unfeasible. **B) Regarding the request for recognition of betterments (mejoras) and improvements (accesiones)**: According to what was proven, we have: **1)** That between the years 1972 and 1973, Mr. Nombre111168 entered into possession of a farm of approximately 80 hectares located in the area of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí, which he sold in parts to the gentleman identified as Nombre111171, to Mr. Nombre84914, and to Mr. Nombre111170, and the latter sold the property described in Cadastral Survey Plan No. H-1107776-2006 to the plaintiffs in the year 2000. This land is part of Farm No. 4-57748-000 expropriated by the State at the request of the then ITCO to grant as parcels to farmers and which INDER identified as parcel No. 74-A-4, with an area of 7 hectares 6841.22 square meters dedicated to agricultural activity and housing. **2)** That by official communication OSH-0096-2015 of **February 9, 2015**, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí summoned ---among other neighbors of the Asentamiento Cubujuquí--- Mr. Nombre111167 as an occupant in said Asentamiento to a meeting in order to inform them about the surveying work that INDER was conducting at that time in that Asentamiento. **3)** That within the titling proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs before INDER, it was determined: **a)** That the INDER Subregional Office in Sarapiquí, by official communication OSH-0689-2015 of **August 18, 2015**, requested the Head Office of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals to prepare the certificate of conforming land use (uso conforme del suelo) for the property described in cadastral survey plan No. H-1107776-2006; and that Head Office prepared the "***Land Titling Inspection Certificate***" for the property described in cadastral survey plan No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, ID# CIA-5525, dated **April 12, 2018**, with consecutive entry number 18015801; in which it indicated that on the parcel exploited by Mr. Nombre111167, 100% CONFORMING LAND USE has been exercised for the activity performed, according to the approved methodology. Said certification indicated that on the property there is a 1/2 hectare plantation of peach palm in good phytosanitary condition, 36 square meters of plantain, an 80 square meter dwelling house in good condition and another of 140 square meters in good or fair condition. Pasture land with grass, 8 cows, a horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, a corral, a shed, a stable, etc. **b)** Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales performed on **September 18, 2018** the inspection of the Dirección13211 and signed the "***Titling Form***" in which he recommended titling the referenced property in the names of the plaintiffs, with cadastral survey plan No. H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7 hectares 6841.22 square meters, which forms part of the Farm of the Heredia registry section No. 4-57748-000 in the name of INDER and calculated its transfer at the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARATION BY THE PARTY," the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referenced property under the terms of Law No. 2825, Law No. 7142, and Law No. 9036. **c)** That by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, amended by Decree No. Placa19622 of October 28, 1975, the "***Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve***" was created. **d)** By Decree No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, farm No. 4-57748-000, property of ***Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda***., registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia registry section, was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO, with the aim of generating an agrarian solution and granting parcels to farmers in the project called "*Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí*" located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. **e)** The Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area, by official communication Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, reiterated by the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Central) of SINAC by official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020; indicated that according to official communications OS-1336 and OS-1338, ---referring to cadastral survey plan H-1107776-2006---, the property described therein is located 98% within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. **f)** By official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas informed the plaintiffs that the land titling application was not applicable because the property was subject to the Protected Wilderness Area, Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). In this way, according to the facts proven and referenced herein, it is clear that although the "***Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve***" was created in 1975, and ITCO acquired farm No. 4-57748-000 of the Heredia registry section in order to create the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and deliver parcels to farmers; it was not until August 20, 2015, that SINAC, by official communication Placa19617, indicated to INDER that the land described in cadastral survey plan No. H-1107776-2006 was located within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. Information that was reiterated in official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Central) of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of this situation by INDER by official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018.

Thus, the plaintiffs had certainty as to the geographic situation of parcel No. 74-A-4 until September 28, 2018, even though its acquisition occurred in the year 2000. A parcel that was acquired with the hope that it would be titled to them by INDER because it was located within the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement Project. As such, for this Tribunal, the acquisition and possession exercised by the plaintiffs over said property was carried out in good faith, as it must not be overlooked that: 1) The farm of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO for the creation of the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and to be divided into parcels. 2) That the parcel described in Cadastral Plan No. H-1107776-2006, forms part of said farm, which was acquired by the plaintiffs in the year 2000 and they made use of it in accordance with the "Land Titling Inspection Certificate" of the property described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, ID CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 1801580, to the point that on September 18, 2018, Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out the inspection of parcel Dirección13212 and signed the "Titling Sheet" in which he recommended titling the referenced property in the name of the plaintiffs; however, this could not be done because said property formed part in 98% of its area of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, which was formally notified to the plaintiffs until September 28, 2018, by official letter OTHO-758-2018 from the Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas. Based on the accredited facts and the provisions of articles 328, 329, 332, 508, and 509 of the Civil Code, it is now appropriate to analyze the appropriateness or not of the subsidiary claim consisting of the patrimonial recognition claimed by the plaintiffs for the concept of accessions and betterments, as the intention of the plaintiffs to at least recover the financial funds invested in the parcel identified as No. Placa19621 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement of Horquetas de Sarapiquí cannot be disregarded. Now then, before addressing that point, it is timely to bring up what the First Chamber has indicated in this regard and which, due to its importance, is cited at length: "...VIII.- Now, having defined the need to rule on the claim for recognition of the betterments introduced to the property in question, it is necessary to determine which of those investments made are characteristic of betterments and which correspond to the institute of accession. Likewise, it is necessary to establish which correspond to betterments over which the defendant can exercise retention, as an effect derived from the replevin ordered. Betterments can be necessary or useful. Regarding the former, this Chamber has established that those called "necessary betterments" refer to all those expenses indispensable for the conservation of the thing, but which do not increase its market value. They are carried out with the purpose of preventing its deterioration or ruin, given that if they were not carried out, such a negative effect would occur. Their purpose is not to achieve a greater value for the thing, but to keep it in good condition. They are called necessary because they must be executed only so the good does not deteriorate and its yield does not decrease. Conversely, useful betterments do increase the market value of the thing, as they are introduced with the desire to improve it, to increase its utility. They benefit any possessor and not only the one who makes them. This is because they generate surplus value by increasing the value of the thing. The Civil Code develops this distinction in article 332, as it qualifies necessary ones as those indispensable expenses for the conservation of the thing and useful ones as those that increase its market value (in relation, ruling No. 13 at 10:00 hours on January 29, 1993, and No. 68 at 14:40 hours on June 30, 1998). Regarding said betterments, there are substantial differences for the possessor in good or bad faith. In accordance with the provisions of numeral 328 of the Civil Code in relation to 330 ibidem, the replevined possessor has the right to the recognition of both useful and necessary betterments, by virtue of which, and until effective payment, will have the right of retention, over both, when the possession has been in good faith, and only over the necessary ones, when the possession was in bad faith. On the other hand, luxurious or purely ornamental betterments can be removed by the possessor in good faith (ius tollendi), provided that such action does not cause deterioration to the good and provided that the legitimate possessor does not prefer to keep them, paying the value they would have after separation..." (First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). Thus, in accordance with the provisions of articles 328, 330, and 332 of the Civil Code, the possessor in good faith, who was replevined, has the right to the recognition of both useful and necessary betterments. Regarding "accession", that Chamber indicated in the cited ruling: "...IX.- Regarding the institute of accession, what is of interest for these purposes is that which is established regarding real estate, specifically regarding construction on another's land. When one has built, planted, or sown on another's land, the Civil Code establishes a distinction based on whether the construction was done without the owner's consent (article 508) or with the owner's "knowledge and patience" (article 509). When consent has not been given, the owner of the land makes the building or plantation his own, indemnifying the value of the materials and labor, excluding from payment the increased value of the farm; but he may also opt to demand the elimination or destruction of what was incorporated, and the payment of the damages and losses caused, except in the case of one who, in good faith, built, sowed, or planted, as here destruction does not proceed, with the property owner having the option to reimburse the value of the materials and work, or to pay a sum equal to or greater than the value acquired by the farm (article 508). On the other hand, if the works were carried out with the owner's "knowledge and patience," the latter may make the plantation or building his own, paying the value if it suits him, but he may also opt for the constitution of co-ownership between both, setting the shares based on the contributions of each (article 509). This collegiate body has established that in the case of the owner's express consent for the incorporation of things onto his property, there is no accession, because accession constitutes a form of original acquisition of property rights, and one is not in the presence of that hypothesis but rather a contractual form from which reciprocal rights and obligations derive. Although the incorporation of things is generated, the way of determining ownership will depend on the will of the parties, and in the express absence of this, on the rules of obligations (articles 627 and following), the general principles of Law, and equity (articles 4 and 11 of the Civil Code, respectively). (On this matter, ruling No. 751 at 10:20 hours on October 6, 2000.) (First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). In the case under analysis, it is the criterion of this Chamber that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and built and established an agricultural activity in plain view and with the patience of INDER, since both they and INDER's own officials were unaware that the land described in Cadastral Plan No. H-1107776-2007 and which was identified by INDER as Parcel No. 74-A-4 formed part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and it was also accredited that INDER did not have certainty of that situation until SINAC, by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, communicated to INDER that the land described in cadastral plan No. Placa19619 was located within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. Information that was reiterated in official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Central Conservation Area Directorate of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of said situation by INDER until September 28, 2018, through official letter OTHO-758-2018. Thus, in the Chamber's criterion, the plaintiffs assumed between the year 2000 and September 27, 2018, that the parcel identified under No. 74-A-4 was not part of the indicated Forest Reserve, and therefore did not act in bad faith. On the contrary, it is established that the activity developed, according to the certification of compliant land use, was carried out in accordance with the provisions for parcels owned by INDER in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement. Now, regarding the betterments (useful and necessary) and the figure of real estate accession, the Chamber in the same ruling delimited the figure between betterments and accessions in the following manner: "...Regarding the other investments, they constitute buildings, fruit tree crops, and additions to another's real estate, which were made without the owner's consent (article 508 of the Civil Code) and to which the plaintiff has shown his opposition (claim No. 4 of the complaint, folio 100). From this standpoint, these investments made by Mr. .... and his family (verified in proven fact No. 5 of the trial court's ruling) represent a benefit for the possession he has been exercising on the property in conflict and the activity he carries out, but cannot be associated with the conservation of the real estate. Nor can they be considered as useful betterments, given that for them to be considered as such, it must have been demonstrated that the additions were made on already existing goods. Indeed, betterments have a different regulation and connotation from plantations or new constructions that a person makes on another's land, so both figures must be differentiated. Betterments are governed by a principle of accessoriness, as they are carried out to expand, modify, or repair a pre-existing thing. Thus, with reference to a property destined for agricultural production, the replacement, increase, modification, or improvement of pre-existing plants or crops; repair of the infrastructure with which the agricultural activity is developed, among others, could be considered as betterments. In opposition, new buildings, constructions, or permanent crops (of fruit trees) made on another's land where there were no works of that nature, or if they existed they were completely separate from the new ones, cannot be considered as betterments in the juridical sense of the term, even if they "improve the property," so in these matters, the figure of real estate accession is applicable. (Sentences No. 1 at 14:55 hours on January 6, 1993, No. 65 at 14:40 hours on August 17, 1994, and No. 4 at 14:45 hours on January 28, 1998, are oriented in this direction). In this line of thought, this Chamber, in ruling No. 37 at 14:55 hours on April 10, 1996, stated: "Buildings erected on a piece of land, in good legal technique, cannot be deemed betterments. The latter constitute increases, repairs, or favorable changes in pre-existing goods, concerning which, depending on whether they are possessors in good or bad faith, reimbursement can be requested in case of return of the good, when the owner has not held possession. The regulation of payment for betterments is contained in articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code, and can be granted in those cases in which accession by sowing or building on another's land does not occur. If accession occurs, the applicable regime will be that provided for in articles 508 and 509, as appropriate." According to the cited background, the buildings, permanent crops, and other contributions made by the appellant Nombre111172 within the property in question cannot be considered simply as increases, repairs, or beneficial changes to goods that existed before their entry into possession, since it has not been accredited in the record that there existed on the property in conflict plantations that were improved, an aspect which, in accordance with what was indicated, is fundamental for such investments to be qualified as betterments. From this, it derives that it is not appropriate to apply to the case the regulations governing betterments, but rather those specific to real estate accession." (First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). (Highlighting is ours). In accordance with what was stated in the cited resolution, it must then be analyzed in each case whether, in the face of a claim of this type, one is dealing with betterments (useful and necessary) in accordance with the provisions of articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code or with the figure of real estate accession in accordance with the provisions of articles 508 and 509 of the same regulatory body. In the case under analysis, it was accredited by the Head of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals in its "Land Titling Inspection Certificate" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, ID CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801; that on parcel No. 74-4-A exploited by Mr. Nombre111167 , 100% COMPLIANT SOIL USE has been exercised, for the activity he carries out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the property there is a plantation of 1/2 hectare of palmito in good phytosanitary condition, 36 m2 of plantain, an 80 m2 dwelling house in good condition and another of 140 m2 in good or fair condition. Pasture with grass, 8 cows, a horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, a corral, shed, stable, etc. (See folios 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. Placa19621). So it was a possession of an agricultural nature and concerning the works and structures built by the plaintiffs, the nature of which as betterments or additions characteristic of the institute of accession must be specified. Thus, the work carried out by the plaintiffs related to the making of pastures or cleaning of those already existing upon their entry onto the property in the year 2000 will be betterments. Meanwhile, the plantations, buildings, stables, and livestock raising will be accessions. Works built and developed by the plaintiffs after their entry onto the property. Therefore, under the protection of the provisions of numerals 328 and 330 of the Civil Code, the indicated necessary betterments must be recognized by the landowner, with the plaintiffs, as authors of said works, having the right of retention up to the value of the same. Regarding the referred accessions, their recognition must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of article 509 of the Civil Code. This is because, as indicated, it was accredited that since the year 2000, the plaintiffs occupied parcel No. Placa19621 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement, which is part of the property of INDER, registered in the Partido de Heredia under No. Placa19623, on which the plaintiffs developed, in plain view and with the patience of INDER, an agricultural activity and built the structures indicated in the "Certificate of Compliant Soil Use" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, ID CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801, without any bad faith on their part, for which reason they must be indemnified in accordance with the quantification established in the sentence execution process. Thus, verifying the appropriateness of the plaintiffs' right, the obligation is imposed on INDER to pay them the investment they made on the land corresponding to parcel No. 74-A-4 for the following necessary betterments: making of pastures or cleaning of those already existing. Likewise, the accessions must be recognized, consisting of these in the buildings and crops, according to the quantification carried out in execution of this judgment, with the right to retention over them. And it is that it must be considered that according to article 48 of the INDER Law No. 9036, that institution is obligated to pay the useful and necessary betterments and accessions made in good faith. And it is reiterated, in the present case it was accredited that at the request of ITCO, the Executive Branch expropriated from the company Cubujuquí S.A. the property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí in the year 1976 through Decreto No. 156 of August 17, 1976, and already since the year 1972 Mr. Nombre111168 had been occupying part of that farm, and in the end part of that property was acquired in the year 2000 by the plaintiffs here, who from that date entered the property and established an agricultural activity in accordance with the soil use as indicated in the "Land Titling Inspection Certificate" issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, ID CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801. Similarly, on September 18, 2018, Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out the inspection of parcel 74-A-4 and signed the "Titling Sheet" in which he recommended titling the property referenced as parcel, with cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7ha6841.22m2, which forms part of the Farm of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 in the name of INDER, in the name of the plaintiffs, and calculated its transfer at the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "PARTY DECLARATION," the plaintiffs accepted the transfer to their favor of the referred property under the terms of Law No. 2825, No. 7142, and No. 9036. In this way, the recognition of useful and necessary betterments and accessions is a criterion imposed by the aforementioned regulations, but it is also imposed for reasons of equity, as it is also recorded that the plaintiffs were officially notified by INDER of the situation regarding the adjacency of parcel 74-A-4 with the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve until September 28, 2018, through official letter OTHO-758-2018. Thus, it was accredited that the plaintiffs have exercised possessory acts over said parcel in good faith, a parcel which has a portion of permanent crops and another of pasture. That the crop is palmito and plantain. With 8 cows, a horse, 40 hens, 2 dwelling houses, a corral, stable. With well-marked boundaries, to the East with dead posts, with 6 strands of barbed wire. To the South with dead posts with barbed wire with 4 strands. To the North with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire and to the West also with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire. All this information is recorded in the administrative file at folios 13 to 28. There is also no record that INDER had ever historically claimed possession of parcel No. 74-A-4 from the plaintiffs. Thus, the recognition and payment of the necessary betterments and accessions is a consequence of the fact that INDER always respected the exercise of possession by the plaintiffs over said parcel. Later, it is clear that INDER became concerned with specifying the boundaries with the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, when by official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas, consulted the Head of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006, was located or not within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET-SINAC, or if they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area Headquarters of SINAC, by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, answered the requested information indicating that the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming in this case part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and, therefore, part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and it was not until official letter OTHO-755-2018 of September 28, 2018, that the Territorial Development Office of Horquetas requested the SINAC-MINAE Headquarters of Sarapiquí to proceed with that institution to delimit the indicated land, and by official letter SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of January 29, 2019, it was indicated that they should manage said request before the office of the Braulio Carrillo National Park. So, despite the fact that the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve was created in the year 1975 and the expropriation of the farm of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí occurred in the year 1976 through Decreto No. 156 of August 17, 1976; it was not until September 28, 2018, that INDER formally requested to delimit the land described in plan H-1107776-2006 with respect to said forest reserve. A corollary of the foregoing is that, according to what was indicated, the betterments and accessions must be recognized to the plaintiffs, which must be liquidated and estimated in the sentence execution phase, due to the lack of elements in this regard. Regarding the present or future damages and losses claimed in the event of a potential eviction, this point is rejected by virtue of the fact that the damages and losses are encompassed within the recognition made by the Tribunal when granting the subsidiary claim for the reasons explained above. Finally, subjective moral damages are also rejected, since the fact that other neighbors in the area were granted the property title is due to the fact that their properties possibly do not form part of the Forest Reserve. Furthermore, none of the cases of the plaintiffs' neighbors forms part of the object of the present process and, therefore, the reasons for which the titling was or was not granted are unknown. Then, the plaintiffs must not lose sight of the fact that they acquired a right of possession from Mr. Nombre111170 , not the bare property, and that the consolidation of the property right over parcel 74-A-4 required titling by INDER, which could not be done for an objective reason, since the property effectively corresponded in about 98% to the forest reserve. Thus, what they had with respect to said property was an expectation and not a duly consolidated real right. A situation that does not exclude the recognition of the betterments and accessions made on the property, but does exclude the claimed subjective moral damages. Finally, in accordance with what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in its ruling No. 1963-2012 of February 15, 2012, once this ruling becomes final and once the betterments and accessions have been paid, the eviction of the occupants of the property described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006 must be managed, exclusively in the portion of land that forms part of the "Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve" under the administration of SINAC of the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET). Likewise, MINAET and SINAC must make the necessary signs to allow the property to be identified as Natural Heritage of the State.

**VII.- DEFENSES:** The representations of SINAC and the State opposed in their defense the defenses of lack of passive legal standing and lack of right, which must be accepted in light of what the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated when it has stated: "Put another way, the procedural mandate only orders that both the body with legal personality and the State or entity to which it belongs be incorporated into the judicial discussion. It is then up to the judge, in accordance with the substantive norms, to determine whether the questioned act, conduct, or indolence was or was not developed under legal personality, thus establishing whether it is the body that must respond with its own funds, or whether it is the entity or the State to whom the duty to repair must be attributed." (Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 at ten hours twenty-five minutes on November eleventh, two thousand ten. In the same sense, Ruling No. 883-F-S1-2011 at nine hours five minutes on July twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven). "(...) if it is determined that the challenged act constitutes the exercise of a competence that is proper and exclusive to the so-called 'body-person,' as a logical and natural consequence, the appropriate action is to declare a lack of right regarding the entity to which it is attached. In this sense, it is important to indicate that the granting of legal personality to an entity or body has as an immediate consequence the constitution of them as the ultimate and unique center of imputation for the effects of their actions or omissions." (Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 at ten hours twenty-five minutes on November eleventh, two thousand ten). In the present matter, it is clear that there is no conduct attributable to the State or to SINAC in what was acted upon and questioned by the plaintiffs. Conduct that was INDER's own in the exercise of its competences and for which it must respond individually. The representation of INDER opposed the defenses of statute of limitations, lack of active and passive legal standing, and lack of right.

Regarding the exception of prescription, this Tribunal expressed its position in considerando V. Concerning the exception of lack of standing (falta de legitimación), it must be noted that standing constitutes the capacity, the aptitude to be a party to a specific proceeding, as the passive party, depending on the conditions that, for such purpose, procedural law prescribes in relation to the claim being brought. Now, standing arises either from the legal-administrative relationship established between the plaintiff and the Administration, or from the law, according to what it has established in this regard. And there are two types of standing in a proceeding: standing to sue (ad causam) and standing to proceed (ad procesum). The first (ad causam) concerns verifying whether the person filing the complaint has, legally speaking, a right to claim; that is, the party with standing is that person who, under substantive law, has a specific legal relationship with the object of the proceeding, that is, the claim. The second (ad procesum) consists of a procedural matter; in other words, whether the person appearing has the capacity to act in accordance with the law or whether they act on behalf of another with the type of adequate legal representation compliant with our regulations. In the present case, it was established as proven that the plaintiffs acquired plot No. 74-A-4 in the year 2000, located in the Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí Settlement, and filed a request for formal land titling (titularización) with INDER in the year 2015. This request was denied for the reasons indicated. In this way, a legal-administrative relationship was generated between the plaintiffs and INDER, and therefore the plaintiffs have active standing to bring action and INDER has standing to be sued, which is why said exception is rejected. Finally, regarding the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho), returning to what was stated by our First Chamber, the demonstration of the facts is necessary, as a fundamental part thereof, because from what is determined in that section, it may be inferred whether or not the legal bases for what is sought exist. Partial rights of the plaintiffs having been established, the appropriate course is to partially grant the indicated exception.

**VIII.- COSTS:** Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed upon the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a ruling that must be made even ex officio, pursuant to the provisions of that same norm, in conjunction with article 119.2 *ibidem*. The waiver of this award is only viable: a) when, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there was sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is issued based on evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when *plus petitio* is incurred, that is, when the difference between the amount claimed and that ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15 1/2%) or more, unless the bases of the complaint are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (article 194 *ibidem*). In this instance, this Collegiate Body does not find that we are facing any of the stated exceptions that would allow breaking the postulate of imposing costs on the losing party, and to that extent, the appropriate course is to order INDER to pay both costs of this Proceeding. The quantum of the same shall be determined in the Judgment Enforcement Stage at the request of the prevailing party. Insofar as the complaint was directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without a special award of costs, since both parties were joined ex officio by the Processing Judge.

**POR TANTO:** The evidence for better resolution is admitted. The exception of prescription of the right is rejected. Insofar as the complaint was directed against the State and SINAC, the exception of lack of passive standing to sue (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva) and Lack of Right is granted. On the occasion of which, the complaint filed against both representations is declared without merit. In what concerns INDER, the exception of lack of passive standing is rejected, and the exception of Lack of Right is partially granted, and consequently, the complaint against said entity is declared partially with merit, being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted, as follows: **i)** INDER is ordered to pay the plaintiffs for the improvements and accessions made on plot No. Placa19621, which shall be liquidated and estimated in the judgment enforcement stage, and over which the plaintiffs shall have a right of retention until their effective payment. **ii)** INDER is ordered to pay the plaintiffs both costs of this Proceeding. The quantum of the same shall be determined in the Judgment Enforcement Stage at the request of the prevailing party. **iii)** Insofar as the complaint was directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without a special award of costs. **NOTIFÍQUESE.** José Iván Salas Leitón. Judith Reyes Castillo. Elías Baltodano Gómez.

Judges.</span></p><table cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" style=\"width:100%; border-collapse:collapse\"><tr><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:22pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:Script; -aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:22pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"65\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:12pt\">*GLXZQYY8BWC61*</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">GLXZQYY8BWC61</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">JOSE IVAN SALAS LEITON - JUDGE/DECISION-MAKER</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"321\" height=\"136\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'\">*JKZAIGDBXP061*</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">JKZAIGDBXP061</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">JUDITH REYES CASTILLO - JUDGE/DECISION-MAKER</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"321\" height=\"136\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'\">*T0HQ1D47WQLI61*</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">T0HQ1D47WQLI61</span><br /><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt\">ELIAS BALTODANO GOMEZ - JUDGE/DECISION-MAKER</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:22pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:Script; -aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p>

II. Voto 4654-2003. The Constitutional Chamber firmly and consistently held

“... Article 28 of the Ley Forestal (Forest Law), Ley 4465, orders the demolition of works and other actions, but this is within the framework of those works that have been constructed without permission on lands that maintain an area of forest cover (cobertura boscosa), therefore being the result of an infringement to the forest legal regime. As can be derived, the contested rule does not even remotely affect the right to property, since, on the contrary, it intends to guarantee it, because an infringement to a provision that seeks to limit the abusive exercise of the right could not properly be considered to cause damage to the right itself. In the Chamber’s opinion, the provision does not refer to works constructed in an area of forest cover (área de cobertura boscosa) prior to the declaration of said area, but rather that its text goes back to the pre-existing situation in terms of the protection and conservation order. Thus, if the Administration was under the obligation, from the Forestry Law of 1969, to prevent the destruction of the forest, it is not the enactment of Ley Forestal, Ley 7575, that creates said obligation, but only that it comes to reiterate a pre-existing situation that was not respected by the Administration itself.” (The bold is not from the original text).

This situation does not exclude the recognition of the improvements and accessions (mejoras y accesiones) made on the property, but it does exclude the subjective moral damages claimed. Finally, in accordance with what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its vote No. 1963-2012 of February 15, 2012, once this judgment becomes final and the improvements and accessions (mejoras y accesiones) have been paid, the eviction of the occupants of the property described by cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 must be managed, exclusively on the portion of land that is part of the "<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central</span>" under the administration of SINAC of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET)."</span></p> "VII.-[...]V. Regarding the exception of <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" data-mce-style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">lack of standing (falta de legitimación)</span>, it must be noted that standing constitutes the capacity, the aptitude to be a party in a specific proceeding, as a passive party, depending on the conditions that, for such effect, procedural law prescribes in relation to the claim being brought."</span></p> <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /><meta name="generator" content="Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0" /><title></title></head><body style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt"><div><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="-aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Email ...01</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Annex A</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Address 218(</span><span style="text-decoration:underline; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>)</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border:1pt solid #bfbfbf; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:431pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #bfbfbf; vertical-align:middle"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">CASE FILE: 20-0002884-1027-CA</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:431pt; border-top:1pt solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:1pt solid #bfbfbf; vertical-align:middle"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">PROCEEDING: COGNIZANCE</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:431pt; border-top:1pt solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:1pt solid #bfbfbf; vertical-align:middle"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">PLAINTIFFS: Nombre111167</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">AND Nombre23709</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="width:431pt; border-top:1pt solid #bfbfbf; vertical-align:middle"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">DEFENDANT: THE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">No. 055-2022-IV</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">FOURTH SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Annex A, Dirección01 , at seven thirty in the morning on May thirtieth, two thousand twenty-two.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Cognizance Proceeding filed by Mr. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Nombre111167</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>, who is of legal age, married, cattle rancher, ID No. CED87830 and Mrs. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Nombre23709</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>who is of legal age, married, pensioner, with identity card number CED87831, both residents of Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Cubujuquí Settlement against the</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT</span><span> hereinafter</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> INDER, </span><span>represented by Attorney Natanael José Barrantes Azofeifa, bar number 19857, </span><span style="font-weight:bold">THE STATE </span><span>represented by Attorney Rosario León Yannarella and the</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS </span><span>hereinafter</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> SINAC </span><span>represented by Attorney Guillermo Corrales Cordero, bar number CED87832</span><span style="font-weight:bold">.</span><span> Attorney Julissa Rodríguez Rojas, bar number 22668, acts as special judicial representative of the plaintiffs.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">WHEREAS:</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">I.-</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>By a brief received on June 11, 2020, and corrected on the 18th of that same month and year, the plaintiffs' representative filed a lawsuit against INDER, the claims of which were specified in the preliminary hearing held on November 11, 2020, as follows: "...</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">1. </span><span style="font-style:italic">That the property subject to this proceeding be adjudicated in our name and that they grant us the Public Deed for it, as has been possible for other awardees and their properties in the same Settlement. In the alternative, we request, should the property in question not be adjudicated in our name, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">that we be paid for each and every one of the accessions</span><span style="font-style:italic"> and </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">improvements that we have introduced to the property during the time we have possessed it in good faith</span><span style="font-style:italic">, as good heads of household, a possession that, as we have been demonstrating, has been as owners. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">2.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> That the defendant be ordered to pay the</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> damages and losses caused</span><span style="font-style:italic"> to our persons. Likewise, I request that the defendant be ordered to pay the damages and losses caused in the future as a result of a potential eviction, which we will be liquidating in the corresponding judgment enforcement proceeding. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">3.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> That the defendant be ordered to pay both sets of Procedural Costs of this case. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">4.</span><span style="font-style:italic"> That the defendant be ordered to (Sic) pay us the subjective moral damages caused to us...". </span><span>Subjective moral damages that were specified in their lawsuit. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See image 278 of the judicial file and electronic backup of the Preliminary Hearing</span><span>).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">II.-</span><span> By resolution of 09:56 hours on June 19, 2020, the Tribunal, on its own motion, joined the State and SINAC and granted a hearing to all parties involved in the procedural legal relationship. (See i</span><span style="font-weight:bold">mages 287 to 290 of the digital judicial file</span><span>).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">III.-</span><span> Having granted the legal hearing, the representation of INDER answered the lawsuit negatively and, in its defense, raised the exceptions of statute of limitations, lack of active and passive standing, and lack of right. For its part, the representation of SINAC also rejected the lawsuit and raised the defenses of lack of standing and lack of right. Finally, the State representation also rejected the lawsuit and raised the exception of lack of right. (See i</span><span style="font-weight:bold">mages 483 to 579, 772 to 788, and 798 to 814 of the digital judicial file</span><span>).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">IV.-</span><span> The Preliminary Hearing was held on November 11, 2020, with the attendance of the parties' representatives. The claim was defined in the terms of the first resultando of this ruling. The exception of statute of limitations was reserved to be heard in the judgment. The contested and uncontested facts relevant to the resolution of the case were determined, and the documentary evidence and testimonial evidence of Messrs. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, Nombre111169</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón and Didier Rodríguez Salazar were admitted. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">Images 1109 to 1113 of the judicial file. Electronic backup of the referenced Hearing</span><span>).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">V.- </span><span>The Oral and Public Trial was held starting at 8:30 hours on May 11, 2022, during which the opening statement was received, the testimonial evidence of Messrs.</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, Nombre111169</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón and Didier Rodríguez Salazar was examined, and finally the parties presented their closing arguments. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">Compact disc backup of the Complementary Hearing</span><span>).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">VI.- </span><span>This judgment is delivered, after deliberation by the members of the Tribunal, within the fifteen-day period established in article 111.1 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code - as this matter was declared complex - without observing any grounds capable of invalidating the proceedings.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:10.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span>Drafted by Judge</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> Salas Leitón</span><span>, with the affirmative vote of the judges Reyes Castillo and Baltodano Gómez</span><span style="font-weight:bold">. </span></p><p style="margin-top:10.2pt; margin-bottom:5.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">CONSIDERING:</span></p><p style="margin-top:5.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">I.- ON THE EVIDENCE FOR BETTER PROVISION:</span><span> In the preliminary hearing held on November 11, 2020, the representative of the plaintiff party offered, as evidence for better provision (prueba para mejor resolver), a copy of the map visible in image 1094 of the digital judicial file and a photograph of the visitor control logbooks at INDER in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, which was reserved for this Tribunal. (See images 300 to 482 of the digital judicial file). Regarding the admissibility of evidence for better provision, it must be noted that it is a reiterated criterion of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice that its rejection does not cause defenselessness for the parties, and its admission or rejection by the Tribunal is not subject to appeal. Among other judgments, the relevant portion of Vote No. 547-F-2002 of 16:00 hours on July 12, 2002, is transcribed, in which that Chamber indicated: “(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">IV.- Multiple precedents of this Chamber, referring to evidence for better provision, have pointed out that this is evidence of the judge, and not of the parties. Consequently, the decision to gather it is optional for the jurisdictional body, and it may be dispensed with without any resolution being necessary. Ergo, the omission of a pronouncement regarding it, precisely because the evidentiary stage—in which the parties must prove the constitutive facts of their right, as imposed by the rules on the burden of proof—has been exceeded, and once that stage is precluded, it will be the exclusive power of the judge to determine whether new evidence necessary for the correct decision of the litigation should be added to the record. Among many others, the following resolutions can be consulted; 59 of 15:20 hours on May 31, 1996, 23 of 14:20 hours on March 4, 1992, 34 of 10:45 hours on May 28, 1993, and 83 of 14:40 hours on December 22, 1993. (…)</span><span>”. In the specific case, the Tribunal deems that the evidence offered as evidence for better provision is relevant, which is why it is admitted.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">II.- PROVEN FACTS.- </span><span>Of importance for the resolution of the present dispute, the following are considered duly accredited: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> That by Executive Decree No. 4961-A of June 26, 1975 (in force since 7/11/75), the "</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central</span><span>" was created, and it declared the national lands found within the delimitation indicated in its first article as inalienable. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">Uncontested fact</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2)</span><span> In Official Gazette No. 156 of August 17, 1976, at the request of ITCO, Executive Decree No. 6235-G was published, ordering the expropriation of farm No. 57748 of the Heredia Registry, with an area of 5 thousand hectares and owned by the company Cubujuquí Ltda. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See image 761 of the digital judicial file</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3)</span><span> Within the diligence's for the acquisition of farm No. Placa19616 of the Heredia Registry; the Board of Directors of ITCO, by article II of Session No. 2008 held on September 1, 1976, authorized the Executive President of that Institution to appear before the Notary of ITCO and acquire said property with an area of 5 thousand hectares and for an amount of 4,344,284.20 million colones. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See image 759</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-weight:bold">of the digital judicial file</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4)</span><span> That farm No. 57748 was registered in the name of ITCO on January 28, 1986, describing its nature as land for agriculture, housing, and roads, located in the Dirección13209 ,</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>of the province of Heredia. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 85 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">5)</span><span> That Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, ID CED87833, between the years 1972 and 1973 took possession of around 80 hectares that formed part of farm No. 57748 of the Heredia Registry</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>. Possession that was transferred in parts over time to third parties. That the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 was part of that farm, and</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>came into the hands of Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>since about 20 years ago and that when Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>and his wife arrived at the site there were only pastures. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">Statement of Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">6)</span><span> That according to Public Deed No. 88 of October 21, 2018, issued by Notary Public Julissa Rodríguez Rojas; Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>ID CED87834 sold on June 9, 2000, to the plaintiffs, for the sum of 15 million colones, the possession right to the farm located in the province of Heredia, Canton Sarapiquí, District Horquetas Cubujuquí A, with map H-1107776-2006 and with a measurement of 7 hectares 6841 square meters and identified by INDER as parcel 74-A-4. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 68 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">7)</span><span> That on October 27, 2006, Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006 was registered, describing a property located in Cubujuquí Sector A, District 3, Horquetas, Canton No. 10, Sarapiquí, Province of Heredia, with an area of 7ha.6841.22m2 in the possession of Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>and sold to Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>. Property that is part of the INDER property registered under real folio No. 4057748-000 which has an area of 2,780,630.32 m2. That on the front of said map, MINAE indicated in Approval No. 0880-2006, that based on the location shown on that map, the property it describes is located within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central by approximately 90%, according to D.E.5386-A and its amendment of October 28, 1975. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 1 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">8)</span><span> By official letter OSH-0096-2015 of </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">February 9, 2015</span><span>, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí summoned ---among other residents of the Cubujuquí Settlement--- Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>as an occupant of said Settlement to a meeting to inform them about the surveying work being carried out at that time by INDER in that Settlement. A meeting that took place on February 10, 2015, at which they were explained the demarcation being carried out on the line dividing the Cubujuquí Settlement and the Conservation Area of the Cordillera Volcánica Central. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folios 3 and 4 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">9)</span><span> By official letter OSH-4492015 of July 30, 2015, the Subregional Office of Horquetas informed the Head of Territory Sarapiquí Heredia and Sarapiquí Alajuela that the parcel occupied by Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>opposed the surveyor's entry into the parcel to carry out measurements and demarcation of the dividing line between the Settlement and the Area of the D.E. of the Cordillera Volcánica Central. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folios 5 and 6 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">10)</span><span> By a note presented on August 5, 2015, the plaintiffs, residents of Dirección13210 , Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Heredia, requested the INDER Regional Headquarters in Sarapiquí to grant them the title of ownership as provided by article 85.c) of Law No. Placa4583 for the property described in Cadastral Map No. 1107776 of the year 2006. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 07 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">11) </span><span>The INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas, by official letter </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015</span><span>, consulted the Headquarters of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral map No. 1107776-2006, is located or not within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET, or if they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 10 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">12)</span><span> The INDER Subregional Office in Sarapiquí, by official letter OSH-0689-2015 of August 18, 2015, requested the Headquarters of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals to prepare the certificate of conforming land use for the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See folio 11 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">13)</span><span> The Headquarters of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area of SINAC, by official letter </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Placa19617 of August 20, 2015</span><span>, replied to the information requested in official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015; indicating that in accordance with the provisions of articles 13, 14, and 15 of Forestry Law No. 7575 and its amendments and official letter Placa19618 of August 20, 2015, prepared by Eng. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, which refers to the field visit; the parcel with map No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is found within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and thus part of the Natural Heritage of the State. (</span><span style="font-weight:bold">See images 794 to 796 of the digital judicial file and folio 12 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4</span><span>). </span><span style="font-weight:bold">14)</span><span> The Headquarters of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals prepared the "</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Inspection Certificate for Land Titling</span><span>" for the property described in cadastral map No. Placa19619, issued by Agr. Eng. Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with sequential entry number 18015801, in which it indicated that on the parcel exploited by Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>100% CONFORMING LAND USE has been exercised for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the property there is a 1/2 hectare plantation of palmito in good phytosanitary condition, 36 m2 of plantain, a dwelling house of 80 m2 in good condition and another of 140 m2 in good or fair condition.</span></p></div></body></html> Pasture with grass, 8 cows, a horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, corral, shed, stable, etc. (See folios 13 through 28 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 15) The Horquetas Territorial Development Office, by official letter OTHO-0715-2018 of September 12, 2018, indicated that according to the information contained in said map, it belongs to the farm of the Partido de Heredia registration No. Placa3972 in the name of INDER and belongs to a property known by the Territorial Office as parcel No. 74-C of the Cubujuquí Settlement, Precarious Sector; however, there is no official letter in the file indicating its real location and, if it is part of the Settlement, its numbering, and therefore it requested the Land Information and Registration Office inform it if the land described in map H-1107776-2006 was located within an INDER settlement, that its registral-cadastral information be correct, and to define its numbering. The foregoing was due to the titling request made by Mr. Nombre111167 in accordance with article 85.c of Law No. 9036. (See folio 29 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 16) That Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out the inspection of parcel 74-A-4 on September 18, 2018 and signed the "Titling Sheet" in which he recommended titling in the name of the plaintiffs the property referenced as a parcel, with cadastral map No. Placa19619 and with an area of 7ha6841.22mts2, which forms part of the Farm of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 in the name of INDER and calculated its transfer at the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "PARTY DECLARATION", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referred property under the terms of Law No. 2825, No. 7142, and No. 9036. (See folios 101 through 103 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 17) The INDER Land Information and Registration Office, by official letter IRT-0806-2018 of September 25, 2018, responded to the information requested in official letter OTHO-0715-2018, in which it was indicated that according to the cartographic location of the map, the property forms part of parcel 74-A of the Cubujuquí settlement. That the registral information shown on the map corresponds to that of the parent farm of the settlement (Farm No. Placa3972 in the name of INDER) and that it would be identified as parcel 74-A-4, which, according to the cartographic location of cadastral map H-1107776-2006, is affected by the Protected Wild Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. Information reiterated in official letter IRT-0808-2018 of September 25, 2018 (See folios 31 and 32 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 18) The INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas responded to the titling request made by the plaintiffs through official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, in which it indicated that the property was affected by the Protected Wild Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the State's Natural Heritage, making its titling not legally viable. That of the total property, only an area of 1771 mts2 was outside said reserve, and therefore they should indicate if it was their wish to continue with the proceedings for the purpose of having that portion of land titled to them. (See folios 37 through 40 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 19) The Horquetas Territorial Development Office, by official letter OTHO-755-2018 of September 28, 2018, addressed the SINAC-MINAE Headquarters of Sarapiquí in accordance with what was indicated by that office in official letters No. Placa19617 and official letter Placa19618, both of August 20, 2015, and indicated that, taking into consideration that the property described by cadastral map No. 1107776-2006 is located within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve and as a protected wild area and therefore part of the PNE, administered by MINAE, requested ---in accordance with the provisions of articles 13, 14, 15, and 16 of the Forest Law No. 7575 and its Reforms---, that institution proceed to delimit the indicated land by visiting the boundaries of the cited area. (See folio 58 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4 Volume I and 122 of the judicial digital file). 20) By note dated October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs requested to continue with the proceedings for the entirety of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006. (See folios 42 through 76 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 21) The ACAHN Subregional office, by official letter SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of January 29, 2019, indicated to the Head of the Horquetas Territorial Development Office that, in response to official letter OTHO-755-2018, referring to the request for delimitation of the lands that form part of the PNE located within map No. H-1107776-2006, given that the property is located more than 90% within the limits of the RFCVC; said request should be processed before the Braulio Carrillo National Park office. (See folio 147 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4 Volume I). 22) The INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas, by official letter OTHO-095-2019 of January 31, 2019, forwarded the documentation related to the titling request made by the plaintiffs to the Legal Advisory Office of the INDER Regional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and requested the preparation of a report on the titling of parcel No. 74-A-4 (formerly known as 74-C) of the Cubujuquí Settlement. (See folios 109 through 126 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 23) By official letter AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, the Huetar Norte Regional Directorate and the Legal Advisory Office, after gathering the necessary information, recommended denying the request made based on the fact that the property over which titling was requested, according to the certification issued by MINAE No. Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, the requested property forms part of the Protected Wild Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore the State's Natural Heritage. (See folios 145 through 154 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 24) The Office of Oversight and Agrarian Services, by official letter FSA-655-2019 of July 31, 2019, forwarded official letter AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 of April 4, 2019, to the Executive Presidency of INDER, and in turn, that Presidency, by official letter A-PE-1004-2019 of August 8, 2019, forwarded it to the INDER Board of Directors for its final resolution. (See folios 157 and 158 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 25) The INDER Board of Directors, in its article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, reviewed the matter and rejected it based on the fact that the property requested to be titled and registered forms part of the Protected Wild Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore as part of the State's Natural Heritage, making it impossible to grant what was requested. An agreement that was notified to the email of Licenciada Julissa Rodríguez Rojas on October 3, 2019. (See folios 159 through 169 and 184 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4). 26) The Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC, through official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, stated that according to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to cadastral map H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. (See image 789 through 791 of the judicial digital file). 27) That the plaintiffs have been possessors since the year 2000 of the parcel that has been identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, with cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 with an area of 7has 6841.22mts2, which forms part of the Farm of the Partido de Heredia No. Placa19620 in the name of INDER, which they have used as a dwelling and have developed agricultural and livestock activity. (Testimony of Mr. Nombre111168 and certification of Inspection for Land Titling No. 18015801 at folios 13 through 28 of the administrative titling file for parcel No. 74-A-4).

III.- UNPROVEN FACTS. Due to the case record lacking evidence, the following is deemed unproven: 1) That when the plaintiffs acquired the property described by map H-1007776-2006 in June 2000, they were aware that this land was affected in any percentage by the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and even so, they acquired it at their own account and risk. (No evidence is located in this regard). 2) That the INDER Regional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí had processed with the SINAC Central Volcanic Mountain Range Area Headquarters, before the issuance of official letter OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015, the determination of the limits of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve regarding its property of the Partido de Heredia No. H-57748-000. (No evidence is located in this regard). 3) That between June 2000 (date of acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs) and the issuance of official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018 (in which the plaintiffs were informed of the situation of the limits of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve); the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí warned the plaintiffs that the parcel identified by INDER under No. 74-A-4 was affected by the Protected Wild Area, Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the State's Natural Heritage, making its titling not legally viable. (No evidence is located in this regard). 4) That the occupation by the plaintiffs of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 since the year 2000 was in bad faith. (No evidence is located in this regard). 5) That the buildings erected on parcel No. 74-A-4 were made after the issuance of Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006, on which MINAE indicated on its reverse side that the property described therein formed part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. (No evidence is located in this regard).

IV.- PARTIES' ARGUMENTS AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING: In summary and without prejudice to the literalness of their arguments, all of which have been studied in their entirety by this Court, each of the parties argues what is detailed below in this section as relevant: 1) PLAINTIFFS: That Mr. Nombre111168 entered in 1973 into original possession of a farm located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí with an area of approximately 80 hectares. That subsequently Nombre111168 segregated and sold part of that farm to the gentleman identified only as Nombre111171, who in turn sold it to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170. That in this way, over the original farm of 80 hectares and its subsequent segregations, a right of possession has been exercised for more than 40 years. That by the year 1978, the State acquired a farm in the Cubujuquí zone, which was transferred to ITCO, today INDER, to be granted to peasants in parcels, and for this reason INDER established the so-called "Cubujuquí Settlement", the original property and its subsequent segregations forming part of said project. They indicated that in 1999 they entered into negotiation with Mr. Nombre111170 to acquire his right over the property, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares, and when said property already formed part of the Cubujuquí Settlement, identified by INDER as parcel No. 74-A-4, a situation accredited in the sketch prepared in 1978 by officials of what was then ITCO. They alleged that before acquiring said right, they appeared before INDER to ask about its situation, and Mr. Manuel Picado, an official of that institution, recommended they buy it, which gave them peace of mind, and for that reason they acquired the right of possession from Mr. Nombre111170, ID No. CED87834, in the month of June 2000 through a public deed, and that to date they have been in possession for more than 19 years of the farm in a public, peaceful manner and as owners. That they acquired the property so that INDER would title it to them, as it did with other families in the zone. That for titling purposes, they had Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006 prepared; however, an official of MINAE, without further studies, stamped on the back a seal stating that the land was affected by the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve. That in 2015, INDER, based on what was indicated in said seal, requested that MINAE pronounce on whether the property was within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, and MINAE, by official letter Placa19617 MINAE, reported on the effective affectation of the property to said reserve. That on October 2, 2018, INDER communicated to them that the property was within the Protected Wild Area administered by MINAE and that it forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve and therefore part of the State's Natural Heritage, and that of the total area of the property, only 1771 mts2 were outside said zone, so they were asked if they wished to continue with the titling proceedings over that portion of land; however, on October 22, 2018, they requested that INDER continue with the titling proceedings over the entirety of the parcel and not just the indicated portion. That finally, by official letter OTHO-0680-2019 of October 3, 2019, the Horquetas de Sarapiquí Territorial Development Office notified them that the INDER Board of Directors, by agreement of August 28, 2019, recommended not titling parcel No. 74-A-4 due to lack of MINAE certification; however, as they stated, the property is located very far from the protected zone. They also indicated that about 16 years ago, the State expropriated a number of possessors, but not them, and furthermore that Mr. Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, ---an INDER official--- commented on the possibility of some possessors being relocated, but they were excluded. They indicated that the activity carried out on the parcel is agrarian, dedicated to livestock and agriculture. That because they lack a deed, SENASA did not renew their permits for cattle fattening, and proof of this is the CVO that expired on July 2, 2013, and they could not renew it for lack of that requirement. That during all the years they have possessed the property, they have dedicated themselves to introducing improvements such as a house with 3 rooms, fiberlit ceiling, ceramic floor, enclosed with fences, etc. Another 2-story house, etc. They accused that the parcels identified as Nos. 59, 64, 65, 68, 73, 77, and 78 ---which are located further in than parcel 74-A-4--- in the zone protected by the State, were granted deeds. That in January 2015, INDER officials appeared at their parcel and indicated they would place some boundary markers (mojones) and that above those markers the property belonged to MINAE. They indicated that the placement of those markers was not done in a technical manner that coincided with the real information contained in Decree No. 38975-MAG. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs requested that the judgment order the defendants to adjudicate parcel No. 74-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, and if unable to do so, that they be paid for all the accessions (accesiones) and improvements introduced to the property since they possessed it in good faith, as well as the recognition of present and future damages and losses. Arguments that were reiterated in the supplementary hearing of the oral and public trial. 2) The State representation opposed the lawsuit and therefore the plaintiffs' claims based on the following: That the plaintiff party considers that INDER errs in denying their land titling request and bases this position on the fact that when resolving their situation, their property right, since they acquired the farm whose title they seek almost 20 years ago, and on it they carry out agricultural activities and also have built the dwelling they currently inhabit with their wife and children, as well as another where their daughter-in-law and grandchildren live. A situation that implies, ---in their view---, the legality of their possession, and generated a right that is being affected by INDER's action in not registering the property in their name, under the claim that part of the land forms part of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area, all to their detriment and that of their family. That the plaintiff party presented a land titling request before INDER, in accordance with numeral 85, subsection c) of Law No. Placa4583, specifically over the property they indicate they bought and have possessed for almost 20 years; however, it is relevant to point out that since 1975, the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve was created, which includes several lands, among which is a portion of more than 90% of the land for which the plaintiff party requests titling. That the plaintiffs indicated that the land in question belongs to the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement, which are lands belonging to INDER. And in their specific case, from the information contained in the administrative file concerning parcel No. 74-A-4, which according to its cadastral map is pastureland with a stream crossing the property from west to east, and whose map, No. H-1-110776-2006, bears the seal of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, with approval No. 0880-2006, and indicates that, according to its location, it is approximately 90% within the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Forest Reserve, a map that is registered for cadastral purposes. That during the land titling process initiated by the plaintiff party, it was determined that of the total property, approximately 1771 mts2 were outside the Conservation Area, and by official letter No. OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, they were asked to indicate if they maintained the titling request regarding the entirety of the farm or only that portion of land that is outside the cited conservation area, responding by note of October 22, 2018, that they maintained their request over the entirety of the property. That under this context, INDER rejected their request. That in the present case, what the plaintiff seeks is to have titled to them a property that is owned by the State, as it belongs to the Central Volcanic Mountain Range Conservation Area, which is clearly improper, whether in administrative or judicial venues, a situation that makes their lawsuit unmeritorious. That due to the nature of the purpose of the proceeding, it is necessary to refer to public domain assets –or State assets– and, to that extent, to their nature and characteristics. That the jurisprudence has been clear in stating: “(...) IV.-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ASSETS: “(…) Public domain assets are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable, consequently, outside the commerce of men. On this topic, the Constitutional Chamber has expressed: / “II.-THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE LEGAL MEANS TO INTEGRATE IT.- Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime distinct from that which governs private domain, which, besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and which manifests in the direct or indirect use that any person may make of them. Doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets, public things, public assets, or demanial assets. On this concept, the Chamber expressed in its Judgment No.189-F-S1-2011, of nine hours fifteen minutes of March third, two thousand eleven, the following: / “VI.-…Therefore, it is fundamental to refer to the concept of public domain and in particular to the scope of article 261 of the Civil Code, which differentiates between public and private assets, as well as the criteria based on which one can distinguish between the two. In this regard, it establishes: “Public things are those that, by law, are permanently destined for any service of general utility and those of which everyone can take advantage because they are delivered for public use. All other things are private and the object of particular property, even if they belong to the State or the Municipalities, who, in such case, as civil persons, do not differ from any other person”. As can be extracted, the definition of private assets is made in a residual manner, that is, all those that do not present any of the characteristics indicated for demanial assets belong to this category. Constitutional jurisprudence, taking into account the provisions of the cited norm, has referred to the assets that make up the public domain in the following terms: “they are those that have a nature and legal regime different from private assets, which are governed by property rights under the terms of article 45 of the Political Constitution; while by express will of the legislator they are affected to a special destiny of serving the community, that is, the public interest, and that, for this reason, they cannot be the object of private property, so they are outside the commerce of men, whereby they cannot belong individually to individuals, nor to the State, in the strict sense, because the latter is limited to their administration and tutelage(…) Thus, it concerns assets whose ownership is held by the state in its capacity as administrator; it must be understood that they are assets belonging to the Nation, with which they form part of the public heritage; and that, due to their special legal nature, they present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, property rights over them cannot be acquired, not even mere possession, that is, they cannot be acquired through usucapion (usucapión), just as they cannot be lost by prescription; reason for which, the use permits that the Administration grants over them always have a precarious nature, which means they can be revoked for reasons of opportunity or convenience at any time by the Administration—under the terms provided in articles 154 and 155 of the General Law of Public Administration—, and the same concessions granted over them for their use can be canceled through the procedure established for this purpose; they are unseizable, which means they cannot be the object of any encumbrance or seizure, neither by individuals, nor by the Administration, and they are inalienable, which translates into the condition that they are outside the commerce of men, hence they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither for free nor for valuable consideration, neither by individuals, nor by the State, so they are exempted from the commerce of men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Furthermore, their use and exploitation is subject to police power, insofar as, being assets that cannot be the object of possession, much less property, their use and exploitation is possible only through duly authorized acts, whether through concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the public Administration. So it comprises immovable assets that have a nature and legal regime virtually opposed to private property derived from the provisions of article 45 of the Constitution (Vote 2007-2408 of 16 hours 13 minutes of February 21, 2007) (Highlighting is ours) (Contentious Administrative Court, Section V, resolution No.

of the ten o'clock hour on January 18, 2012.) </span><span>That, as that same Court ordered (in the transcribed judgment), public domain assets (bienes demaniales), due to their special nature, form part of the public patrimony, and in that sense, are imprescriptible, inalienable, and unseizable. That is, they are not subject to appropriation by private individuals, not even to be occupied. That based on this, it is clear that, in the present case, the plaintiff holds no right over the land that forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve Area and that they currently occupy, and based on that, it cannot be titled in their name as requested. That in this sense, INDER was clear in the titling process at hand, in accordance with what is indicated in agreement No. 37 of session No. 22, held on August 26, 2019, and, in what is of interest to the case: "…T</span><span style="font-style:italic">HIRD: From the relation of</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-style:italic">facts that have been assessed throughout this recommendatory resolution, sufficient legal elements emerge, demonstrating that Messrs. Name111167</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-style:italic">and Name23709</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-style:italic">, have carried out an occupation for more than ten years on parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí Settlement, in a personal, quiet, public, peaceful, uninterrupted manner, that their possession has been notorious, who have given the property use according to its capacity and nature. This in accordance with the provisions of Article 85 subsection \"c\" of the cited legal framework. The foregoing demonstrates to us that, although the applicants legally comply with all the requirements stipulated in the Procedures of subsection c) of article 85 of INDER Law 9036, it is not possible to recommend the titling of the property because, according to the certification issued by MINAE in official letter 05-1338-15 dated August 20, 2015, issued by </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Eng. Luis Fernando Salas Sarkis, in his capacity as Head of the Sarapiquí Department, of the National System of Conservation Areas of MINAE, certifies that the property is indeed located within the protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, thus, for this reason, it Does form part of the Natural Patrimony of the State</span><span>." That by official letter OTHO-924-2018 dated November 29, 2018, the administered parties were notified of official letter LicensePlate19617: "...</span><span style="font-style:italic">FOURTH: Consequently, despite the appellants having fulfilled the requirements established in the Procedures of subsection c) of article 85 of INDER Law 9036, this Legal Advisory Office, having assessed all the evidence and the facts that give rise to this request and considering that it is not legally admissible since parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement is within the protected wilderness areas administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), in this case forming part of the Cordillera Volcánica Forest Reserve, DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE PROCEEDING BE APPROVED for the Validation of the procedures for the adjudication of public property, titling, and registration in the Public Property Registry, of parcel N° 7-A-4 of the Cubujuquí settlement presented by Messrs. Name111167</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-style:italic">, identification number CED87830 and Name23709</span><span style="font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-style:italic">, identification number CED87831</span><span>…”. That from what has been indicated, it is clear that the plaintiff intends to title lands that are Natural Patrimony of the State, which is openly inadmissible. That in this sense, the very nature of the assets subject to the proceeding makes the plaintiff's claim for compensation inadmissible, but not only that, mere occupation of the land does not grant them any right to a claim, and much less when in this case there is no connection between the actions of the Administration, which are clearly clothed in legality, and the damage claimed. This being so, the lawsuit and the damages requested must be dismissed.</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> 3) For its part, the SINAC representative stated:</span><span> That from the relationship of facts and background, and the corresponding documentation, the described land is located within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve with an affectation exceeding 90%. That Article 121 subsection 14) of the Political Constitution generically regulates matters concerning public domain assets, by providing that the Nation's own assets may only permanently leave its domain through authorization from the Legislative Assembly. That from this constitutional conception, at the doctrinal and jurisprudential level, the position of consultative and jurisdictional bodies has been consolidated and developed, in the sense that public domain areas are assets belonging to the community in the broadest sense of the concept, and are intended to satisfy the public interest. That jurisdictional, administrative, and constitutional jurisprudence has been unanimous in establishing the traditional classification of assets under the tutelage of administrations, into public domain assets (bienes demaniales), which are those regulated by a special legal regime and are permanently destined for public use, or have been affected by law for a public purpose such as areas destined for parks in urban and rural centers, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), national highways, and the natural patrimony, reason for which said assets possess particular characteristics such as imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unseizability. That in judgment No. 3667 of 2:54 PM on May 7, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber set forth its jurisprudential line in this regard as follows: "(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Public domain is understood as the set of assets subject to a special legal regime distinct from that governing private domain, which, besides belonging to or being under the administration of public legal entities, are affected or destined for public utility purposes and which manifests in the direct or indirect use that any person can make of them. Doctrine recognizes public domain under different meanings, such as dominical assets, demanial assets (bienes demaniales), public things, public assets or demanial assets</span><span>. (…)" (Underlining not in original) That following this line of thought, by express provision of Article 262 of the Civil Code, public areas, demanial areas, or those of public domain are outside the commerce of men and, therefore, no one can exercise property or use rights over them by the passage of time, nor are they susceptible to encumbrances (gravámenes) or possession in the terms of Civil Law, as reiterated by that Chamber in judgment number 5977-93, at 3:45 PM on November 16, 1993: "(…) </span><span style="font-style:italic">The public domain is comprised of assets that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest. They are called dominical assets, demanial assets, public assets or things, which do not individually belong to private parties and which are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men. That is, affected by their nature and vocation. Consequently, those assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm. Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, they cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for injunctions (interdictos) to recover the domain. As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use (aprovechamiento) can be acquired, though not a right to property</span><span> (…)" (Underlining not in original) That from that perspective, due to their legal nature, dominion, possession, or appropriation by private individuals is not possible over public domain assets (bienes de dominio público), neither free of charge nor for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor gained by usucapion (usucapión); it is also not legally possible to modify their destiny; nor can they be used for a purpose different from that established by the legal system, with it being the State's responsibility to protect and administer them in representation of public interests. Ergo, use by third parties shall not cause any right in their favor. That in accordance with the foregoing, constitutional jurisprudence has been clear in establishing that the special protection established in the legal system for public domain assets is applicable to the natural patrimony of the Nation, taking into account that said patrimony contributes to ensuring the fundamental rights of inhabitants to have a better quality of life, within the context of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, provided for in the domestic legal system and the international instruments ratified by the country. That in judgment number 2003-03840 at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2003, the same Chamber indicated: </span><span style="font-style:italic">(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected to public use or enjoyment, and cloaks said tutelage with even greater care when regulating environmental public assets. The foregoing implies that had the transposition alleged by the plaintiff occurred in the Regulatory Plan of the Coastal Zone of Playa Platanares and the Preciosa-Platanares National Wildlife Refuge, Mixed Category, the Regulatory Plan would be contrary (at least as regards the regulation of the part of the Refuge) to the norm derived from Articles 121 subsection 14 and 89 of the Political Constitution, since a regulatory act would be declassifying (desafectando) part of a public domain asset (bien demanial)</span><span style="font-style:italic">. (…) (Underlining does not correspond to the original. In this regard, see also judgment number 05266-2009 at 12:24 PM on March 27, 2009). </span><span>That thus, the Political Constitution and the Law emphasize that the protection of natural resources is an adequate means to protect and improve the quality of life of inhabitants, granting them the classification of public domain assets of the Nation, reason for which (like public domain assets in general) they are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable. That in this same line, with the enactment of Forest Law number 7575 of February 13, 1995, and other normative bodies in which our legal system developed the provisions foreseen in the Political Constitution and instruments of International Law for the protection and tutelage of the Natural Patrimony of the State, establishing the intangibility of protected wilderness areas. Such is the case of the provisions of numerals 13 and 14 of the Forest Law when indicating: </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">ARTICLE 13.-Constitution and administration. The natural patrimony of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands (bosques y terrenos forestales) of the national reserves, of the areas declared inalienable, of the farms registered in its name and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions and other agencies of the Public Administration, except for immovable properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its patrimony (…). ARTICLE 14.- Unseizable and inalienable condition of the natural patrimony The forest lands and forests that constitute the natural patrimony of the State, detailed in the previous article, shall be unseizable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not cause any right in their favor and the State's action for recovery (acción reivindicatoria) for these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry by means of possessory information and both the invasion and the occupation of them shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this law</span><span style="font-style:italic">.</span><span> That the jurisprudential development of the Constitutional Chamber has established that the Natural Patrimony of the State comprises two important components: on one hand, the Protected Wilderness Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas) (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree; understanding as such the forest reserves (reservas forestales), protective zones (zonas protectoras), national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands (humedales) and natural monuments, according to the regulation provided in Articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Forest Law; 32 of the Organic Environmental Law; 22, 28 and 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law; 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law and on the other; the Natural Patrimony of the State which is comprised of the other forests and forest lands or lands of forestry aptitude belonging to the State and public institutions (Article 13 of the Forest Law), which have an immediate legal affectation. That regarding what has been stated regarding the components that make up the Natural Patrimony, in judgment number 2003-03840 at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber stated: (…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">According to the classification given by environmental regulations, the forest or natural patrimony of the State is comprised of forest reserves, biological reserves, protective zones, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Article 32 of the Organic Environmental Law, Number 7554, of September eighteenth, nineteen ninety-five). (…) Thus, it is clear that the Costa Rican legal system confers special and qualified protection to assets affected to public use or enjoyment, and cloaks said tutelage with even greater care when regulating environmental public assets</span><span> (…) (In this regard, see also judgment number 05266-2009 at 12:24 PM on March 27, 2009). That as can be observed, </span><span style="font-style:italic">protected wilderness areas are incorporated into the natural patrimony of the Nation regardless of their management category</span><span>, whether they are national parks, biological reserves, forest reserves, national wildlife refuges, protective zones, natural monuments, and natural wetlands; furthermore, it is enshrined in Articles 35 and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, in which the legislator generically regulated the objectives for the creation, administration, and surveillance of Protected Wilderness Areas. That in the same way, when lands that are covered by any of the indicated management categories are under the administration and/or tutelage of a public entity, they automatically become part of the Natural Patrimony of the State, as provided in Articles 13 and 14 of the Forest Law. Ergo, appropriation, use, or enjoyment by private individuals is not permissible, neither free of charge nor for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription; nor gained by usucapion; it is also not legally possible to modify their destiny; and use by third parties and their possession shall not cause any right in their favor. That the Constitutional Chamber indicated in Vote No. 2988-99 the legal impossibility for private individuals to possess and usucape public domain assets: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">When an asset is integrated into the public domain regime, it acquires a series of essential characteristics such as inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unseizability. From these conditions, it follows that these assets are not expropriable, insofar as expropriation would imply alienation, and they are inalienable. Likewise, usucapion is also not a means to acquire them; inalienable things, being outside the commerce of men, are not subject to possession by private individuals, and, therefore, are imprescriptible as long as they conserve such character or the destiny of public utility to which they are affected.” (Vote No. 2988-99) “The public domain is comprised of assets that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called dominical assets, demanial assets, public assets or things or public assets, which do not individually belong to private parties and which are destined for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, those assets belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm.- Characteristic notes of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, they cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance in the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for injunctions to recover the domain.- As they are outside commerce, these assets cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a right to property.</span><span style="font-style:italic">” (Vote No. 2306-91, precedent of reiterated citation in this venue). </span><span>That furthermore, the Constitutional Chamber refers to public domain assets which are inalienable and imprescriptible: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It is clear that, as they are demanial assets, they are not susceptible to being possessed, and much less, to acquire property over them, which is explained by the typical characteristics of these assets: inalienability, imprescriptibility, and unseizability</span><span style="font-style:italic">.”</span><span> (Vote No. 454- 2006). </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It must be emphasized that demanial assets are inalienable and imprescriptible </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">and that their occupation cannot generate any right in favor of the occupant, regardless of the time during which such occupation has been prolonged</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">.” (Vote No. 18836-2014). “On the attributes of demanial assets: The ownership of public domain assets is held by the State in its capacity as administrator, by which it must be understood that these are assets belonging to the \"Nation\" and form part of the public patrimony; and that, due to their special legal nature, they present the following attributes: they are imprescriptible, which implies that by the passage of time, the right of property over them, nor even of mere possession, cannot be acquired, that is, they cannot be acquired through usucapion, just as they cannot be lost by prescription… and they are inalienable, which translates into the condition that they are outside the commerce of men; hence they cannot be alienated, sold, or acquired, neither free of charge nor for consideration, nor by private individuals, nor by the State, such that they are excepted from the commerce [sic] of men and subject to a special and reinforced legal regime. Moreover, their use and utilization (aprovechamiento) is subject to police power, inasmuch as, being assets that cannot be the object of possession, and much less of property, their utilization and use is possible only through duly authorized acts, whether by concession or use permit, granted by the competent authority; and to constant control by the Public Administration. So it comprises immovable assets that have a nature and legal regime virtually opposite to private property, which derives from the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution.” (Vote No. 3113-2009). \"It is considered as State Patrimony, in its condition of Public Demesne (Demanio Público) which implies the principles of imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unseizability, the lands that constitute National Reserves that have forests\". In the Forest Patrimony of the State, the right of possession is denied to private individuals </span><span style="font-style:italic">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Agrarian Court No. 332 of 4:20 PM on July 7, 2000, and note to vote 49 of 1:00 PM on January 31, 2002</span><span>). That the First Chamber referred to the imprescriptibility of the public domain in the following manner: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“(…) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the possession exercised by private individuals generates no property right whatsoever, no matter the time during which it has been possessed</span><span style="font-style:italic"> (…)” (judgment No. 7 of 3:05 PM on January 20, 1993, Considerando IV) </span><span>and the Constitutional Chamber also ruled on possession by private individuals of public domain or demanial assets with inalienable characteristics: \"..</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">.If at the time of the affectation there was no prior, legally useful decennial possession, the title applicant cannot argue an acquired patrimonial right, since the usucapion has not been consolidated prior to the demanial affectation of the lands. It is absolutely inadmissible “to provide title to private individuals who have been occupying public assets over which they cannot exercise any act of possession, nor acquire any right over them, since, being public or demanial assets, they are imprescriptible and inalienable</span><span style="font-style:italic">.\" </span><span>(Constitutional judgment No. 18836-2014). On the other hand, in accordance with the current Forest Law, No. 7575 of February 13, 1996, part of the Natural Patrimony of the State includes, among others, the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, as well as the farms belonging to autonomous institutions and other agencies of the Public Administration, except for those securing credit operations with the National Banking System that enter its patrimony. When applicable, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which is entrusted with its administration, must register the immovable properties in the Public Property Registry, through the Office of the Attorney General, as individual farms in the name of the State (Article 13). The </span><span style="font-style:italic">forest lands and forests described above are unseizable, inalienable, and the State's action for recovery is imprescriptible. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Possession by private individuals causes no right in their favor, nor can they title them and register them in their name in the Registry </span><span>(Article 14). The Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 07294-98 of October 13, 1998, determined that: </span><span style="font-style:italic">“</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">It must not be forgotten that, ultimately, both Law No. 4465 -now repealed- and Decree No. 17023-MAG are but the development of the content of Article 50 of the Constitution, such that, even when the immediate regulation that gave foundation to the decree has been substituted by another, it subsists both for having been promulgated under the protection of the regulation in force at the time, and for having its ultimate foundation in the cited constitutional article.”</span><span> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">… Secondly, that, by reason of the foregoing, the establishment of a protected wilderness area through a decree cannot lead to the violation of the principle of areas — it is not established by the decree but by norms that also have legal rank that, furthermore, develop a constitutional principle. …Having said the above, it is clear that the legal rule contained in judgment number 2004-08928 of August 18, 2004, is the one explained above: that it is legally possible to establish, through a decree, protected wilderness areas that include lands affected by a law to a purpose, a destiny, and a public use different from that of the legal regime of the area being established. … the establishment of a protected wilderness area by an administrative act entails the non-application of any legislation, even that specific to the geographical area in question, that opposes the legislation regulating the protected wilderness area, since the application of the latter implies complying with the constitutional duty indicated in numeral 50…The same must be said regarding Law number 7915 of September 21, 1999, which partially reformed Law number 5582</span><span>…” That due to the foregoing, the assets comprising the Natural Patrimony of the State possess the characteristics proper to public domain assets: imprescriptibility, inalienability, and unseizability. Based on all the foregoing, I request that the filed lawsuit be declared without merit, with the imposition of both costs (costas) to be borne by the plaintiff, as well as the interest they generate until their effective payment. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">4)</span><span> The INDER representative also rejected the terms of the lawsuit and the parties' claims, reiterating what the State and SINAC representation responded. They summarily indicated that INDER has never recognized any right, not even of possession, of the plaintiffs over parcel 74-A-4. That INDER's Board of Directors, in its article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019, rejected the filed proceeding because the land forms part of the PNE, and that rather, their possession of the immovable property becomes illegitimate as said immovable property forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve since 1975, belonging to the State and transferred to INDER in 1976 and registered in INDER's name in 1986. The foregoing due to the fact that the land described in cadastral map No. LicensePlate19619 is part of farm No. 57748-000 and, given that said property forms part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore the PNE, it is legally impossible to title it in the name of private individuals according to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law, the appropriate course of action being rather to transfer said immovable property to MINAE-SINAC as its administration corresponds to them. That in this way, INDER cannot title parcels that form part of the Natural Patrimony of the State and that in the present case, the lands that the plaintiffs request be titled to them form part of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve since 1975. That said Reserve comprised lands belonging to the State and INDER since 1976, such that, in accordance with Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Forest Law, they were automatically affected to the Natural Patrimony of the State. That for their part, Articles 14 and 58.a of the Forest Law and 8 of the ITCO Law penalized any type of possession over that type of asset, which is why their claim for compensation for improvements (mejoras) would also be inadmissible, since said immovable property, upon being affected to the PNE, enjoys the characteristic properties of such assets, namely, imprescriptibility, unseizability, inalienability, and therefore any possession over said immovable properties produces no right whatsoever, neither of title, nor of possession, since the plaintiffs fail to prove their legitimate possession in an original or derivative manner of the immovable properties with: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> At least 10 years before the issuance of Executive Decree No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, and No. 3586 also of 1975. 2) At least 10 years before being property of the State or of ITCO because Forest Law No. 4465 of November 25, 1969 ---which already regulated matters concerning the Natural Patrimony of the State---, defined in its Article 18 that the PNE is constituted by Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves. And that, for its part, Article 19 affected for the purposes of that law all forests and forest lands located in: a) Lands considered as natural reserves. b) Rural farms of the private domain of the State, just as currently provided by Law 7575 and its amendments.

That by reason of said regulatory framework, it is legally impossible for INDER to grant property titles</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>—as the claimants intend—, within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. That along this line of reasoning, the Attorney General's Office so indicated in its Legal Opinion No. OJ-064-02 of April 30, 2002. That for its part, the Constitutional Chamber, in its vote No. 3905-1993, stated that if for reasons of public interest it has the power to limit the attributes of private property, with greater reason it can do so over lands owned by INDER. That by reason of the provisions of Article 14 of the Ley Forestal, INDER is barred from titling to private individuals lands that form part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). Regarding the claim for titling, said representation argued that it is not admissible by virtue of the fact that: 1) The State, through Executive Decree No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated the property of Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda. registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia district, No. Placa19616 and subsequently transferred it to INDER, such that the portions of said farm that constituted PNE were affected by operation of law to the provisions set forth in Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575 and its amendments. 2) The claimants stated that they acquired the property in the year 2000, which is a date subsequent to the creation of the reserve, so they already had knowledge that what was acquired was part of the PNE and impossible to appropriate by private individuals.</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>And that compensation</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>for possessory rights and improvements (mejoras) sought is also not admissible because the Ley Forestal in its Articles 13, 14, 15, and 58.a) and 8 of the Ley del ITCO and its amendments penalize any type of possession over the PNE.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">V.- ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE:</span><span> The representation of INDER raised in its defense the statute of limitations defense, indicating that the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve was created in the year 1975 and the State managed an expropriation of farm No. H-57748-000; however, the present lawsuit was not filed until the year 2019, that is, more than 40 years after the property was expropriated, so pursuant to the provisions of Article 868 of the Civil Code, the right to claim is time-barred. Added to the fact that the claimants acquired an alleged possessory right in the year 2000, that is, 19 years before the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, Article 198 of the LGAP establishes a 4-year term for this type of claim. In the present case, we have established as proven that the claimants acquired in the year 2000 from Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>the property located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement (Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí) located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, for the sum of 15 million colones, and which was described in cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006. It was also proven that this property is part of farm No. 57748 of the Heredia district, expropriated at the request of ITCO pursuant to Executive Decree No. 6235-G, published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976. Then, it was also established as proven that the claimants filed a titling application for said property before the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí on August 5, 2015, and for these purposes they provided Cadastral Plan No. Placa19619. That by reason of said application, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas, by official letter</span><span style="font-weight:bold"> OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015</span><span>, consulted the Head of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the plot located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006, was located or not within the protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) administered by MINAET, or whether they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and said Head Office, by official letter </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Placa19617 of August 20</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">, 2015</span><span>, replied that the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí of Horquetas, is found within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State. It was also proven that it was not until official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, that the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas officially informed the claimants of the situation of the property with respect to the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and the Board of Directors of INDER, in its Article 37 of Ordinary Session 22, held on August 26, 2019, definitively rejected the titling application for said parcel for that reason. Faced with this situation, the claimants filed a proceeding before this Jurisdiction on June 11, 2020, requesting that in judgment: 1) The parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 be adjudicated to them. 2) In the alternative, that they be paid for the actions (acciones) and improvements introduced on the land, as well as payment for subjective moral damages and the damages and losses caused and those that may be caused to them by an eventual eviction. Thus, from the set of claims, they are referenced to a judgment ordering conduct to act and, alternatively, compensatory conduct, due to formal activity of INDER contained in the agreement adopted by its Board of Directors in which it rejected the application filed by the claimants, whose date of issuance is August 26, 2019. Thus, given that the claimants filed an ordinary lawsuit on June 11, 2020, their right to claim the indicated patrimonial compensation is not time-barred, since between August 26, 2019, and June 11, 2020, the term set forth in Article 198 of the LGAP was not exceeded, so the statute of limitations defense is rejected.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-weight:bold">VI.- BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS TRIBUNAL</span><span>: Based on the literal wording of the arguments provided by the parties, which were studied in their entirety by this Tribunal, the analysis of this matter proceeded based on the facts alleged and the proven evidence. In this regard, we have that the claimants filed the lawsuit stating that Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>entered in the year 1973 into possession of a farm of around 80 hectares located in the locality of Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. That subsequently Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>sold part of said farm to the individual they identified only as Nombre111171, asserting that the latter sold to Mr. Nombre84914, and he to Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>. That in this way, over the original 80-hectare farm and its subsequent segregations, a possessory right was exercised for more than 40 years. It stated that their represented parties entered in the year 1999 into a negotiation with Mr.</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>to acquire his possessory right over the property described in plan H-1107776-2006, which has an area of approximately 8 hectares —at which time said property already formed part of the Cubujuquí Settlement identified by INDER as parcel No. Placa19621—. A situation that was proven with the sketch prepared in the year 1978 by representatives at that time of ITCO. It stated that in the year 2000, on the advice of an INDER representative, their represented parties acquired said parcel and initiated procedures before that institution aimed at achieving its titling; however, the Board of Directors of INDER resolved in its Article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019, that their application was legally inadmissible by virtue of the fact that approximately 90% of the land was located within the </span><span style="font-style:italic">Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve</span><span> and therefore PNE under the protection of MINAE-SINAC, and therefore they requested that the judgment order INDER to title said parcel to them, or in the alternative, that it be ordered that they be paid for the </span><span style="font-weight:bold">accessions (accesiones)</span><span> and </span><span style="font-weight:bold">improvements</span><span> that they, in good faith, introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it as owners. In this way, they filed their lawsuit, based on possession exercised in good faith over the parcel identified by INDER as No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. Possession that carries over from the time Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>entered the area, to the one transferred to them by Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>and which they indicated exceeds 40 years. They requested that the judgment order INDER to grant them the public deed for the property or, in the alternative, to pay them for the </span><span style="font-weight:bold">accessions</span><span> and </span><span style="font-weight:bold">improvements</span><span> that they, in good faith, introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it as owners. For their part, the defendants oppose granting the public deed for said parcel, indicating that the resolution of INDER denying the public deed conforms to the legal system since the property is located more than 90% within the area of the </span><span style="font-style:italic">Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve</span><span> and therefore is Natural Heritage of the State. And that in this regard, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber has established that the Natural Heritage of the State is composed of two important components: on the one hand, the Protected Wilderness Areas (whatever their management category) declared by Law or Executive Decree; these being understood as forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments, according to the regulation set forth in Articles 1, 2, 3 subsection i) of the Ley Forestal; 32 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 22, 28, and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 3 subsections d) and f) of the National Parks Service Law (Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales); 3, 7, 17, 82 subsections a) and b) of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), and on the other hand; the Natural Heritage of the State is formed by the other forests and forest lands or lands of forest aptitude (terrenos de aptitud forestal) belonging to the State and public institutions (Article 13 of the Ley Forestal), which have an immediate legal encumbrance. Regarding the subsidiary claim (that if the granting of the deed is not admissible, they be compensated for all accessions and improvements), they stated that this does not correspond to them because the occupation is over a property that forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and that mere occupation does not generate any right for them. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">Opinion of the Chamber</span><span>: As indicated supra, the object of this lawsuit is so that in judgment: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1.</span><span> The parcel located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement identified as No. 74-A-4 be adjudicated to the claimants, and to that extent, its public deed. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2.</span><span> That if said parcel cannot be adjudicated to them, they be paid for the accessions and improvements they have introduced to the property during the time they have possessed it in good faith. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3.</span><span> That they be paid for the damages and losses caused to them by an eventual eviction and the subjective moral damages caused.</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>By reason of the foregoing, this Chamber will analyze, in order, each of those claims according to the facts that have been established as proven in light of the applicable legal system. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">A) Regarding the titling application for the property</span><span>: Analyzing the resolution of the Board of Directors of INDER in Article 37 of ordinary session No. 22 of August 26, 2019 (which has not been challenged in this lawsuit), it conformed to law because it has been established as proven that: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">i)</span><span> The Costa Rican State, in protection of the environment, granted in Articles 18, 19, and 28 of the “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Ley Forestal</span><span>” No. 4465 of November 25, 1969, special protection over the Forest Heritage of the State. Its Article 18 provided: “</span><span style="font-style:italic">The Forest Heritage of the State is constituted by the National Reserves, Forest Reserves, National Parks, State Forest Nurseries, Protective Zones, and Biological Reserves</span><span>.” Its Article 19: “</span><span style="font-style:italic">All forests and forest lands located in: a) Lands considered as National Reserves; and b) Rural farms in the private domain of the State, those belonging to municipalities and autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, are encumbered for the purposes of this law</span><span>.” Said Law was amended by Law No. 7174 “Ley Forestal” of June 28, 1990, and in its Article 32 it was provided: “</span><span style="font-style:italic">The forest heritage of the State is constituted by all forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of areas declared inalienable, of farms registered in its name, and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other agencies of the Public Administration</span><span>.” For its part, Article 33: “</span><span style="font-style:italic">The forest lands and forests that constitute the forest heritage of the State, detailed in the preceding article, shall be unseizable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not generate any right in their favor, and the State’s action for recovery (acción reivindicatoria) over these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they are not susceptible to registration in the Public Registry through possessory information; their invasion and occupation shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of this law on forest aptitude, and they shall be automatically incorporated into the forest heritage of the State</span><span>.” Finally, the “Ley Forestal” No. 7575 of March 16, 1996 (which amended the previous ones) provided in its Article 13): “</span><span style="font-style:italic">Constitution and administration. The natural heritage of the State shall be constituted by the forests and forest lands of the national reserves, of areas declared inalienable, of farms registered in its name, and of those belonging to municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other agencies of the Public Administration, except for properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets. The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall administer the heritage. When appropriate, through the Attorney General’s Office, it shall register the lands in the Public Property Registry as individualized farms owned by the State. Non-governmental organizations that acquire real estate with forest or of forest aptitude, with funds from donations or the public treasury, that have been obtained on behalf of the State, must transfer them to the name of the State</span><span>.” And Article 14): “</span><span style="font-style:italic">Unseizable and inalienable condition of the natural heritage. The forest lands and forests that constitute the natural heritage of the State, detailed in the preceding article, shall be unseizable and inalienable; their possession by private individuals shall not generate any right in their favor, and the State’s action for recovery over these lands is imprescriptible. Consequently, they cannot be registered in the Public Registry through possessory information, and both the invasion and the occupation thereof shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of this law</span><span>.” In this way, the regulations protecting the Forest Heritage of the State since the year 1969 included within said assets the lands of forest aptitude that belong to the central State and its decentralized institutions, such as INDER. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">ii) </span><span>The Costa Rican State, in the interest of environmental protection, through Executive Decree</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, amended by Decree No. 5386 of October 28, 1975, created the “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve</span><span>”, stating in its</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>Article 1: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve is established, comprising the territory located within the following demarcation (according to topographic maps 1:50000 IGN: Río Cuarto 3347 II, Poás 3346 I, Barva 346 II, Abra 3345 I, Río Sucio Placa19614, Guápiles 3446 IV, Carrillo Placa19615, Istarú 3445 IV, Guácimo 3446 I, Bonilla 3446 II, Tucurrique 3445 I)</span><span style="font-style:italic">.</span><span>” For its part, Article 3: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The national reserves found within the above delimitation are declared inalienable</span><span>.” Article 4: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The Attorney General’s Office shall register the State lands of this Reserve in the Public Registry as an individualized farm of the National Heritage</span><span>.” Its Article 7: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Farms registered in the Public Registry and those protected by ten-year possession (posesión decenal), established within the limits of the reserve, are automatically subject to the Forest Regime</span><span>.” Finally, its Article 8: “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Farms not included in the preceding article shall form part of the forest heritage of the State, following the legal procedures</span><span>.” </span><span style="font-weight:bold">iii)</span><span> At the request of the then ITCO (now INDER), the Executive Branch, by Decree</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, expropriated from </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda</span><span>., the property registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia district, No. 57748, for the purpose of generating an agrarian solution and granting parcels to farmers in the project called “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement</span><span>” located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">iv)</span><span> That the claimants acquired from Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>in the year 2000 the property described in plan No. H-1107776-2006, and identified by INDER as parcel No. 74-A-4 located in the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement, and that within the titling proceedings, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas, by official letter </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015</span><span>, consulted the Head of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the plot located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral plan No. 1107776-2006, is located or not within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAET, or whether they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State. For its part, the Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area responded to the request by official letter </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Placa19617 of August 20, 2015</span><span>; in which it indicated that, in adherence to the provisions of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Ley Forestal No. 7575 and its amendments, and to official letter Placa19618 of August 20, 2015, prepared by Engineer Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, which refers to the field visit; the parcel with plan No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí of Horquetas, is found within the protected wilderness areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State. For its part, the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC, by official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, specified that according to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338, referring to cadastral plan H-1107776-2006, the property described therein is located 98% within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. In this way, it has been proven beyond any doubt that the land described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006, which corresponds to the parcel of the Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement in Horquetas de Sarapiquí identified as No. 74-A-4, is located 98% within the boundaries of the </span><span style="font-style:italic">Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve</span><span>. Said situation makes it legally impossible to grant a public deed for said property, because as said property forms part of the cited reserve, the land forms part of it by operation of law, and cannot be titled in the name of private individuals, as it is clear that they are subject to the characteristics inherent to these properties, namely, being assets over which adverse possession (prescripción positiva) does not operate, they are unseizable and inalienable. Along these lines, one can delve into the judgments issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Nos. 1070-F-S1-2010, 1088-F-S1-2011, and 1675-F-51-2012, as well as judgments of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 17659-2008, 21258-2010, and 16938-2011, among many others, in which those judicial instances have stated that over the Natural Heritage of the State, as part of the public domain assets, it is not possible for private individuals to exercise any type of possession or ownership, from which it also derives that it is also not viable to acquire ownership by usucapion (usucapión) or adverse possession, even if they had been on such lands for more than ten years, and much less that an Administration can adjudicate them in favor of a private individual. For this reason, the titling claim is inadmissible. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">B) Regarding the claim for recognition of improvements and accessions</span><span>: According to what was proven, we have: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span><span> That between the years 1972 and 1973, Mr. Nombre111168</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>entered into possession of a farm of around 80 hectares located in the area of Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí, which he gradually sold in parts to the individual identified as Nombre111171, to Mr. Nombre84914</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>and to Mr. Nombre111170</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>, and the latter sold in the year 2000 to the claimants the property described in Cadastral Plan No. H-1107776-2006. Land that is part of Farm No. 4-57748-000 expropriated by the State at the request of the then ITCO to be granted in parcels to peasants and which INDER identified as parcel No. 74-A-4, with an area of 7ha. 6841.22m2 dedicated to agricultural activity and housing. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">2)</span><span> That by official letter OSH-0096-2015 of </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">February 9, 2015</span><span>, the INDER Subregional Office in Horquetas de Sarapiquí summoned —among other neighbors of the Cubujuquí Settlement— Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span>as an occupant in said Settlement to a meeting in order to inform them about the topographical work that INDER was carrying out at that time in that Settlement. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">3)</span><span> That within the titling proceedings initiated by the claimants before INDER, it was determined that: </span><span style="font-weight:bold">a)</span><span> The INDER Subregional Office in Sarapiquí, by official letter OSH-0689-2015 of </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">August 18, 2015</span><span>, requested the Head of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals to prepare the certificate of compliant land use (uso conforme del suelo) for the plot described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006; and that Head Office prepared the “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Inspection Certificate for Land Titling</span><span>” for the plot described in cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agricultural Engineer Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">April 12, 2018</span><span>, with consecutive entry number 18015801; in which it indicated that on the parcel exploited by Mr. Nombre111167</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>, COMPLIANT LAND USE has been exercised 100%, for the activity carried out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the plot there is a 1/2-hectare peach palm plantation in good phytosanitary condition, 36 m2 of banana, a dwelling house of 80 m2 in good condition and another of 140 m2 in good or fair condition. Pastureland, 8 cows, one horse, 40 birds, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, a corral, a shed, a stable, etc. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">b)</span><span> Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out on </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">September 18, 2018</span><span> the inspection of Dirección13211</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>and signed the “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Titling Sheet</span><span>” in which he recommended titling in the name of the claimants the referenced plot, with cadastral plan No. H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7ha. 6841.22m2, which forms part of Farm No. 4-57748-000 of the Heredia district in the name of INDER, and he calculated its transfer at the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called “PARTY DECLARATION,” the claimants accepted the transfer in their favor of the referenced property under the terms of Law No. 2825, No. 7142, and No.</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>9036. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">c)</span><span> That by Executive Decree</span><span style="-aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span>No. 4961 published in La Gaceta No. 130 of July 11, 1975, amended by Decree No. Placa19622 of October 28, 1975, the “</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve</span><span>” was created. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">d)</span><span> By Decree No. 6236-G published in La Gaceta No. 156 of August 17, 1976, farm No. 4-57748-000, property of </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda</span><span>., registered in the Public Registry at Volume 1792, Folio 128, Entry 2 of the Heredia district, was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO, for the purpose of generating an agrarian solution and granting parcels to farmers in the project called “</span><span style="font-style:italic">Cubujuquí Peasant Settlement</span><span>” located in Horquetas de Sarapiquí. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">e)</span><span> The Head Office of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area, by official letter Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, reiterated by the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC through official letter SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020; indicated that according to official letters OS-1336 and OS-1338 —referring to cadastral plan H-1107776-2006—, the property described therein is located 98% within the Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve. </span><span style="font-weight:bold">f)</span><span> By official letter OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018, the INDER Territorial Office in Horquetas informed the claimants that the titling application was not admissible because the property was encumbered as a Protected Wilderness Area, Cordillera Volcánica Central Forest Reserve, and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State.</span> In this way, according to the accredited facts and those referenced herein, it is clear that although the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central</span>" was created in 1975, and the ITCO acquired the property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 with the purpose of creating the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and distributing parcels to farmers; it was not until August 20, 2015, that SINAC, by official communication Placa19617, informed INDER that the land described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 was located within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. This information was reiterated in official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of this situation by INDER through official communication OTHO-758-2018 of September 28, 2018. Thus, the plaintiffs had certainty of the geographical situation of parcel No. 74-A-4 only as of September 28, 2018, even though their acquisition occurred in the year 2000. A parcel that was acquired with the hope that it would be titled by INDER because it was within the Proyecto Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. As such, for this Court, the acquisition and possession exercised by the plaintiffs over said property was done in good faith, for it must not be lost sight of that: <span style="font-weight:bold">1)</span> The property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 was expropriated at the request of the then ITCO for the creation of the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí in Horquetas de Sarapiquí and to be divided into parcels. <span style="font-weight:bold">2)</span> That the parcel described in Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2006 is part of said property, which was acquired by the plaintiffs in the year 2000, and they made compliant use according to the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras</span>" of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006, issued by Agricultural Engineer Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 1801580, to the point that Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out on <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">September 18, 2018</span> the inspection of parcel Dirección13212 and signed the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Ficha de Titulación</span>" in which he recommended titling the referenced property in the name of the plaintiffs; however, it was not possible because said property forms part, in 98% of its area, of the <span style="font-style:italic">Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, </span>which was formally notified to the plaintiffs only on September 28, 2018, by official communication OTHO-758-2018 from the Territorial Office of INDER in Horquetas. Based on the accredited facts and the provisions of articles 328, 329, 332, 508, and 509 of the Civil Code, it is now appropriate to analyze the merits of the subsidiary claim consisting of the patrimonial recognition claimed by the plaintiffs for the concept of accessions (accesiones) and improvements (mejoras), since the plaintiffs' intention to at least recover the economic funds invested in the parcel identified as No. Placa19621 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí could not be ignored either. Now, before referring to that point, it is timely to bring up what the First Chamber has indicated in this regard, and which, due to its importance, is cited at length: "...<span style="font-weight:bold">VIII.- </span><span style="font-style:italic">Now, having defined the need to rule on the claim for recognition of the improvements introduced to the property in question, it is necessary to determine which of those investments made are characteristic of improvements and which correspond to the institution of accession (accesión). Likewise, it is necessary to establish which correspond to improvements over which the defendant may exercise retention, as an effect derived from the ordered reivindication. Improvements may be necessary or useful. Regarding the former, this Chamber has established that the so-called "</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">necessary improvements (mejoras necesarias)</span><span style="font-style:italic">", refer to all those expenses indispensable for the conservation of the thing, but which do not increase its market value. They are carried out with the purpose of preventing its deterioration or ruin, given that if not performed, such a negative effect would occur. Their purpose is not to achieve a greater value of the thing, but to maintain it in a good state. They are called necessary because they must be executed only so that the good does not deteriorate and its yield does not decrease. On the contrary, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">useful ones</span><span style="font-style:italic"> do increase the market value of the thing, as they are introduced with the desire to improve it, to increase profits. They benefit any possessor and not only the one who makes them. This is because they generate a capital gain by increasing the value of the thing. The Civil Code develops this distinction in article 332, since </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">it classifies necessary ones as those expenses indispensable for the conservation of the thing, and useful ones as those that increase its market value</span><span style="font-style:italic"> (in relation, judgment No. 13 of 10 hours on January 29, 1993, and No. 68 of 14 hours 40 minutes on June 30, 1998.) </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Regarding said improvements, there are substantial differences as to the possessor in good or bad faith</span><span style="font-style:italic">. In accordance with the provisions of numeral 328 of the Civil Code in relation to 330 ibidem, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">the reivindicated possessor has the right to recognition of both useful and necessary improvements</span><span style="font-style:italic">, by virtue of which, and until effective payment, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">shall have the right of retention</span><span style="font-style:italic">, over both, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">when the possession has been in good faith</span><span style="font-style:italic">, and only over the necessary ones, when the possession has been in bad faith. On the other hand, sumptuary or purely ornamental improvements may be removed by the possessor in good faith (ius tollendi), provided that such action does not cause deterioration to the good and provided that the legitimate possessor does not prefer to keep them, paying the value they would have after separation..." (</span>First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). In this way, in accordance with the provisions of articles 328, 330, and 332 of the Civil Code, the possessor in good faith, who is reivindicated, has the right to recognition of both useful and necessary improvements. Regarding "accession (accesión)", that Chamber indicated in the cited vote: "...<span style="font-weight:bold">IX.-</span><span style="font-style:italic">With respect to the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">institution of accession (accesión)</span><span style="font-style:italic">, it is of interest for these purposes that which is established regarding real property, specifically in relation to construction on another's land. When one has built, planted, or sown on another's land, the Civil Code establishes a distinction based on whether the construction was made without the owner's consent (article 508) or with the latter's "knowledge and patience" (article 509). </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">When consent has not been given, the owner of the land acquires the building or plantation, compensating the value of the materials and labor, excluding from payment the increased value of the property</span><span style="font-style:italic">; but may also opt to demand the elimination or destruction of what was incorporated, and payment of the damages caused, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">except in the case of one who, in good faith, built, sowed, or planted, for here destruction is not applicable, the property owner having the option to reimburse the value of the materials and work, or pay a sum equal to or greater than the value acquired by the property</span><span style="font-style:italic"> (article 508). On the other hand, if the works were carried out with the "knowledge and patience" of the owner, the latter may appropriate the plantation or building, paying the value if it suits him, but may also opt for the constitution of co-ownership between the two, fixing the shares based on the contributions of each (article 509). This collegiate body has established that in the case of express consent of the owner for the incorporation of things onto his property, there is no accession (accesión), since accession (accesión) constitutes a form of original acquisition of the right of property, and one is not in the presence of that hypothesis but rather a contractual form from which reciprocal rights and obligations derive. Although the incorporation of things is generated, the way to determine ownership will depend on the will of the parties, and in the express absence of this, on the rules of obligations (articles 627 and following), the general principles of Law, and equity (articles 4 and 11 of the Civil Code, respectively). (On this matter, judgment No. 751 of 10 hours 20 minutes on October 6, 2000.) (</span>First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). In the case under analysis, it is the criterion of this Chamber that the plaintiffs acted in good faith and built and established an agrarian activity in full view and with the patience of INDER, since both they and INDER's own officials were unaware that the land described in Cadastral Map No. H-1107776-2007, and which was identified by INDER as Parcel No. 74-A-4, formed part of the Reserva Forestal Cadena Volcánica Central, and it was also accredited that INDER had certainty of this situation only when SINAC, by official communication Placa19617 of August 20, 2015, communicated to INDER that the land described in cadastral map No. Placa19619 was within the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Information that was reiterated in official communication SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 of July 17, 2020, by the Directorate of the Central Conservation Area of SINAC. And finally, the plaintiffs were notified of this situation by INDER only on September 28, 2018, through official communication OTHO-758-2018. In this way, in the Chamber's opinion, the plaintiffs assumed between the year 2000 and September 27, 2018, that the parcel identified under No. 74-A-4 did not form part of the indicated Forest Reserve, and therefore they did not act in bad faith. On the contrary, it is held that the activity developed, according to the certification of compliant land use (uso conforme), was carried out in accordance with the provisions for parcels owned by INDER in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. Now, regarding improvements (mejoras) (useful and necessary) and the figure of real property accession (accesión inmobiliaria), the Chamber in the same vote delimited the figure between improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones) as follows: <span style="font-style:italic">"...Regarding the other investments,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> they constitute buildings, fruit tree crops, and aggregates to an alien real property</span><span style="font-style:italic">, which were made without the owner's consent (article 508 of the Civil Code) and against which, the plaintiff has shown his opposition (claim No. 4 of the lawsuit, folio 100). From this perspective, these investments made by Mr. .... and his family (confirmed in proven fact No. 5 of the trial court's judgment) represent a benefit for the possession he has been exercising on the property in conflict and the activity he carries out, but they cannot be associated with conservation of the real property. Nor can they be considered as useful improvements (mejoras útiles), since for them to be considered as such, it should have been demonstrated that the additions were made to already existing goods. </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Indeed, improvements (mejoras) have a different regulation and connotation than new plantations or constructions that a person makes on another's land, for which reason both figures must be differentiated</span><span style="font-style:italic">. Improvements (mejoras) are governed by a principle of accessoriality, as they are made to expand, modify, or repair a pre-existing thing. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Thus, with reference to a property destined for agricultural production, the replacement, increase, modification, or improvement of pre-existing plants or crops; repair of the infrastructure with which the agrarian activity is developed, among others, could be considered as improvements (mejoras)</span><span style="font-style:italic">. </span><span style="font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">In opposition, new buildings, constructions, or permanent crops (of fruit trees) made on another's land where </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">there were no works of that nature, or if they existed, were completely separate from the new ones, cannot be considered as improvements (mejoras) in the legal sense of the term, even if they "improve the property", so in these matters, the figure of accession of real property (accesión de bienes inmuebles)</span><span style="font-style:italic">, or immovable accession, is applicable. (Judgments No. 1 of 14 hours 55 minutes on January 6, 1993, No. 65 of 14 hours 40 minutes on August 17, 1994, and No. 4 of 14 hours 45 minutes on January 28, 1998, are oriented in this direction). Along this line of thought, this Chamber, in judgment No. 37 of 14 hours 55 minutes on April 10, 1996, stated: "Buildings erected on land, in good legal technique, cannot be deemed improvements (mejoras). The latter constitute increases, repairs, or favorable changes in pre-existing goods, regarding which, depending on whether they involve possessors in good or bad faith, reimbursement may be requested in case of return of the good, when the owner has not held the possession. The regulation of payment for improvements (mejoras) is contained in articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code, and may be agreed upon in those cases where accession (accesión) by planting or building on another's property does not occur. If accession (accesión) occurs, the applicable regime will be that provided for in articles 508 and 509, as appropriate." According to the cited antecedents, the buildings, permanent crops, and other contributions made by the appellant Name111172 within the property in question cannot be considered simply as increases, repairs, or beneficial changes to goods that existed before his entry into possession,</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> since it has not been accredited in the proceedings that there existed on the property in conflict plantations that were improved, an aspect that, in line with what has been indicated, is fundamental for such investments to be classified as improvements (mejoras). From this derives that it is not feasible to apply to the case the regulations governing improvements (mejoras), but rather those of immovable accession (accesión inmobiliaria)</span><span style="font-style:italic">."</span> <span style="font-style:italic">(</span>First Chamber No. 233 of April 14, 2005). (Emphasis is ours). In accordance with what is indicated in the cited resolution, it must then be analyzed in each case whether, faced with a claim of this type, one is faced with improvements (mejoras) (useful and necessary) according to the provisions of articles 328 to 332 of the Civil Code, or faced with the figure of immovable accession (accesión inmobiliaria) according to what is indicated in articles 508 and 509 of the same normative body. In the case under analysis, it was accredited by the Head of Agroeconomics Studies and Appraisals in their "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras</span>" issued by Agricultural Engineer Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801; on parcel No. 74-4-A exploited by Mr. Name111167, CONFORMING LAND USE (USO CONFORME DEL SUELO) has been exercised 100%, for the activity he carries out according to the approved methodology. It was indicated in said certification that on the property there is a plantation of 1/2 hectare of palmito in good phytosanitary condition, 36 m2 of plantain, a dwelling house of 80 m2 in good condition and another of 140 m2 in good or regular condition. Pasture with grass, 8 cows, a horse, 40 poultry, for self-consumption of milk and breeding, corral, shed, stable, etc. (<span style="font-weight:bold">See folios 13 to 28 of the administrative file for the titling of parcel No. Placa19621</span>). Thus, it was a possession of an agrarian nature, and regarding the work and constructions erected by the plaintiffs, the nature of which must be specified as improvements (mejoras) or aggregates proper to the institution of accession (accesión). In this way, those carried out by the plaintiffs referring to the making of pastures or cleaning of those already existing upon their entry to the property in the year 2000 will be improvements (mejoras). Meanwhile, the plantations, constructions, stables, and cattle raising will be accessions (accesiones). Works erected and developed by the plaintiffs after their entry to the property. So, under the protection of the provisions of numerals 328 and 330 of the Civil Code, the indicated necessary improvements (mejoras necesarias) must be recognized by the owner of the land, granting the plaintiffs, as authors of said works, the right of retention up to the value thereof. As for the referred accessions (accesiones), their recognition must be made in accordance with the provisions of article 509 of the Civil Code. The foregoing because, as indicated, it was accredited that the plaintiffs have occupied since the year 2000 parcel No. Placa19621 located in the Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, which is part of the property of INDER, registration of the Partido de Heredia under No. Placa19623, on which the plaintiffs developed, in full view and with the patience of INDER, an agrarian activity and erected the structures indicated in the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Certificado de Uso Conforme de Suelo</span>" issued by Agricultural Engineer Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801, without bad faith on their part mediating, for which reason they must be compensated in accordance with the quantification established in the sentence execution process. Thus, confirming the merits of the plaintiffs' right, the obligation is imposed on INDER to pay them the investment they made on the land corresponding to parcel No. 74-A-4 for the following necessary improvements (mejoras necesarias): making of pastures or cleaning of existing ones. Likewise, the accessions (accesiones) must be recognized, consisting of the buildings and crops, according to the quantification made in execution of this judgment, with the right of retention over them. And it must be considered that according to article 48 of the INDER Law No. 9036, that institution is obligated to pay for useful and necessary improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones) made in good faith. And it is reiterated, in the present case it was accredited that at the request of ITCO, the Executive Branch expropriated from the company Cubujuquí S.A. the property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí in the year 1976 through Decree No. 156 of August 17, 1976, and since the year 1972, Mr. Name111168 had been occupying part of that property, and ultimately part of that property was acquired in the year 2000 by the plaintiffs herein, who from that date entered the property and established an agrarian activity according to the land use (uso de suelo) as indicated in the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras</span>" issued by Agricultural Engineer Luis Dionisio García Giró, License CIA-5525, dated April 12, 2018, with consecutive entry number 18015801. Likewise, Technician Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales carried out on <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">September 18, 2018</span> the inspection of parcel 74-A-4 and signed the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Ficha de Titulación</span>" in which he recommended titling in the name of the plaintiffs the property referenced as a parcel, with cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 and with an area of 7ha6841.22m2, which forms part of the Property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 in the name of INDER, and calculated its transfer in the sum of 2,052,423.65 colones. And in the section called "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", the plaintiffs accepted the transfer in their favor of the referenced property under the terms of Law No. 2825, Law No. 7142, and Law No. 9036. In this way, the recognition of useful and necessary improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones) is a criterion imposed by the supra-referenced regulations, but it is also imposed for reasons of equity, since it is also recorded that the plaintiffs were officially notified by INDER about the situation of the proximity of parcel 74-A-4 to the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central only on September 28, 2018, through official communication OTHO-758-2018. Thus, it was accredited that the plaintiffs have exercised possessory acts over the cited parcel in good faith, which has a part of permanent crops and another of pasture. That the crop is palmito and plantain. With 8 cows, a horse, 40 hens, 2 dwelling houses, a corral, a stable. With well-marked boundaries, to the East with dead posts, with 6 strands of barbed wire. To the South, dead posts with barbed wire with 4 strands. To the North with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire and to the West also with dead posts with 5 strands of barbed wire. All this information is recorded in the administrative file at folios 13 to 28. It is also not recorded that INDER had at any historical moment reclaimed possession of parcel No. 74-A-4 from the plaintiffs. In this way, the recognition and payment of the necessary improvements (mejoras necesarias) and of the accessions (accesiones) is a consequence of the fact that INDER always respected the exercise of possession by the plaintiffs over the cited parcel. Then, it is clear that INDER was concerned with specifying the limits with the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, when, by official communication <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">OSH-669-2015 of August 7, 2015</span>, the Subregional Office of INDER in Horquetas consulted the Head of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area whether the property located in Cubujuquí, according to cadastral map No. 1107776-2006, was located or not within the protected wild areas administered by MINAET-SINAC, or if they form part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and the Head of the Cordillera Volcánica Central Area of SINAC, by official communication <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">Placa19617 of August 20, 2015</span>, answered the required information indicating that the parcel with map No. H-1107776-2006, located in Cubujuquí de Horquetas, is within the protected wild areas administered by MINAE, forming part in this case of the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central and therefore part of the Natural Heritage of the State, and it was not until official communication OTHO-755-2018 of <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">September 28, 2018</span> that the Territorial Development Office of Horquetas requested the Head of SINAC-MINAE of Sarapiquí that said institution proceed to delimit the indicated land, and by official communication SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 of <span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">January 29, 2019</span>, it was indicated that it should process said request before the office of the Braulio Carrillo National Park. So, despite the fact that the Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central was created in 1975 and the expropriation of the property of the Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 located in the locality of Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí occurred in 1976 through Decree No. 156 of August 17, 1976; it was not until September 28, 2018, that INDER formally requested to delimit the land described in map H-1107776-2006 with respect to the indicated forest reserve. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is that according to what has been indicated, the plaintiffs must be recognized for the improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones), which must be liquidated and estimated in the sentence execution phase, due to lacking elements in this regard. As for the present or future damages claimed in the face of an eventual eviction, this point is rejected by virtue of the fact that the damages are immersed in the recognition made by the Court when granting the subsidiary claim, for the reasons explained above. Finally, subjective moral damage is also rejected, since the fact that other neighbors in the area were granted property titles is because their properties possibly do not form part of the Reserva Forestal<span style="color:#0070c0">.</span> Furthermore, none of the cases of the plaintiffs' neighbors form part of the object of this proceeding and therefore the reasons why titling did or did not occur are unknown. Then, the plaintiffs must not lose sight of the fact that they acquired a right of possession from Mr. Name111170, not the bare property, and that the consolidation of the property right over parcel 74-A-4 required titling by INDER, which could not be for an objective reason, since the property actually corresponded in approximately 98% to the forest reserve. Thus, what they had with respect to said property was an expectation, not a duly consolidated real right. A situation which does not exclude the recognition of the improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones) made on the property, but does exclude the claimed subjective moral damage. Finally, in accordance with what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in its vote No. 1963-2012 of February 15, 2012, once this judgment is final and the improvements (mejoras) and accessions (accesiones) have been paid, the eviction of the occupants of the property described in cadastral map No. H-1107776-2006 must be managed, exclusively in the portion of land that forms part of the "<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central</span>" under administration of SINAC of the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET). Likewise, MINAET and SINAC must prepare the necessary signs to allow the identification of the property as Natural Heritage of the State.

<span style="font-weight:bold">VII.- EXCEPTIONS:</span> The representations of SINAC and the State opposed in their defense the exceptions of lack of passive procedural standing (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva) and lack of right (falta de derecho), which must be accepted in light of what the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated when it has stated: <span style="font-style:italic">"Stated another way, the procedural mandate orders only that both the body with legal personality and the State or entity to which it belongs be incorporated into the judicial discussion. It then corresponds to the judge, in accordance with the substantive norms, to determine whether the act, conduct, or indolence questioned was developed or not under personality, thereby establishing if it is the body that must respond with its own property, or if it is the entity or the State to which the duty to repair must be attributed." </span>(Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes on November eleventh, two thousand ten.

Along the same lines, Judgment No. 883-F-S1-2011 of nine hours five minutes of July twenty-eighth, two thousand eleven). "(...) if it is determined that the challenged act constitutes the exercise of a power proper and exclusive to the so-called "organ-person", as a logical and natural consequence the appropriate course is to declare a lack of right with respect to the entity to which it is attached. In this sense, it is important to indicate that the granting of legal personality to an entity or organ has as an immediate consequence the constitution of them as an ultimate and sole center of imputation of the effects of their actions or omissions." (Resolution No. 1360-F-S1-2010 of ten hours twenty-five minutes of November eleventh, two thousand ten). In the present matter, it is clear that there is no conduct imputable to the State or to SINAC in what was done and questioned by the plaintiffs. Conduct that was proper to INDER in the exercise of its powers and for which it must respond individually. The representation of INDER raised the defense of statute of limitations, lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación), and lack of right. Regarding the defense of statute of limitations, this Court pronounced itself in Considerando V. On the defense of lack of standing (falta de legitimación), it should be noted that standing constitutes the capacity, the aptitude to be a party to a specific proceeding, as a passive party, depending on the conditions that for such effect, the procedural law prescribes in relation to the claim that is raised. Now, standing derives either from the legal-administrative relationship established between the plaintiff and the Administration, or from the law, according to what it has established in that regard. And it is that in a proceeding there are two types of standing, standing for the cause (ad causam) and standing for the proceeding (ad procesum). The first (ad causam) involves verifying whether the person filing the lawsuit has, legally speaking, a right to claim, that is; the party with standing is that person who, under the substantive law, has a certain legal relationship with the object of the proceeding, that is, the claim. The second (ad procesum) consists of a procedural matter, in other words, whether the person appearing has the capacity to act according to the law or whether they act on behalf of another with the type of adequate legal representation adjusted to our regulations. In the present case, it has been accredited that the plaintiffs acquired parcel No. 74-A-4 in the year 2000 located in the Asentamiento Cubujuquí of Horquetas de Sarapiquí and filed a request in the year 2015 before INDER for titling (titularización). Request that was denied for the reasons indicated. In this way, between the plaintiffs and INDER a legal administrative relationship was generated and therefore the plaintiffs actively have standing to sue and INDER to be sued, reason for which this defense is rejected. Finally, regarding the defense of lack of right, taking up what was said by our Sala Primera, the demonstration of the facts is necessary, as a fundamental part thereof, because from what is determined in that section, it can be inferred whether or not the legal bases exist for what is sought. Having accredited partial rights of the plaintiffs, the appropriate course is to uphold the indicated defense partially.

**VIII.- COSTS (COSTAS):** Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that the procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a pronouncement that must be made even ex officio, pursuant to what is provided in that same norm, in concordance with numeral 119.2 *ibídem*. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable: a) when there is, in the judgment of the Court, sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or else, c) when *plus petitio* is incurred, that is, when the difference between what is claimed and what is ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (151/2) or more, unless the bases of the lawsuit are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (ordinal 194 *ibídem*). In the case at hand, this Collegiate Body does not find that we are facing any of the said exceptions that allows breaking the postulate of imposition of costs (costas) on the losing party, and to that extent, the appropriate course is to condemn INDER to pay both costs (costas) of this Proceeding. Quantum of the same that will be determined in the Sentence Execution Stage at the request of the prevailing party. Insofar as the lawsuit was directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without special condemnation in costs (costas), since both parties were integrated ex officio by the Processing Judge.

**POR TANTO:** The evidence for better resolution is admitted. The defense of statute of limitations of the right is rejected. Insofar as the lawsuit was directed against the State and SINAC, the defense of lack of passive standing for the cause (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva) and Lack of Right are upheld. On the occasion of which, the lawsuit filed against both representations is declared without merit. As concerns INDER, the defense of lack of passive standing is rejected and the defense of Lack of Right is partially upheld and consequently, the lawsuit against said entity is declared partially with merit, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted, as follows: **i)** INDER is condemned to pay the plaintiffs the improvements and accessions (mejoras y accesiones) made on the parcel with Registration No. Placa19621, which will be liquidated and estimated in the execution of the sentence (ejecución de sentencia) and over which the plaintiffs will have a right of retention (derecho de retención) until their effective payment. **ii)** INDER is condemned to pay the plaintiffs both costs (costas) of this Proceeding. Quantum of the same that will be determined in the Sentence Execution Stage at the instance of the prevailing party. **iii)** Insofar as the lawsuit was directed against the State and SINAC, it is resolved without special condemnation in costs (costas). **NOTIFÍQUESE. José Iván Salas Leitón. Judith Reyes Castillo. Elías Baltodano Gómez. Judges.**

TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA Central 2545-0003. Fax 2545-0033. Correo Electrónico ...01 Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A Dirección218( ) PROCESO: CONOCIMIENTO ACTORES: Nombre111167 Y Nombre23709 DEMANDADO: EL INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL, EL ESTADO Y EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Nº 055-2022-IV SECCIÓN CUARTA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Dirección01 , a las siete horas con treinta minutos del treinta de mayo de dos mil veintidós.

Proceso de Conocimiento interpuesto por el señor Nombre111167 , quien es mayor, casado, ganadero, cédula No. CED87830 y la señora Nombre23709 quien es mayor, casada, pensionada, con cédula de identidad número CED87831, ambos vecinos de Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Asentamiento Cubujuquí contra el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL en adelante el INDER, representando por el Licenciado Natanael José Barrantes Azofeifa, carné 19857, EL ESTADO representado por la Licenciada Rosario León Yannarella y el SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN en adelante el SINAC representado por el Licenciado Guillermo Corrales Cordero, carné CED87832. Interviene como apoderada especial judicial de los actores la Licenciada Julissa Rodríguez Rojas, carné 22668.

RESULTANDO:

I.- Por escrito recibido el día 11 de junio de 2020 y subsanado el día 18 de ese mismo mes y año, la representación de los actores presentó demanda en contra el INDER cuyas pretensiones fueron precisadas en la audiencia preliminar realizada el día 11 de noviembre de 2020 de la siguiente manera: "...1. Que sea adjudicado a nuestro nombre el bien objeto del presente proceso y nos otorguen la Escritura Pública del mismo, así como ha sido posible con otros adjudicatarios y sus bienes en el mismo Asentamiento. De manera subsidiaria, solicitamos en caso de no ser adjudicada a nuestro nombre la finca en mención, se nos cancelen todas y cada una de las accesiones y mejoras que hemos introducido al bien durante el tiempo que lo hemos poseído de buena fe, como buenos padres de familia, posesión que como hemos venido demostrando, lo ha sido a título de dueños. 2. Que se condene la parte demandada al pago de los daños y perjuicios ocasionados a nuestras personas. Así mismo, solicito se condene a la parte demandada al pago de los daños y perjuicios que se causen en el futuro producto de las consecuencias de un eventual desalojo y los cuales estaremos liquidando en proceso de ejecución de sentencia que corresponda. 3. Que se condene a la parte demandada al pago de Ambas Costas Procesales de la presente causa. 4. Que se condene a la parte demandada al (Sic) pagarnos el daño moral subjetivo que nos ha causado...". Daño moral subjetivo que fue precisado en su demanda. (Ver imagen 278 del expediente judicial y respaldo electrónico de la Audiencia Preliminar).

II.- Por resolución de 09:56 horas del 19 de junio de 2020, de oficio se integró por parte del Tribunal al Estado y al SINAC y se dio traslado a todas las partes vinculadas en la relación jurídico procesal. (Ver imágenes de la 287 a la 290 del expediente digital judicial).

III.- Conferido el traslado de ley, la representación del INDER contestó negativamente la demanda y en su defensa opuso las excepciones de prescripción, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho. Por su parte la representación del SINAC también rechazó la demanda y opuso las defensas de falta de legitimación y falta de derecho. Finalmente la representación estatal, también rechazó la demanda y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho. (Ver imágenes de la 483 a la 579, de la 772 a la 788 y de la 798 a la 814 del expediente digital judicial).

IV.- La Audiencia Preliminar se llevó en fecha 11 de noviembre de 2020, con asistencia de los representantes de las partes. La pretensión se definió en los términos del primer resultando de este fallo. Se reservó la excepción de prescripción para ser conocida en sentencia. Se determinaron los hechos controvertidos y no controvertidos de relevancia para la resolución del caso y se admitió la prueba documental y testimonial de los señores Nombre111168 , Nombre111169 , Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón y Didier Rodríguez Salazar. (Imágenes de la 1109 a la 1113 del expediente judicial. Respaldo electrónico de la referida Audiencia).

V.- El Juicio Oral y Público se llevó a cabo a partir de las 8:30 horas del 11 de mayo de 2022, mismo en el cual se recibió el alegato de apertura, se evacuó la prueba testimonial de los señores Nombre111168 , Nombre111169 , Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón y Didier Rodríguez Salazar y finalmente las partes rindieron sus conclusiones. (Respaldo disco compacto de la Audiencia Complementaria).

VI.- Se dicta esta sentencia, previa deliberación de los integrantes del Tribunal, dentro del plazo de quince días establecido en el artículo 111.1 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo -al haberse declarado complejo el presente asunto-, sin que se observen causales capaces de invalidar lo actuado.

Redacta el Juez Salas Leitón, con el voto afirmativo de los juzgadores Reyes Castillo y Baltodano Gómez.

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE LA PRUEBA PARA MEJOR PROVEER: En la audiencia preliminar celebrada el día 11 de noviembre de 2020, la representante de la parte actora ofreció a título de prueba para mejor resolver copia del plano visible a imagen 1094 del expediente digital judicial y fotografía de los libros de control de visitas al INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí la cual fue reservada a este Tribunal. (Ver imágenes de la 300 a la 482 del expediente digital judicial). En cuanto a la admisibilidad de la prueba para mejor resolver, se debe indicar que es criterio reiterado de la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, que su rechazo no produce la indefensión de las partes, y su admisión o rechazo por parte del Tribunal carece de recurso. Entre otras sentencias, se transcribe en lo que interesa el Voto N° 547-F-2002 de las 16 horas del 12 de julio de 2002, en el cual esa Sala indicó: “(…) IV.- Múltiples precedentes de esta Sala, refiriéndose a la prueba para mejor resolver, han señalado que esta es prueba del juez, y no de las partes. En consecuencia, la decisión de recabarla es facultativa del órgano jurisdiccional, y puede prescindirse de ella sin necesidad de resolución alguna. Ergo, la omisión de pronunciamiento a su respecto, precisamente porque ha sido rebasada la etapa probatoria, en la cual deben las partes demostrar los hechos constitutivos de su derecho, según lo imponen las normas sobre la carga de la prueba y precluida aquella etapa, será facultad exclusiva del juzgador, determinar si deben allegarse a los autos nuevas probanzas necesarias para la correcta decisión del litigio. Pueden consultarse, entre muchas otras las siguientes resoluciones; 59 de las 15:20 horas del 31 de mayo de 1996, 23 de las 14:20 horas del 4 de marzo de 1992, 34 de las 10:45 horas del 28 de mayo de 1993 y 83 de las 14:40 horas del 22 de diciembre de 1993. (…)”. En el caso concreto, el Tribunal estima que la prueba ofrecida en condición de prueba para mejor posee pertinencia, razón por la cual se admite.

II.- HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de la presente litis, se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes: 1) Que mediante Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961-A del 26 de junio de 1975 (vigente desde el 11/7/75) se creó la "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central", y declaró inalienables los terrenos nacionales que se encuentran dentro de la delimitación indicada en su artículo primero. (Hecho no controvertido). 2) En la Gaceta No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976 a solicitud del ITCO se publicó el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 6235-G, en el que se ordenó expropiar la finca del Partido de Heredia No. 57748, con una cabida de 5 mil hectáreas y propiedad de la sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda. (Ver imagen 761 del expediente digital judicial). 3) Dentro de las diligencias de adquisición de la finca del Partido de Heredia No. Placa19616; la Junta Directiva del ITCO por artículo II de la Sesión No. 2008 celebrada el día 01 de setiembre de 1976, autorizó al Presidente Ejecutivo de esa Institución para que compareciera ante el Notario del ITCO y adquiriese dicho inmueble con una cabida de 5 mil hectáreas y por un monto de 4.344.284,20 millones de colones. (Ver imagen 759 del expediente digital judicial). 4) Que la finca No. 57748 quedó inscrita a nombre del ITCO el día 28 de enero de 1986, describiendo que su naturaleza era de terrenos de agricultura, viviendas y calles, situada en el Dirección13209 , de la provincia de Heredia. (Ver folio 85 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 5) Que el señor Nombre111168 , cédula CED87833, entre los años de 1972 y 1973 entró en posesión de alrededor de 80 hectáreas que formaban parte de la finca del Partido de Heredia No. 57748. Posesión que fue traspasando en partes a lo largo del tiempo a terceras personas. Que la parcela identificada por el INDER como la No. 74-A-4 fue parte de esa finca, y llegó a manos del señor Nombre111167 desde hace alrededor de 20 años y que cuando el señor Nombre111167 y su esposa llegaron al sitio solo habían repastos. (Declaración del señor Nombre111168 ). 6) Que conforme a la Escritura Pública No. 88 del 21 de octubre de 2018, de la Notaria Pública Julissa Rodríguez Rojas; el señor Nombre111170 cédula CED87834 vendió el día 09 de junio de 2000 a los actores, por la suma de 15 millones de colones el derecho de posesión de la finca ubicada en la provincia de Heredia, Cantón Sapariquí, Distrito Horquetas Cubujuquí A, con plano H-1107776-2006 y con una medida de 7hras 6841mts2 e identificada por el INDER como la parcela 74-A-4. (Ver folio 68 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 7) Que el 27 de octubre de 2006 se inscribió el Plano Catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 que describió un inmueble situado en Cubujuquí Sector A, Distrito 3, Horquetas, Cantón No. 10, Sarapiquí, Provincia de Heredia, con una cabida de 7ha.6841.22m2 en posesión de Nombre111170 y vendió al señor Nombre111167 . Inmueble que es parte de la propiedad del INDER inscrita a folio real No. 4057748-000 la cual posee una cabida de 2.780.630.32 mts2. Que en el anverso de dicho plano, el MINAE indicó en el Visado No. 0880-2006, que con base en la ubicación que aparece en ese plano, el inmueble que describe se ubica dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central en un 90% aproximadamente, según D.E.5386-A y reforma del 28 de octubre de 1975. (Ver folio 1 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 8) Por oficio OSH-0096-2015 del 09 de febrero de 2015, la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí convocó ---entre otros vecinos del Asentamiento Cubujuquí---, al señor Nombre111167 como ocupante en dicho Asentamiento a una reunión con el fin de informarles sobre el trabajo de topografía que realizaba en esa época el INDER en ese Asentamiento. Reunión que se llevó a cabo el día 10 de febrero de 2015, en el que se les explicó sobre la demarcación que se estaba realizando en la línea que divide el Asentamiento Cubujuquí con el Área de Conservación de la Cordillera Volcánica Central. (Ver folios 3 y 4 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 9) Por oficio OSH-4492015 del 30 de julio de 2015, la Oficina Subregional de Horquetas informó al Jefe Territorio Sarapiquí Heredia y Sarapiquí Alajuela, que la parcela ocupada por el señor Nombre111167 se opuso a que el topógrafo ingresara a la parcela a realizar las medidas y amojonamiento de la línea divisoria el Asentamiento con el Área del D.E. de la Cordillera Volcánica Central. (Ver folios 5 y 6 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 10) Por nota presentada el día 05 de agosto de 2015, los actores solicitaron a la Sede Regional del INDER en Sarapiquí, vecinos de Dirección13210 , Horquetas de Sarapiquí, Heredia, se les otorgue el título de propiedad conforme lo dispone el artículo 85.c) de la Ley No. Placa4583 de la propiedad descrita en el Plano Catastrado No. 1107776 del año 2006. (Ver folio 07 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 11) La Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas, por oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015, le consultó a la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central si el predio ubicado en Cubujuquí, según plano catastrado No. 1107776-2006 se ubica o no dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAET, o si forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (Ver folios 10 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 12) La Oficina Subregional del INDER en Sarapiquí por oficio OSH-0689-2015 del 18 de agosto de 2015, le solicitó a la Jefatura de Estudios Agroeconómicos y Avalúos confeccionar el certificado de uso conforme de suelo del predio descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006. (Ver folio 11 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 13) La Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central del SINAC por oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015 contestó la información requerida en el oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015; indicando que en apego a lo dispuesto en los artículos 13, 14, y 15 de la Ley Forestal No. 7575 y sus reformas y al oficio Placa19618 del 20 de agosto de 2015, elaborado por el Ing. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, el cual se refiere a la visita de campo; la parcela con plano No. H-1107776-2006, ubicado en Cubujuquí de Horquetas, se encuentra dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAE formando parte en este caso de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (Ver imágenes de la 794 a la 796 del expediente digital judicial y folio 12 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 14) La Jefatura de Estudios Agroeconómicos y Avalúos confeccionó el "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" del predio descrito en el plano catastrado No. Placa19619, emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 18015801, en el que indicó que en la parcela explotada por el señor Nombre111167 se ha ejercido en un 100% el USO CONFORME DEL SUELO, para la actividad que realiza de acuerdo a la metodología aprobada. Se indicó en dicha certificación que en el predio hay una plantación de 1/2 hectárea de palmito en buen estado fitosanitario 36 mts2 de plátano, una casa de habitación de 80 mts2 en buen estado y otra de 140mts2 en buen estado o regular. Potrero con pasto, 8 vacas, un caballo, 40 aves, para auto consumo de leche y cría, corral, galera, establo, etc. (Ver folios del 13 al 28 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 15) La Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial Horquetas, por oficio OTHO-0715-2018 del 12 de setiembre de 2018 señaló que de acuerdo a la información contenida en dicho plano, este pertenece a la finca del Partido de Heredia matrícula No. Placa3972 a nombre del INDER y pertenece a un predio conocido por la Oficina Territorial como parcela No. 74-C del Asentamiento Cubujuquí, Sector Precario, sin embargo no existe en el expediente oficio que indique su ubicación real y de ser parte del Asentamiento su numeración y por ello le solicitó a la Oficina de Información y Registro de Tierras, le informara si el terreno descrito en el plano H-1107776-2006 se ubicaba dentro de un asentamiento del INDER, que su información registral-catastral fuese la correcta y definir su numeración. Lo anterior en razón de la solicitud de titulación planteada por el señor Nombre111167 conforme al artículo 85.c de la Ley No. 9036. (Ver folio 29 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 16) Que el Técnico Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales realizó el día 18 de setiembre de 2018 la inspección de la parcela 74-A-4 y suscribió la "Ficha de Titulación" en la que recomendó titular a nombre de los actores el predio referenciado como parcela, con plano catastrado No. Placa19619 y con una cabida de 7ha6841.22mts2, la cual forma parte de la Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 a nombre del INDER y calculó su traspaso en la suma de 2,052.423,65 colones. Y en el apartado denominado "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", los actores aceptaron el traspaso a su favor del referido inmueble en los términos de la Ley No. 2825, la No. 7142 y la No. 9036. (Ver folios del 101 al 103 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 17) La Oficina de Información y Registro de Tierras del INDER por oficio IRT-0806-2018 del 25 de setiembre de 2018, respondió la información requerida en el oficio OTHO-0715-2018, en el que se indicó que de acuerdo a la ubicación cartográfica del plano, el predio forma parte de la parcela 74-A del asentamiento Cubujuquí. Que la información registral que muestra el plano, se corresponde con el de la finca madre del asentamiento (Finca No. Placa3972 a nombre del INDER) y que se identificaría como la parcela 74-A-4, la que conforme con la ubicación cartográfica del plano catastrado H-1107776-2006, se encuentra afecta al Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central. Información reiterada en el oficio IRT-0808-2018 del 25 de setiembre de 2018 (Ver folios 31 y 32 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 18) La Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas respondió a la solicitud de titularización planteada por los actores mediante oficio OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018, en el que le indicó que el inmueble se encontraba afecto al Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, por lo que no era viable legalmente su titularización. Que del total del inmueble solamente una área de 1771 mts2 estaba fuera de dicha reserva y por ende indicaran si era su deseo continuar con las diligencias a efectos de que se les titulara dicha porción de terreno. (Ver folios del 37 al 40 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 19) La Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas por oficio OTHO-755-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018 se dirigió a la Jefatura del SINAC-MINAE de Sarapiquí de acuerdo a lo indicado por esa oficina en los oficios No. Placa19617 y al oficio Placa19618 ambos del 20 de agosto de 2015, y señaló que tomando en consideración que el inmueble que describe el plano catastrado No, 1107776-2006 se encuentra dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y como área silvestre protegida y por ende parte del PNE, administrada por el MINAE, le solicitó ---con apego a lo establecido en los artículos 13, 14, 15 y 16 de la Ley Forestal No. 7575 y sus Reformas---, procediera esa institución a delimitar el terreno indicado visitando los linderos de la citada área. (Ver folio 58 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4 Tomo I y 122 del expediente digital judicial). 20) Por nota de fecha 22 de octubre de 2018, los actores solicitaron continuar con las diligencias por la totalidad del inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006. (Ver folios del 42 al 76 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 21) La oficina Subregional del ACAHN por oficio SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 del 29 de enero de 2019, se le indicó a la Jefatura de la Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas, que en atención al oficio OTHO-755-2018, referido a la solicitud de delimitación de los terrenos que forman parte del PNE que se ubica dentro del plano No. H-1107776-2006, en vista de que la propiedad se ubica en más de un 90% dentro de los límites de la RFCVC; debía gestionar dicha solicitud ante la oficina del Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo. (Ver folio 147 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4 Tomo I). 22) La Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas por oficio OTHO-095-2019 del 31 de enero de 2019, remitió la documentación referida a la solicitud de titulación planteada por los actores a la Asesoría Legal de la Oficina Regional del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí y le solicitó confeccionar un informe sobre la titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4 (antes conocida como la 74-C) del Asentamiento Cubujuquí. (Ver folios del 109 al 126 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 23) Por oficio AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 del 04 de abril de 2019, la Dirección Regional Huetar Norte y la Asesoría Jurídica luego del levantamiento de la información necesaria recomendaron denegar la solicitud planteada con base en que el inmueble sobre el que se solicitó su titularización ya que conforme a la constancia emitida por el MINAE No. Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015 el predio solicitado forma parte del Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende Patrimonio Natural del Estado. (Ver folios del 145 al 154 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 24) La Oficina de Fiscalización y Servicios Agrarios por oficio FSA-655-2019 del 31 de julio de 2019 remitió el oficio AJ-RDHN-L-195-2019 del 04 de abril de 2019 a la Presidencia Ejecutiva del INDER, y por su parte esa Presidencia por oficio A-PE-1004-2019 del 08 de agosto de 2019 remitió a la Junta Directiva del INDER para su resolución final. (Ver folios del 157 y 158 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 25) La Junta Directiva del INDER en su artículo 37 de la Sesión Ordinaria 22, celebrada el día 26 de agosto de 2019, conoció la gestión y la rechazó con base en que el inmueble solicitado a titular e inscribir forma parte del Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende como parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado imposibilitados para acceder a lo peticionado. Acuerdo que fue notificado al correo de la Licenciada Julissa Rodríguez Rojas el día 03 de octubre de 2019. (Ver folios del 159 al 169 y 184 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4). 26) La Dirección del Área de Conservación Central del SINAC mediante oficio SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 del 17 de julio de 2020, que según los oficios OS-1336 y OS-1338, referidos al plano catastrado H-1107776-2006, el inmueble ahí descrito se ubica en un 98% dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. (Ver imagen de la 789 a la 791 del expediente digital judicial). 27) Que los actores son poseedores desde el año 2000 de la parcela que se ha identificado por el INDER como la No. 74-A-4 ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí en Horquetas de Sarapiquí, con plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 con una cabida de 7has 6841.22mts2, la cual forma parte de la Finca del Partido de Heredia No. Placa19620 a nombre del INDER, que han utilizado como vivienda y han desarrollado una actividad agrícola y ganadera. (Testimonio del señor Nombre111168 y certificación de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras No. 18015801 a folios del 13 al 28 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. 74-A-4).

III.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS. Por encontrase ayuno de prueba los autos, se tiene por indemostrado: 1) Que al adquirir los actores en el mes de junio de 2000 el inmueble que describe el plano H-1007776-2006, tuviesen conocimiento que ese terreno estaba afecto en cualquier porcentaje a la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, y aun así lo hubiesen adquirido bajo su cuenta y riesgo. (No se ubica prueba en tal sentido). 2) Que la Oficina Regional del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí hubiese gestionada ante la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central del SINAC antes de la emisión del oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015, la determinación de los límites de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central respecto a su propiedad del Partido de Heredia No. H-57748-000. (No se ubica prueba en tal sentido). 3) Que entre el mes de junio del año 2000 (fecha de adquisición del inmueble por parte de los actores) y la emisión del oficio OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018 (en el que informó a los actores la situación de los límites de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central); la Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí advirtiera a los actores que la parcela identificada por el INDER bajo No. 74-A-4 se encontraba afecta al Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, por lo que no era viable legalmente su titularización. (No se ubica prueba en tal sentido). 4) Que la ocupación por parte de los actores del inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 desde el año 2000 se hubiese dado de mala fe. (No se ubica prueba en tal sentido). 5) Que las edificaciones levantadas en la parcela No. 74-A-4 se hiciera posterior a la emisión del Plano Catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, en el que el MINAE indicó en su reverso, que el inmueble allí descrito formara parte de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. (No se ubica prueba en tal sentido).

IV.- ALEGATO DE LAS PARTES Y OBJETO DEL PROCESO: En síntesis y sin perjuicio de la literalidad de sus argumentaciones, las cuales han sido estudiadas en su totalidad por este Tribunal, cada una de las partes alegan lo que seguidamente se detalla en este apartado en lo que interesa: 1) ACTORES: Que el señor Nombre111168 entró en el año de 1973 en posesión originaria de una finca ubicada en Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí con una cabida de aproximadamente 80 hectáreas. Que posteriormente Nombre111168 segregó y vendió parte de esa finca al señor identificado únicamente como Nombre111171 , quien a su vez la vendió al señor Nombre84914 , y este al señor Nombre111170 . Que de esa forma sobre la finca original de 80 hectáreas y sus posteriores segregaciones, se ha ejercido un derecho de posesión por más de 40 años. Que para el año de 1978 el Estado adquirió una finca en la zona de Cubujuquí la cual fue traspasada al ITCO hoy INDER para ser otorgada a campesinos en parcelas y por ello el INDER constituyó el denominado "Asentamiento Cubujuquí", formando parte de dicho proyecto, el inmueble original y sus posteriores segregaciones. Señalaron que en el año de 1999 entraron en negociación con el señor Nombre111170 , para adquirir su derecho sobre el inmueble, el cual tiene una cabida de aproximadamente 8 hectáreas y cuando dicho inmueble ya formaba parte del Asentamiento Cubujuquí identificada por el INDER como la parcela No. 74-A-4, situación que se acredita en el croquis confeccionado en el año de 1978 por personeros en ese entonces del ITCO. Alegaron que antes de adquirir dicho derecho, se apersonaron al INDER a preguntar sobre su situación y el señor Manuel Picado funcionario de dicha institución les recomendó comprarla, lo que les dio tranquilidad y por eso adquirieron el derecho de posesión del señor Nombre111170 cédula No. CED87834 en el mes de junio del año 2000 mediante escritura pública y que a la fecha llevan más de 19 años de poseer la finca de manera pública, pacífica y en calidad de dueños. Que adquirieron el inmueble con el fin de que el INDER se los titulara, como lo hizo con otras familias de la zona. Que para los efectos de titulación levantaron el Plano Catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, no obstante un funcionario del MINAE sin mayores estudios le estampó al dorso un sello que dice que el terreno se encontraba afecto a la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Que en el año 2015 el INDER con base en lo indicado en dicho sello les solicitó al Minae pronunciarse si el inmueble se encontraba dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, y el Minae por oficio Placa19617 MINAE informó sobre la efectiva afectación del inmueble a dicha reserva. Que el día 02 de octubre de 2018 el INDER les comunicó que el inmueble se encontraba dentro del Área Silvestre Protegida administrada por el MINAE y que forma parte de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por tanto parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, y que del total de la cabida del inmueble, solamente 1771 mts2 estaban fuera de dicha zona, por lo que les consultaron si deseaban continuar con las diligencias de titulación sobre dicha porción de terreno, no obstante el día 22 de octubre de 2018 le solicitaron al INDER continuar con las diligencias de titulación, sobre la totalidad de la parcela y no sólo sobre la porción indicada. Que finalmente, por oficio OTHO-0680-2019 del 03 de octubre de 2019 la Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas de Sarapiquí les notificó que la Junta Directiva del INDER por acuerdo del 28 de agosto de 2019 recomendó no titular la parcela No. 74-A-4 por falta de certificación del MINAE, no obstante según manifestaron el inmueble se ubica muy lejos de la zona protegida. También señalaron que hace como 16 años el Estado expropió a una cantidad de poseedores, pero a ellos no y demás que el señor Carlos Nelson Salazar Chacón, ---funcionario del INDER--- comentó sobre la posibilidad para algunos poseedores de ser reubicados, pero a ellos se les excluyó. Indicaron que la actividad realizada en la parcela es agraria, dedicada a la ganadería y a la agricultura. Que por carecer de escritura, el SENASA no les renovó los permisos para el engorde de ganado y prueba de ello es el CVO que venció desde el 2 de julio de 2013 y no lo pudieron renovar por falta de ese requisito. Que durante todos los años en que han poseído el inmueble se han dedicado a introducirle mejoras tales como una casa, con 3 cuartos, cielo raso de fibrolit, piso de cerámica, cerrada con verjas. Etc. Otra casa de 2 plantas, etc. Acusaron que las parcelas que identificaron como las Nos. 59, 64, 65, 68, 73, 77 y 78 ---que se encuentran más adentro que la parcela 74-A-4--- en la zona protegida por el Estado; se les otorgó escritura. Que en el mes de enero de 2015 funcionarios del INDER se presentaron a su parcela y les indicaron que colocarían unos mojones y que para arriba de esos mojones la propiedad era del MINAE. Indicaron que la colocación de esos mojones no se hizo de una manera técnica y que coincidiera con la información real contenida en el Decreto No. 38975-MAG. Sobre la base de lo expuesto los actores solicitaron que en sentencia se ordene a los accionados adjudicar la parcela No. 74-A-4 del Asentamiento Cubujuquí ubicado en Horquetas de Sarapiquí y en caso de no poder hacerlo; se les cancele todas las accesiones y mejoras introducidas en el inmueble desde que lo poseyeron de buena fe, así como el reconocimiento de los daños y perjuicios presentes y futuros. Alegatos que fueron reiterados en la audiencia complementaria de juicio oral y público. 2) La representación estatal se opuso a la demanda y por ende a las pretensiones de los actores en razón de lo siguiente: Que la parte actora considera que el INDER, yerra al negarles la solicitud de titulación de tierras y fundamenta tal posición en que al resolver sobre su situación, su derecho de propiedad, pues desde hace casi 20 años adquirió la finca cuya titularidad pretende, y en ella desarrolla actividades agrícolas y además tiene construida la vivienda que actualmente habita con su esposa e hijos, así como otra donde vive donde nuera y nietos. Situación que implica, ---en su criterio---, la legalidad de su posesión, y le generó un derecho, que está siendo afectado por la actuación del INDER al no inscribir el inmueble a su nombre, bajo el alegato de que parte del terreno forma parte del Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, todo ello en su perjuicio y el de los suyos. Que la parte actora presentó ante el INDER, solicitud de titulación de tierra, de conformidad con el numeral 85 inciso c) de la Ley No. Placa4583, esto específicamente sobre el inmueble, que indica compró y posee desde hace casi 20 años, no obstante resulta relevante, señalar que, desde el año 1975, se creó la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, la cual comprende varios terrenos dentro de los cuales se encuentra una porción de más del 90% del terreno que la parte actora requiere la titulación. Que los actores indicaron que el terreno que nos ocupa, pertenece al Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, los cuales son terrenos que pertenecen al INDER. Y en su caso específico, de la información que consta en el expediente administrativo que ocupa la parcela No. 74-A-4 que conforme a su plano catastrado es potrero con una quebrada que atraviesa la propiedad de oeste a este y cuyo plano, el No. H-1-110776-2006, el cual tiene sello del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, con visado No. 0880-2006, y señala que, conforme a su ubicación esta dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central en un 90% aproximadamente, plano que se encuentra inscrito a efectos de catastro. Que durante el proceso de titulación de tierras que planteó la parte actora, se determinó que del total del inmueble, alrededor de 1771 mts 2 estaban fuera del Área de Conservación y por oficio N° OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre del 2018, se les solicitó indicaran si mantenía la solicitud de titulación respecto de la totalidad de la finca o bien solo de aquella porción de terreno que está fuera del área de conservación citada, respondiendo por nota del 22 de octubre de 2018 que mantenían su solicitud sobre la totalidad del inmueble. Que bajo ese contexto el INDER rechazó su solicitud. Que en el presente caso, lo que el actor pretende, es que se le titule el inmueble que es propiedad del Estado, pues pertenece al Área de Conservación Cordillera Volcánica Central, lo cual, es claramente improcedente, ya sea en sede administrativa, como en sede judicial, situación que hace que su demanda resulte improcedente. Que por la naturaleza del objeto del proceso, se hace necesario hacer referencia a los bienes de dominio público –o bienes del Estado- y en ese tanto, a su naturaleza y características. Que la jurisprudencia ha sido clara en indicar: “(…) IV.-CONSIDERACIONES GENERALES SOBRE BIENES PÚBLICOS Y PRIVADOS: “(…) Los bienes de dominio público se caracterizan por ser inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables, en consecuencia, fuera del comercio de los hombres. Sobre el tema, la Sala Constitucional ha expresado: / “II.-EL CONCEPTO DEL DOMINIO PUBLICO Y DE LOS MEDIOS JURÍDICOS PARA INTEGRARLO.- Por dominio público se entiende el conjunto de bienes sujeto a un régimen jurídico especial y distinto al que rige el dominio privado, que además de pertenecer o estar bajo la administración de personas jurídicas públicas, están afectados o destinados a fines de utilidad pública y que se manifiesta en el uso directo o indirecto que toda persona pueda hacer de ellos. La doctrina reconoce el dominio público bajo diferentes acepciones, como bienes dominicales, cosas públicas, bienes públicos o bienes demaniales. Sobre este concepto la Sala expresó en su Sentencia No.189-F-S1-2011, de las nueve horas quince minutos del tres de marzo de dos mil once lo siguiente: / “VI.-…Por ello, resulta fundamental referirse al concepto de dominio público y en particular a los alcances del artículo 261 del Código Civil, el cual diferencia entre bienes públicos privados, así como los criterios con base en los cuales se puede distinguir entre ambos. Al respecto, establece: “Son cosas públicas las que, por ley, están destinadas de un modo permanente a cualquier servicio de utilidad general y aquellas de que todos pueden aprovecharse por estar entregadas al uso público. Todas las demás cosas son privadas y objeto de propiedad particular, aunque pertenezcan al Estado o a los Municipios, quienes, para el caso, como personas civiles, no se diferencian de cualquier otra persona”. Como se extrae, la definición de los bienes privados se hace en forma residual, es decir, pertenecen a esta categoría todos aquellos que no presenten ninguna de las características señaladas para los demaniales. La jurisprudencia constitucional, tomando en cuenta lo preceptuado por la norma citada, se ha referido sobre los bienes que integran el dominio público en los siguientes términos: “son aquellos que tienen una naturaleza y régimen jurídico diverso de los bienes privados, los cuales se rigen por el derecho de propiedad en los términos del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política; en tanto por expresa voluntad del legislador se encuentran afectos a un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, sea, al interés público, y que , por ello, no pueden ser objeto de propiedad privada, de modo que están fuera del comercio de los hombres, por lo cual no pueden pertenecer individualmente a los particulares, ni al Estado, en sentido estricto, por cuanto éste se limita a su administración y tutela(…) Así, se trata de bienes cuya titularidad ostenta el estado en su condición de administrador, debe entenderse que se trata de bienes que pertenecen a la Nación, con lo cual conforman parte del patrimonio público; y que, por su especial naturaleza jurídica, presentan los siguientes atributos: son imprescriptibles, lo cual implica que por el transcurso del tiempo, no puede adquirirse el derecho de propiedad sobre ellos, ni siquiera de mera posesión, es decir, no pueden adquirirse mediante la usucapión, así como tampoco pueden perderse por prescripción; motivo por el cual, los permisos de uso que la Administración conceda sobre ellos, siempre tienen un carácter precario, lo cual hace que puedan ser revocados por motivos de oportunidad o conveniencia en cualquier momento por la Administración- en los términos previstos en los artículos 154 y 155 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública-, y las mismas concesiones que se otorguen sobre ellos para su aprovechamiento, pueden ser canceladas mediante procedimiento al efecto; son inembargables, que hace que no pueden ser objeto de ningún gravamen o embargo, ni por particulares, ni por la Administración, y son inalienables, lo que se traduce en la condición de que está fuera del comercio de los hombres, de donde no pueden ser enajenados, vendidos o adquiridos, ni a título gratuito ni oneroso, ni por particulares, ni por el Estado, de modo que están excepcionados del comercio de los hombres y sujetos a un régimen jurídico especial y reforzado. Además su uso y aprovechamiento está sujeto al poder de policía, en tanto, por tratarse de bienes que no pueden ser objeto de posesión y mucho menos de propiedad, su utilización y aprovechamiento es posible únicamente a través de actos debidamente autorizados, sea mediante concesión o permiso de uso, otorgado por la autoridad competente; y al control constante de parte de la Administración pública. De manera que comprende bienes inmuebles que tienen una naturaleza y régimen jurídico virtualmente opuesto a la propiedad privada que deriva de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 constitucional (Voto 2007-2408 de las 16 horas 13 minutos del 21 de febrero de 2007) (El resaltado es nuestro) (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección V, resolución No. 2 de las diez horas del 18 de enero del 2012.) Que tal y como lo dispuso ese mismo Tribunal (en la sentencia transcrita) los bienes demaniales, por su especial naturaleza, forman parte del patrimonio público, y en ese orden, son imprescriptibles, inalienables e inembargables. Es decir, no son sujetos de apropiación por particulares y ni tan siquiera para ser ocupados. Que partiendo de ello resulta claro que, en el presente caso quien acciona no ostenta ningún derecho sobre el terreno que forma parte del Área de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y que a la fecha ocupa, y con fundamento en ello, no puede titularse a su nombre tal cual lo solicita. Que en ese sentido, el INDER fue claro en el proceso de titulación que nos ocupa, esto conforme a lo indicado en el acuerdo No. 37 de la sesión No. 22, celebrada el 26 de Agosto del 2019 y, en lo que es de interés al caso: “…TERCERO: De la relación de hechos que se han venido valorando a lo largo de esta resolución recomendativa, surgen elementos jurídicos suficientes, que demuestran que los señores Nombre111167 y Nombre23709 , han realizado una ocupación más allá de la decenal sobre la parcela N° 7-A-4 del Asentamiento Cubujuquí, en forma personal, quieta, pública, pacifica, ininterrumpida, que su posesión ha sido notoria, quienes han dado al predio el uso conforme a su capacidad y naturaleza. Ello conforme a lo establecido en el Artículo 85 inciso "c" del citado marco legal. Lo anterior nos demuestra que a pesar que jurídicamente cumplen los solicitantes con todos los requisitos estipulados en el Procedimientos del inciso c) del artículo 85 de la Ley 9036 del INDER, no es posible recomendar la titulación del predio por cuanto según la constancia emitida por MINAE en oficio 05-1338-15 de fecha 20 de agosto de 2015, emitida por el Ing. Luis Fernando Salas Sarkis, en su condición de Jefe de Departamento Sarapiquí, del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación del MINAE, hace constar que el predio si se encuentra dentro del área silvestre protegidas y administradas por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, así, por tal razón Si forma parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado." Que con oficio OTHO-924-2018 de fecha 29 de noviembre de 2018 se procedió a comunicarle a los administrados el oficio Placa19617: "...CUARTO: Consecuentemente pese a haber cumplido los recurrentes, con los requisitos establecidos en el Procedimientos del inciso c) del artículo 85 de la Ley 9036 del INDER, esta Asesoría Jurídica, una vez valorada toda la prueba y los hechos que dan origen a esta solicitud y considerando que jurídicamente no es procedente al estar la parcela N° 7-A-4 del asentamiento Cubujuquí, dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), en este caso forma parte de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica, NO RECOMIENDA QUE SE APRUEBE LA GESTIÓN para la Convalidación del procedimientos de adjudicación de la propiedad pública, titulación e inscripción en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, de la parcela N° 7-A-4 del asentamiento Cubujuquí presentada por los señores Nombre111167 , cédula número CED87830 y Nombre23709 , cédula número CED87831…”. Que de lo indicado, resulta claro que quien acciona pretende titular terrenos que son Patrimonio Natural del Estado, lo que resulta abiertamente improcedente. Que en ese sentido, la naturaleza propia de los bienes objeto del proceso hacen improcedente la gestión indemnizatoria de la parte actora, pero no solo ello, sino que la mera ocupación del terreno no le da derecho alguno a reclamo, y mucho menos cuando en el caso no existe conexidad entre lo actuado por la Administración que a todas luces reviste de legalidad, en relación con el daño reclamado. Siendo así las cosas, la demanda y los daños que requiere, se deben rechazar. 3) Por su parte la representación del SINAC indicó: Que de la relación de hechos y antecedentes, y de la documentación que corresponde, el terreno descrito se localiza dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central con una afectación superior al 90%. Que el artículo 121 inciso 14) de la Constitución Política, regula en forma genérica lo referente a los bienes de dominio público, al disponer que los bienes propios de la Nación, sólo podrán salir definitivamente de su dominio por medio de autorización de la Asamblea Legislativa. Que desde de esa concepción constitucional, a nivel doctrinario y jurisprudencial se ha consolidado y desarrollado la posición de los órganos consultivos y jurisdiccionales, en el sentido de que las áreas de dominio público son bienes que pertenecen a la colectividad en el sentido más amplio del concepto, y están destinados a satisfacer el interés público. Que la jurisprudencia jurisdiccional, administrativa y constitucional ha sido conteste al establecer la clasificación tradicional de los bienes que se encuentran bajo la tutela de las administraciones, en bienes demaniales que son aquellos que se encuentran regulados por un régimen jurídico especial y están destinados de un modo permanente al uso público, o han sido afectados por ley a un fin público como por ejemplo las áreas destinadas a parques en los centros urbanos y rurales, la zona marítimo terrestre, las carreteras nacionales y el patrimonio natural, razón por la que dichos bienes poseen características particulares como la imprescriptibilidad, la inalienabilidad e inembargabilidad. Que en la sentencia No. 3667 de las 14:54 del 07 de mayo del 2003, la Sala Constitucional expuso su línea jurisprudencial al respecto de la siguiente manera: "(…) Por dominio público se entiende el conjunto de bienes sujeto a un régimen jurídico especial y distinto al que rige el dominio privado, que además de pertenecer o estar bajo la administración de personas jurídicas públicas, están afectados o destinados a fines de utilidad pública y que se manifiesta en el uso directo o indirecto que toda persona pueda hacer de ellos. La doctrina reconoce el dominio público bajo diferentes acepciones, como bienes dominicales, bienes demaniales, cosas públicas, bienes públicos o bienes demaniales. (…)” (El subrayado no es del original) Que siguiendo esta línea de pensamiento, por disposición expresa del artículo 262 del Código Civil, las áreas públicas, demaniales o de dominio público, están fuera del comercio de los hombres y, por ende, nadie puede ejercer sobre ellos derechos de propiedad o uso por el transcurso del tiempo, ni son susceptibles de gravámenes o posesión en los términos del Derecho Civil, como lo reiteró esa Sala en la sentencia número 5977-93, de las 15:45 horas del 16 de noviembre de 1993: "(…) El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público. Son llamados bienes dominicales, bienes demaniales, bienes o cosas públicas, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres. Es decir, afectados por su naturaleza y vocación. En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa. Notas características de esos bienes es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos de Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio. Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al aprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad (…)" (El subrayado no es del original) Que desde esa óptica, por su naturaleza jurídica, sobre los bienes de dominio público no es posible el dominio, posesión ni la apropiación para los particulares, ni a título gratuito u oneroso; no pueden perderse por prescripción; tampoco ganarse por usucapión; tampoco es legalmente posible modificar su destino; ni pueden ser utilizados para una finalidad distinta a la que establece el ordenamiento, correspondiéndole al Estado su protección y administración en representación de los intereses públicos. Ergo, el uso por parte de terceros no causará derecho alguno a su favor. Que en concordancia con expuesto, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido clara en establecer que la protección especial establecida en el ordenamiento jurídico para los bienes de dominio público, es aplicable al patrimonio natural de la Nación, tomando en cuenta que dicho patrimonio coadyuva a asegurar los derechos fundamentales habitantes a tener una mejor calidad de vida, dentro del contexto del derecho fundamental a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, previsto en el ordenamiento jurídico interno y los instrumentos internacionales ratificados por el país. Que en la sentencia número 2003-03840 de las 14:02 horas del 02 de mayo del 2003, la misma Sala indicó: (…) Así las cosas, es claro que el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense confiere una especial y calificada protección a los bienes afectados al uso o disfrute público, y reviste dicha tutela de mayores cuidados todavía al regular los bienes públicos ambientales. Lo anterior implica que de haber ocurrido la transposición acusada por la actora en el Plan Regulador de la Zona Costera de Playa Platanares y el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Preciosa-Platanares Categoría Mixta, el Plan Regulador sería contrario (al menos en lo que atañe a la regulación de la parte del Refugio) a la norma proveniente de los artículos 121 inciso 14 y 89 de la Constitución Política, pues un acto reglamentario estaría desafectando parte de un bien demanial. (…) (El subrayado no corresponde al original. Al respecto, consúltese también la sentencia número 05266-2009 de las 12:24 horas del 27 de marzo del 2009). Que así, la Constitución Política y la Ley enfatiza que la protección de los recursos naturales es un medio adecuado para tutelar y mejorar la calidad de los habitantes, otorgándoles la calificación de bienes demaniales de la Nación, razón por la que (al igual que los bienes de dominio público en general) son inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables. Que en esta misma línea, con la promulgación de la Ley Forestal número 7575 de 13 de febrero de 1995 y otros cuerpos normativos en los que nuestro ordenamiento desarrolló las disposiciones previstas en la Constitución Política e instrumentos de Derecho Internacional, para la protección y tutela del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, estableciendo la intangibilidad de las áreas silvestres protegidas. Que tal es el caso de las disposiciones de los numerales 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal al indicar: ARTICULO 13.-Constitución y administración. El patrimonio natural del Estado estará constituido por los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, de las áreas declaradas inalienables, de las fincas inscritas a su nombre y de las pertenecientes a municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y demás organismos de la Administración Pública, excepto inmuebles que garanticen operaciones crediticias con el Sistema Bancario Nacional e ingresen a formar parte de su patrimonio (…). ARTICULO 14.- Condición inembargable e inalienable del patrimonio natural Los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el patrimonio natural del Estado, detallados en el artículo anterior, serán inembargables e inalienables; su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor y la acción reivindicatoria del Estado por estos terrenos es imprescriptible. En consecuencia, no pueden inscribirse en el Registro Público mediante información posesoria y tanto la invasión como la ocupación de ellos será sancionada conforme a lo dispuesto en esta ley. Que el desarrollo jurisprudencial de la Sala Constitucional ha establecido que el Patrimonio Natural del Estado lo integran dos importantes componentes: por un lado las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas (cualquier sea su categoría de manejo) declaradas por Ley o Decreto Ejecutivo; entendiéndose como tales las reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, humedales y monumentos naturales, según la regulación prevista en los artículos 1, 2, 3 inciso i) de la Ley Forestal; 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 22, 28 y 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 3 incisos d) y f) de la Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales; 3, 7, 17, 82 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y por otro; el Patrimonio Natural del Estado que está conformado por los demás bosques y terrenos forestales o de aptitud forestal perteneciente al Estado e instituciones públicas (artículo 13 de la Ley Forestal), los cuales tienen una afectación legal inmediata. Que en relación a lo expuesto respecto a los componentes que integran el Patrimonio Natural, en la sentencia número 2003-03840 de las 14:02 horas del 02 de mayo del 2003, la Sala Constitucional expuso: (…) Según la clasificación dada por la normativa ambiental, el patrimonio forestal o natural del Estado está conformado por reservas forestales, reservas biológicas, zonas protectoras, refugios de vida silvestre, humedales y monumentos naturales (artículo 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, número 7554, de dieciocho de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cinco). (…) Así las cosas, es claro que el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense confiere una especial y calificada protección a los bienes afectados al uso o disfrute público, y reviste dicha tutela de mayores cuidados todavía al regular los bienes públicos ambientales (…) (Al respecto, consúltese también la sentencia número 05266-2009 de las 12:24 horas del 27 de marzo del 2009). Que como puede observarse, las áreas silvestres protegidas se encuentran incorporadas al patrimonio natural de la Nación independientemente de su categoría de manejo ya fuera que se trate de parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, reservas forestales, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, zonas protectoras, monumentos naturales y humedales naturales, además, está consagrada en los artículos 35 y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, en los cuales el legislador reguló en forma general los objetivos de creación, administración y vigilancia de las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas. Que del mismo modo, cuando los terrenos que estén cobijados por alguna de las categorías de manejo indicadas se encuentren bajo la administración y/o tutela de una entidad pública, automáticamente pasan a formar parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, tal y como lo disponen los artículos 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal. Ergo, no es permisible la apropiación, uso o disfrute por parte de particulares ni a título gratuito u oneroso; no pueden perderse por prescripción; tampoco ganarse por usucapión; tampoco es legalmente posible modificar su destino; y el uso por parte de terceros y su posesión no causará derecho alguno a su favor. Que la Sala Constitucional indicó en el Voto No. 2988-99 la imposibilidad jurídica de poseer y usucapir bienes de dominio público por los particulares: “Cuando un bien es integrado al régimen de dominio público, adquiere una serie de características esenciales como la inalienabilidad, la imprescriptibilidad y la inembargabilidad. De estas condiciones es que estos bienes no son expropiables, por cuanto ésta implicaría la enajenación y son inalienables. Asimismo, la usucapión tampoco es un medio para adquirirlos, las cosas inalienables por estar fuera del comercio de los hombres, no son sujetos de posesión por particulares, y, por tanto, son imprescriptibles en tanto conserven tal carácter o el destino de utilidad pública a que están afectadas.” (Voto No. 2988-99) “El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público.- Son los llamados bienes dominicales, bienes demaniales, bienes o cosas públicas o bienes públicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres.- Es decir, afectados por su propia naturaleza y vocación.- En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa.- Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio.- Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al aprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad.” (Voto No. 2306-91, precedente de reiterada cita en esta sede). Que además, la Sala Constitucional hace referencia sobre bienes demaniales los cuales son inalienables e imprescriptibles: “Es claro que, por tratarse de bienes demaniales, no son susceptibles de ser poseídos, y mucho menos, adquirirse la propiedad respecto de ellas, lo cual se explica bajo las características típicas de estos bienes: inalienabilidad, imprescriptibilidad, e inembargabilidad.” (Voto No. 454- 2006). “Cabe recalcar, que los bienes demaniales son inalienables e imprescriptibles y que la ocupación de ellos no puede generar derecho alguno a favor de quien lo ocupa, sin importar el tiempo durante el cual se ha prolongado tal ocupación.” (Voto No. 18836-2014). “Sobre los atributos de los bienes demaniales: La titularidad de los bienes de dominio público la ostenta el Estado en su condición de administrador, con lo cual debe entenderse que se trata de bienes que pertenecen la "Nación" y conforman parte del patrimonio público; y que, por su especial naturaleza jurídica, presentan los siguientes atributos: son imprescriptibles, lo cual implica que por el transcurso del tiempo, no puede adquirirse el derecho de propiedad sobre ellos, ni siquiera de mera posesión, es decir, no pueden adquirirse mediante la usucapión, así como tampoco pueden perderse por prescripción… y son inalienables, lo que se traduce en la condición de que están fuera del comercio de los hombres; de donde no pueden ser enajenados, vendidos o adquiridos, ni a título gratuito ni oneroso, ni por particulares, ni por el Estado, de modo que están excepcionados del comercio [sic] los hombres y sujetos a un régimen jurídico especial y reforzado. Además, su uso y aprovechamiento está sujeto al poder de policía, en tanto, por tratarse de bienes que no pueden ser objeto de posesión, y mucho menos de propiedad, su utilización y aprovechamiento es posible únicamente a través de actos debidamente autorizados, sea mediante concesión o permiso de uso, otorgado por la autoridad competente; y al control constante de parte de la Administración Pública. De manera que comprende bienes inmuebles que tienen una naturaleza y régimen jurídico virtualmente opuesto a la propiedad privada, que deriva de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 constitucional.” (Voto No. 3113-2009). "Se considera como Patrimonio Estatal, en su condición de Demanio Público que implica los principios de imprescriptibilidad, inalienabilidad e inembargabilidad, los terrenos que constituyen Reservas Nacionales que tengan bosques". En el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado se niega a los particulares el derecho de posesión (Tribunal Agrario N° 332 de las 16 hrs. 20 mts. del 7 de julio del 2000 y nota al voto 49 de las 13 hrs. del 31 de enero del 2002). Que la Sala Primera hizo referencia sobre la imprescriptibilidad del dominio público de la siguiente manera: “(…) la posesión ejercida por particulares no genera derecho de propiedad alguno, no importa el tiempo durante el que se haya poseído (…)” (sentencia No. 7 de 15 horas 5 minutos del 20 de enero de 1993, considerando IV) y también la Sala Constitucional se pronunció sobre la posesión en particulares sobre bienes de dominio público o demaniales con características inalienables: "...Si al momento en que se afectó no se cuenta con la posesión decenal previa, legalmente útil, el titulante no puede argumentar un derecho patrimonial adquirido, ya que no se ha consolidado la usucapión de previo a la afectación demanial de los terrenos. Es absolutamente improcedente “dotar de título a personas particulares que han venido ocupando bienes públicos sobre los cuales no pueden ejercer ningún acto de posesión, ni adquirir sobre ellos ningún derecho, ya que por tratarse de bienes públicos o demaniales son imprescriptibles e inalienables." (Sentencia constitucional No. 18836-2014). Por otro lado, de acuerdo con la Ley Forestal vigente, N° 7575 del 13 de febrero de 1996, son parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, entre otros, los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, así como de las fincas pertenecientes a las instituciones autónomas y demás organismos de la Administración Pública, excepto los que garanticen operaciones crediticias con el Sistema Bancario Nacional e ingresen a su patrimonio. Cuando proceda, el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, al que se encarga su administración, ha de inscribir los inmuebles en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, por medio de la Procuraduría, como fincas individuales a nombre del Estado (artículo 13). Los terrenos forestales y bosques antes descritos son inembargables, inalienables e imprescriptible la acción reivindicatoria del Estado. La posesión por los particulares no causa derecho alguno a su favor, ni pueden titularlos e inscribirlos a su nombre en el Registro (artículo 14). La Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 07294-98 de 13 de octubre de 1998 determinó que: “No debe olvidarse que, en última instancia, tanto la Ley N° 4465 -hoy derogada- como el Decreto N° 17023-MAG no son sino desarrollo del contenido del artículo 50 constitucional, de modo que, aun cuando la normativa inmediata que dio fundamento al decreto haya sido sustituida por otra, éste subsiste tanto por haber sido promulgado al amparo de la normativa vigente en su momento, como por tener su último fundamente en el citado artículo constitucional.” … En segundo lugar, que, en razón de lo anterior, el establecimiento de un área silvestre protegida por medio de decreto no puede dar lugar al quebranto del principio de áreas no lo establece el decreto sino normas que también tienen rango legal que, por demás, desarrollan un principio constitucional. …Dicho lo anterior, es claro que la regla jurídica contenida en la sentencia número 2004-08928 de 18 de agosto de 2004, es la que se explicó líneas arriba: que, si es jurídicamente posible establecer, por medio de un decreto, áreas silvestres protegidas que incluyan terrenos afectados por una ley a un fin, un destino y un uso público distinto a aquél del régimen jurídico del área que se establece. … el establecimiento de un área silvestre protegida por acto administrativo conlleva la inaplicación de cualquier legislación, aún la específica para el área geográfica de que se trate, que se oponga a la legislación que regula el área silvestre protegida, toda vez que la aplicación de esta última implica cumplir con el deber constitucional señalado en el numeral 50…Lo mismo hay que decir respecto de la ley número 7915 de 21 de setiembre de 1999, que reformó parcialmente a la ley número 5582…” Que por lo anterior los bienes que comprenden el Patrimonio Natural del Estado ostentan las características propias de los bienes de dominio público: imprescriptibilidad, inalienabilidad e inembargabilidad. Con fundamento en todo lo expuesto, solicito declarar sin lugar la demanda interpuesta, con la imposición de ambas costas a cargo del actor, así como los intereses que éstas generen hasta su efectivo pago. 4) La representación del INDER también rechazó los términos de la demanda y pretensiones de las partes, reiterando lo que respondió la representación estatal y del SINAC. Indicó de manera resumida que, el INDER nunca ha reconocido ningún derecho, ni siquiera de posesión de los actores sobre la parcela 74-A-4. Que la Junta Directiva del INDER en su artículo 37 de la sesión ordinaria No. 22 del 26 de agosto de 2019 rechazó la gestión presentada debido a que el terreno forma parte del PNE, y que más bien su posesión sobre el inmueble deviene en ilegítima al formar parte dicho inmueble de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central desde el año de 1975 perteneciente al Estado y traspasada al INDER en el año de 1976 e inscrita a nombre del INDER en el año de 1986. Lo anterior debido a que el terreno que describe el plano catastrado No. Placa19619 es parte de la finca No. 57748-000 y siendo que dicho predio forma parte de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende PNE resulta legalmente imposible titularlo a nombre de particulares conforme a lo que disponen los artículo 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley Forestal, siendo más bien lo procedente traspasar dicho inmueble al MINAE-SINAC por corresponderle su administración. Que de esa manera el INDER no puede titular parcelas que forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y que en el presente caso los terrenos que los actores solicitan se les titule forman parte de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central desde el año de 1975. Que dicha Reserva comprendió terrenos pertenecientes al Estado y al INDER desde el año de 1976, de suerte que conforme a los artículos 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley Forestal quedaron afectados de manera automática al Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Que por su parte los artículos 14 y 58.a de la Ley Forestal y 8 de la Ley ITCO, sancionaron cualquier tipo de posesión sobre ese tipo de bienes, por lo que tampoco procedería su pretensión de indemnización de mejoras, ya que dicho inmueble al quedar afectos al PNE gozan de las características propias de dichos bienes, a saber, imprescriptibilidad, inembargabilidad, inalienabilidad y por ende cualquier posesión sobre dichos inmuebles no produce derecho alguno, ni de titularidad, ni de posesión, ya que los actores no logran acreditar su legítima posesión de forma originaria, ni derivada de los inmuebles con: 1) Al menos 10 años antes de la emisión del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961 publicado en La Gaceta No. 130 del 11 de julio de 1975 y el No. 3586 también del año 1975. 2) Al menos 10 años antes de ser propiedad del Estado o del ITCO porque la Ley Forestal No. 4465 del 25 de noviembre de 1969 ---que ya regulaba lo referido al Patrimonio Natural del Estado---, definió en su artículo 18 que el PNE está constituido por las Reservas Forestales, Parques Nacionales, Viveros Forestales del Estado, las Zonas Protectoras y Reservas Biológicas. Y que por su parte el artículo 19 afectó a los fines de esa ley todos los bosques y terrenos forestales situados en: a) Las tierras consideradas como como reservas naturales. b) Las fincas rurales del dominio privado del Estado, tal y como en la actualidad lo dispone la Ley 7575 y sus reformas. Que en razón de dicho marco normativo al INDER le es legalmente imposible otorgar títulos de propiedad --tal y como lo pretenden los actores---, dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Que en esa línea de pensamiento lo ha indicado la Procuraduría en su Opinión Jurídica No. OJ-064-02 del 30 de abril de 2002. Que por su parte la Sala Constitucional en su voto No. 3905-1993 señaló que si por razones de interés público tiene la potestad de limitar los atributos de la propiedad privada, con más razón los terrenos propiedad del INDER. Que en razón de lo que dispone el artículo 14 de la Ley Forestal al INDER le está vedado titular a particulares terrenos que forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. En cuanto a la pretensión de titulación, señaló esa representación que esta no procede en virtud de que: 1) El Estado mediante D.E. No. 6236-G publicado en la Gaceta No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976 expropió la propiedad de la Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda. inscrita en el Registro Público al Tomo 1792, Folio 128, Asiento 2 del partido de Heredia No. Placa19616 y posteriormente la traspasó al INDER de manera que las porciones de dicha finca que constituyeran PNE fueron afectadas de pleno derecho a lo establecido en los artículo 13, 14 y 15 de la Ley Forestal No. 7575 y sus reformas. 2) Los actores señalaron que adquirieron el bien en el año 2000, lo que es fecha posterior a la creación de la reserva de manera que ya tenían conocimiento que lo adquirido era parte del PNE y de imposible apropiación por parte de los particulares. Y que tampoco procede la indemnización por derecho de posesión y mejoras pretendida porque la Ley Forestal en sus artículos 13, 14, 15 y 58.a) y 8 de la Ley del ITCO y sus reformas sancionan cualquier tipo de posesión sobre el PNE.

V.- SOBRE LA EXCEPCIÓN DE PRESCRIPCIÓN: La representación del INDER opuso en su defensa la excepción de prescripción indicando que la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central se creó desde el año de 1975 y el Estado gestionó una expropiación sobre la finca No. H-57748-000, no obstante la presente demanda se planteó hasta el año 2019, es decir, más de 40 años de que el inmueble fue expropiado, por lo que conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 868 del C.C. el derecho a reclamar está prescrito. Aunado a que los actores adquirieron un supuesto derecho de posesión en el año 2000, es decir 19 años antes de que se interpusiera la demanda. Además que el artículo 198 de la LGAP establece un plazo de 4 años para este tipo de reclamaciones. En el presente caso tenemos por acreditado que los actores adquirieron en el año 2000 del señor Nombre111170 el inmueble ubicado en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí ubicado en Horquetas de Sarapiquí, por la suma de 15 millones de colones y que fue descrito en el plano catastrado No. 1107776-2006. También quedó acreditado que ese inmueble es parte de la finca del Partido de Heredia No. 57748, expropiada a solicitud del ITCO conforme al Decreto Ejecutivo No. 6235-G, publicado en la Gaceta No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976. Luego, también se tuvo por acreditado que los actores presentaron solicitud de titularización de dicho inmueble ante la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí el día 05 de agosto de 2015 y para los efectos aportaron el Plano Catastrado No. Placa19619. Que en razón de dicha solicitud, la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas, por oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015, le consultó a la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central si el predio ubicado en Cubujuquí, según plano catastrado No. 1107776-2006 se ubicaba o no dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAET, o si forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y esa Jefatura por oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015 contestó que la parcela con plano No. H-1107776-2006, ubicado en Cubujuquí de Horquetas, se encuentra dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAE formando parte en este caso de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. También quedó acreditado que fue hasta por oficio OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018 que la Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas, les comunicó oficialmente a los actores la situación del inmueble con respecto a la Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central, y la Junta Directiva del INDER en su artículo 37 de la Sesión Ordinaria 22, celebrada el día 26 de agosto de 2019, rechazó en definitiva la solicitud de titulación de dicha parcela por ese motivo. Ante esa situación los actores plantearon proceso ante esta Jurisdicción el día 11 de junio de 2020, solicitando que en sentencia: 1) Les sea adjudicada la parcela identificada por el INDER como la No. 74-A-4. 2) En su defecto se les cancele las acciones y mejoras introducidas en el fundo, así como el pago del daño moral subjetivo y los daños y perjuicios causados y los que se le llegaren a causar con un eventual desalojo. De manera que del elenco de pretensiones están referenciadas a que en sentencia se ordene conductas de hacer y subsidiariamente indemnizatorias, por actividad formal del INDER contenida en el acuerdo tomado por su Junta Directiva en el que rechazó la solicitud planteada por los actores cuya fecha de emisión los es el 26 de agosto de 2019. Así, siendo que los actores presentaron el día 11 de junio de 2020 demanda ordinaria su derecho a reclamar la indemnización patrimonial señalada no se encuentra prescrita, pues entre el 26 de agosto del 2019 y el 11 de junio de 2020 no superó el plazo señalado en el artículo 198 de la LGAP por lo que la excepción de prescripción se rechaza.

VI.- FUNDAMENTO DE LA DEMANDA Y SU VALORACIÓN POR PARTE DE ESTE TRIBUNAL: Sobre la base de la literalidad de las argumentaciones brindadas por las partes, las cuales fueron estudiadas en su totalidad por este Tribunal, se procedió al análisis del presente asunto y con base en los hechos alegados y la prueba acreditada. Al respecto tenemos que los actores plantearon demanda indicando que el señor Nombre111168 entró en el año 1973 en posesión de una finca de alrededor de 80 hectáreas ubicada en la localidad de Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí. Que posteriormente el señor Nombre111168 vendió parte de dicha finca al señor que identificaron únicamente como Nombre111171 , asegurando que este vendió al señor Nombre84914 , y este al señor Nombre111170 . Que de esa forma sobre la finca original de 80 hectáreas y sus posteriores segregaciones, se ejerció un derecho de posesión de más de 40 años. Señaló que sus representados entraron en el año de 1999 en una negociación con el señor Nombre111170 , para adquirir su derecho de posesión sobre el inmueble descrito en el plano H-1107776-2006, el cual tiene una cabida de aproximadamente 8 hectáreas, ---cuando dicho inmueble ya formaba parte del Asentamiento Cubujuquí identificada por el INDER como la parcela No. Placa19621---. Situación que se acreditó con el croquis confeccionado en el año de 1978 por personeros en ese entonces del ITCO. Manifestó que en el año 2000 sus representados por consejo de un personero del INDER adquirieron dicha parcela e iniciaron ante esa institución gestiones tendentes a lograr su titularización, sin embargo la Junta Directiva del INDER resolvió en su artículo 37 de la sesión ordinaria No. 22 del 26 de agosto de 2019 que su solicitud resultaba legalmente improcedente en virtud de que alrededor de un 90% del terreno se ubicaba dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende PNE bajo tutela del MINAE-SINAC, y por tanto solicitaron que en sentencia se ordene al INDER a titularles la citada parcela o en su defecto se ordene que se les cancele las accesiones y mejoras que de buena fe, le introdujeron al bien durante el tiempo que lo han poseído a título de dueños. De esta forma plantearon su demanda, sobre la base de un posesión ejercida de buena fe sobre la parcela identificada por el INDER No. 74-A-4 ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí. Posesión que se arrastra desde que el señor Nombre111168 ingresó a la zona, hasta la que les traspasó el señor Nombre111170 y que indicaron supera los 40 años. Solicitaron que en sentencia se ordene al INDER a que se les otorgue la escritura pública sobre el inmueble o en su defecto se les cancele las accesiones y mejoras que de buena fe, le introdujeron al bien durante el tiempo que lo han poseído a título de dueños. Por su parte, las accionadas se oponen a que se les otorgue la escritura pública de la citada parcela, indicando que lo resuelto por el INDER al denegar la escritura pública se ajusta al ordenamiento jurídico toda vez que el inmueble se encuentra en más de un 90% dentro del área de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Y que en tal sentido la jurisprudencial de la Sala Constitucional ha establecido que el Patrimonio Natural del Estado lo integran dos importantes componentes: por un lado las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas (cualquier sea su categoría de manejo) declaradas por Ley o Decreto Ejecutivo; entendiéndose como tales las reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, humedales y monumentos naturales, según la regulación prevista en los artículos 1, 2, 3 inciso i) de la Ley Forestal; 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 22, 28 y 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 3 incisos d) y f) de la Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales; 3, 7, 17, 82 incisos a) y b) de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y por otro; el Patrimonio Natural del Estado que está conformado por los demás bosques y terrenos forestales o de aptitud forestal perteneciente al Estado e instituciones públicas (artículo 13 de la Ley Forestal), los cuales tienen una afectación legal inmediata. Sobre la pretensión subsidiaria (que en caso de que no proceda el otorgamiento de la escritura se les indemnice todas las accesiones y mejoras) indicaron que no les corresponde por cuanto la ocupación lo es sobre un inmueble que forma parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y esa mera ocupación no le genera derecho alguno. Criterio de la Cámara: Tal y como se indicó supra, el objeto de la presente demanda lo es para que en sentencia: 1. Se le adjudique a los actores la parcela ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí identificada como la No. 74-A-4 y en ese tanto su escritura pública. 2. Que en caso de que no se les pueda adjudicar dicha parcela se les cancele las accesiones y mejoras que han introducido al bien durante el tiempo que lo han poseído de buena fe. 3. Que se les cancele los daños y perjuicios que se les cause ante un eventual desalojo y el daño moral subjetivo causado. En razón de lo anterior esta Cámara analizará en su orden cada una de dichas pretensiones de acuerdo a los hechos que se han tenido por acreditados de cara al ordenamiento jurídico aplicable. A) Sobre la solicitud de titulación del inmueble: Analizado lo resuelto por la Junta Directiva del INDER en el artículo 37 de la sesión ordinaria No. 22 del 26 de agosto de 2019 (lo cual no ha sido cuestionado en la presente demanda) se ajustó a derecho pues se ha tenido por acreditado que: i) El Estado Costarricense en tutela del medio ambiente, otorgó en los artículos 18, 19 y 28 de la "Ley Forestal" No. 4465 del 25 de noviembre de 1969, una protección especial sobre el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado. Su artículo 18 dispuso: "El Patrimonio Forestal del Estado está constituido por las Reservas Nacionales, Reservas Forestales, Parques Nacionales, Viveros Forestales del Estado, las Zonas Protectoras y Reservas Biológicas." Su artículo 19: "Quedan afectados a los fines de la presente ley, todos los bosques y terrenos forestales situados en: a) Las tierras consideradas como Reservas Nacionales; y b) Las fincas rurales del dominio privado del Estado, las pertenecientes a municipalidades e instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas." Dicha Ley fue reformada por la Ley No. 7174 "Ley Forestal" del 28 de junio de 1990, y en su artículo 32 se dispuso: "El patrimonio forestal del Estado está constituido por todos los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, de las áreas declaradas inalienables, de las fincas inscritas a su nombre y de las pertenecientes a las municipalidades, a las instituciones autónomas y a los demás organismos de la Administración Pública.". Por su parte el articulo 33) "Los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el patrimonio forestal del Estado, detallados en el artículo anterior, serán inembargables e inalienables; su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor y la acción reivindicatoria del Estado por estos terrenos es imprescriptible. En consecuencia, no son susceptibles de inscripción en el Registro Público mediante información posesoria; su invasión y ocupación serán sancionadas conforme con lo dispuesto en esta ley de aptitud forestal, quedarán automáticamente incorporados al patrimonio forestal del Estado." Finalmente la "Ley Forestal" No. 7575 del 16 de marzo de 1996, (Que reformó las anteriores) dispuso en su artículo 13): "Constitución y administración. El patrimonio natural del Estado estará constituido por los bosques y terrenos forestales de las reservas nacionales, de las áreas declaradas inalienables, de las fincas inscritas a su nombre y de las pertenecientes a municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y demás organismos de la Administración Pública, excepto inmuebles que garanticen operaciones crediticias con el Sistema Bancario Nacional e ingresen a formar parte de su patrimonio. El Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía administrará el patrimonio. Cuando proceda, por medio de la Procuraduría General de la República, inscribirá los terrenos en el Registro Público de la Propiedad como fincas individualizadas de propiedad del Estado. Las organizaciones no gubernamentales que adquieran bienes inmuebles con bosque o de aptitud forestal, con fondos provenientes de donaciones o del erario, que se hayan obtenido a nombre del Estado, deberán traspasarlos a nombre de este." Y el artículo 14): "Condición inembargable e inalienable del patrimonio natural. Los terrenos forestales y bosques que constituyen el patrimonio natural del Estado, detallados en el artículo anterior, serán inembargables e inalienables; su posesión por los particulares no causará derecho alguno a su favor y la acción reivindicatoria del Estado por estos terrenos es imprescriptible. En consecuencia, no pueden inscribirse en el Registro Público mediante información posesoria y tanto la invasión como la ocupación de ellos será sancionada conforme a lo dispuesto en esta ley." De esta forma, la normativa que tutela el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado desde el año de 1969 incluyó dentro de dichos bienes, los terrenos de aptitud forestal que pertenezcan al Estado central y a sus instituciones descentralizadas, como lo es el INDER. ii) El Estado costarricense en aras de la protección al medio ambiente, mediante Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961 publicado en La Gaceta No. 130 del 11 de julio de 1975, reformado por el Decreto No. 5386 del 28 de octubre de 1975, creó la "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central", indicándose en su artículo 1: "Establécese la Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central que comprende el territorio ubicado dentro de la siguiente demarcación (según mapas topográficos 1:50000 IGN : Río Cuarto 3347 II, Poás 3346 I, Barva 346 II, Abra 3345 I, Río Sucio Placa19614, Guápiles 3446 IV, Carrillo Placa19615, Istarú 3445 IV, Guácimo 3446 I, Bonilla 3446 II, Tucurrique 3445 I)." Por su parte el artículo 3: "Se declaran inalienables las reservas nacionales que se encuentran dentro de la anterior delimitación." El artículo 4: "La Procuraduría General de la República, hará inscribir los terrenos del Estado de esta Reserva en el Registro Público, como finca individualizada del Patrimonio Nacional." Su artículo 7: "Las fincas inscritas en el Registro Público y las amparadas por la posesión decenal, establecidas dentro de los límites de la reserva quedan automáticamente sometidas al Régimen Forestal." Finalmente su artículo 8: "Las fincas no comprendidas en el artículo anterior formarán parte del patrimonio forestal del Estado, previos los trámites legales." iii) A solicitud del entonces ITCO (hoy INDER) el Poder Ejecutivo por Decreto No. 6236-G publicado en la Gaceta No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976 expropió a la Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda., la propiedad inscrita en el Registro Público al Tomo 1792, Folio 128, Asiento 2 del partido de Heredia No. 57748 con el fin de generar una solución agraria y otorgar parcelas a agricultores en el proyecto denominado "Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí" ubicado en Horquetas de Sarapiquí. iv) Que los señores actores adquirieron del señor Nombre111170 en el año 2000 el inmueble descrito en el plano No. H-1107776-2006, e identificado por el INDER como la parcela No. 74-A-4 ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí y que dentro de las diligencias de titulación, la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas, por oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015, le consultó a la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central si el predio ubicado en Cubujuquí, según plano catastrado No. 1107776-2006 se ubica o no dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAET, o si forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Por su parte la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central, respondió lo solicitado mediante oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015; en el que indicó que en apego a lo dispuesto en los artículos 13, 14, y 15 de la Ley Forestal No. 7575 y sus reformas y al oficio Placa19618 del 20 de agosto de 2015, elaborado por el Ing. Juan Alexis Jiménez Cerdas, el cual se refiere a la visita de campo; la parcela con plano No. H-1107776-2006, ubicado en Cubujuquí de Horquetas, se encuentra dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAE formando parte en este caso de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Por su parte la Dirección del Área de Conservación Central del SINAC mediante oficio SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 del 17 de julio de 2020, especificó que según los oficios OS-1336 y OS-1338, referidos al plano catastrado H-1107776-2006, el inmueble ahí descrito se ubica en un 98% dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. De esta manera ha quedado acreditado más allá de toda duda que el terreno que se describe en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, que se corresponde con la parcela del Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí en Horquetas de Sarapiquí identificada como la No. 74-A-4 se ubica en un 98% dentro de los linderos de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Dicha situación hace imposible legalmente que se le pueda otorgar escritura pública sobre dicho inmueble, pues al formar parte dicho inmueble de la citada reserva, el terreno forma parte de pleno derecho de ella, no pudiendo ser titulado a nombre de particulares, pues es claro que están afectos a las características propias de estos inmuebles, a saber, ser bienes sobre los que no opera la prescripción positiva, son inembargables e inalienables. En esta línea, se puede profundizar en las sentencias emitidas por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Nos. 1070-F-S1-2010, 1088-F-S1-2011 y 1675-F-51-2012, así como sentencias de la Sala Constitucional Nos. 17659-2008, 21258-2010 y 16938-2011, entre otras muchas, en las que esas instancias judiciales, han señalado que sobre el Patrimonio Natural del Estado, como parte de los bienes de dominio público, no es posible que los particulares ejerzan algún tipo de posesión o propiedad, de lo que deriva además, que tampoco es viable el adquirir la propiedad por usucapión o prescripción positiva, aunque hubieran estado por más de diez años en tales terrenos, y mucho menos que una Administración las pueda adjudicar a favor de un particular. En razón de ello la pretensión de titulación resulta improcedente. B) Sobre la solicitud de reconocimiento de las mejoras y accesiones: De acuerdo a lo que se acreditó, tenemos: 1) Que entre los años 1972 y 1973 el señor Nombre111168 entró en posesión de una finca de alrededor de 80 hectáreas ubicada en la zona de Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí la cual fue vendiendo en partes al señor identificado como Nombre111171 , al señor Nombre84914 y al señor Nombre111170 , y este último vendió en el año 2000 a los actores el inmueble descrito en el Plano Catastrado No. H-1107776-2006. Terreno que es parte de la Finca No. 4-57748-000 expropiada por el Estado a solicitud del entonces ITCO para otorgar en parcelas a campesinos y que el INDER identificó como la parcela No. 74-A-4, con una cabida de 7has. 6841.22mts2 dedicada a la actividad agraria y vivienda. 2) Que por oficio OSH-0096-2015 del 09 de febrero de 2015, la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas de Sarapiquí convocó ---entre otros vecinos del Asentamiento Cubujuquí---, al señor Nombre111167 como ocupante en dicho Asentamiento a una reunión con el fin de informarles sobre el trabajo de topografía que realizaba en esa época el INDER en ese Asentamiento. 3) Que dentro de las diligencias de titulación incoadas por los actores ante el INDER se determinó: a) Que la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Sarapiquí por oficio OSH-0689-2015 del 18 de agosto de 2015, le solicitó a la Jefatura de Estudios Agroeconómicos y Avalúos confeccionar el certificado de uso conforme de suelo del predio descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006; y esa Jefatura confeccionó el "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" del predio descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 18015801; en el que indicó que en la parcela explotada por el señor Nombre111167 se ha ejercido en un 100% el USO CONFORME DEL SUELO, para la actividad que realiza de acuerdo a la metodología aprobada. Se indicó en dicha certificación que en el predio hay una plantación de 1/2 hectárea de palmito en buen estado fitosanitario, 36 mts2 de plátano, una casa de habitación de 80 mts2 en buen estado y otra de 140mts2 en buen estado o regular. Potrero con pasto, 8 vacas, un caballo, 40 aves, para auto consumo de leche y cría, un corral, una galera, un establo, etc. b) El Técnico Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales realizó el día 18 de setiembre de 2018 la inspección de la Dirección13211 y suscribió la "Ficha de Titulación" en la que recomendó titular a nombre de los actores el predio referenciado, con plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 y con una cabida de 7has. 6841.22mts2, la cual forma parte de la Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 a nombre del INDER y calculó su traspaso en la suma de 2,052.423,65 colones. Y en el apartado denominado "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", los actores aceptaron el traspaso a su favor del referido inmueble en los términos de la Ley No. 2825, la No. 7142 y la No. 9036. c) Que por Decreto Ejecutivo No. 4961 publicado en La Gaceta No. 130 del 11 de julio de 1975, reformado por el Decreto No. Placa19622 del 28 de octubre de 1975, se creó la "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central". d) Por Decreto No. 6236-G publicado en la Gaceta No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976 se expropió a solicitud del entonces ITCO la finca No. 4-57748-000, propiedad de la Sociedad Cubujuquí Ltda., inscrita en el Registro Público al Tomo 1792, Folio 128, Asiento 2 del partido de Heredia, con el fin de generar una solución agraria y otorgar parcelas a agricultores en el proyecto denominado "Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí" ubicado en Horquetas de Sarapiquí. e) La Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central, por oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015, reiterado por la Dirección del Área de Conservación Central del SINAC mediante oficio SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 del 17 de julio de 2020; indicó que conforme a los oficios OS-1336 y OS-1338, ---referidos al plano catastrado H-1107776-2006---, el inmueble ahí descrito se ubica en un 98% dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. f) Por oficio OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018, la Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas le informó a los actores que la solicitud de titularización no procedía en razón de que el inmueble se encontraba afecto al Área Silvestre Protegida, Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. De esta forma, conforme a lo hechos acreditados y aquí referenciados, es claro que si bien desde el año de 1975 se creó la "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central", y el ITCO adquirió la finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 con el fin de crear el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí en Horquetas de Sarapiquí y entregar parcelas a campesinos; no fue sino hasta el día 20 de agosto de 2015, que el SINAC por oficio Placa19617, le indicó al INDER que el terreno descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 se encontraba dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Información que fue reiterada en el oficio SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 del 17 de julio de 2020, por parte de la Dirección del Área de Conservación Central del SINAC. Y finalmente a los actores se les notificó de dicha situación por parte del INDER mediante oficio OTHO-758-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018. De manera que los actores tuvieron certeza la situación geográfica de la parcela No. 74-A-4 hasta el día 28 de setiembre de 2018, a pesar que su adquisición se dio desde el año 2000. Parcela que fue adquirida con la esperanza de que les fuera titulada por parte del INDER por encontrarse dentro del Proyecto Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. Así las cosas, para este Tribunal la adquisición y posesión que ejercieron los actores sobre dicho inmueble se hizo de buena fe, pues no debe de perderse vista que: 1) La finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 fue expropiada a solicitud del entonces ITCO para la creación del Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí en Horquetas de Sarapiquí y ser repartida en parcelas. 2) Que la parcela descrita en el Plano Catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, forma parte de dicha finca, la cual fue adquirida por los actores en el año 2000 e hicieron un uso conforme de acuerdo al "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" del predio descrito en el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 1801580, al punto que el Técnico Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales realizó el día 18 de setiembre de 2018 la inspección de la parcela Dirección13212 y suscribió la "Ficha de Titulación" en la que recomendó titular a nombre de los actores el predio referenciado; no obstante no se pudo por formar parte dicho inmueble en un 98% de su cabida de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, lo cual les fue notificado formalmente a los actores hasta el día 28 de setiembre de 2018, por oficio OTHO-758-2018 de la Oficina Territorial del INDER en Horquetas. Con base en los hechos acreditados y lo dispuesto en los artículos 328, 329, 332, 508 y 509 del Código Civil corresponde ahora analizar la procedencia o no de la pretensión subsidiaria consistente en el reconocimiento patrimonial reclamado por los actores por concepto de accesiones y mejoras, pues tampoco podría desconocerse la intención de los actores de al menos recuperar los fondos económicos invertidos en la parcela identificada como la No. Placa19621 ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí. Ahora bien, de previo a referirnos a ese extremo resulta oportuno traer a colación lo que la Sala Primera ha señalado al respecto y que por su importancia se cita en extenso: "...VIII.- Ahora bien, definida la necesidad de pronunciarse sobre la pretensión de reconocimiento de las mejoras introducidas al inmueble en cuestión, es preciso determinar cuales de esas inversiones realizadas son propias de mejoras y cuales corresponden al instituto de la accesión. De igual manera, es necesario establecer cuales corresponden a mejoras sobre las que el demandado pueda ejercer la retención, como efecto derivado de la reivindicación dictada. Las mejoras pueden ser necesarias o útiles. Respecto de las primeras, esta Sala ha establecido que las denominadas "mejoras necesarias", se refieren a todos aquellos gastos indispensables para la conservación de la cosa, pero que no acrecientan el valor venal de la misma. Se realizan con la finalidad de impedir su deterioro o ruina, dado que de no realizarse, devendría tal efecto negativo. Su finalidad no es lograr un mayor valor de la cosa, sino mantenerla en un buen estado. Se les denomina necesarias, pues deben ejecutarse sólo para que el bien no se deteriore y no disminuya su rendimiento. Por el contrario, las útiles sí aumentan el valor venal de la cosa, en tanto son introducidas con el afán de mejorarla, aumentar las utilidades. Aprovechan a cualquier poseedor y no solamente a quien las realiza. Ello porque generan una plusvalía al acrecentar el valor de la cosa. El Código Civil desarrolla esta distinción en el artículo 332, pues califica a las necesarias como aquellos gastos indispensables para la conservación de la cosa y a las útiles como las que aumenten su valor venal (en relación, sentencia No. 13 de las 10 horas del 29 de enero de 1993 y No. 68 de las 14 horas 40 minutos del 30 de junio de 1998.) Respecto de dichas mejoras, existen diferencias sustanciales en cuanto al poseedor de buena o de mala fe. De conformidad con lo preceptuado por el numeral 328 del Código Civil en relación al 330 ibídem, al poseedor reivindicado le asiste el derecho al reconocimiento de las mejoras tanto útiles como necesarias, en virtud de las cuales, y hasta el pago efectivo, tendrá derecho de retención, sobre ambas, cuando la posesión se haya dado de buena fe, y únicamente sobre las necesarias, cuando la posesión lo haya sido de mala fe. Por otra parte, las mejoras suntuarias o de puro adorno pueden ser retiradas por el poseedor de buena fe (ius tollendi), siempre que con tal acción no se cause deterioro al bien y siempre que el poseedor legítimo no prefiera conservarlas, pagando el valor que tendrían después de separadas..." (Sala Primera No. 233 del 14 de abril de 2005). De esta forma acorde con lo dispuesto en los artículos 328, 330 y 332 del Código Civil, el poseedor de buena fe, que fuese reivindicado le asiste el derecho al reconocimiento de las mejoras tanto útiles, como necesarias. En cuanto a la "accesión" esa Sala indicó en el voto citado: "...IX.-En lo que respecta al instituto de la accesión, interesa para los efectos la que se establece respecto de bienes inmuebles, específicamente en lo atinente a la construcción en terreno ajeno. Cuando se hubiere edificado, plantado o sembrado en terreno ajeno, el Código Civil establece una distinción sustentada en si la construcción se ha dado sin el consentimiento del dueño (artículo 508) o a "ciencia y paciencia" de éste (artículo 509). Cuando no ha mediado consentimiento, el dueño del terreno hace suyo el edificio o plantación, indemnizando el valor de los materiales y la mano de obra, excluyéndose del pago el mayor valor de la finca; pero también puede optar por exigir la eliminación o destrucción de lo incorporado, y el pago de los daños y perjuicios causados, salvo el caso de quien, de buena fe, edificó, sembró o plantó, pues aquí no procede la destrucción, teniendo el propietario del inmueble la opción de re-embolsar el valor de los materiales y trabajo, o bien pagar una suma igual o mayor al valor adquirido por la finca (artículo 508). Por otro lado, si las obras se realizaron "a ciencia y paciencia" del dueño, éste podrá hacer suya la plantación o edificación, pagando el valor si ello le conviniere, pero también podrá optars (Sic) por la constitución de la copropiedad entre ambos, fijando las cuotas en función de los aportes de uno y otro (artículo 509). Este órgano colegiado ha establecido que en el caso de consentimiento expreso del propietario para la incorporación de cosas sobre su inmueble no hay accesión, pues la accesión constituye una forma de adquisición originaria del derecho de propiedad, y no se está en presencia de esa hipótesis sino de una forma contractual de donde derivan derechos y obligaciones reciprocas. Si bien se genera la incorporación de cosas, la forma de determinar la titularidad va a depender de la voluntad de las partes, y en ausencia expresa de ésta, de las normas de las obligaciones (artículos 627 y siguientes), los principios generales del Derecho y la equidad (artículos 4 y 11 del Código Civil, respectivamente). (Sobre el particular, sentencia No. 751 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 6 de octubre del 2000.) (Sala Primera No. 233 del 14 de abril de 2005). En el caso objeto de análisis es criterio de esta Cámara que los actores actuaron de buen fe y edificaron y establecieron una actividad agraria a vista y paciencia del INDER, pues tanto ellos como los propios personeros del INDER desconocían que el terreno descrito en el Plano Catastrado No. H- 1107776-2007 y que se identificó por parte del INDER como la Parcela No. 74-A-4 formara parte de la Reserva Forestal Cadena Volcánica Central, y es que también quedó acreditado, que de esa situación el INDER tuvo certeza hasta que el SINAC por oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015 le comunicó al INDER que el terreno descrito en el plano catastrado No. Placa19619 se encontraba dentro de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central. Información que fue reiterada en el oficio SINAC-ACC-D-1131-2020 del 17 de julio de 2020, por parte de la Dirección del Área de Conservación Central del SINAC. Y finalmente a los actores se les notificó de dicha situación por parte del INDER hasta el día 28 de setiembre de 2018 mediante oficio OTHO-758-2018. De esta forma en criterio de la Cámara los actores asumieron entre el año 2000 y el 27 de setiembre de 2018, que la parcela identificada bajo No. 74-A-4 no formaba parte de la indicada Reserva Forestal, y por ende no actuaron de mala fe. Al contrario se tiene que la actividad desarrollada según la certificación de uso conforme de las tierras se realizó conforme a lo dispuesto para las parcelas propiedad del INDER en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí. Ahora, en cuanto a las mejoras (útiles y necesarias) y la figura de la accesión inmobiliaria, la Sala en el mismo voto delimitó la figura entre mejoras y accesiones de la siguiente manera: "...En lo que toca a las demás inversiones, constituyen edificaciones, cultivos de árboles frutales y agregados a un bien inmueble ajeno, que fueron realizadas sin el consentimiento del propietario (artículo 508 del Código Civil) y frente a las cuales, el actor ha mostrado su oposición (pretensión No. 4 de la demanda, folio 100). Desde este plano, estas inversiones realizadas por el señor .... y su familia (constatadas en el hecho probado No. 5 de la sentencia del juzgado) importan un beneficio para la posesión que ha venido ejerciendo en el inmueble en conflicto y la actividad que realiza, pero no pueden ser asociados a una conservación del bien inmueble. Tampoco pueden ser consideradas como mejoras útiles, dado que para que pudieran ser tenidas como tales, debió haberse demostrado que las adiciones se realizaron sobre bienes ya existentes. En efecto, las mejoras tienen una regulación y connotación diferente a las plantaciones o construcciones nuevas que una persona hace en suelo ajeno, por lo que ambas figuras deben diferenciarse. Las mejoras se rigen por un principio de accesoriedad, en tanto se realizan para ampliar, modificar o reparar una cosa preexistente. Así, con referencia a un predio destinado a la producción agraria, podrían considerarse como mejoras, la reposición, incremento, modificación o mejoramiento de las plantas o cultivos pre-existentes; arreglo de la infraestructura con la que se desarrolla la actividad agraria, entre otros. En oposición, las nuevas edificaciones, construcciones o cultivos permanentes (de árboles frutales) realizados en el terreno ajeno donde no habían obras de esa naturaleza, o si existían estaban por completo separadas de las nuevas, no pueden ser tenidas como mejoras en el sentido jurídico del término, aún cuando "mejoren la propiedad", por lo que en estos menesteres, es de aplicación la figura de la accesión de bienes inmuebles, o inmobiliaria.(En esta dirección se orientan las sentencias No. 1 de las 14 horas 55 minutos del 6 de enero de 1993, No. 65 de las 14 horas 40 minutos del 17 de agosto de 1994 y No. 4 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 28 de enero de 1998). En esta línea de pensamiento, esta Sala, en sentencia No. 37 de las 14 horas 55 minutos del 10 de abril de 1996, manifestó: "Las edificaciones levantadas en un terreno, en buena técnica jurídica, no pueden reputarse mejoras. Estas últimas constituyen aumentos, reparaciones o cambios favorables en bienes preexistentes, tocante a los cuales, dependiendo si se trata de poseedores de buena o mala fe, puede pedirse el reembolso en caso de devolución del bien, cuando el propietario no ha ostentado la posesión. La regulación del pago de mejoras está contenida en los artículos 328 a 332 del Código Civil, y puede acordarse en aquellos casos en los cuales no se da la accesión por siembra o edificación en fundo ajeno. De darse la accesión, el régimen aplicable será el previsto por los artículos 508 y 509, según corresponda". De acuerdo con los antecedentes citados, las edificaciones, cultivos permanentes y demás aportes realizados por el recurrente Nombre111172 dentro del inmueble en cuestión no pueden ser considerados simplemente como aumentos, reparaciones o cambios beneficiosos a bienes que existían antes de su entrada en posesión, puesto que no se ha acreditado en autos que existieran en el inmueble de conflicto, plantaciones que fuesen mejoradas, aspecto que en orden con lo indicado, resulta fundamental para que tales inversiones fuesen calificadas como mejoras. De esto deriva que no es dable aplicar al caso la normativa que regula las mejoras, sino las propias de la accesión inmobiliaria." (Sala Primera No. 233 del 14 de abril de 2005). (Resaltado es nuestro). Conforme a lo señalado en la resolución de cita se deberá entonces analizar en cada caso si frente a una reclamación de este tipo se está frente a mejoras (útiles y necesarias) conforme a lo que disponen los artículos del 328 al 332 del Código Civil o frente a la figura de la accesión inmobiliaria de acuerdo a lo que señalan los artículos 508 y 509 del mismo cuerpo normativo. En el caso bajo análisis se tuvo por acreditado por parte de la Jefatura de Estudios Agroeconómicos y Avalúos en su "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 18015801; en la parcela No. 74-4-A explotada por el señor Nombre111167 se ha ejercido en un 100% el USO CONFORME DEL SUELO, para la actividad que realiza de acuerdo a la metodología aprobada. Se indicó en dicha certificación que en el predio hay una plantación de 1/2 hectárea de palmito en buen estado fitosanitario 36 mts2 de plátano, una casa de habitación de 80 mts2 en buen estado y otra de 140mts2 en buen estado o regular. Potrero con pasto, 8 vacas, un caballo, 40 aves, para auto consumo de leche y cría, corral, galera, establo, etc. (Ver folios del 13 al 28 del expediente administrativo de titulación de la parcela No. Placa19621). De manera que se trató de una posesión de naturaleza agraria y de los trabajos y obras levantadas por los actores y sobre los cuales debe precisarse sobre su naturaleza de mejoras o agregados propios del instituto de la accesión. De manera que serán mejoras las realizadas por los actores los referidos a la hechura de repastos o limpieza de los ya existentes a su ingreso al inmueble en el año 2000. En tanto serán accesiones las plantaciones, construcciones establos, cría de ganado. Obras levantadas y desarrolladas por los actores posterior a su ingreso al fundo. De manera que al amparo de lo dispuesto por los numerales 328 y 330 del Código Civil, las mejoras necesarias indicadas deben ser reconocidas por el propietario del terreno, acudiendo a los actores como autores de dichas obras, el derecho de retención hasta por el valor de las mismas. En cuanto a las accesiones referidas, su reconocimiento deberá realizarse conforme a lo que dispone el artículo 509 del Código Civil. Lo anterior por cuanto como se indicó, se acreditó que los actores ocuparon desde el año 2000 la parcela No. Placa19621 ubicada en el Asentamiento Campesino Cubujuquí, la cual es parte de la propiedad del INDER matricula del Parido de Heredia bajo No. Placa19623 en la que los actores desarrollaron a vista y paciencia del INDER una actividad agraria y levantaron las estructuras que se indicaron en el "Certificado de Uso Conforme de Suelo" emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 18015801, sin que mediara mala fe de su parte, razón por la cual le deberán ser indemnizadas de conformidad con la cuantificación que se establezca en proceso de ejecución de sentencia. Así las cosas, constatando la procedencia del derecho de los actores se impone al INDER la obligación de pagarles la inversión por ellos realizada sobre el terreno correspondiente a la parcela No. 74-A-4 sobre las siguientes mejoras necesarias: hechura de repastos o limpieza de los ya existentes. Igualmente se les deberá reconocer las accesiones, consistentes estas en las edificaciones y cultivos, conforme a la cuantificación que se realice en ejecución del presente fallo, con derecho a la retención sobre las mismas. Y es que se debe considerar que conforme al artículo 48 de la Ley INDER No. 9036 esa institución está obligada a pagar las mejores útiles y necesarias y accesiones realizadas de buena fe. Y es que se reitera, en el presente caso se tuvo por acreditado que a solicitud del ITCO el Poder Ejecutivo expropió a la sociedad Cubujuquí S.A. el inmueble del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 ubicada en la localidad de Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí en el año de 1976 mediante Decreto No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976, y ya desde el año 1972 el señor Nombre111168 , venía ocupando parte de esa finca y al final parte de ese inmueble fue adquirido en el año 2000 por los aquí actores, quienes desde ese fecha ingresaron al fundo y establecieron una actividad agraria de acuerdo al uso de suelo conforme se indicó en el "Certificado de Inspección para Titulación de Tierras" emitido por el Ing. Agr. Luis Dionisio García Giró Carné CIA-5525 de fecha 12 de abril de 2018 con número de consecutivo de ingreso 18015801. Igualmente el Técnico Josué Gabriel Rojas Corrales realizó el día 18 de setiembre de 2018 la inspección de la parcela 74-A-4 y suscribió la "Ficha de Titulación" en la que recomendó titular a nombre de los actores el predio referenciado como parcela, con plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006 y con una cabida de 7ha6841.22mts2, la cual forma parte de la Finca del Partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-00 a nombre del INDER y calculó su traspaso en la suma de 2,052.423,65 colones. Y en el apartado denominado "DECLARACIÓN DE PARTE", los actores aceptaron el traspaso a su favor del referido inmueble en los términos de la Ley No. 2825, la No. 7142 y la No. 9036. De esta forma el reconocimiento de mejoras útiles y necesarias y de accesiones es un criterio que impone la normativa supra referenciada, pero también se impone por razones de equidad, pues consta también que los actores fueron oficialmente notificados por parte del INDER sobre la situación de la colindancia de la parcela 74-A-4 con la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central hasta el día 28 de setiembre de 2018 mediante oficio OTHO-758-2018. De esta forma quedó acreditado que los actores han ejercido actos posesorios sobre la citada parcela de buena fe, la cual cuenta con una parte de cultivos permanentes y otra de potrero. Que el cultivo es de palmito y plátano. Con 8 vacas , un caballo, 40 gallinas, 2 casas de habitación, un corral, establo. Con linderos bien marcados, al Este con postes muertos, a 6 hilos de alambre de púa. Al Sur postes muertos con alambre de púas a 4 hilos. Al Norte con postes muertos a 5 hilos de alambre de púas y al Oeste también con postes muertos a 5 hilos de alambre de púas. Toda esta información consta en el expediente administrativo a folios del 13 al 28. Tampoco consta que el INDER le hubiese reclamado en algún momento histórico la posesión de la parcela No. 74-A-4 a los actores. De esta forma, el reconocimiento y pago de las mejoras necesarias y de las accesiones es una consecuencia de que el INDER siempre respetó el ejercicio de la posesión de los actores sobre la citada parcela. Luego, es claro que el INDER se preocupó por precisar los límites con la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central, cuando por oficio OSH-669-2015 del 07 de agosto de 2015, la Oficina Subregional del INDER en Horquetas, le consultó a la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central si el predio ubicado en Cubujuquí, según plano catastrado No. 1107776-2006 se localizaba o no dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAET-SINAC, o si forman parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y la Jefatura del Área Cordillera Volcánica Central del SINAC por oficio Placa19617 del 20 de agosto de 2015 contestó la información requerida indicando que la parcela con plano No. H-1107776-2006, ubicado en Cubujuquí de Horquetas, se encuentra dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas y administradas por el MINAE formando parte en este caso de la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central y por ende parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y no fue sino hasta por oficio OTHO-755-2018 del 28 de setiembre de 2018 que la Oficina de Desarrollo Territorial de Horquetas le solicitó a la Jefatura del SINAC-MINAE de Sarapiquí procediera esa institución a delimitar el terreno indicado y por oficio SINAC-ACAHN-JSS-023-2019 del 29 de enero de 2019, se le indicó que debía gestionar dicha solicitud ante la oficina del Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo. De manera que a pesar de que la Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central fue creada desde el año de 1975 y la expropiación de la finca del partido de Heredia No. 4-57748-000 ubicada en la localidad de Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí se dio desde el año de 1976 mediante Decreto No. 156 del 17 de agosto de 1976; no fue sino hasta el día 28 de setiembre de 2018 que el INDER solicitó formalmente delimitar el terreno descrito en el plano H-1107776-2006 con respecto a la indicada reserva forestal. Corolario de lo expuesto, es que de acuerdo a lo indicado se debe reconocer a los actores las mejoras y accesiones, las cuales deberán liquidarse y estimarse en fase de ejecución de sentencia, por carecer de elementos al respecto. En cuanto a los daños y perjuicios presentes o futuros reclamados ante un eventual desalojo, dicho extremo se rechaza en virtud de que los daños y perjuicios resultan inmersos en el reconocimiento que hace el Tribunal al declarar con lugar la pretensión subsidiaria en razón de lo que supra se explico. Finalmente también se rechaza el daño moral subjetivo, toda vez que el hecho de que a otros vecinos de la zona se les otorgara el título de propiedad, obedece a que sus inmuebles posiblemente no forman parte de la Reserva Forestal. Además, ninguno de los casos de los vecinos de los actores forma parte del objeto el presente proceso y por ende se desconocen las razones por las cuales se dio o no la titulación. Luego, no deben perder de vista lo actores que ellos adquirieron un derecho de posesión del señor Nombre111170 , no la nuda propiedad y que la consolidación del derecho de propiedad sobre la parcela 74-A-4, requería la titulación por parte del INDER, lo que no pudo ser por una razón objetiva, ya que efectivamente el inmueble se correspondía en alrededor del 98% con la reserva forestal. De esta forma lo que tenían con respecto a dicho fundo fue una expectativa más no un derecho real debidamente consolidado. Situación que no excluye el reconocimiento de las mejoras y accesiones realizadas en el fundo, pero sí el daño moral subjetivo reclamado. Finalmente, conforme a lo indicado por la Sala Constitucional en su voto No. 1963-2012 del 15 de febrero de 2012, firme la presente sentencia y una vez pagadas las mejoras y accesiones, deberá gestionarse el desalojo de los ocupantes del inmueble que describe el plano catastrado No. H-1107776-2006, exclusivamente en la porción de terreno que forma parte de la "Reserva Forestal Cordillera Volcánica Central" en administración del SINAC del Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET). Asimismo, deben el MINAET y el SINAC, confeccionar los rótulos necesarios que permitan identificar el inmueble como Patrimonio Natural del Estado.

VII.- EXCEPCIONES: Las representaciones del SINAC y el Estado opusieron en su defensa las excepciones de falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva y falta de derecho, las cuales deben acogerse a la luz de lo que ha indicado la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia cuando ha señalado: "Dicho de otro modo, el mandato procesal ordena únicamente que se incorpore a la discusión judicial tanto al órgano con personalidad como al Estado u ente al que pertenece. Corresponde luego al juez o jueza, con arreglo a las normas sustantivas, determinar si el acto, conducta o indolencia cuestionados se desarrolló o no bajo personalidad estableciendo de este modo, si es el órgano el que debe responder con su propio peculio, o si es el ente o el Estado a quien debe atribuirse el deber de reparar." (Resolución No. 1360-F-S1-2010 de las diez horas veinticinco minutos del once de noviembre del dos mil diez. En el mismo sentido, la Sentencia No. 883-F-S1-2011 de las nueve horas cinco minutos del veintiocho de julio del dos mil once). "(...) si se determina que el acto impugnado constituye el ejercicio de una competencia propia y exclusiva del denominada "órgano-persona", como consecuencia lógica y natural lo procedente es declarar una falta de derecho respecto del ente al cual está adscrito. En este sentido, es importante indicar que el otorgamiento de personalidad jurídica a un ente u órgano tiene como consecuencia inmediata el constituirlos en un centro último y único de imputación de los efectos de sus actuaciones u omisiones." (Resolución No. 1360-F-S1-2010 de las diez horas veinticinco minutos del once de noviembre de dos mil diez). En el presente asunto es claro que no hay conducta imputable ni al Estado ni al SINAC en lo actuado y cuestionado por los actores. Conducta que fue proia del INDER en el ejercicio de sus competencias y por las cuales debe responder de forma indivudual. La representación del INDER opuso la excepción de prescripción, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho. Respecto a la excepción de prescripción este Tribunal se manifestó en el considerando V. Sobre la excepción de falta de legitimación, debe advertirse que la legitimación constituye la capacidad, la aptitud para ser parte de un proceso concreto, como parte pasiva, dependiendo de las condiciones que para tal efecto, la ley procesal preceptúa con relación a la pretensión que se plantea. Ahora, la legitimación deviene ya sea de la relación jurídico-administrativa establecida entre el actor y la Administración, o bien de la ley, de acuerdo a la que ella haya establecido al respecto. Y es que en un proceso existen dos tipos de legitimación, para la causa (ad causam) y para el proceso (ad procesum). La primera (ad causam) versa en verificar si la persona que interpone la demanda tiene jurídicamente hablando un derecho que reclamar, es decir; la parte legitimada es aquella persona que al tenor del derecho de fondo tiene una determinada relación-jurídica con el objeto del proceso, sea la pretensión. La segunda (ad procesum) consiste en una cuestión procesal, en otras palabras, si quien se apersona tiene capacidad de actuar conforme a la ley o si actúa por otro con el tipo de representación legal adecuada ajustada a nuestra normativa. En el presente caso se tuvo por acreditado que los actores adquirieron la parcela No. 74-A-4 en el año 2000 ubicada en el Asentamiento Cubujuquí de Horquetas de Sarapiquí y plantearon en el año 2015 una solicitud ante el INDER de titularización. Solicitud que les fue denegada por las razones que se indicaron. De esta forma entre los actores y el INDER se generó una relación jurídica administrativa y por ello los actores están legitimados activamente para accionar y el INDER para ser accionado, razón por la cual se rechaza dicha excepción. Finalmente, en cuanto a la excepción de falta de derecho, retomando lo dicho por nuestra Sala Primera, es menester la demostración de los hechos, como parte fundamental de ello, porque de lo que en ese acápite se determina, se podrá desprender si existen o no las bases legales para lo pretendido. Habiéndose acreditado derechos parciales de los actores, lo procedente es acoger la indicada excepción de manera parcial.

VIII.- COSTAS: El artículo 193 del CPCA establece que las costas procesales y personales son impuestas al vencido por el solo hecho de serlo, pronunciamiento que debe hacerse incluso de oficio, al tenor de lo dispuesto en esa misma norma, en concordancia con el numeral 119.2 ibídem. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable: a) cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar; b) cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas que desconociera la parte contraria; o bien, c) cuando se incurra en plus petitio, esto es, cuando la diferencia entre lo reclamado y lo obtenido en definitiva sea de un quince por ciento (151/2) o más, a no ser que las bases de la demanda sean expresamente consideradas provisionales o su determinación dependa del arbitrio judicial o dictamen de peritos (ordinal 194 ibídem). En la especie, no encuentra este Órgano Colegiado que estemos frente a alguna de las excepciones dichas que permita quebrar el postulado de imposición de costas al vencido, y en ese tanto, lo procedente es condenar al INDER al pago de ambas costas de este Proceso. Quantum de las mismas que se determinará en la Etapa de Ejecución de Sentencia a ruego de la parte vencedora. En lo que la demanda se dirigió contra el Estado y el SINAC, se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas, pues ambas partes fueron integradas de oficio por parte del Juez Tramitador.

POR TANTO:

Se admite la prueba para mejor resolver. Se rechaza la excepción de prescripción del derecho. En lo que la demanda se dirigió contra el Estado y el SINAC, se acoge la excepción de falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva y Falta de Derecho. Con ocasión de lo cual, la demanda interpuesta contra ambas representaciones se declara sin lugar. En lo que atañe al INDER se rechaza la excepción de falta de legitimación pasiva y se acoge de forma parcial la excepción de Falta de Derecho y en consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda contra dicho ente, entendiéndose denegada en lo no expresamente concedido, así: i) Se condena al INDER a pagar a los actores las mejoras y accesiones realizadas en la parcela No. Placa19621, las cuales serán liquidadas y estimadas en ejecución de sentencia y sobre las cuales tendrán los actores derecho de retención hasta su efectivo pago. ii) Se condena al INDER a pagar a los actores ambas costas de este Proceso. Quantum de las mismas que se determinará en Etapa de Ejecución de Sentencia a instancia de la parte vencedora. iii) En lo que la demanda se dirigió contra el Estado y el SINAC, se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas. NOTIFÍQUESE. José Iván Salas Leitón. Judith Reyes Castillo. Elías Baltodano Gómez. Jueces.

*GLXZQYY8BWC61* JOSE IVAN SALAS LEITON - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *JKZAIGDBXP061* JUDITH REYES CASTILLO - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A *T0HQ1D47WQLI61* ELIAS BALTODANO GOMEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A