Denial of Compensation to Mortgage Credit Awardee on Land Within China Kichá Indigenous TerritoryImprocedencia de indemnización a adjudicatario de crédito hipotecario sobre terreno en territorio indígena China Kichá

EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj *220019571027CA* CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL R.S.L.

DEMANDADO/A:

COMISION NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS INDIGENAS N° 2025007612 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at sixteen hours on the twenty-ninth of July, two thousand twenty-five.- Ordinary proceeding (Proceso de conocimiento) filed by COOPERATIVA AGRÍCOLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL (hereinafter the Cooperative), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Lic. Roberto Enrique Cordero Brenes, professional ID 18477, against EL ESTADO, represented by the Procuradora Xóchitl López Vargas, professional ID 15047, the JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL (hereinafter the Registry), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Licenciado Andrey Monge Jiménez, professional ID number 23252, the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (hereinafter INDER) represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Licenciada María Teresa Fernández Chinchilla, professional ID number 20578, and the COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS INDÍGENAS (hereinafter CONAI), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Licenciada Karla Andrea Reyes Rivas, professional ID number 30668.

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Relevant Background. Prior to the issuance of this judgment, the following relevant background events occurred:

• a)The complaint was filed on March 25, 2022, in which the plaintiff requests the following:

“PRINCIPAL CLAIM May the complaint be granted in all its aspects.

We request that the objective liability for lawful conduct of the ESTADO be declared, for the declaration of the indigenous reserve made by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G, dated March 21, 2001, and that it be ordered to pay the total value of the land, which shall be determined by expert appraisal within this proceeding.

That the joint and several objective liability for unlawful conduct of CONAI and INDER be declared for the omission to execute what was indicated in Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G, which determined the existence and expansion of the CHINA KICHA indigenous reserve, in the sense of not having instituted the corresponding administrative procedures to protect the rights of the owners and so that the official notices or resolutions would be issued to annotate the affected property owned by my represented party in the margin of its registration.

That the objective liability for unlawful conduct of the Registro Nacional be declared for the omission of failing to publicize registrally the annotations, immobilizations, and/or encumbrances (gravámenes) of the indigenous reserve on the property owned by my represented party, since the issuance and publication of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G, an omission that persists to this day.

That all co-defendants be ordered to pay the caused damage, which consists of the current value of the property to be determined by expert appraisal in this proceeding.

That the defendants be ordered to pay costs, plus their respective interest.

SUBSIDIARY CLAIM In default of the foregoing, we request as a subsidiary claim, that INDER be compelled to carry out the expropriation (expropiación) procedures and full compensation (indemnización) for the property owned by my represented party, real folio number 1-635188-000, as there is an evident public interest in the declaration of the China Kicha indigenous reserve made by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G, procedures that the co-defendant INDER has omitted to this day.

That the co-defendant INDER be ordered to pay both costs, plus their respective interest.” b) The complaint was answered negatively by the defendant parties, who raised the defense of lack of right. CONAI and INDER invoked the defenses of lack of active and passive standing (legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva), while the Estado limited itself to alleging a lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva).

• c)The preliminary hearing was held on January 24, 2024, an act in which the original claims of the complaint were maintained, it was established that all the facts are contested, and the plaintiff’s request for the appointment of an appraisal expert was approved.
• d)The expert report was rendered on June 28, 2024, and was made known to the parties.
• e)The oral hearing was held on July 10, 2025, an act in which the expert was heard, the parties presented their conclusions, and the matter was declared complex in accordance with Article 111 of the CPCA, therefore, this judgment is issued within the term of law.

II.- Allegations of the Complaint: The plaintiff alleges that in the present case, there was unlawful and abnormal conduct by the Registro Inmobiliario in omitting for a long time to publicize that the farm of the San José registry section, real folio 1-635188-000, was within an indigenous reserve. It maintains that, under the principle of registry publicity, the plaintiff agreed to become the creditor of a loan secured by a mortgage on that property, which was registered under citations 2016-237690 and subsequently awarded in favor of the plaintiff as recorded in citations 2019-684381 of the databases of said registry office. It alleges that INDER belatedly managed to record the annotation of the encumbrance (gravamen) on the property with the Registro Público, which caused it the loss of the money it loaned and the impossibility of exercising any act as an owner due to the “limitation” existing in the zone. The Cooperative claims to have negotiated and acquired the farm in question in good faith and describes the alleged registry omissions as violating basic principles of registry law, namely, the principle of publicity and registry security, the effects of which result in the impairment of its own interests. It considers that it was dispossessed of its property by an administrative limitation that declared the China Kicha zone as indigenous territory, as a result of a declaration made by Decreto N° 29447-G, issued in 2001, but there were omissions by CONAI and INDER in timely requesting the administrative limitation from the Registro Público, an entity that also did not record the annotation, limitation, encumbrance (gravamen), immobilization, etc., of the property in the margin of the registry entry. It argues that in the exercise of the principle of legitimate expectations, it relied on the registry information, which allowed it to lend the money to the owner and, in turn, to foreclose —as was effectively done— upon non-payment of the mortgage obligation, reaching the point of seeing the exercise of property and its ownership attributes impossible. The foregoing is described as a clear injury to Article 194 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, as part of the objective liability of the Public Administration. It considers that the Estado is liable for lawful conduct, having issued a decree that results in the China Kicha indigenous settlement, emptying the content of the property right. It alleges that liability for unlawful conduct is plenary, with the Administration liable for both damages and lost profits.

III.- Defense of the Co-defendants. The defendant parties rejected the complaint, as follows:

• a)The Estado maintains that the Decreto was issued in 2001—that is, many years before the mortgage was constituted and the property now claimed was acquired—and since that year, it was established that farm registration number 635188-000 is located within an indigenous zone, making it from that moment inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to transfer of its ownership, and exclusive to the indigenous communities, a situation that, furthermore, was publicized in the Registro Nacional, in cadastral plan SJ-1646758-2013, registered since April 22, 2013, and which was known to the plaintiff when granting the mortgage and being awarded the farm. It alleges that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is not legitimate and that in this case there was fault of the victim, given that it cannot claim good faith at the time the transactions through which it acquired the property were carried out, because the legal norms that had affected it as an indigenous zone were already in force, which was also alleged in the enforcement proceeding through which the property was awarded. Nor is the existence of a causal link between the administrative omissions and conduct accused as unlawful and the claimed damage proven, since it is the plaintiff's own actions that led it to be in the situation it claims as violating its rights.
• b)The Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional states that the designation “finca en Zona ABRE” is the way in which both the owner of a property and any potential third parties interested in it are warned that said farm is located within an indigenous reserve, and therefore, it should not be understood as a limitation or encumbrance (gravamen), as the plaintiff erroneously attempts to portray it, since it is a simple informational notice that does not prevent the registration of subsequent documents or their legal transaction. The code “Zona ABRE” was recorded on farm 1-635188 on May 4, 2022, under the “registry principle of rogation” at the request and instance of INDER and CONAI, public institutions that, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Ley Indígena, are in charge of the compensation (indemnización) and cadastral survey functions in matters of this nature, so it should not be considered an originating or causative event of the condition in which the plaintiff’s property is found and the damages it alleges, but rather a consequence of the actions and requests of INDER and CONAI, which base their conduct on the application of the Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G. It argues that the plaintiff’s mere statement does not imply per se the configuration of damage or that, even if one exists, it must be compensated by the co-defendant under the terms established in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, because Article 5 of the Ley Indígena specifies that INDER is responsible for hearing the expropriation (expropiación) of lands owned by non-indigenous persons located in indigenous reserves, without the need to include any other institution in the process, as it is a competence of said entity in coordination with CONAI. It also warns that Article 3 of the Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G, provide that the consequence of the location of a farm in a zone declared as indigenous territory is that non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or acquire land or farms located within the reserves, and therefore, any act of disposition over those properties is absolutely null, consequently, any transfer or negotiation of land located in a reserve, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case; a rule that has an exception contained in Article 5 of the Ley Indígena, a numeral that contemplates the hypothesis that persons not belonging to the indigenous community, who at the time of the creation of the respective reserve, were owners or possessors of properties located within the limits of the reserve, must be compensated (indemnizar), provided they are acting in good faith. The acquisition of farm 1-655188 by the plaintiff cannot be presumed to be in good faith, nor is the premise of having participated as a third-party good-faith acquirer applicable to said titleholder, since the plaintiff should have known the condition of the location of said farm, due to the content of the Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G, and because cadastral plan SJ-1646758-2013, registered on April 22, 2013, which corresponds to said farm, contains an endorsement (visado) in which CONAI expressly indicates that the farm is located in an area declared a reserve.
• c)CONAI, for its part, defends itself by alleging that the acquisition of the property is absolutely null, as it involves an illicit transaction of land that has legal limitations, since said property could not be subject to a mortgage loan, given that the title is not freely disposable and this was known to the plaintiff. It invokes Convenio N° 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ratified by Costa Rica through Ley N° 7316 of November 3, 1992, which establishes the obligation of governments to respect the special importance that the relationship with the lands or territories of the China Kicha Indigenous Territory represents for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples approved by Resolution 61/295 of 2007, and reinforces what is established by Convenio 169, which binds the Estado to establish effective mechanisms for the prevention of any act that has the object or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories, or resources (Article 8), that they shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories (Article 10), and that they have rights over the lands. It also relies on the Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos N° 13 of 1939, in which explicit recognition is made of the rights of native peoples to inhabit the lands they have ancestrally occupied and to which they maintain a historical rootedness. Regarding the property with registration number 1-635188-000, it alleges that the plaintiff registered it in its name on November 11, 2019, a date after the creation of the Territorio Indígena China Kichá, which was established by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34 of La Gaceta N° 3 of January 5, 19571, and its limits reestablished through Decreto Ejecutivo 29447 of March 21, 2001. In its view, the first-degree mortgage signed on April 8, 2016, is null because it is located within an indigenous territory, over which the limitations of Article 3° of Ley Indígena Número 6172 of 1977 apply, whereby said lands are inalienable, imprescriptible, and non-transferable, exclusive to indigenous communities. Regarding the code "ZONA A.B.R.E inmueble situado en territorio indígena," it warns that this does not constitute recognition of a property as part of an indigenous territory, as its scope is merely informative to third parties. The existence or not of said registration does not affect the fact that said property is part of an indigenous territory, so the acquisition of real estate is in bad faith given the legal impairment. Therefore, it maintains that compensation (indemnización) is only possible for those possessors in good faith who were present before the creation of the reserves and their limitations, not for those who acquire or enter afterwards, in which case the law also provided for that second hypothesis, which is immediate eviction by the competent authorities. It alleges that there is no non-compliance with the plaintiff; rather, it is the plaintiff who violates the property of the indigenous people by acquiring lands with limitations that are for the exclusive use and enjoyment of indigenous people, so there is no obligation to compensate (indemnizar) him. It requests that the complaint be declared inadmissible and without merit, that all the defenses raised be upheld, and it expressly petitions that “... the absolute nullity ab initio of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá be declared. As well as the resolution issued by the Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) of October 18, 2019, which approves the auction held at 10:00 hours on August 30, 2019,” along with an award of costs.

IV.- Proven Facts. Based on all the evidence incorporated into the judicial file in electronic format, the following relevant facts are deemed duly proven:

The Territorio Indígena China Kichá was established by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34 of La Gaceta N° 3 of January 5, 19571, and its limits were reestablished through Decreto Ejecutivo 29447 of March 21, 2001 (images 108 to 114, uncontested fact).

Farm with real folio registration number of the San José registry section 635188-000 was created through document citations 212-348963 and its additional 2013-96478 and was registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, of the canton Pérez Zeledón. The cadastral plan that corresponds to it is SJ-1646758-20132013 which was registered on April 8, 2013. According to said plan, the farm is located in China Kicha and originates from real folio No. 100305532-000 with an area according to the registry of 152,096.58 m2. Said plan contains an endorsement (visado) on its reverse side, dated March 21, 2013, issued by CONAI, which indicates that “The plan which states it is part of Folio Real No. 100305532-000, located in China Kicha, Distrito 7 Pejibaye, Cantón 19 Pérez Zeledón, Provicia 1 San José, with an area of 107,675 m2, is found located WITHIN THE RESERVA INDIGENA DE CHINA KICHA according to official notice No. MEDET-018-2013 issued by the Departamento de Estudios Territoriales of CONAI, insofar as the property is effectively located where the draftsman placed it on the grid attached to the plan and according to legal opinion No. DLI-042-2013 issued by the Departamento Legal of CONAI dated March 8, 2013, THE ENDORSEMENT (VISADO) OF THIS PLAN IS APPROPRIATE since said farm exists and was registered as such before the reestablishment of the indigenous reserve of China Kichá. Affected by Ley Indígena No. 6172, Art. 3. Is all.” (see plan in images 315 and 316, reference in official notice DRI-01-0486-2022 of April 27, 2022, in images 329 to 334).

By public deed executed before notary public José Aurei Navarro Garro, on April 8, 2016, Adolfo Tabash Steller and Wilmer Tabash Steller contracted a loan with the plaintiff Cooperative, for the sum of ¢28,400,000.00. As loan security, they constituted a first-degree mortgage on the farm with real folio registration number 1-635188-000 and cadastral plan SJ-1646758-2013 (Indicated in the previous fact). At that time, the registry entry for the property did not indicate that the land was subject to a limitation with the code “ZONA A.B.R.E. (Inmueble Situado en Territorio Indígena)”. (See image 31 corresponding to the registry certification, 318 to 323 of the judicial file).

Through official notice GG-1647-2018 of November 15, 2018, filed with the Dirección del Registro Inmobiliario on January 23, 2019, signed by Ms. Diana Murillo Murillo and Mr. Clementino Villanueva Zúñiga, Gerente General of INDER and Director Ejecutivo of CONAI, respectively, it was indicated that “(…) As a result of the implementation of the Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Tierras en Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI), which is being developed by INDER in coordination with CONAI, a series of registered farms have been detected, which due to their cartographic location are affected by the decrees of the Indigenous Territories; said farms, despite being registered in the Registro de la Propiedad, do not publicize their affectation with the indigenous territories, which constantly allows registry and cadastral movements to be carried out, affecting the regulations that protect this type of areas. Therefore, it requires that the Registro Inmobiliario establish a procedure so that all these farms are recorded with some type of code (…)” (images 341 and 342).

Through official notice GG-855-2019, INDER communicated to the Registro Nacional a definitive list of 921 registered farms located in 15 indigenous territories, among which the plaintiff cooperative's farm appears (images 355 to 363).

By Decreto Ejecutivo number 41708 of March 8, 2019, distrito 03, Pejibaye, cantón 4 Jiménez, Provincia 3 Cartago was declared a cadastral zone, having summoned the titleholders, mortgage creditors, or annotating parties to attend the public exposition to examine the data recorded through Diario Oficial la Gaceta number 149 of August 3, 2002, and in the national circulation newspaper on August 12, 2012, information that makes known that the property was located in indigenous territory.

On May 23, 2019, the Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) admitted the mortgage enforcement proceeding filed by the plaintiff due to the non-payment of the debt and scheduled an auction for 10:00 hours on August 30, 2019 (images 24 to 54 of the judicial file).

On August 30, 2019, the Cooperative was awarded the property in a first auction for the credit offset base amount corresponding to twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four cents (auction record in image 64 of the judicial file).

In file No. 2019-70-RIM of Diligencias Administrativas, at the request of INDER and CONAI, the Registro Inmobiliario ordered, by resolution at 11:05 hours on September 12, 2019, that in accordance with the provisions of the Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI), which had been endorsed by CONAI since March 21, 2001, it proceeds to order the annotation on all the farms included in said resolution, which included the farm under discussion in this case, recording the code “ZONA A.B.R.E. (INMUEBLE SITUADO EN TERRITORIO INDIGENA” (images 79 to 98).

On October 18, 2019, the Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) approved the auction held at 10:00 on August 30, 2019, for the sum of twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four cents, free of encumbrances (gravámenes) and annotations, and ordered the corresponding notarial protocolization to award the property to the plaintiff. The formal handover of possession was recorded in the minutes of February 11, 2020 (images 71 and 72, 77, 363).

The property was registered in the name of the plaintiff Cooperative on November 11, 2019 (image 324).

On February 11, 2020, the Delegación Cantonal de Pérez Zeledón of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública carried out the formal handover of possession of the property to the plaintiff, prepared the respective record, and proceeded to evict the occupants of the property (images 74 to 77 of the judicial file).

V.- On the Object of the Proceeding. In essence, this case adjudicates two distinct scenarios of State liability, namely: a) it claims liability for lawful conduct, insofar as the Estado, through an Decreto Ejecutivo, incorporated the farm subject to this proceeding into the China Kichá reserve and did not proceed with the expropriation (expropiación) proceedings, so the plaintiff believes it is the duty to compensate (indemnizar) it, for having emptied its property right, or alternatively, and in a subsidiary manner, it requests that the Administration be ordered to carry out the expropriation (expropiación) process of the land; and b) liability for unlawful conduct claimed against CONAI and INDER, for not having timely processed the registry annotation of the lands to the indigenous territory; against the Junta Directiva del Registro Nacional, it claims for not having placed the encumbrance (gravamen) or limitation on the registry entry since said decree was issued. It considers that these omissions led it to constitute itself as a mortgage creditor in reliance on good faith and registry publicity, later promoting the award of the property at auction, over which it cannot dispose.

VI.- On the Inadmissibility of the CONAI's Declaratory Claims. CONAI appears in its statement of defense and raises nullity arguments regarding certain actions that lead it to file material claims so that this Chamber may “declare the absolute nullity ab initio of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá. As well as the resolution issued by the Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) of October 18, 2019, which approves the auction held at 10:00 hours on August 30, 2019.” However, there is no counterclaim from its part raising these declaratory claims, which would be the only way for this Chamber to hear them. To do so, the admission and substantiation stage of the counterclaim would have to be overcome, once it had met all the legal requirements established for any contentious-administrative complaint, if it had an interest in asserting its own rights against the plaintiff, without needing to file another lawsuit, for reasons of procedural economy. Moreover, it is clear that the claim seeking the annulment of judicial actions cannot be litigated in this venue, but rather within the same collection proceeding, which could have been converted into an ordinary proceeding in a timely manner so that the original cause of the obligation could be heard, but nothing of this appears in the record. Under these circumstances, this Chamber is bound to declare the inadmissibility of these claims by CONAI.

VII.- On the Legal Regime of Indigenous Territories. For the correct analysis of this case, it is necessary to understand how the issue of indigenous territories is regulated, specifically regarding those properties that, by way of Decreto Ejecutivo, have been incorporated into the respective reserves, despite there being non-indigenous owners or possessors in good faith. The first legislative record is found in the Ley Sobre Terrenos Baldíos number 13 of January 10, 1939, in its Article 8 it stated "... a prudential zone, at the discretion of the Poder Ejecutivo, is declared inalienable and the exclusive property of the indigenous people, in the places where tribes of these exist, in order to preserve our autochthonous race and to free them from future injustices," through which ownership over their lands by indigenous communities was recognized, and which were given an inalienable character. Based on the powers granted by the legislature to the Poder Ejecutivo, Decreto Ejecutivo 45 of December 3, 1945, was issued, which reiterated the inalienability of the lands occupied by indigenous peoples, which for the first time were called “indigenous reserves,” and in Decreto Ejecutivo 34 of November 15, 1956, three distinct reserves were identified, namely, “Boruca-Térraba,” “Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra,” and “China Kichá.” The consolidation of the right to property, exclusive and exclusionary, as well as communal or collective, was legally recognized in our country with the signing of Convenio number 107 of the International Labour Organization, called “Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries” through Ley de la República No. 2330 of April 9, 1959. From there, the responsibility of governments was established to develop coordinated and systematic programs with a view to protecting indigenous populations (Article 2), and to “recognise the right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy” (Article 5), thus constituting norms with a rank superior to ordinary law, in accordance with Article 7 of our Constitución Política, providing greater protection to the fundamental rights of indigenous people. With the entry into force of Ley de Tierras y Colonización number 2825 of May 14, 1961, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos was repealed, and Article 75 provided that ITCO—Instituto de Tierras y Colonización—would ensure the conditioning of indigenous communities or families, which then became the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (1982) and evolved into today's Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (2012). With Ley Indígena No.

6172 of November 29, 1977, recognized that the territories of the indigenous reserves are the property of their respective community, inalienable, imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them, and it is not permitted for non-indigenous persons, even if they are the titleholders, to rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or properties comprised within these reserves, with any transfer or negotiation of lands or their improvements in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, being absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case (article 3). Subsequently, the Law for the Creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs number 5251, of July 11, 1973, was promulgated, whose article 4 assigned it the competence to “…b) Serve as an instrument of coordination between the different public institutions obligated to the execution of works and the provision of services for the benefit of indigenous communities; (…) e) Ensure respect for the rights of indigenous minorities, stimulating the action of the State in order to guarantee the indigenous people individual and collective land ownership; the timely use of credit; adequate marketing of production and efficient technical assistance; (…)”, being charged with providing sufficient lands to be destined exclusively to these communities, and must delimit and demarcate them. Article 1 of Law number 5651 of December 13, 1974, called Reforma Creación de CONAI Comisión Nacional Asuntos Indígenas, reiterated the inalienability of the indigenous reserves registered in the name of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO). Executive Decree No. 29451 of March 22, 2001, indicated that indigenous reserves are the property of those communities and established that the boundaries of those territories, once “recognized” by the State, may not be varied in a reduction of their area except by a law of the Republic. On November 3, 1992, Law number 7316 was promulgated, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 234, of December 4, 1992, “Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries”, of the International Labour Organization, according to which the issue of indigenous property is punctually regulated. In its article 13, special emphasis was given to the intrinsic cultural and spiritual values of the land and in article 14, it was disposed that “Governments shall take the measures necessary to determine the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession. 3. Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims made by the peoples concerned.” VIII.- Regarding the specific case. Bearing in mind that our country has assumed a leading role in defense of indigenous heritage, in order to have a better understanding of this case and provide an adequate solution, it is necessary to read article 5 of the Indigenous Law -Law 6172-, which regulated the mechanism by which the integrality of their territories would be restored to indigenous communities; to that effect, the norm literally disposes:

“In the case of non-indigenous persons who are owners or possessors in good faith within the indigenous reserves, the ITCO must relocate them to other similar lands, if they so desire; if relocation is not possible or they do not accept the relocation, it must expropriate them and compensate them according to the procedures established in the Expropriations Law.

The studies and procedures for expropriation and compensation shall be carried out by the ITCO in coordination with CONAI.

If subsequently there is an invasion of non-indigenous persons into the reserves, the competent authorities must immediately proceed with their eviction, without any payment of compensation.

The expropriations and compensations shall be financed with the contribution of one hundred million colones in cash, which shall be deposited through four annual installments of twenty-five million colones each, the first beginning in the year 1979; said installments shall be included in the general budgets of the Republic for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982. The fund shall be administered by CONAI, under the supervision of the Comptroller General of the Republic.” As can be seen, the legislator resolved the manner by which the effective and definitive delivery of the lands belonging to indigenous communities would be realized. Thus, each reserve would see its boundaries established through a coordinated effort between INDER and CONAI, within which non-indigenous persons occupying said territories would be identified. In the case of possessors or registered titleholders in good faith, the first solution would be to provide them with relocation and, only if that did not succeed, the corresponding expropriation or compensation would be carried out. Faced with the assumption where relocation did not proceed, the compensation procedure would continue through the expropriation proceedings, the competence for which falls today on the Institute of Rural Development. This would necessarily imply that, once each indigenous reserve was delimited by INDER, any non-indigenous person must abandon the property, whether through relocation or expropriation, so that the territory would become an integral and effective part of each reserve. According to what the transcribed article disposed, any act of disposal of these lands carried out after the validity of the Indigenous Law by non-indigenous persons becomes null. From the reading, it is inferred that the intention was always for the lands to be free of non-indigenous persons so that they could be legitimately occupied by indigenous peoples. Precisely for this reason, the same norm establishes that any subsequent invader could be evicted or expelled immediately through the legal channels provided for that purpose without the right to any compensation. From this, it is possible to understand then that the Law foresaw that the only persons who would be susceptible to obtaining compensation would be those who were registered owners or possessors in good faith at the moment when the boundaries of each reserve were defined.

IX.- The China Kicha indigenous reserve was created by Executive Decree 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 1957, and subsequently re-established by Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, which disposed its boundaries and specific coordinates. In accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the Indigenous Law, from the entry into force of this latter decree, every registered owner and possessor in good faith would fall under the assumption of relocation or, failing that, the payment of the corresponding compensation through expropriation. As was demonstrated in the case file, the property with real folio registration number of the San José registry 635188-000 was created through document citations 212-348963 and its addendum 2013-96478 and was registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, of the canton of Pérez Zeledón, based on the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 which was registered on April 8, 2013, and whoever was responsible for the segregation of the parent property and was its registered owner was aware that it was located within the China Kicha indigenous reserve, because the map used for registration before the Real Estate Registry obtained the approval of CONAI indicating so. Therefore, the subscription of that credit with a mortgage guarantee was an act of disposal of the property contrary to law, since the lands were already the property of the indigenous reserve, in accordance with article 5 of the Indigenous Law. The claimant appeals to a good faith at the time of signing said credit contract, because it relied on the registry information, which it accuses, in its opinion, of having been incomplete for not indicating in the property's registry entry the limitation or encumbrance for being within indigenous territory, in order to thus justify its right to compensation; however, this should have been noticed by the plaintiff Cooperative at the time of conducting the credit analysis with a comprehensive and careful examination, both of the title of ownership and the corresponding map, prior to approving the credit and disbursing the money to the debtor. Had it noticed this circumstance, it probably would not have granted that loan. Subsequently, upon non-payment of the monetary obligation, the Cooperative continued with the judicial proceedings for the auction of the property until obtaining the corresponding adjudication and registry inscription.

X.- Regarding liability for lawful conduct. This Chamber considers that the thesis proposed by the plaintiff Cooperative to the effect of being compensated for lawful conduct does not conform to the special regulation contained in the Indigenous Law, because the legislator foresaw who the subject would be who would be the beneficiary of compensation through expropriation. In the opinion of this body of judges, the figure of expropriation regulated in the Indigenous Law was the solution provided by Law for all persons who had a registered title or were possessors in good faith and responds to the ulterior aims of the State to guarantee the re-establishment of indigenous territories, in compliance with the objectives of the law and the international instruments signed by our Nation, which seek the safeguarding and protection of the entire cultural and historical heritage of indigenous communities. It is a special regulation that, in the face of the dispossession of the lands, recognizes compensation provided the assumptions provided in the Indigenous Law itself are met, through the procedure established in the Expropriations Law. The figure of expropriation provided for in that normative body is different from liability for lawful conduct and normal operation according to the provisions of articles 190 and 194 of the General Law of Public Administration. In liability for lawful conduct and normal operation, the reparation of any and all unlawful injury does not occur by the simple fact of having occurred, because the compensation for unjust damage attributable to the Administration requires that it be special and abnormal, “due to the small proportion of affected persons or the exceptional intensity of the injury,” an assumption that must be alleged and demonstrated by the party aspiring to obtain that reparation. The complaint makes no objection regarding these exceptional conditions for the appropriateness of damage reparable by lawful conduct or normal operation, as its thesis is limited to the claim for compensation of the value of the land, for the simple fact that the State constituted the boundaries of the China Kicha reserve, incorporated the property, and did not proceed to compensate in a timely manner, an allegation that does not adhere to the requirements of special and abnormal damage. It is clear that the dispossession of the attributes of the right to ownership, if it occurred, took place many years earlier upon whoever probably held the title of owner or was a possessor in good faith when Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, was published. It is not correct to affirm, as the plaintiff does, that it saw its right to ownership emptied until the moment the annotation of “Zona A.B.R.E” was made in the real estate registry. The truth is that since it signed the mortgage credit contract, the guarantee was flawed because it fell upon a property that, despite the fact that according to the registry entry it was the property of an individual, conversely, a Law, the decree in mention, and a cadastral map existed that recorded the property's belonging to the indigenous community. For the indicated reason, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's thesis, which aspires for the State to compensate it for liability for lawful conduct, as it was not a victim of an emptying of its right to ownership insofar as it was a co-participant in a transaction contrary to law, in which it accepted an irregular credit guarantee and disregarded the true ownership of the property. The plaintiff, in its condition as awardee of the property through the judicial auction, was neither a registered owner nor a possessor in good faith at the time of the entry into force of the mentioned decree, nor is the existence of a causal link appreciated between the state activity once it issued the decree that delimited the China Kicha indigenous settlement and the alleged damage, so there is no possibility of granting its claim 1 aimed at declaring state liability for lawful conduct and ordering it to pay the value of the land as recorded in the judicial expert appraisal, whereby the inadmissibility of the claim is ordered.

XI.- Regarding liability for unlawful conduct and abnormal operation. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that the property 635188-000 of the San José registry is within the boundaries of the China Kicha indigenous territory, since the mentioned Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001. The plaintiff considers that there is unlawful and abnormal conduct on the part of INDER, CONAI, and the National Registry, because once the State issued the executive decree that declared the expansion of the China Kicha indigenous reserve zone, both INDER and CONAI omitted for many years to annotate the properties and proceed with their due expropriation process, which caused serious damages and losses to the plaintiff, since at the time of subscribing the mortgage credit, the property was free of encumbrances and annotations which led it to act in good faith in the constitution of the mortgage credit. Regarding the liability of the Public Registry, it accuses that the causal link is configured because as of the date of the complaint, the property still continued free of annotations and encumbrances, since it omitted to make the annotation on the property and, based on registry publicity, it constituted itself as a mortgage creditor, adjudicated the property in a judicial auction, and likewise the property continued without being able to be annotated, having lost the money it lent, coupled with the fact that it cannot exercise the attributes of ownership due to the existing limitation in the zone. The illegitimate conduct it claims against INDER and CONAI resides in the omission to initiate expropriation proceedings in light of the provisions of articles 3 and 5 of Indigenous Law 6172, which establishes the obligation of expropriation of those lands located in indigenous reserves. The plaintiff considers that at the time of constituting the credit and registering the mortgage, the property had no encumbrance or indigenous reserve affectation and it was subsequently, when the Real Estate Registry, through resolution at 11:05 hours on September 12, 2019, corresponding to file 2019-70-RIM, proceeded to annotate the property, actions which it accuses INDER, CONAI, and the Public Registry of being omissive. First, it must be warned that the delimitation of indigenous zones produces the transfer of the right of ownership in favor of each reserve, using either the figure of relocation or compensation, so their previous titleholders cease to be so. Therefore, the warning that the National Registry inserts in the margin of the registry entry is not a limitation or encumbrance -as the plaintiff erroneously understands-, but a true public notice that the land has become the property of some indigenous community, even though a registered title in the name of a third party exists. Second, as was warned in the preceding Considering, from the moment the mortgage was constituted by the Cooperative, the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 was available for review –as recorded in the public deed-, which, before its registration in the National Cadastre, had been approved by CONAI with the warning that the land was indigenous property. The codefendants defend themselves by indicating that this map demonstrates that there was registry publicity regarding the real situation of the property. The plaintiff defends itself in the reply brief by indicating that “if one analyzes what map SJ-1646758-2013 indicates, it is an approval for segregation of the property, which casually says that THE APPROVAL IS PROCEDURAL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY EXISTED BEFORE THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDIGENOUS RESERVE. Likewise, the state representation overlooks the provisions of article 301 of the Costa Rican Civil Code, by indicating that: “ARTICLE 301.- The survey of a land, whether protested or not, is not sufficient by itself to prove the possession of the same land.” That is, registry publicity cannot be alleged regarding an approval found on a map, which cannot be above the annotation of an indigenous reserve limitation that must exist according to law, in the Real Estate Registry.” The Cooperative considers that the State recognized that the responsibility for compensation lies with INDER and CONAI, in addition to the liability of the Registry for omission in not publishing the affectation of the indigenous reserve, which means that it agrees with it regarding the existence of liability for the indicated omission. These allegations are not admissible and, on the contrary, this Chamber considers that the codefendants are correct. As is easily seen, from the comprehensive reading of the cadastral map, the information from CONAI about the condition and ownership of this land is inferred, so it was the plaintiff that incurred a flaw when approving the credit, either because it did not notice this situation or, if it did notice it -because it could have done so-, it assumed the harmful consequences of the transaction by finalizing a transaction in which the guarantee was an inalienable land. Article 301 cited by the plaintiff and the Regulation to the National Cadastre Law is not applicable to the case, as it regulates the limited scope of the topographic activity reflected in land survey maps to demonstrate possession, when what is being ventilated in this case is the registry publicity provided by an administrative act such as that CONAI approval, which is found inserted in the cadastral map. Therefore, the entire thesis set forth in the complaint that accuses that due to the absence of registry information and based on legitimate trust and good faith, the credit was subscribed and later a property was adjudicated in a judicial venue over which it cannot dispose, is not admissible, because there was public registry information that attested to the conditions of the property and its particularity of being part of an indigenous reserve. This Chamber considers that the damage suffered was due to the fault of the victim, for having granted the loan under these illegitimate conditions. For the reasons stated, the existence of a causal link is not appreciated to decree liability for unlawful conduct, by omission of the defendants, since even if INDER and CONAI had promoted the annotation of the “zona A.B.R.E.” in the property's registry entry until 2019 and the Public Registry had recorded it until after the filing of this complaint, there already existed since 2013 registry information provided by CONAI in this regard, recorded in the cadastral map, which provided the plaintiff with the necessary inputs to avoid being a victim of some fraudulent transaction. Therefore, claim 3 promoted by the Cooperative seeking that “the objective joint and several liability for unlawful conduct of CONAI and INDER be declared for the omission of executing what was indicated in executive decree number No. 29447-G that determined the existence and expansion of the CHINA KICHA indigenous reserve, in the sense of not having instituted the corresponding administrative procedures to safeguard the rights of the owners and so that the official communications or resolutions would be produced to annotate in the margin of the affected property owned by my represented party”, claim 4 that aspires for “the objective liability for unlawful conduct of the National Registry to be declared for the omission of failing to publicize in the registry the annotations, immobilizations, and/or encumbrances of indigenous reserve on the property owned by my represented party, from the issuance and publication of executive decree No. 29447-G, an omission that continues to this day”, and claim 5 that requests “That all the co-defendants be ordered to pay the caused damage consisting of the current value of the property which will be determined by expert examination in this process”, are inappropriate in the absence of a causal link that allows concluding that the claimed omissive conduct was the generator of the alleged damage, and is so ordered.

XII.- Regarding the subsidiary claim. Furthermore, given that the plaintiff does not constitute the registered owner or possessor in good faith at the time when Decree No. 29447-G of 2001 entered into force in the terms required by article 5 of the Indigenous Law, since it promoted the ownership of the property until 2019, it is also not possible to order the initiation of the expropriation procedure in its favor, with which it is evident that it lacks active standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa), and therefore cannot be the beneficiary of the accessory claim that aspires “that INDER be obligated to carry out the expropriation and full compensation procedures for the property owned by my represented party, real folio number 1-635188-000, as there is an evident public interest in the declaration of the China Kicha indigenous reserve through executive decree No. 29447-G, procedures that the co-defendant INDER has omitted up to this day.” For the reasons described, this subsidiary claim must be rejected as well.

XIII.- Exceptions. The defendants raised the defense of lack of right, which must be granted, since none of the assumptions of liability of the Administration, for lawful or unlawful conduct, or normal or abnormal operation, are configured, while the defenses of lack of active and passive standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva) must be rejected, since main compensatory claims were filed for omission by the Administration that were not appropriate. With regard to the standing to sue (legitimación ad causam), active and passive, the exception of lack of passive standing to sue (legitimación ad causam pasiva) is admitted only with respect to the subsidiary claim, because the plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the expropriation by disposition of the legislator.

XIV.- Costs. As stipulated in article 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for the sole fact of being so. The waiver of this sanction is only viable when, in the judgment of the Court, there is sufficient reason to litigate or when the sentence is handed down by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this sense, it is not possible to dismiss the losing party from costs, which must be paid by the plaintiff Cooperative.

POR TANTO

The material claims filed by CONAI, tending to “... declare the absolute nullity of full right of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá. As well as the resolution issued by the Collection Court of the I Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) on October 18, 2019, in which it approves the auction held at 10:00 hours on August 30, 2019”, are declared inadmissible. The defenses of lack of active and passive standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva) are rejected regarding the main claims, the defense of lack of active standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa) is granted regarding the subsidiary claim. The defense of lack of right raised by the codefendants is declared with standing, and the filed complaint is declared without standing in all its aspects. Costs are to be borne by the plaintiff Cooperative.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Alinne Solano Ramírez Fabián Núñez Castrillo ????????????????

EVELYN SOLANO ULLOA, DECISOR/A JUDGE FABIAN NUÑEZ CASTRILLO, DECISOR/A JUDGE ALINNE SOLANO RAMIREZ, DECISOR/A JUDGE Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 meters west of BNCR, in front of Café Dorado. Telephones: 2545-0107 or 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 or 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 or 2545-0006.

Email: [email protected]", "html": "EV Generaci&oacute;n de Machote: F:\\Gestion-Judicial\\Servidor de Archivos\\Modelos\\Contencioso\\TCRESOL016.dpj\r\n<div>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: right; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">*</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">220019571027CA*</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<table style=\"border-collapse: collapse;\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr style=\"height: 13.8pt;\">\r\n<td style=\"width: 96.95pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">EXPEDIENTE:</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 359.05pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">22-001957-1027-CA - 9</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 96.95pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">PROCESO</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">:</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 359.05pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">CONOCIMIENTO</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 96.95pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">ACTOR/A</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">:</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 359.05pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL R.S.L.</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td style=\"width: 96.95pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">DEMANDADO/A</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">:</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td style=\"width: 359.05pt; padding-right: 3pt; padding-left: 3pt; vertical-align: top;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">COMISION NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS INDIGENAS</span></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</tbody>\r\n</table>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">N&deg; 2025007612</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOS</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">&Eacute;</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">,</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">&nbsp;</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">GOICOECHEA</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">,</span> <span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">a</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\"> las</span> <span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">dieciseis horas del veintinueve de julio del dos mil veinticinco</span><span style=\"font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">.-</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 23.25pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">Ordinary proceeding filed by </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">COOPERATIVA AGR</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">&Iacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">COLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">(hereinafter the Cooperative), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Lic. Roberto Enrique Cordero Brenes, professional ID 18477, against </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">EL ESTADO</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">, represented by State Attorney X</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&oacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">chitl L</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&oacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">pez Vargas, professional ID 15047, the </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\"> (hereinafter the Registry), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Licenciado Andrey Monge Jim</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&eacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">nez, professional ID number 23252, the</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\"> INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\"> (hereinafter INDER) represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, Licenciada Mar</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&iacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">a Teresa Fern</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&aacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">ndez Chinchilla, professional ID number 20578, and the </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">COMISI</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">&Oacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">N NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS IND</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">&Iacute;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">GENAS</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\"> (hereinafter CONAI), represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact, the</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp; </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">Licenciada Karla Andrea Reyes Rivas, professional ID number 30668.</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-align: center; line-height: 116%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">WHEREAS</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">I.- Relevant Background</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">. Prior to the issuance of this judgment, the following relevant background events occurred:</span></p>\r\n<div style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-left: 54pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; background-color: #ffffff;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: list-item; -aw-list-level-number: 0; -aw-list-number-format: '%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles: 'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values: '1'; -aw-list-padding-sml: 7.33pt;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">a)<span style=\"font: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span>The claim was filed on March 25, 2022, in which the plaintiff requests the following:</p>\r\n</div>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-indent: 35.4pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; vertical-align: sub;\">&ldquo;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; vertical-align: sub;\">PRINCIPAL CLAIM</span></p>\r\n<ol style=\"margin: 0pt; padding-left: 0pt;\" type=\"1\">\r\n<li style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-left: 33.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That the claim be granted in its entirety.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 33.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">We request that the objective liability for lawful conduct of the STATE be declared, due to the indigenous reserve declaration made by means of executive decree No. 29447-G, dated March 21, 2001, and that it be ordered to pay the total value of the land, which shall be determined by expert appraisal within this proceeding.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 33.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That the joint and several objective liability for unlawful conduct of CONAI and INDER be declared, for the omission of executing what was indicated in executive decree number No. 29447-G, which determined the existence and expansion of the CHINA KICHA indigenous reserve, in the sense of not having instituted the corresponding administrative procedures to safeguard the rights of the owners, and for not producing the official communications or resolutions to annotate said condition in the margin of the affected property owned by my represented party.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 33.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That the objective liability for unlawful conduct of the National Registry be declared, for the omission of failing to publicly register the annotations, immobilizations and/or encumbrances of indigenous reserve on the property owned by my represented party, from the issuance and publication of executive decree No. 29447-G, an omission that continues to this day.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 33.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That all co-defendants be ordered to pay the damages caused, which consist of the current value of the property, to be determined by expert appraisal in this proceeding.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 33.01pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That the defendants be ordered to pay costs, plus their respective interest.</span></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-indent: 35.4pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 108%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; vertical-align: sub;\">ALTERNATIVE CLAIM</span></p>\r\n<ol style=\"margin: 0pt; padding-left: 0pt;\" type=\"1\">\r\n<li style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-left: 69.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 116%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">In the alternative, we request as an alternative claim that INDER be compelled to carry out the expropriation and full indemnification procedures for the property owned by my represented party, with real property folio number 1- 635188-000, given the evident public interest in the declaration of the China Kicha indigenous guarantee by means of executive decree No. 29447-G, procedures that the co-defendant INDER has omitted to this day.</span></li>\r\n<li style=\"margin-left: 69.01pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 116%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; padding-left: 2.99pt; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">That the co-defendant INDER be ordered to pay both costs, plus their respective interest.</span><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&rdquo;</span></li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 116%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<div style=\"margin-left: 54pt; background-color: #ffffff;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: list-item; -aw-list-level-number: 0; -aw-list-number-format: '%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles: 'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values: '2'; -aw-list-padding-sml: 7.33pt;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">b)<span style=\"font: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span>The claim was answered in the negative by the defendant parties, who raised the defense of lack of right. CONAI and INDER invoked the defenses of lack of active and passive standing (legitimación <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ad causam</span>), while the State limited itself to alleging lack of passive standing (legitimación <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">ad causam</span>).</p>\r\n</div>\r\n<div style=\"margin-left: 54pt; background-color: #ffffff;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: list-item; -aw-list-level-number: 0; -aw-list-number-format: '%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles: 'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values: '3'; -aw-list-padding-sml: 8pt;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">c)<span style=\"font: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span>The preliminary hearing was held on January 24, 2024, an act in which the original claims of the statement of claim were maintained, it was established that all the facts are contested, and the plaintiff's request to appoint an appraisal expert was approved.</p>\r\n</div>\r\n<div style=\"margin-left: 54pt; background-color: #ffffff;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: list-item; -aw-list-level-number: 0; -aw-list-number-format: '%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles: 'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values: '4'; -aw-list-padding-sml: 7.33pt;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">d)<span style=\"font: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span>The expert report was rendered on June 28, 2024, and was disclosed to the parties.</p>\r\n</div>\r\n<div style=\"margin-left: 54pt; background-color: #ffffff;\">\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-left: 18pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; -aw-import: list-item; -aw-list-level-number: 0; -aw-list-number-format: '%0)'; -aw-list-number-styles: 'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values: '5'; -aw-list-padding-sml: 7.33pt;\"><span style=\"-aw-import: ignore;\">e)<span style=\"font: 7pt 'Times New Roman'; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span>The oral trial was held on July 10, 2025, an act in which the expert was heard, the parties presented their conclusions, and the matter was declared complex in accordance with article 111 of the CPCA, therefore, this judgment is issued within the legal term.</p>\r\n</div>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; line-height: 116%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: ignore;\">&nbsp;</span></p>\r\n<p style=\"margin-top: 8pt; margin-bottom: 8pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 150%; widows: 2; orphans: 2; font-size: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff;\"><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: sub;\">II.- Arguments of the Claim:</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub; -aw-import: spaces;\">&nbsp; </span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">The plaintiff accuses that in the present case, there was unlawful and abnormal conduct on the part of the Real Estate Registry by omitting, for a long time, to publicize that the property of the San José registry district, real property folio number 1-635188-000, was within an indigenous reserve. It argues that under the principle of registry publicity, the plaintiff agreed to become a creditor of a loan secured by a mortgage on that property, which was registered under entries 2016-237690 and subsequently adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff as evidenced in entries 2019-684381 of the databases of said registry office. It alleges that INDER belatedly proceeded to manage with the Public Registry the annotation of the encumbrance on the property, which caused it the loss of the money it lent and the impossibility of exercising any act as owner due to the &ldquo;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">limitation</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\">&rdquo;</span><span style=\"font-size: 8pt; vertical-align: sub;\"> existing in the zone. The Cooperative claims to have negotiated and acquired the aforementioned property in good faith and characterizes the alleged registry omissions as violating basic principles of registry law, namely, the principle of publicity and registry security, the effects of which result in the affectation of its own interests. It believes it was dispossessed of its property by an administrative limitation that declared the China Kicha zone as an indigenous territory, as a result of a declaration made by Decree No. 29447-G, issued since the year 2001, but there were omissions by CONAI and INDER in timely requesting the administrative limitation from the Public Registry, an entity that also failed to record in the margin of the registry entry the annotation, limitation, encumbrance, immobilization, etc., of the property.</span></p>\r\n</div> He argues that in exercise of the principle of legitimate expectations (principio de confianza legítima) he relied on the registry information, which allowed him to lend money to the owner and, in turn, to foreclose—as was in fact done—upon non-payment of the mortgage obligation, reaching the point of finding the exercise of property and its attributes of ownership impossible. He characterizes the foregoing as a clear violation of Article 194 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), as part of the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Public Administration. He considers that the State is liable for lawful conduct (conducta lícita), having issued a decree that results in the China Kicha indigenous settlement (asentamiento indígena), emptying the content of the right of property. He alleges that liability for unlawful conduct (conducta ilícita) is plenary, with the Administration being liable for both damages (daños) and losses (perjuicios).

**III.- Defense of the co-defendants.** The defendants rejected the claim, as follows:

• a)The **State** maintains that the Decree was issued in 2001—that is, many years before the mortgage was constituted and the property now claimed was acquired—and since that year it was established that farm number 635188-000 is located within an indigenous zone (zona indígena), becoming from that moment inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to transfer of its ownership, and exclusive to the indigenous communities, a situation that was also publicized in the National Registry, in cadastral map (plano catastrado) SJ-1646758-2013, registered since April 22, 2013, and which was known to the plaintiff at the time of granting the mortgage and being awarded the farm. It alleges that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is not legitimate and that in the case there was contributory fault (culpa de la víctima), given that she cannot claim good faith at the time the transactions through which she acquired the property were carried out, because the legal norms that had affected it as an indigenous zone were already in force, which was also alleged in the executive proceeding through which the property was awarded. Nor is the existence of a causal link between the omissions and administrative conduct accused as unlawful and the claimed damage proven, since it is the plaintiff's own acts that led her to be in the situation she claims as violative of her rights.
• b)The **Administrative Board of the National Registry (Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional)** indicates that the designation “farm in ABRE Zone” (“finca en Zona ABRE”) is the way in which both the owner of a property and any potential interested third parties are warned that said farm is located within an indigenous reserve (reserva indígena), and therefore it should not be understood as a limitation or encumbrance, as the plaintiff erroneously seeks to portray it, as it is merely informative publicity (publicidad noticia) that does not prevent the registration of subsequent documents or their legal transactions. The code “ABRE Zone” (“Zona ABRE”) was recorded on farm 1-635188 on May 4, 2022, under the “registry principle of rogation (principio registral de rogación)” at the request and instance of INDER and CONAI, public institutions which, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena), are in charge of the compensation functions and cadastral survey in matters of this nature, so it should not be considered an originating or causal fact of the condition in which the plaintiff's property and the damages she claims are found, but rather a consequence of the actions and requirements of INDER and CONAI, who base their conduct on the application of the Indigenous Law and Executive Decree No. 29447-G. It argues that the mere statement of the plaintiff does not per se imply the configuration of damage or that, even if one exists, it must be compensated by the co-defendant under the terms established in the General Public Administration Law, since Article 5 of the Indigenous Law specifies that it is the responsibility of INDER to handle the expropriation of lands owned by non-indigenous persons located in indigenous reserves, without the need to include any other institution in the process, as this is a competence of said entity in coordination with CONAI. It also warns that Article 3 of the Indigenous Law and Executive Decree No. 29447-G provide that the consequence of a farm being located in a zone declared indigenous territory is that non-indigenous persons may not rent, lease, buy, or acquire lands or farms located within the reserves; therefore, any act of disposal over said properties is absolutely null, and consequently, any transfer or negotiation of lands located in a reserve between indigenous and non-indigenous persons is absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case; a rule that has an exception contained in Article 5 of the Indigenous Law, a provision that contemplates the hypothesis that persons who do not belong to the indigenous community, but who at the time the respective reserve was created were owners or possessors of properties located within the limits of the reserve, must be compensated, provided they are acting in good faith. The acquisition of farm 1-655188 by the plaintiff cannot be presumed to be in good faith, nor is the premise of having participated as a good-faith third-party acquirer applicable to said owner, since the plaintiff should have known the location condition of said farm, due to the content of the Indigenous Law and Executive Decree No. 29447-G, and because the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013, registered on April 22, 2013, which corresponds to said farm, contains an endorsement in which CONAI expressly indicates that the farm is located in a zone declared as a reserve.
• c)**CONAI**, for its part, defends itself by alleging that the acquisition of the property is absolutely null, since it involves an illegal transaction of lands that have legal limitations, as said property could not be the object of a mortgage loan, given that the title is not freely disposable and this was known to the plaintiff. It invokes Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, which establishes the obligation of governments to respect the special importance that the relationship with the lands or territories of the China Kicha Indigenous Territory (Territorio Indígena de China Kicha) holds for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, approved through Resolution 61/295 of 2007, and reinforces what is established by Convention 169, which binds the State to establish effective mechanisms for the prevention of any act that has the object or consequence of dispossessing them of their lands, territories, or resources (Article 8), that they shall not be forcibly displaced from their lands or territories (Article 10), and that they have rights over the lands. It also relies on the General Law on Vacant Lands (Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos) No. 13 of 1939, in which an explicit recognition is made of the rights of indigenous peoples to inhabit the lands they have ancestrally occupied and in which they maintain a historical rootedness. Regarding the property with registration number 1-635188-000, it alleges that the plaintiff registered it in her name on November 11, 2019, a date subsequent to the creation of the China Kichá Indigenous Territory (Territorio Indígena China Kichá), which was established by Executive Decree No. 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 19571, and its limits were reestablished through Executive Decree No. 29447 of March 21, 2001. In its view, the first-degree mortgage executed on April 8, 2016, is null because it is located within an indigenous territory, over which the limitations of Article 3 of Indigenous Law Number 6172 of 1977 apply, whereby said lands are inalienable, imprescriptible, and non-transferable, exclusive to indigenous communities. Regarding the code “A.B.R.E ZONE property located in indigenous territory” it warns that this does not constitute recognition of a property as part of an indigenous territory, as its scope is merely informative to third parties. The existence or not of said registration does not affect the fact that said property was part of an indigenous territory, so the acquisition of real property is in bad faith given the legal encumbrance (afectación).

Therefore, it maintains that compensation is only possible for those good-faith possessors who were present before the creation of the reserves and their limitations, not for those who acquire or enter afterwards, in which case the law also provided for that second scenario, namely, immediate eviction by the competent authorities. It alleges that there is no breach of duty regarding the plaintiff; rather, it is he who violates indigenous property by acquiring lands with limitations that are exclusive to the use and enjoyment of indigenous people, and therefore there is no obligation to compensate him. It requests that the claim be declared inadmissible and without merit, that all interposed exceptions be accepted, and it expressly petitions that ".. the absolute nullity by operation of law of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá be declared. As well as the resolution issued by the Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) dated October 18, 2019, which approves the public auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019", along with an award of costs.

IV.- Proven facts. Based on all the evidence incorporated into the electronic judicial file, the following relevant facts are deemed duly proven:

1. The China Kichá Indigenous Territory was established by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 1957, and its boundaries were reestablished by Decreto Ejecutivo 29447 of March 21, 2001 (images 108 to 114, uncontested fact). 2. The property with real folio registration number of the San José district 635188-000 originated from document citations 212-348963 and its addition 2013-96478 and was registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, canton Pérez Zeledón. The corresponding cadastral plan is SJ-1646758-20132013, which was registered on April 8, 2013. According to said plan, the property is located in China Kicha and originates from real folio No. 100305532-000 with a registered area of 152,096.58 m2. Said plan contains an approval on its reverse side, dated March 21, 2013, issued by CONAI, which states: "The plan that states it is part of Real Folio No. 100305532-000, located in China Kicha, District 7 Pejibaye, Canton 19 Pérez Zeledón, Province 1 San José, with an area of 107,675 m2, is located WITHIN THE CHINA KICHA INDIGENOUS RESERVE according to official communication No. MEDET-018-2013 issued by the Department of Territorial Studies of CONAI, insofar as the property is effectively located where the draftsman placed it on the grid attached to the plan and according to legal opinion No. DLI-042-2013 issued by the Legal Department of CONAI dated March 8, 2013, THE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS PROCEDURAL since said property exists and was registered as such before the reestablishment of the China Kichá indigenous reserve. Affected by the Ley Indígena No. 6172, Art. 3. That is all." (see plan in images 315 and 316, reference in official communication DRI-01-0486-2022 of April 27, 2022, in images 329 to 334). 3. By public deed executed before notary public José Aurei Navarro Garro, on April 8, 2016, Adolfo Tabash Steller and Wilmer Tabash Steller contracted a loan with the plaintiff Cooperative for the sum of ₡28,400,000.00. As security for the loan, they constituted a first-degree mortgage on the property with real folio registration number 1-635188-000 and cadastral plan SJ-1646758-2013 (Indicated in the previous fact). At that time, the property's registry entry did not indicate that the land was subject to a limitation with code "ZONA A.B.R.E. (Property Located in Indigenous Territory)". (See images 31 corresponding to the registry certification, 318 to 323 of the judicial file). 4. By official communication GG-1647-2018 of November 15, 2018, submitted to the Dirección del Registro Inmobiliario on January 23, 2019, signed by Ms. Diana Murillo Murillo and Mr. Clementino Villanueva Zúñiga, General Manager of INDER and Executive Director of CONAI, respectively, it was indicated that "(...) As a result of the implementation of the Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Tierras en Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI), which is being developed by INDER in coordination with CONAI, a series of registered properties have been detected, which, due to their cartographic location, are affected by the decrees of the Indigenous Territories; these properties, despite being registered in the Property Registry, do not publicize their affectation to the indigenous territories, which allows registry and cadastral movements to be constantly carried out, affecting the regulations that protect this type of area. Therefore, the Registro Inmobiliario is required to establish a procedure such that all these properties are annotated with some type of code (...)" (images 341 and 342). 5. By official communication GG-855-2019, INDER notified the Registro Nacional of a definitive list of 921 registered properties located in 15 indigenous territories, among which the plaintiff cooperative's property is listed (images 355 to 363). 6. By Decreto Ejecutivo number 41708 of March 8, 2019, district 03, Pejibaye, canton 4 Jiménez, Province 3 Cartago, was declared a cadastral zone, and the titleholders, mortgage creditors, or annotating parties were summoned to attend the public exhibition to examine the recorded data through Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 149 of August 3, 2002, and in the national circulation newspaper on August 12, 2012, information that makes it known that the property was situated in indigenous territory. 7. On May 23, 2019, the Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) admitted the mortgage foreclosure proceeding filed by the plaintiff due to non-payment of the debt and scheduled a public auction for 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019 (images 24 to 54 of the judicial file). 8. On August 30, 2019, the Cooperative was awarded the property in a first public auction for the base amount of the credit, which corresponds to twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four céntimos (auction record in image 64 of the judicial file). 9. In file No. 2019-70-RIM of Administrative Proceedings, at the request of INDER and CONAI, the Registro Inmobiliario ordered by resolution at 11:05 a.m. on September 12, 2019, that in accordance with the provisions of the Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI), which had been endorsed by CONAI as of March 21, 2001, it proceeds to order the annotation on all properties included in said resolution, which included the property under discussion in this case, recording the code "ZONA A.B.R.E. (PROPERTY LOCATED IN INDIGENOUS TERRITORY)" (images 79 to 98). 10. On October 18, 2019, the Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) approved the public auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019, for the sum of twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four céntimos, free of liens and annotations, and the corresponding notarization of the record was ordered to award the property to the plaintiff. The placement in possession was recorded in a record dated February 11, 2020 (images 71 and 72, 77, 363). 11. The property was registered in the name of the plaintiff Cooperative on November 11, 2019 (image 324). 12. On February 11, 2020, the Delegación Cantonal de Pérez Zeledón of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública carried out the placement in possession of the property in the name of the plaintiff, drew up the respective record, and proceeded to evict the occupants of the property (images 74 to 77 of the judicial file).

V.- Regarding the object of the proceedings. Essentially, this case adjudicates two distinct scenarios of State liability, namely: a) it claims liability for lawful conduct, insofar as the State incorporated, by way of executive decree, the property subject to this proceeding into the China Kichá reserve and did not proceed with expropriation proceedings, so the plaintiff believes the State has a duty to compensate it for having emptied its property right, or alternatively, subsidiarily, it requests that the Administration be ordered to carry out the expropriation process for the land; and b) liability for unlawful conduct claimed against CONAI and INDER, for not having taken timely action to affect the lands in the registry in favor of the indigenous territory; against the Junta Directiva del Registro Nacional, it claims for not having placed the lien or limitation on the registry entry since the issuance of said decree. It believes these omissions led it to become a mortgage creditor based on good faith and public registry information, subsequently seeking the award of the property at public auction, over which it cannot dispose.

VI.- Regarding the inadmissibility of CONAI's declaratory claims. CONAI appears in its statement of defense and raises arguments for the nullity of certain actions, which give rise to material claims so that this Chamber "declare the absolute nullity by operation of law of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá. As well as the resolution issued by the Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) dated October 18, 2019, which approves the public auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019." However, there is no counterclaim from its part raising these declaratory claims, which would be the only way for this Chamber to hear them. To do so, the stage of admission and substantiation of the counterclaim would have to be overcome, once it had met all the legal requirements established for any contentious claim, if it had an interest in asserting its own rights against the plaintiff, without the need to file another trial, for reasons of procedural economy. Furthermore, it is clear that the claim aimed at annulling jurisdictional actions cannot be heard in this venue, but rather within the same collection proceeding, which could have been made an ordinary proceeding in a timely manner so that the originating cause of the obligation could be heard, but none of this is found in the record. Under these circumstances, this Chamber is obligated to declare the inadmissibility of these claims by CONAI.

VII.- Regarding the legal regime of indigenous territories. For a correct analysis of this case, it is necessary to understand how the issue of indigenous territories is regulated, specifically regarding those properties that, by way of executive decree, have been incorporated into the respective reserves, despite there being non-indigenous owners or good-faith possessors. The first legislative record is found in the Ley Sobre Terrenos Baldíos number 13 of January 10, 1939, whose Article 8 stated: ".. a prudent zone at the discretion of the Executive Branch in places where indigenous tribes exist is declared inalienable and the exclusive property of indigenous people, in order to conserve our autochthonous race and free them from future injustices", through which the domain over their lands by indigenous communities was recognized, granting them an inalienable character.

Based on the powers granted by the legislature to the Executive Branch, Executive Decree 45 of December 3, 1945, was issued, which reiterated the inalienability of the lands occupied by indigenous peoples, which for the first time were called “indigenous reserves” (reservas indígenas), and in Executive Decree 34 of November 15, 1956, three distinct reserves were identified, namely, “Boruca-Térraba”, “Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra” and “China Kichá”. The consolidation of the right to property, exclusive and exclusionary, as well as communal or collective, was legally recognized in our country with the signing of Convention number 107 of the International Labour Organization, called “Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries” through Law of the Republic No. 2330 of April 9, 1959. From there, the responsibility of governments was established for developing coordinated and systematic programs aimed at protecting indigenous populations (article 2), requiring “to recognize the right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy” (article 5), thus constituting norms with a rank superior to ordinary law, in accordance with article 7 of our Political Constitution, providing greater protection to the fundamental rights of indigenous people. With the entry into force of the Land and Colonization Law number 2825 of May 14, 1961, the Law on Vacant Lands was repealed, and it was provided in article 75 that the ITCO—Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización)—would oversee the conditioning of indigenous communities or families, which later became the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) (1982) and evolved to become today the Institute of Rural Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) (2012). With Indigenous Law No. 6172 of November 29, 1977, it was recognized that the territories of the indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas) are the property of their respective community, inalienable, imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them, being not permitted for non-indigenous people, despite being their holders, to rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or farms within these reserves, with any transfer or negotiation of lands or the improvements thereto in the indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas) between indigenous and non-indigenous people being absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case (article 3). Subsequently, the Law Creating the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs number 5251 of July 11, 1973, was enacted, whose section 4 assigned it the competence to “…b) Serve as an instrument of coordination among the various public institutions obligated to execute works and provide services for the benefit of indigenous communities; (…) e) Ensure respect for the rights of indigenous minorities, stimulating State action to guarantee indigenous people individual and collective ownership of land; timely use of credit; adequate marketing of production and efficient technical assistance; (…)” , being tasked with providing sufficient lands to be destined exclusively for these communities, having to demarcate and survey them. Article 1 of Law number 5651 of December 13, 1974, called Reform Creation of CONAI National Commission for Indigenous Affairs, reiterated the inalienability of the indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas) registered in the name of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO). Executive Decree No. 29451 of March 22, 2001, indicated that the indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas) are the property of those communities and established that the limits of those territories, once “recognized” by the State, may not be varied in reduction of their area except by law of the Republic. On November 3, 1992, Law number 7316 was enacted, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 234, of December 4, 1992, “Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries”, of the International Labour Organization, pursuant to which the topic of indigenous property is specifically regulated. In its article 13, special emphasis was given to the intrinsic cultural and spiritual values of the land, and in section 14, it was provided that “Governments shall take steps as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession. 3. Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned”.

**VIII.- On the specific case.** Having clear that our country has assumed a leading role in defense of indigenous heritage, in order to have a better understanding of this case and provide an adequate solution, it is necessary to read article 5 of the Indigenous Law —Ley 6172—, which regulated the mechanism through which the integrity of their territories would be restored to indigenous communities; to that effect, the provision literally states:

“In the case of non-indigenous persons who are owners or possessors in good faith within the indigenous reserves (reservas indígenas), the ITCO must relocate them to other similar lands, if they so desire; if relocation is not possible or they do not accept the relocation, it must expropriate their property and indemnify them according to the procedures established in the Expropriations Law.

The studies and expropriation and indemnification procedures shall be carried out by the ITCO in coordination with CONAI.

If there is a subsequent invasion of the reserves by non-indigenous persons, the competent authorities must immediately proceed to evict them, without any payment of indemnification.

The expropriations and indemnifications shall be financed with a contribution of one hundred million colones in cash, which shall be deposited in four annual installments of twenty-five million colones each, starting the first in the year 1979; said installments shall be included in the general budgets of the Republic for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982.

The fund shall be administered by CONAI, under the supervision of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República).

As can be seen, the legislator resolved the manner by which the effective and definitive transfer of the lands belonging to indigenous communities would be materialized. Thus, each reserve would see its boundaries established through a coordinated effort between INDER and CONAI, within which non-indigenous persons occupying said territories would be identified. In the case of possessors or registered titleholders acting in good faith, the first solution would be to provide them with relocation and, only if that did not succeed, the corresponding expropriation (expropiación) or compensation (indemnización) would proceed. Under the assumption that relocation was not feasible, the compensation process would continue through expropriation proceedings, jurisdiction over which today rests with the Rural Development Institute (Instituto de Desarrollo Rural). This would necessarily imply that, once each indigenous reserve was demarcated by INDER, any non-indigenous person would have to leave the property, whether through relocation or through expropriation, so that the territory could thus become an integral and effective part of each reserve. According to what the transcribed article provided, any act of disposition of these lands carried out after the effectiveness of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) by non-indigenous persons becomes null. From the reading, it is evident that the intention was always for the lands to be free of non-indigenous persons so that they could be legitimately occupied by the indigenous peoples. Precisely for this reason, the same rule establishes that any subsequent invader could be evicted or expelled immediately through the legal channels provided for that purpose without any right to compensation whatsoever. From this, it is possible to understand, then, that the law foresaw that the only persons who would be eligible to obtain compensation would be those who were registered owners or possessors in good faith at the time the boundaries of each reserve were defined.

IX.- The China Kicha indigenous reserve was created by Executive Decree 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 1957, and subsequently reestablished by Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, which set forth the boundaries and their specific coordinates. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the Indigenous Law, from the entry into force of this latter decree, every registered owner and possessor in good faith would fall under the premise of relocation or, failing that, the payment of the corresponding compensation via expropriation. As was demonstrated in the case file, the property with real folio registration number of the San José district 635188-000 was created through document citations 212-348963 and its addendum 2013-96478 and was registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, of the Pérez Zeledón canton, based on the cadastral plan SJ-1646758-2013 which was registered on April 8, 2013, and the person who handled the segregation (segregación) of the parent property and was its registered owner was aware that it was located within the China Kicha indigenous reserve, since the plan used for registration before the Real Estate Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) obtained the approval of CONAI that so indicated. Therefore, the execution of that loan with mortgage guarantee was an act of disposition of the asset contrary to law, since the lands were already the property of the indigenous reserve, in accordance with Article 5 of the Indigenous Law. The plaintiff appeals to good faith at the time of executing said credit agreement, since it relied on the registry information, which, in its view, was allegedly incomplete for not indicating on the property’s registry entry the limitation or encumbrance due to being within an indigenous territory, in order to justify its right to compensation; however, this should have been noticed by the plaintiff Cooperative when conducting the credit analysis by means of a thorough and careful examination of both the title deed and the corresponding plan, prior to approving the loan and disbursing the money to the debtor. Had it become aware of that circumstance, it would probably not have granted that loan. Subsequently, upon the non-payment of the monetary obligation, the Cooperative continued with the judicial foreclosure proceedings on the property until obtaining the corresponding award (adjudicación) and registry registration.

X.- Regarding liability for lawful conduct (responsabilidad por conducta lícita). This Chamber considers that the thesis put forward by the plaintiff Cooperative to the effect of being compensated for lawful conduct does not conform to the special regulation contained in the Indigenous Law, because the legislator established who the subject eligible for compensation via expropriation would be. In the opinion of this judging body, the figure of expropriation regulated in the Indigenous Law was the solution provided by law for all persons who had a registered title or were possessors in good faith and responds to the ulterior purposes of the State to guarantee the restoration of indigenous territories, in compliance with the objectives of the law and the international instruments subscribed to by our Nation, which seek the safeguarding and protection of the entire cultural and historical heritage of indigenous communities. It is a special regulation that, in the face of land dispossession, recognizes compensation provided the conditions foreseen in the Indigenous Law itself are met, through the procedure established in the Expropriation Law (Ley de Expropiaciones). The figure of expropriation provided for in that normative body is different from liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning pursuant to the provisions of Articles 190 and 194 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). In liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning, the repair of any and every unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica) is not produced by the simple fact of having occurred, because compensation for unjust harm imputable to the Administration requires that it be special and abnormal, "by the small proportion of those affected or by the exceptional intensity of the injury" ("por la pequeña proporción de afectados o por la intensidad excepcional de la lesión"), a premise that must be alleged and demonstrated by the party aspiring to obtain that repair. The complaint makes no observation whatsoever regarding these exceptional conditions for the admissibility of compensable harm due to lawful conduct or normal functioning, as its thesis is limited to the claim for compensation for the value of the land, based on the simple fact that the State established the boundaries of the China Kicha reserve, incorporated the property, and did not proceed to compensate in a timely manner, an argument that does not adhere to the requirements of special and abnormal harm. It is clear that the stripping of the attributes of the right to property, had it occurred, materialized many years prior against whoever probably held the title of owner or was a possessor in good faith when Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, was published. It is not correct to affirm, as the plaintiff does, that it saw its property right emptied until the moment the annotation of "Zona A.B.R.E" was recorded in the real estate registry. The truth is that from the moment it executed the mortgage loan agreement, the guarantee was flawed because it fell upon an asset that, despite indicating in the registry entry that it was owned by a private individual, was conversely subject to a Law, the aforementioned decree, and a cadastral plan that recorded the asset's belonging to the indigenous community.

For the reasons stated, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's thesis, which aspires to have the State indemnify her for liability for lawful conduct, as she was not the victim of a hollowing out of her property right insofar as she was a co-participant in a transaction contrary to law, in which she accepted an irregular credit guarantee and disregarded the true ownership of the property. The plaintiff, in her capacity as awardee of the property by way of judicial auction, was neither the registered owner nor a possessor in good faith at the time the aforementioned decree entered into force, nor is the existence of a causal link appreciated between the State activity once it issued the decree that delimited the China Kicha indigenous settlement and the alleged damage, such that there is no possibility of granting her claim 1 aimed at having State liability for lawful conduct declared and ordering it to pay her the value of the land that was recorded in the judicial expert report, for which reason the dismissal of the claim is ordered.

**XI.- On liability for unlawful conduct and abnormal functioning.** In this case, it is an undisputed fact that farm 635188-000 of the San José registry is within the limits of the China Kicha indigenous territory, since the aforementioned Decreto Ejecutivo 29447-G of March 21, 2001. The plaintiff considers that there is unlawful and abnormal conduct on the part of INDER, CONAI, and the National Registry, because once the State issued the executive decree declaring the expansion of the China Kicha indigenous reserve zone, both INDER and CONAI omitted for many years to annotate the properties and proceed with their due expropriation procedure, which caused the plaintiff serious damages and losses, since at the time of subscribing the mortgage loan, the property was free of encumbrances and annotations, which led her to act in good faith in the constitution of the mortgage loan. Regarding the liability of the Public Registry, she accuses that the causal link is configured because as of the date of the lawsuit, the property continued to be free of annotations and encumbrances, since it omitted to make the annotation on the property and, based on registry publicity, she became a mortgage creditor, was awarded the property in judicial auction, and likewise the property continued without being able to be annotated, having lost the money she lent, coupled with the fact that she cannot exercise the attributes of ownership due to the existing limitation in the zone. The illegitimate conduct she claims against INDER and CONAI resides in the omission to initiate the expropriation procedures in light of the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of Ley Indígena 6172, which establishes the obligation of expropriation of those lands located in indigenous reserves. The plaintiff estimates that at the time of constituting the loan and registering the mortgage, the farm had no encumbrance or indigenous reserve affectation and it was subsequently, when the Real Estate Registry, by resolution of 11:05 a.m. on September 12, 2019, corresponding to expediente 2019-70-RIM, proceeded to annotate the farm, actions she accuses as omissive on the part of INDER, CONAI, and the Public Registry. In the first place, it must be noted that the delimitation of indigenous zones produces the transfer of the property right in favor of each reserve, using either the figure of relocation or of indemnification, so that their previous titleholders cease to be so. Therefore, the warning that the National Registry inserts in the margin of the registry entry is not a limitation or encumbrance—as the plaintiff erroneously understands—but rather a true public notice that the land has become the property of some indigenous community, even though there exists a registry title in the name of a third party. In the second place, as was noted in the previous Considering, since the mortgage was constituted by the Cooperative, the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 was at hand—as it is recorded in the public deed—which, since before its registration in the National Cadastre, had been viséd by CONAI with the warning that the land was indigenous property. The co-defendants defend themselves by indicating that with that map it is demonstrated that there was indeed registry publicity about the real situation of the property. The plaintiff defends herself in the reply brief by indicating that "if one analyzes what map SJ-1646758-2013 indicates, it is a visé for segregation of the property, which coincidentally states that THE VISÉ IS APPROPRIATE SINCE THE FARM EXISTS BEFORE THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDIGENOUS RESERVE. Likewise, the State representation overlooks the provisions of Article 301 of the Costa Rican Civil Code, by indicating that: 'ARTICLE 301.- The survey of a piece of land, whether or not contested, is not sufficient by itself to prove possession of the same piece of land.' That is to say, registry publicity cannot be alleged regarding a visé that is found on a map, which cannot be above the annotation of an indigenous reserve limitation that must exist according to law, in the Real Estate Registry." The Cooperative estimates that the State recognized that the responsibility for the indemnification lies with INDER and CONAI, in addition to the responsibility of the Registry for omission in not publishing the affectation to the indigenous reserve, which means that it agrees with her in that there is liability for the pointed-out omission. These arguments are not acceptable and, on the contrary, this Chamber estimates that the co-defendants are correct. As is easily appreciated, from the integral reading of the cadastral map, the information from CONAI about the condition and ownership of this land emerges, such that it was the plaintiff who incurred a deficiency at the time of approving the loan, whether because she did not notice this situation or, if she realized it—because she could have—she assumed the harmful consequences of the business by finalizing a transaction in which the guarantee was an inalienable piece of land. Article 301 cited by the plaintiff and the Regulation to the National Cadastre Law is not applicable to the case, as it regulates the limited scope of the topographic activity reflected in survey maps to demonstrate possession, when what is being aired in this case is the registry publicity provided by an administrative act, which is that visé from CONAI, that is inserted in the cadastral map. Therefore, the entire thesis raised in the lawsuit, which accuses that due to the absence of registry information and based on legitimate confidence and good faith, the loan was subscribed and later a property over which she cannot dispose was awarded in judicial court, is not acceptable, because there was indeed public registry information that attested to the conditions of the property and its particularity of being part of an indigenous reserve. This Chamber estimates that the damage suffered was due to the fault of the victim, by having granted the loan under these illegitimate conditions.

For the foregoing reasons, no causal link is evident to declare liability for unlawful conduct, by omission, on the part of the defendants, since even if INDER and CONAI had promoted the annotation of the “A.B.R.E. zone” in the property’s registry entry until the year 2019 and the Public Registry had recorded it only after the filing of this lawsuit, registry information supplied by CONAI in this regard already existed since the year 2013, recorded on the cadastral plan, which provided the plaintiff with the necessary inputs to avoid being the victim of any fraudulent transaction. Therefore, claim 3, brought by the Cooperative for “the joint and several strict liability for unlawful conduct of CONAI and INDER to be declared for the omission of executing what is indicated in Executive Decree No. 29447-G that determined the existence and expansion of the CHINA KICHA indigenous reserve, in the sense of not having instituted the corresponding administrative procedures to safeguard the rights of the owners and for the official notices or resolutions to be issued so that it would be noted at the margin of the affected property owned by my represented party,” claim 4, which seeks that “the strict liability for unlawful conduct of the National Registry be declared for the omission of ceasing to publicize registrally the annotations, immobilizations and/or encumbrances of the indigenous reserve on the property owned by my represented party, since the issuance and publication of Executive Decree No. 29447-G, an omission that continues to this day,” and claim 5, which requests “That all the co-defendants be ordered to pay the damage caused, consisting of the current value of the property that will be determined by expert appraisal in this proceeding,” are all inadmissible in the absence of a causal link that would allow the conclusion that the alleged omission caused the claimed damage, and so it is ordered.

XII.- Regarding the subsidiary claim. Furthermore, since the plaintiff does not constitute the registered owner or possessor in good faith at the time Executive Decree No. 29447-G of the year 2001 entered into force, under the terms required by article 5 of the Indigenous Law, given that she only pursued ownership of the property until the year 2019, the initiation of the expropriation (expropiación) procedure in her favor cannot be ordered either, thereby evidencing that she lacks active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), and therefore cannot be the beneficiary of the accessory claim that seeks “that INDER be compelled to carry out the expropriation and full indemnification procedures for the property of my represented party, with real estate folio number 1-635188-000, as there is an evident public interest in the declaration of the China Kicha indigenous reserve via Executive Decree No. 29447-G, procedures that the co-defendant INDER has omitted to this day.” Based on the foregoing, this subsidiary claim must also be rejected.

XIII.- Defenses. The defendant parties raised the defense of lack of right, which must be upheld, since none of the assumptions of liability of the Administration, for lawful or unlawful conduct, nor for normal or abnormal functioning, are configured. The defenses of lack of active and passive standing must be rejected, as main indemnification claims for omission by the Administration were filed that were not found to be admissible. Regarding ad causam standing, active and passive, the defense of lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) is admitted only with respect to the subsidiary claim, because the plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the expropriation by legislative provision.

XIV.- Costs. According to the stipulations of article 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so. Dispensation from this sentence is only viable when, in the Tribunal’s judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is handed down by virtue of evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In this regard, it is not possible to dispense the losing party from costs, which must be paid by the plaintiff Cooperative.

POR TANTO

The material claims filed by CONAI are declared inadmissible, which sought that “... the absolute nullity ab initio of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá be declared. As well as the resolution issued by the Collection Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) of October 18, 2019, in which the auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019, is approved.” The defenses of lack of active and passive standing regarding the main claims are rejected; the defense of lack of active standing (legitimación ad causam activa) regarding the subsidiary claim is upheld. The defense of lack of right raised by the co-defendants is granted, and the filed lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety. Costs are to be borne by the plaintiff Cooperative.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Alinne Solano Ramírez Fabián Núñez Castrillo ???????????????

Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006.

**VII.- On the legal regime of indigenous territories.** For a correct analysis of this case, it is necessary to understand how the matter of indigenous territories is regulated, specifically regarding those properties that, by way of executive decree, have been incorporated into the respective reserves, even though there may be non-indigenous owners or possessors in good faith. The first legislative record is found in the Law on Vacant Lands (Ley Sobre Terrenos Baldíos) number 13 of January 10, 1939, in its article 8 which stated ".. *it is declared inalienable and exclusively owned by the indigenous people, a prudential zone at the discretion of the Executive Branch in places where tribes of these exist, in order to conserve our autochthonous race and free them from future injustices*", by means of which the ownership of their lands by the indigenous communities was recognized, and which were given an inalienable character. Based on the powers granted by the legislator to the Executive Branch, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) 45 of December 3, 1945, was issued, reiterating the inalienability of the lands occupied by indigenous peoples, which for the first time were called "indigenous reserves", and in Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) 34 of November 15, 1956, three distinct reserves were identified, namely, "Boruca-Térraba", "Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra", and "China Kichá". The consolidation of the right of property, exclusive and precluding, as well as communal or collective, was legally recognized in our country with the signing of Convention number 107 of the International Labour Organization, called "Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries" through Law of the Republic No. 2330 of April 09, 1959.

From that point on, the responsibility of governments was established for the development of coordinated and systematic programs aimed at protecting indigenous populations (Article 2), and they must "recognize the right of ownership, collective or individual, in favor of the members of the populations in question over the lands traditionally occupied by them" (Article 5), thus becoming norms with a rank superior to ordinary law, in accordance with Article 7 of our Political Constitution, providing greater protection to the fundamental rights of indigenous people. With the entry into force of the Lands and Colonization Law number 2825 of May 14, 1961, the Vacant Lands Law (Ley de Terrenos Baldíos) was repealed, and it was provided in Article 75 that ITCO -Institute of Lands and Colonization- (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización) would ensure the improvement of indigenous communities or families, which later became the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario) (1982) and evolved into what is today the Institute of Rural Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Rural) (2012). With Indigenous Law No. 6172 of November 29, 1977, it was recognized that the territories of the indigenous reserves are the property of their respective community, inalienable, imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them. It is not permitted for non-indigenous persons, despite being their holders, to rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or properties comprised within these reserves, and any transfer or negotiation of lands or their improvements in the indigenous reserves, between indigenous and non-indigenous persons, is absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case (Article 3). Subsequently, the Law Creating the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (CONAI) number 5251, of July 11, 1973, was promulgated, whose Article 4 assigned it the competence of “...b) Serving as an instrument of coordination among the various public institutions obligated to execute works and provide services for the benefit of indigenous communities; (...) e) Ensuring respect for the rights of indigenous minorities, stimulating the action of the State in order to guarantee the Indian individual and collective ownership of the land; the timely use of credit; adequate marketing of production and efficient technical assistance; (...)”.

X.- On liability for lawful conduct. [...] In the opinion of this adjudicating body, the figure of expropriation regulated in the Indigenous Law was the solution provided for by Law for all persons who held registered title or were possessors in good faith and responds to the ultimate purposes of the State to guarantee the restoration of indigenous territories, in compliance with the objectives of the law and the international instruments subscribed to by our Nation, which seek the safeguarding and protection of all the cultural and historical heritage of indigenous communities. It is a special regulation that, in the face of the dispossession of lands, recognizes compensation provided the assumptions provided for in the Indigenous Law itself are met, through the procedure established in the Expropriations Law. The figure of expropriation provided for in that regulatory body is different from liability for lawful conduct and normal functioning in accordance with the provisions of Articles 190 and 194 of the General Public Administration Law [...]

XI.- On liability for unlawful conduct and abnormal functioning. [...] it must be noted that the delimitation of indigenous zones produces the transfer of ownership rights in favor of each reserve, using either the figure of relocation or compensation, so that their former titleholders cease to be so. Therefore, the notice that the National Registry inserts in the margin of the registry entry is not a limitation or encumbrance—as the plaintiff erroneously understands—but rather a true public notice that the land has become the property of some indigenous community, even if a registered title exists in the name of a third party. [...] in a judicial forum a property over which she cannot dispose, it is not acceptable, because there was indeed public registry information attesting to the conditions of the property and its particularity of being part of an indigenous reserve.

This Chamber considers that the damage suffered was the fault of the victim, having granted the loan under these illegitimate conditions. Based on the foregoing, the existence of a causal link is not observed to decree liability for unlawful conduct, due to omission by the defendants, since even if the INDER and the CONAI had promoted the notation of the "A.B.R.E. zone" in the property's registry entry until the year 2019 and the Public Registry had recorded it only after the filing of this lawsuit, registry information supplied by the CONAI in that regard had already existed since the year 2013, recorded on the cadastral plan, which provided the plaintiff with the necessary inputs to avoid being a victim of any fraudulent transaction [...]." CONAI and INDER raised the defenses of lack of <span style="font-style: italic;">ad causam</span> standing, both active and passive, while the State limited itself to alleging lack of passive <span style="font-style: italic;">ad causam</span> standing.

• c)The preliminary hearing was held on January 24, 2024, at which the original claims of the complaint were maintained, it was established that all the facts are contested, and the plaintiff's request to appoint an expert appraiser was approved.
• d)The expert appraisal was rendered on June 28, 2024, and was brought to the attention of the parties.
• e)The oral trial was held on July 10, 2025, at which the expert was heard, the parties presented their conclusions, and the matter was declared complex in accordance with Article 111 of the CPCA, and therefore this judgment is issued within the legal term.

**II.- Allegations of the complaint:** The plaintiff alleges that in this case there was unlawful and abnormal conduct on the part of the Real Estate Registry by omitting for a long time to publicize that the property of the San José district, real folio 1-635188-000, was within an indigenous reserve. It maintains that under the principle of registry publicity, the plaintiff accepted becoming a creditor of a loan that was secured by a mortgage on that property, which was registered under citations 2016-237690 and later adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff as recorded under citations 2019-684381 in the databases of said registry office. It alleges that INDER proceeded belatedly to request the Public Registry to note the encumbrance on the property, which caused it the loss of the money it lent and the impossibility of exercising any act as owner due to the "limitation" existing in the zone. The Cooperative argues that it negotiated and acquired the property in question in good faith and qualifies the alleged registry omissions as violating basic principles of registry matters, namely, the principle of publicity and registry security, the effects of which result in the affectation of its own interests. It considers that it was dispossessed of its property by an administrative limitation that declared the China Kicha zone as indigenous territory, as a result of a declaration made by Decreto N° 29447-G, issued in the year 2001, but there were omissions by CONAI and INDER in timely requesting the administrative limitation from the Public Registry, an entity that also failed to record the notation, limitation, encumbrance, immobilization, etc., of the property in the margin of the registry entry. It argues that in exercise of the principle of legitimate trust, it relied on the registry information, which allowed it to lend money to the owner and, in turn, to foreclose—as it did—upon non-payment of the mortgage obligation, reaching the point of finding the exercise of property and its attributes of domain impossible. The foregoing, it qualifies as a clear injury to Article 194 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, as part of the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Public Administration. It considers that the State is liable for lawful conduct, having issued a decree that results in the China Kicha indigenous settlement, emptying the content of the property right. It alleges that liability for unlawful conduct is plenary, with the Administration being liable for both damages (daños) and lost profits (perjuicios).

**III.- Defense of the co-defendants.** The defendants rejected the complaint, as follows:

• a)The **State** maintains that the Decree was issued in 2001—that is, many years before the mortgage was constituted and the property now claimed was acquired—and from that year it was established that farm registration number 635188-000 is located within an indigenous zone, thus becoming from that moment inalienable, imprescriptible, not susceptible to transfer of its domain, and exclusive to indigenous communities, a situation that was also publicized in the National Registry, in cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013, registered since April 22, 2013, and which the plaintiff was aware of when granting the mortgage and being adjudicated the farm. It alleges that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is not legitimate and that contributory fault of the victim (culpa de la víctima) occurred in this case, given that it cannot claim good faith at the time the transactions through which it acquired the property were carried out, because the legal norms that had affected it as an indigenous zone were already in effect, which was also alleged in the enforcement proceeding through which the property was adjudicated. Nor is the existence of a causal link between the omissions and administrative conducts accused as unlawful and the claimed damage (daño) proven, since it is the plaintiff's own actions that led it to be in the situation it claims as violative of its rights.
• b)The **Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional** indicates that the designation "property in Zona ABRE" is the way in which both the owner of a property and any potential third parties interested in it are warned that this farm is within an indigenous reserve; therefore, it should not be understood as a limitation or encumbrance, as the plaintiff erroneously tries to portray it, since it is a simple notice publication that does not prevent the registration of subsequent documents or their legal transactions. The code "Zona ABRE" was entered on farm 1-635188 on May 4, 2022, under the "registry principle of petition (principio registral de rogación)" at the request and instance of INDER and CONAI, public institutions that, in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Ley Indígena, are in charge of compensation and cadastral survey functions in matters of this nature, so it should not be considered an originating or causing event of the condition in which the plaintiff's property is found and the damages (daños) it alleges, but rather a consequence of the actions and requirements of INDER and CONAI, which base their conduct on the application of the Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G. It argues that the plaintiff's mere statement does not per se imply the configuration of a damage (daño) or that, even if one exists, it must be compensated by the co-defendant under the terms established in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, since Article 5 of the Ley Indígena specifies that it is the responsibility of INDER to handle the expropriation of lands owned by non-indigenous people located in indigenous reserves, without the need to include any other institution in the process, because it is a competence of said entity in coordination with CONAI. It also warns that Article 3 of the Ley Indígena and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G provide that the consequence of a farm's location in a zone declared as indigenous territory is that non-indigenous people may not rent, lease, buy, or acquire lands or farms located within the reserves; therefore, any act of disposition over those properties is absolutely null, and consequently, any transfer or negotiation of lands located in a reserve between indigenous and non-indigenous people is absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case; a rule that has an exception contained in Article 5 of the Ley Indígena, a provision that contemplates the hypothesis that people who, not belonging to the indigenous community, were owners or possessors of properties located within the limits of the reserve at the time the respective reserve was created, must be compensated, provided they are acting in good faith.

The acquisition of property 1-655188 by the plaintiff cannot be presumed to be in good faith, nor is the premise of having participated as a third-party good-faith acquirer applicable to said titleholder, since the plaintiff should have known the location status of said property, due to the content of the Indigenous Law and Executive Decree No. 29447-G, and because the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 registered on April 22, 2013, which corresponds to said property, contains an endorsement in which CONAI expressly indicates that the property is located in an area declared as a reserve.

• c)CONAI, for its part, defends itself by alleging that the acquisition of the property is absolutely null, as it involves an illegal transaction of lands that have legal limitations, since said property could not be the subject of a mortgage credit, given that the ownership is not freely disposable and this was known to the plaintiff. It invokes Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries ratified by Costa Rica through Law No. 7316 of November 3, 1992, which establishes the obligation of governments to respect the special importance that the relationship with the lands or territories of the China Kicha Indigenous Territory holds for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples approved by Resolution 61/295 of 2007, and reinforces what is established by Convention 169, which binds the State to establish effective mechanisms for the prevention of any act that has the object or consequence of dispossessing them of their lands, territories, or resources (article 8), that they shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories (article 10), and that they have rights over the lands. It also relies on the General Law on Vacant Lands No. 13 of 1939, in which an explicit recognition is made of the rights of the original peoples to inhabit the lands they have ancestrally occupied and in which they maintain a historical rootedness. Regarding the property with registration number 1-635188-000, it alleges that the plaintiff registered it in its name on November 11, 2019, a date after the creation of the China Kichá Indigenous Territory, which was established by Executive Decree No. 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 19571, and its limits reestablished by Executive Decree 29447 of March 21, 2001. In its view, the first-degree mortgage signed on April 8, 2016, is null because it is located within an indigenous territory, over which the limitations of Article 3 of Indigenous Law Number 6172 of 1977 apply, by which said lands are inalienable, imprescriptible, and non-transferable, exclusive to the indigenous communities. Regarding the code "ZONA A.B.R.E inmueble situado en territorio indígena," it notes that this does not constitute a recognition of a property as part of an indigenous territory, since its scope is merely informative to third parties. The existence or not of said registration does not affect the fact that said property was part of an indigenous territory, so the acquisition of real property is in bad faith given the legal encumbrance (afectación). Therefore, it maintains that compensation is only possible for those good-faith possessors who were there before the creation of the reserves and their limitations, not for those who acquire or enter afterwards, in which case the law also provided for that second scenario, which is, immediate eviction (desalojo) by the competent authorities. It alleges there is no breach of duty to the plaintiff; rather, it is he who violates the property of the indigenous people, acquiring lands with limitations that are exclusive for the use and enjoyment of indigenous people, so there is no obligation to compensate him. It requests that the claim be declared inadmissible and without merit, that all the exceptions filed be upheld, and expressly petitions that “...the absolute nullity by operation of law of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá be declared. As well as the resolution issued by the Collection Court of the I Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) of October 18, 2019, in which it approves the public auction (remate) held at 10:00 a.m. on August thirtieth, 2019,” together with an award of costs.

IV.- Proven Facts. Based on all the evidence that was incorporated into the judicial file in electronic format, the following facts of relevance are taken as duly proven:

1. The China Kichá Indigenous Territory was established by Executive Decree No. 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 19571, and its limits reestablished by Executive Decree 29447 of March 21, 2001 (images 108 to 114, uncontested fact). 2. The property with real folio registration number of the San José registry 635188-000, was created through document citations 212-348963 and its additional 2013-96478 and was registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, of the canton Pérez Zeledón. The cadastral map that corresponds to it is SJ-1646758-20132013 which was registered on April 8, 2013. According to said map, the property is located in China Kicha and originates from real folio No. 100305532-000 with an area according to registration of 152,096.58 m2. Said map contains an endorsement on its reverse, dated March 21, 2013, issued by CONAI, which indicates that “The map that states it is part of Real Folio No. 100305532-000, located in China Kicha, District 7 Pejibaye, Canton 19 Pérez Zeledón, Province 1 San José, with an area of 107,675 m2, is located WITHIN THE INDIGENOUS RESERVE OF CHINA KICHA according to official letter No. MEDET-018-2013 issued by the Department of Territorial Studies of CONAI, provided that the property is effectively located where the draftsperson placed it on the grid annexed to the map and according to legal opinion No. DLI-042-2013 issued by the Legal Department of CONAI dated March 8, 2013, THE ENDORSEMENT OF THIS MAP IS APPROPRIATE since said property exists and was registered as such before the reestablishment of the indigenous reserve of China Kichá. Encumbered (Afectado) by Indigenous Law No. 6172, Art. 3. That is all.” (see map in images 315 and 316, reference in official letter DRI-01-0486-2022 of April 27, 2022, in images 329 to 334). 3. Through a public deed executed before notary public José Aurei Navarro Garro, on April 8, 2016, Adolfo Tabash Steller and Wilmer Tabash Steller contracted a loan with the plaintiff Cooperative, for the sum of ₡28,400,000.00. As guarantee for the loan, they constituted a first-degree mortgage over the property with real folio registration number 1-635188-000 and cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 (Indicated in the previous fact). At that time, the registry entry for the property did not indicate that the land was subject to a limitation with the code “ZONA A.B.R.E. (Inmueble Situado en Territorio Indígena).” (See image 31 corresponding to the registry certification, 318 to 323 of the judicial file). 4. Through official letter GG-1647-2018 of November 15, 2018, submitted to the Directorate of the Real Property Registry on January 23, 2019, signed by Ms. Diana Murillo Murillo and Mr. Clementino Villanueva Zúñiga, General Manager of INDER and Executive Director of CONAI, respectively, it was indicated that “(…) As a result of the implementation of the National Plan for Land Recovery in Indigenous Territories (PLAN-RTI), which INDER is developing in coordination with CONAI, a series of registered properties have been detected, which, due to their cartographic location, are encumbered (afectadas) by the decrees of the Indigenous Territories; these properties, despite being registered in the Property Registry, do not publicize their encumbrance (afectación) with the indigenous territories, which allows that registry and cadastral movements are constantly being carried out, affecting the regulations that protect this type of areas. Therefore, it is required that the Real Property Registry establish a procedure, in such a way that all these properties are recorded with some type of code (…)” (images 341 and 342). 5. By means of official letter GG-855-2019, INDER communicated to the National Registry a definitive list of 921 registered properties located in 15 indigenous territories, among which the property of the plaintiff cooperative appears (images 355 to 363). 6. By means of Executive Decree number 41708 of March 8, 2019, district 03, Pejibaye, canton 4 Jiménez, Province 3 Cartago was declared a cadastral zone, having summoned the mortgage creditor holders or annotators to attend the public exhibition to examine the data recorded through the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 149 of August 3, 2002, and in the national circulation newspaper on August 12, 2012, information that makes it known that the property was located in an indigenous territory. 7. On May 23, 2019, the Collection Court I Judicial Circuit Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) admits the foreclosure proceeding (proceso de ejecución hipotecario) filed by the plaintiff due to non-payment of the debt and schedules a public auction (remate) for 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019 (images 24 to 54 of the judicial file). 8. On August 30, 2019, the Cooperative is awarded the property in a first public auction (remate) for the basis of the credit payment amount which corresponds to twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four cents (auction report in image 64 of the judicial file). 9. In file No.

2019-70-RIM of Administrative Proceedings, at the request of INDER and CONAI, the Real Estate Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) ordered by resolution issued at 11:05 a.m. on September 12, 2019, that in accordance with the provisions of the National Plan for the Recovery of Indigenous Territories (PLAN-RTI), which had been endorsed by CONAI since March 21, 2001, it proceeds to order the annotation on all properties included in said resolution, which included the property under discussion in this case, recording the code “ZONA A.B.R.E. (PROPERTY LOCATED IN AN INDIGENOUS TERRITORY)” (images 79 to 98). - On October 18, 2019, the Collection Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) approved the auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019, for the sum of twenty-seven million five hundred forty-eight thousand four hundred seventy-three colones and thirty-four céntimos, free of encumbrances and annotations, and ordered the corresponding notarial protocolization for the purpose of awarding the property to the plaintiff. The placement in possession was recorded in a document dated February 11, 2020 (images 71 and 72, 77, 363). - The property was registered in the name of the plaintiff Cooperative on November 11, 2019 (image 324). - On February 11, 2020, the Cantonal Delegation of Pérez Zeledón of the Ministry of Public Security carried out the placement in possession of the property in the name of the plaintiff, issued the respective record, and proceeded to evict the occupants from the property (images 74 to 77 of the judicial file).

**V.- On the object of the process.** In essence, two different scenarios of State liability are being adjudicated in this case, namely: a) it claims liability for lawful conduct, insofar as the State incorporated the property subject to this process, by way of executive decree, within the China Kichá reserve and did not proceed with the expropriation (expropiación) proceedings, so the plaintiff believes that it has the duty to compensate her, for having emptied her property right, or, in its place and as a subsidiary claim, asks that the Administration be ordered to carry out the expropriation process for the land; and b) liability for unlawful conduct claimed against CONAI and INDER, for not having acted in a timely manner to affect the lands in the registry as an indigenous territory; against the Board of Directors of the National Registry, it claims for not having placed the encumbrance or limitation on the registry entry since said decree was issued. It believes that these omissions led to it becoming a mortgage creditor based on good faith and registry publicity, subsequently promoting the award at auction of the property, which it cannot dispose of.

**VI.- On the inadmissibility of CONAI's declaratory claims.** CONAI appears in its response brief and raises nullity arguments regarding certain actions that give rise to it filing material claims so that this Chamber “declares the absolute nullity of full right of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá. As well as the resolution issued by the Collection Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone (Pérez Zeledón) on October 18, 2019, in which it approves the auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019.” However, there is no counterclaim from its part setting forth these declaratory claims, which would be the only way for this Chamber to hear them. To do so, it would have to overcome the admission and substantiation stage of the counterclaim, once it had met all the legal requirements established for any contentious lawsuit, if it had an interest in asserting its own rights against the plaintiff, without needing to file another lawsuit, for reasons of procedural economy. Furthermore, it is clear that the claim seeking to annul jurisdictional actions cannot be heard in this venue, but rather within the same collection process, which could have been subjected to ordinary proceedings in a timely manner so that the underlying cause of the obligation could be heard, but none of this is evident in the record. Under these circumstances, this Chamber is obligated to declare the inadmissibility of these claims by CONAI.

**VII.- On the legal regime of indigenous territories.** For a correct analysis of this case, it is necessary to understand how the issue of indigenous territories is regulated, specifically regarding those properties that, by way of executive decree, have been incorporated into the respective reserves, even though there may be non-indigenous owners or possessors in good faith. The first legislative record is found in the Ley Sobre Terrenos Baldíos number 13 of January 10, 1939, in its article 8 which stated ".. *a prudential zone at the discretion of the Executive Branch is declared inalienable and the exclusive property of the indigenous people, in the places where tribes of these exist, in order to preserve our native race and free them from future injustices*", by means of which the ownership of their lands by the indigenous communities was recognized, which were given an inalienable character. Based on the powers granted by the legislator to the Executive Branch, Decreto Ejecutivo 45 of December 3, 1945, was issued, which reiterated the inalienability of the lands occupied by indigenous peoples, called for the first time “indigenous reserves” (*reservas indígenas*), and in Decreto Ejecutivo 34 of November 15, 1956, three distinct reserves were identified, namely, “Boruca-Térraba”, “Ujarrás-Salitre-Cabagra” and “China Kichá”. The consolidation of the right of ownership, exclusive and exclusionary, as well as communal or collective, was legally recognized in our country with the signing of Convention 107 of the International Labour Organization, called "Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries" through Law of the Republic No. 2330 of April 9, 1959. From there, the responsibility of governments was established to develop coordinated and systematic programs aimed at protecting indigenous populations (article 2), having to "recognize the right of ownership, collective or individual, in favor of the members of the populations in question over the lands traditionally occupied by them" (article 5), thus becoming norms with a rank superior to ordinary law, in accordance with article 7 of our Political Constitution, providing greater protection to the fundamental rights of indigenous people. With the entry into force of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización number 2825 of May 14, 1961, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos was repealed, and it was provided in article 75 that ITCO -Institute of Lands and Colonization- would ensure the conditioning of indigenous communities or families, which later became the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (1982) and evolved to be today the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (2012). With the Ley Indígena No. 6172 of November 29, 1977, it was recognized that the territories of the indigenous reserves are the property of their respective community, inalienable, imprescriptible, non-transferable, and exclusive to the indigenous communities that inhabit them, with non-indigenous persons not being permitted, despite being their titleholders, to rent, lease, buy, or in any other way acquire lands or properties included within these reserves, with any transfer or negotiation of lands or their improvements in the indigenous reserves between indigenous and non-indigenous persons being absolutely null with the legal consequences of the case (article 3).

Later, the Law Creating the National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (Ley de Creación de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas) number 5251, of July 11, 1973, was promulgated, whose section 4 assigned the competence to “...b) Serve as a coordination instrument between the different public institutions obligated to execute works and provide services for the benefit of indigenous communities; (...) e) Ensure respect for the rights of indigenous minorities, encouraging State action in order to guarantee the indigenous person individual and collective land ownership; timely use of credit; adequate marketing of production and efficient technical assistance; (...)”, being responsible for providing sufficient land intended exclusively for these communities, having to demarcate and boundary mark them. Article 1 of Law number 5651 of December 13, 1974, called Reform of the Creation of CONAI National Commission on Indigenous Affairs (Reforma Creación de CONAI Comisión Nacional Asuntos Indígenas), reiterated the inalienability of the indigenous reserves registered in the name of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, ITCO). Executive Decree No. 29451 of March 22, 2001, indicated that indigenous reserves are the property of those communities and established that the boundaries of those territories, once “recognized” by the State, may not be altered to reduce their area except by means of a law of the Republic. On November 3, 1992, Law number 7316 was promulgated, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” number 234, of December 4, 1992, “Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries” (Convenio 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes), of the International Labour Organization, according to which the subject of indigenous property is specifically regulated. In its article 13, special emphasis was given to the intrinsic cultural and spiritual values of the land and in section 14, it was provided that “Governments shall take the necessary measures to determine the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession. 3. Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims made by the peoples concerned.” **VIII.- Regarding the specific case.** Being clear that our country has assumed a leading role in defense of the indigenous heritage, in order to have a better understanding of this case and give an adequate solution, it is necessary to read article 5 of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) -Ley 6172-, which regulated the mechanism by which the integrity of their territories would be restored to the indigenous communities; to that effect, the rule literally provides:

“In the case of non-indigenous persons who are owners or possessors in good faith within the indigenous reserves, the ITCO must relocate them to other similar lands, if they so desire; if it is not possible to relocate them or they do not accept the relocation, it must expropriate and indemnify them in accordance with the procedures established in the Expropriation Law (Ley de Expropiaciones).

The studies and expropriation and indemnification procedures shall be carried out by the ITCO in coordination with the CONAI.

If there is a subsequent invasion of non-indigenous persons into the reserves, the competent authorities must immediately proceed to evict them, without payment of any indemnification.

The expropriations and indemnifications shall be financed with the contribution of one hundred million colones in cash, which will be consigned in four annual installments of twenty-five million colones each, beginning the first in the year 1979; said installments shall be included in the general budgets of the Republic for the years 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. The fund shall be administered by the CONAI, under the supervision of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República)”.

As can be seen, the legislator resolved the manner by which the effective and definitive delivery of the lands belonging to the indigenous communities would be realized. Thus, each reserve would have its boundaries established through coordinated work between the INDER and the CONAI, within which the non-indigenous persons occupying said territories would be identified. In the event of possessors or registered titleholders in good faith, the first solution would be to provide them with a relocation and, only if that did not succeed, the corresponding expropriation or indemnification would proceed. Faced with the scenario where the relocation did not proceed, the indemnification procedure would continue through the expropriation proceedings, the competence for which today lies with the Institute of Rural Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Rural). This would necessarily imply that, once each indigenous reserve was demarcated by the INDER, any non-indigenous person would have to leave the property, whether by means of relocation or through expropriation, so that the territory would become an integral and effective part of each reserve. According to the provisions of the transcribed article, any act of disposition of these lands carried out after the validity of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena) by non-indigenous persons becomes null. From the reading it is deduced that the intention was always for the lands to be free of non-indigenous persons so that they could be legitimately occupied by the indigenous peoples. Precisely for this reason, the same rule establishes that any subsequent invader could be evicted or expelled immediately through the legal channels provided for that purpose without the right to any indemnification. From this, it is possible to understand then that the law foresaw that the only persons who would be susceptible to obtaining indemnification would be those who were registered owners or possessors in good faith at the moment the boundaries of each reserve were defined.

**IX.-** The China Kicha indigenous reserve was created by Executive Decree 34 of La Gaceta No. 3 of January 5, 1957, and later reestablished by Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, which provided the boundaries and their specific coordinates. In accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena), from the entry into force of this last decree, every registered owner and possessor in good faith would enter into the scenario of relocation or, failing that, the payment of the corresponding indemnification via expropriation.

As demonstrated in the case file, the property with real estate folio registration number of the San José district 635188-000, created through document citations 212-348963 and its addendum 2013-96478 and registered on April 22, 2013, with an area of 107,657 m2, located in district 7 Pejibaye, of the canton Pérez Zeledón, based on the surveyed plan SJ-1646758-2013 which was registered on April 8, 2013, and the person who handled the segregation (segregación) of the parent property and was its registered owner, was aware that it was located within the China Kicha indigenous reserve (reserva indígena), since the plan used for registration with the Real Estate Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) obtained the approval of CONAI indicating as such. Therefore, the signing of that loan with a mortgage guarantee (garantía hipotecaria) was an act of disposal (acto de disposición) of the asset contrary to the law, given that the lands were already the property of the indigenous reserve, in accordance with article 5 of the Indigenous Law (Ley Indígena). The plaintiff appeals to good faith at the time of signing said loan agreement, claiming it relied on the registry information, which, in its view, was incomplete for not indicating on the property's registry entry the limitation or encumbrance (gravamen) for being located within indigenous territory (territorio indígena), in order to justify its right to compensation (indemnización); however, this should have been noticed by the plaintiff Cooperative when conducting the credit analysis with a comprehensive and careful examination of both the title of ownership (título de propiedad) and the corresponding plan, prior to approving the loan and disbursing the money to the debtor. Had it noticed that circumstance, it probably would not have granted that loan. Subsequently, given the non-payment of the monetary obligation, the Cooperative continued with the judicial foreclosure proceedings (diligencias judiciales de remate) of the property until obtaining the corresponding adjudication (adjudicación) and registration.

X.- On liability for lawful conduct (responsabilidad por conducta lícita). This Chamber considers that the thesis proposed by the plaintiff Cooperative seeking compensation for lawful conduct does not conform to the special regulation contained in the Indigenous Law, because the legislator foresaw who would be the beneficiary of compensation through the route of expropriation (expropiación). In the opinion of this body of judges, the figure of expropriation regulated in the Indigenous Law was the solution provided by Law for all persons who held a registered title (título registral) or were good faith possessors (poseedores de buena fe) and responds to the State's ultimate goals of guaranteeing the restoration of indigenous territories, in compliance with the objectives of the law and the international instruments signed by our Nation, which seek the safeguarding and protection of the entire cultural and historical heritage of indigenous communities. It is a special regulation that, in the face of land dispossession (despojo), recognizes compensation provided the assumptions set forth in the Indigenous Law itself are met, through the procedure established in the Expropriations Law (Ley de Expropiaciones). The figure of expropriation provided for in that normative body is different from liability for lawful conduct and normal operation in accordance with the provisions of articles 190 and 194 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). In liability for lawful conduct and normal operation, reparation (reparación) is not made for every or any unlawful injury (lesión antijurídica) by the simple fact of having occurred, since compensation for unjust damage attributable to the Administration requires that it be special and abnormal, "due to the small proportion of affected parties or the exceptional intensity of the injury," an assumption that must be alleged and proven by the party seeking to obtain that reparation. The lawsuit makes no argument whatsoever regarding these exceptional conditions for the admissibility of the compensable damage (daño reparable) for lawful conduct or normal operation, as its thesis is limited to the claim for compensation for the value of the land, based on the simple fact that the State established the limits of the China Kicha reserve, incorporated the property, and did not proceed to compensate in a timely manner, an argument that does not adhere to the requirements of special and abnormal damage. It is clear that the stripping of the attributes of property rights, if it occurred, materialized many years earlier upon whoever probably held the title of owner or was a good faith possessor when Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001, was published. It is not correct to state, as the plaintiff does, that it saw its property rights emptied until the moment when the annotation of "Zona A.B.R.E" was made in the real estate registry. The truth is that from the moment it signed the mortgage loan contract, the guarantee was flawed as it fell upon an asset that, despite the registry entry indicating it was privately owned, was contrary to a Law, the decree in question, and a surveyed plan that recorded the asset's belonging to the indigenous community. For the reasons stated, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's thesis, which seeks to have the State compensate it for liability for lawful conduct, since it was not a victim of an emptying of its property rights insofar as it was a co-participant in a transaction contrary to the law, in which it accepted an irregular credit guarantee and disregarded the true ownership (titularidad) of the property. The plaintiff, in its capacity as the adjudicated owner (adjudicataria) of the asset through judicial foreclosure, was neither a registered owner nor a good faith possessor at the time of the entry into force of the mentioned decree, nor is the existence of a causal link (nexo de causalidad) appreciable between the state activity once it issued the decree that delimited the indigenous settlement China Kicha and the alleged damage, so there is no possibility of granting its claim 1 aimed at declaring state liability for lawful conduct and ordering it to pay the value of the land as recorded in the judicial appraisal (peritaje judicial), and therefore the dismissal of the claim is ordered.

XI.- On liability for unlawful conduct (responsabilidad por conducta ilícita) and abnormal operation (funcionamiento anormal). In this case, it is an undisputed fact that property 635188-000 of the San José district is within the limits of the China Kicha indigenous territory, since the aforementioned Executive Decree 29447-G of March 21, 2001. The plaintiff considers that there is unlawful and abnormal conduct on the part of INDER, CONAI, and the National Registry (Registro Nacional), because once the State issued the executive decree declaring the expansion of the China Kicha indigenous reserve zone, both INDER and CONAI omitted for many years to annotate the properties and proceed with their due expropriation process, which caused serious damages (daños y perjuicios) to the plaintiff, since at the time of signing the mortgage loan, the property was free of encumbrances (gravámenes) and annotations that led it to act in good faith in the constitution of the mortgage loan. Regarding the liability of the Public Registry, it accuses that the causal link is configured because as of the date of the lawsuit, the property was still free of annotations and encumbrances, since it omitted to make the annotation on the property and, based on registry publicity, it constituted itself as a mortgage creditor, adjudicated the property in a judicial foreclosure, and the property similarly continued without being able to be annotated, having lost the money it lent, coupled with being unable to exercise the attributes of ownership (atributos del dominio) due to the existing limitation in the zone. The unlawful conducts it claims against INDER and CONAI reside in the omission to initiate expropriation procedures in light of the provisions established in articles 3 and 5 of the Indigenous Law 6172, which establishes the obligation to expropriate those lands located in indigenous reserves.

The plaintiff argues that at the time the loan was constituted and the mortgage was registered, the property had no lien or indigenous reserve encumbrance, and it was subsequently, when the Real Property Registry, by resolution at 11:05 a.m. on September 12, 2019, corresponding to case file 2019-70-RIM, proceeded to annotate the property, actions it accuses the INDER, the CONAI, and the Public Registry of omitting. First, it must be noted that the delimitation of indigenous zones produces the transfer of ownership rights in favor of each reserve, using either the mechanism of relocation (reubicación) or compensation (indemnización), such that their former owners cease to be so. Therefore, the warning that the National Registry inserts in the margin of the registration entry is not a limitation or lien—as the plaintiff erroneously understands—but rather a true public notice that the land has become the property of some indigenous community, even when there is a registered title in the name of a third party. Second, as noted in the preceding Considerando, since the mortgage was constituted by the Cooperative, the cadastral map SJ-1646758-2013 was available for review—as it is stated in the public deed—which, prior to its registration in the National Cadastre, had been approved (visado) by the CONAI with the warning that the land was indigenous property. The co-defendants defend themselves by indicating that with this map, it is demonstrated that there was, in fact, registry publicity regarding the real status of the property. The plaintiff defends itself in the reply brief by indicating that “if one analyzes what map SJ-1646758-2013 indicates, it is an approval (visado) for the segregation of the property, which incidentally states that THE APPROVAL (VISADO) IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY EXISTED BEFORE THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE INDIGENOUS RESERVE. Likewise, the state representation overlooks what is established in article 301 of the Costa Rican Civil Code, by stating: ‘ARTICLE 301.- The survey of a land, whether or not protested, is not sufficient by itself to prove possession of the same land’. That is, one cannot claim registry publicity regarding an approval (visado) found on a map, which cannot take precedence over the annotation of the indigenous reserve limitation that must exist according to law, in the Real Property Registry.” The Cooperative believes that the State acknowledged that the responsibility for compensation lies with the INDER and the CONAI, in addition to the Registry’s responsibility for the omission in not publishing the indigenous reserve encumbrance, which means it agrees with it insofar as liability does exist for the noted omission. These arguments are not acceptable and, on the contrary, this Chamber believes that the co-defendants are correct. As can be easily seen, from a comprehensive reading of the cadastral map, the CONAI’s information about the condition and ownership of this land is evident, such that it was the plaintiff that incurred a deficiency at the time of approving the loan, either because it did not notice this situation or, if it became aware of it—because it could have done so—it assumed the harmful consequences of the transaction by finalizing a transaction in which the guarantee (garantía) was an inalienable land. The ordinal 301 cited by the plaintiff and the Regulation to the National Cadastre Law is not applicable to the case, as it regulates the limited scope of the topographic activity reflected in survey plans for proving possession, when what is being ventilated in this case is the registry publicity provided by an administrative act such as that CONAI approval (visado), which is inserted in the cadastral map. For this reason, the entire thesis set forth in the lawsuit, which claims that due to the absence of registry information and based on legitimate confidence and good faith, the loan was signed and then a property over which it cannot dispose was judicially awarded, is not acceptable, because there was public registry information that attested to the property's conditions and its particularity of being part of an indigenous reserve. This Chamber believes that the damage suffered was the fault of the victim, having granted the loan under these illegitimate conditions. For the foregoing reasons, the existence of a causal link is not observed to decree liability for unlawful conduct, by omission of the defendants, since even if the INDER and the CONAI had promoted the notation of the “zona A.B.R.E.” on the property’s registration entry until the year 2019 and the Public Registry had recorded it only after the filing of this lawsuit, there already existed since the year 2013 registry information provided by the CONAI in this regard, recorded on the cadastral map, which supplied the plaintiff with the necessary inputs to avoid being the victim of a fraudulent transaction. Therefore, claim 3 brought by the Cooperative so that “the joint and several strict liability for unlawful conduct by the CONAI and the INDER be declared for the omission to execute what is indicated in Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G that determined the existence and expansion of the CHINA KICHA indigenous reserve, in the sense of not having instituted the corresponding administrative procedures to safeguard the rights of the owners and for the official letters or resolutions to be produced so that the encumbrance could be annotated in the margin of the affected property owned by my client,” claim 4 which seeks that “the strict liability for unlawful conduct by the National Registry be declared for the omission of failing to give registry publicity to the annotations, immobilizations and/or liens of indigenous reserve on the property owned by my client, from the issuance and publication of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29447-G, an omission that continues to this day,” and claim 5 which requests “That all the co-defendants be ordered to pay the damage caused consisting of the current value of the property which will be determined by expert examination in this proceeding,” all prove inadmissible in the absence of a causal link that allows the conclusion that the claimed omission was the generator of the alleged damage, and it is so ordered.

XII.- On the subsidiary claim.

Furthermore, given that the plaintiff did not constitute the registered owner or possessor in good faith at the time Decree No. 29447-G of 2001 entered into force under the terms required by section 5 of the Indigenous Law, since she did not seek title to the property until 2019, it is also not possible to order the initiation of the expropriation (expropiación) process in her favor. This demonstrates that she lacks active standing (legitimación ad causam activa), and therefore she cannot be the beneficiary of the subsidiary claim that seeks to "compel INDER to carry out the expropriation and full compensation procedures for the property owned by my client, folio real number 1-635188-000, due to the evident public interest in the declaration of the China Kicha indigenous reserve (reserva indígena) by executive decree No. 29447-G, procedures that the co-defendant INDER has omitted to this day." Given the foregoing, this subsidiary claim must also be dismissed.

XIII.- Defenses. The defendant parties raised the defense of lack of right, which must be upheld, since none of the assumptions of liability of the Administration, for lawful or unlawful conduct, or normal or abnormal functioning, are established. The defenses of lack of active and passive standing must be rejected, given that the main claims for damages due to the Administration's omission were not appropriate. Regarding standing, both active and passive, the defense of lack of passive standing is admitted only with respect to the subsidiary claim, because the plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the expropriation by legislative mandate.

XIV.- Costs. As stipulated in Article 193 of the CPCA, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party solely by virtue of being so. Relief from this judgment is only viable when, in the Court's opinion, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In this regard, it is not possible to relieve the losing party of costs, which must be paid by the plaintiff Cooperative.

POR TANTO

The material claims filed by CONAI are declared inadmissible, which sought to "... declare the absolute nullity by operation of law of the first-degree mortgage on the property located in the indigenous territory of China Kichá. As well as the resolution issued by the Collection Court of the I Judicial Circuit of the South Zone (Pérez Zeledón) on October 18, 2019, approving the public auction held at 10:00 a.m. on August 30, 2019." The defenses of lack of active and passive standing regarding the main claims are rejected; the defense of lack of active standing regarding the subsidiary claim is upheld. The defense of lack of right asserted by the co-defendants is declared with merit, and the filed lawsuit is declared without merit in all its aspects. Costs are charged to the plaintiff Cooperative.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Alinne Solano Ramírez Fabián Núñez Castrillo &nbsp; &nbsp;

???????????????

&nbsp; Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected]

EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj *220019571027CA* CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL R.S.L.

DEMANDADO/A:

COMISION NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS INDIGENAS N° 2025007612 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las dieciseis horas del veintinueve de julio del dos mil veinticinco.- Proceso de conocimiento interpuesto por COOPERATIVA AGRÍCOLA INDUSTRIAL Y DE SERVICIOS MULTIPLES EL GENERAL (en adelante la Cooperativa), representada por su apoderado especial judicial, el Lic. Roberto Enrique Cordero Brenes, carné profesional 18477, en contra de EL ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Xóchitl López Vargas carné profesional 15047, la JUNTA DIRECTIVA DEL REGISTRO NACIONAL (en adelante El Registro), representada por su apoderado especial judicial, el Licenciado Andrey Monge Jiménez, carné profesional número 23252, el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO RURAL (en adelante INDER) representado por su apoderada especial judicial, la Licenciada María Teresa Fernández Chinchilla, carné profesional número 20578, y la COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE ASUNTOS INDÍGENAS (en adelante CONAI), representada por su apoderada especial judicial, la Licenciada Karla Andrea Reyes Rivas, carné profesional número 30668.

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Antecedentes de relevancia. De previo al dictado de la presente sentencia, se produjeron los siguientes antecedentes relevantes:

• a)La demanda fue presentada el 25 de marzo del 2022, en la que la parte demandante solicita lo siguiente:

“PRETENSIÓN PRINCIPAL Se declare la demanda con lugar en todos sus extremos.

Solicitamos se declare la responsabilidad objetiva por conducta lícita del ESTADO, por la declaratoria de reserva indígena efectuada mediante decreto ejecutivo N° 29447-G, de fecha 21 de marzo de 2001 y se condene al pago del valor total del terreno que será determinado pericialmente dentro de este proceso.

Que se declare la responsabilidad objetiva solidaria por conducta ilícita del CONAI y del INDER por la omisión de ejecutar lo indicado en el decreto ejecutivo número N° 29447-G, que determinó la existencia y ampliación de la reserva indígena CHINA KICHA, en el sentido de no haber instaurado los procedimientos administrativos correspondientes para resguardar los derechos de los propietarios y para que se produjeran los oficios o resoluciones para que se anotase al margen del inmueble afectado propiedad de mi representada.

Que se declare la responsabilidad objetiva por conducta ilícita del Registro Nacional por la omisión de dejar de publicitar registralmente las anotaciones, inmovilizaciones y/o gravámenes de reserva indígena en el inmueble propiedad de mi representada, desde la emisión y publicación del decreto ejecutivo N° 29447-G, omisión que se mantiene hasta el día de hoy.

Que se condene a todos los co-demandados al pago del daño causado que consisten en el valor actual de la propiedad que se determinará pericialmente en este proceso.

Que se condene en costas a los demandados, más sus respectivos intereses.

PRETENSIÓN SUBSIDIARIA En defecto de lo anterior, solicitamos como pretensión subsidiaria, que se obligue al INDER a realizar los trámites de expropiación e indemnización plena del inmueble propiedad de mi representado número de folio real 1- 635188-000, por existir un evidente interés público en la declaratoria de reseña indígena China Kicha mediante decreto ejecutivo N° 29447-G, procedimientos que ha omitido hasta el día de hoy el co-demandado INDER.

Que se condene en ambas costas al co-demandado INDER, más sus respectivos intereses.” b) La demanda fue contestada negativamente por las partes accionada, quienes interpusieron la defensa de falta de derecho. El CONAI y el INDER invocaron las defensas de falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva, mientras que el Estado se limitó a alegar la falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva.

• c)La audiencia preliminar se llevó a cabo el 24 de enero del año 2024, acto en el que se mantuvieron las pretensiones originales del escrito de demanda, se estableció que la totalidad de los hechos son controvertidos y se aprobó la solicitud de la parte actora a fin de que se nombrar un perito valuador.
• d)El peritaje fue rendido el 28 de junio del 2024, el cual se puso en conocimiento de las partes.
• e)El juicio oral se realizó el 10 de julio del 2025, acto en el que se escuchó al perito, las partes expusieron sus conclusiones y el asunto se declaró complejo de conformidad con el artículo 111 del CPCA, por lo que la presente sentencia se dicta dentro del término de ley.

II.- Alegatos de la demanda: Acusa la parte demandante que en el presente caso se dio una conducta ilícita y anormal por parte del Registro Inmobiliario al omitir durante mucho tiempo publicitar que la finca del partido de San José, folio real 1-635188-000 estaba dentro de una reserva indígena. Sostiene que bajo el principio de publicidad registral, la actora aceptó constituirse como acreedora de un crédito que se garantizó con hipoteca sobre ese inmueble, la cual fue inscrita bajo las citas 2016-237690 y posteriormente adjudicada a favor de la accionante según consta en las citas 2019-684381 de las bases de datos de dicha dependencia registral. Alega que el INDER procedió tardíamente a gestionar al Registro Público la anotación del gravamen sobre el inmueble, lo cual le provocó la pérdida del dinero que prestó y la imposibilidad de ejercer ningún acto en condición de propietario por la “limitación” existente en la zona. La Cooperativa aduce haber negociado y adquirido de buena fe la finca de marras y califica las presuntas omisiones registrales como vulneradoras de principios básicos de la materia registral, a saber, el principio de publicidad y la seguridad registral, cuyos efectos devienen en la afectación de intereses propios. Estima que fue despojada de su propiedad por una limitación administrativa que declaró la zona de China Kicha como territorio indígena, producto de una declaratoria efectuada mediante Decreto N° 29447-G, emitida desde del año 2001, pero mediaron omisiones de la CONAI e INDER en solicitar la limitación administrativa en tiempo al Registro Público, entidad que tampoco consignó al margen del asiento registral, la anotación, limitación, gravamen, inmovilización, etc. del inmueble. Aduce que en ejercicio del principio de confianza legítima se atuvo a la información registral, la cual le permitía prestarle el dinero al propietario y, a su vez, rematar -como en efecto se hizo- ante el impago de la obligación hipotecaria, llegándose al punto de ver imposibilitado el ejercicio de la propiedad y sus atributos de dominio. Lo anterior, lo califica como una clara lesión al artículo 194 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, como parte de la responsabilidad objetiva de la Administración Pública. Estima que el Estado es responsable por conducta lícita, al haber emitido un decreto que trae como consecuencia el asentamiento indígena China Kicha, vaciando el contenido del derecho de propiedad. Alega que la responsabilidad por conducta ilícita es plenaria, respondiendo la Administración tanto por los daños, como por los perjuicios.

III.- Defensa de los co-demandados. Las partes accionadas rechazaron la demanda, de la siguiente manera:

• a)El Estado, sostiene que el Decreto fue emitido desde el 2001 -es decir muchos años antes de que se constituyera la hipoteca y se adquiriera la propiedad que ahora reclama – y desde ese año quedó establecido que la finca matrícula 635188-000 se encuentra dentro de zona indígena, resultando desde ese momento inalienable, imprescriptible, no susceptible de transmisión en su dominio y exclusiva de las comunidades indígenas, situación que, además, estaba publicitada en el Registro Nacional, en el plano catastrado SJ-1646758-2013, inscrito desde fecha 22 de abril del año 2013 y que era de conocimiento de la parte actora a la hora de otorgar la hipoteca y adjudicarse la finca. Alega que el interés que reclama la accionante no resulta legítimo y en la especie medió culpa de la víctima, dado que no puede alegar buena fe al momento en que se realizaron los negocios por medio de los cuales adquirió la propiedad, porque ya se encontraban vigentes las normas jurídicas que la habían afectado como zona indígena, lo cual también fue alegado en el proceso ejecutivo mediante el cual se adjudicó la propiedad. Tampoco se acredita la existencia del nexo causal entre las omisiones y conductas administrativas acusadas como ilícitas y el daño reclamado, pues son los propios hechos de la actora los que la llevaron a estar en la situación que reclama como violatoria de sus derechos.
• b)La Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional, indica que la denominación “finca en Zona ABRE”, es la forma en que se advierte tanto al titular de un inmueble como a los posibles terceros interesados en él, que esa finca se encuentra dentro de una reserva indígena, por lo que no debe entenderse como una limitación o gravamen, como erróneamente lo pretende hacer ver la parte actora, pues se trata de una simple publicidad noticia que no impide la registración de documentos posteriores ni el tráfico jurídico de estos. El código “Zona ABRE” fue consignado sobre la finca 1-635188 en fecha 4 de mayo de 2022, bajo el “principio registral de rogación” a petición e instancia INDER y la CONAI, instituciones públicas que de conformidad con los artículos 3 y 4 de la Ley Indígena se encuentran a cargo de las funciones indemnizatorias y de levantamiento catastral en asuntos de esta naturaleza, por lo que no debe considerarse un hecho originador o causante de la condición en la que se encuentra la propiedad de la actora y los daños que aduce, sino más bien una consecuencia de las actuaciones y requerimientos del INDER y de la CONAI, que basan sus conductas en la aplicación de la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G. Aduce que la simple manifestación de la actora no implica per se la configuración de un daño o que, aun existiendo uno, este deba ser resarcido por la codemandada en los términos establecidos en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, pues el artículo 5 de la Ley Indígena puntualiza que le corresponde al INDER conocer de la expropiación de los terrenos propiedad de personas no indígenas ubicados en reservas indígenas, sin necesidad de incluir en el proceso a ninguna otra institución, por ser una competencia de dicha entidad en coordinación con el CONAI. Advierte también que el artículo 3 de la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G, disponen que la consecuencia de la ubicación de una finca de una zona declarada como territorio indígena, es que las personas no indígenas, no podrán alquilar, arrendar, comprar o adquirir terrenos o fincas ubicadas dentro de las reservas, por lo que, cualquier acto de disposición sobre esos inmuebles es absolutamente nulo, por consiguiente, todo traspaso o negociación de tierras ubicadas en una reserva, entre indígenas y no indígenas, es absolutamente nulo con las consecuencias legales del caso; regla que tiene una excepción contenida en el artículo 5 de la Ley Indígena, numeral que contempla la hipótesis de que se debe indemnizar a las personas que no perteneciendo a la comunidad indígena, al momento de crearse la reserva respectiva, fueren propietarias o poseedores de inmuebles ubicados dentro de los límites de la reserva, siempre que se encuentren actuando de buena fe. La adquisición de la finca 1-655188 por parte de la actora, no puede presumirse de buena fe, ni tampoco le es aplicable a dicho titular la premisa de haber participado como tercero de adquirente buena fe, toda vez la accionante debía conocer la condición de ubicación de dicha finca, por el contenido de la Ley Indígena y el Decreto Ejecutivo N°29447-G, y porque el plano catastrado SJ-1646758-2013 inscrito en fecha 22 de abril del año 2013, que corresponde a dicha finca, contiene un visado en el cual de manera expresa el CONAI indica que la finca se ubica en una zona declarada como reserva.
• c)La CONAI, por su parte, se defiende alegando que la adquisición del inmueble es absolutamente nula, por tratarse de un negocio ilícito de tierras que tienen limitaciones de ley, pues no podía ser objeto de crédito hipotecario dicho inmueble, dado que la titularidad no es de libre disposición y ello era de conocimiento de la parte actora. Invoca el Convenio N° 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes ratificado por Costa Rica mediante Ley N° 7316 de 03 de noviembre de 1992, el cual establece la obligación de los gobiernos de respetar la importancia especial que para las culturas y valores espirituales de los pueblos interesados reviste su relación con las tierras o territorios del Territorio Indígena de China Kicha, así como la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas aprobada mediante Resolución 61/295 de 2007, y refuerza lo establecido por el Convenio 169, que vincula al Estado a establecer mecanismos eficaces para la prevención de todo aquel acto que tenga por objeto o consecuencia desposeerlos de sus tierras, territorios o recursos (artículo 8), que estos no serán desplazados por la fuerza de sus tierras o territorios (artículo 10) y que tienen derechos sobre las tierras. Se sustenta también en la Ley General sobre Terrenos Baldíos N° 13 de 1939, en la cual se hace un reconocimiento explícito de los derechos de los pueblos originarios a habitar las tierras que ancestralmente han ocupado y en el cual mantienen un arraigo histórico. En cuanto al inmueble con matrícula 1-635188-000, alega que la parte accionante lo inscribió a su nombre el 11 de noviembre de 2019, fecha posterior a la creación del Territorio Indígena China Kichá, que fue establecida por el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34 de La Gaceta N° 3 de 5 de enero de 19571, y reestablecidos sus límites mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo 29447 del 21 de marzo de 2001. Según su parecer, la hipoteca en primer grado suscrita el 08 de abril de 2016 es nula por encontrarse dentro de un territorio indígena, sobre el cual recaen las limitaciones del articulo 3° de la Ley Indígena Número 6172 de 1977 por lo cual dichas tierras son inalienables, imprescriptibles v no transferibles, exclusivas de las comunidades indígenas. En cuanto al código de "ZONA A.B.R.E inmueble situado en territorio indígena" advierte que este no constituye un reconocimiento de un inmueble como parte de un territorio indígena, pues su alcance es meramente de carácter informativo a terceros. La existencia o no de dicha inscripción no afecta que dicho inmueble fuera parte de un territorio indígena, por lo que la adquisición de bienes inmuebles es de mala fe dada la afectación legal. Por ello, sostiene que solo es posible la indemnización para aquellos poseedores de buena fe que estaban antes de la creación de las reservas y sus limitaciones, no para los que adquieren o ingresan después, en cuyo caso también previó la ley esa segunda hipótesis, cual es, el desalojo inmediato por parte de las autoridades competentes. Alega que no hay un incumplimiento con el actor, más bien, quien violenta la propiedad de los indígenas es él, adquiriendo tierras con limitaciones que son exclusivas de uso y disfrute de los indígenas, por lo que no hay obligación de indemnizarlo. Solicita se declare inadmisible y sin lugar la demanda, se acojan todas las excepciones interpuestas y peticiona expresamente que “... se declare la nulidad absoluta de pleno derecho de la hipoteca en primer grado sobre el inmueble localizado en el territorio indígena de China Kichá. Así como la resolución emitida por el Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) de 18 de octubre de 201 9 en la cual aprueba el remate celebrado a las 10 horas del treinta de agosto del 2019”, junto con la condenatoria en costas.

IV.- Hechos probados. Con base en todas las pruebas que fueron incorporadas el expediente judicial en formato electrónico, se tiene como debidamente probados, los siguientes hechos de relevancia:

El Territorio Indígena China Kichá fue establecido por el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 34 de La Gaceta N° 3 de 5 de enero de 19571, y reestablecidos sus límites mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo 29447 del 21 de marzo de 2001 (imágenes 108 a 114, hecho no controvertido).

La finca con matrícula de folio real del partido de San José 635188-000, nació mediante documento citas 212-348963 y su adicional 2013-96478 y fue inscrita el 22 de abril del 2013, con una cabida de 107.657 m2, ubicada en el distrito 7 Pejibaye, del cantón Pérez Zeledón. El plano catastrado que le corresponde es SJ-1646758-20132013 que fue inscrito el 8 de abril del 2013. Según dicho plano, la finca se ubica en China Kicha y proviene del folio real No. 100305532-000 con un área según registro de 152.096,58m2. Dicho plano contiene un visado en su reverso, fechado el 21 de marzo del 2013, expedido por el CONAI, el cual indica que “El plano que dice que es parte del Folio Real No. 100305532-000, sita en China Kicha, Distrito 7 Pejibaye, Cantón 19 Pérez Zeledón, Provicia 1 San José, con un área de 107.675 m2, se encuentra ubicada DENTRO DE LA RESERVA INDIGENA DE CHINA KICHA según oficio No. MEDET-018-2013 emitido por el Departamento de Estudios Territoriales del CONAI, en el tanto que la propiedad esté efectivamente localizada donde el dibujante la ubicó en la cuadrícula anexa al plano y según criterio legal No. DLI-042-2013 emitido por el Departamento Legal del CONAI de fecha 8 de marzo del 2013, EL VISADO DE ESTE PLANO ES PROCEDENTE ya que dicha finca existe y fue inscrita como tal antes del restablecimiento de la reserva indígena de China Kichá. Afectado por la Ley Indígena No. 6172, Art. 3. Es todo.” (ver plano en imágenes 315 y 316, referencia en oficio DRI-01-0486-2022 del 27 de abril del 2022, en imágenes 329 a 334).

Mediante escritura pública levantada ante notario público José Aurei Navarro Garro, el día 8 de abril del 2016, Adolfo Tabash Steller y Wilmer Tabash Steller contrajeron un crédito con la Cooperativa accionante, por la suma de ¢28.400.000,00. Como garantía del préstamo, constituyeron hipoteca en primer grado sobre la finca con matrícula de folio real 1-635188-000 y plano catastrado SJ-1646758-2013 (Indicada en el hecho anterior). En aquel momento, el asiento registral del inmueble no indicaba que sobre el terreno recaía limitación con código “ZONA A.B.R.E. (Inmueble Situado en Territorio Indígena)”. (Ver imágenes 31 correspondiente a certificación registral, 318 a 323 del expediente judicial).

Mediante oficio GG-1647-2018 del 15 de noviembre del 2018, presentado a la Dirección del Registro Inmobiliario el 23 de enero de 2019, suscrito por los señores Diana Murillo Murillo y Clementino Villanueva Zúñiga, Gerente General del INDER y Director Ejecutivo de CONAI, respectivamente, se indicó que “(…) Producto de la implementación del Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Tierras en Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI), que está desarrollando el INDER en coordinación con la CONAI, se han detectado una serie de fincas inscritas, que por su ubicación cartográfica se encuentran afectadas por los decretos de los Territorios indígenas; dichas fincas a pesar de que se encuentran inscritas en el Registro de la Propiedad, no se publicita su afectación con los territorios indígenas, lo que permite que constantemente se estén realizando movimientos registrales y catastrales, afectando la normativa que protege este tipo de áreas. Por lo anterior, se requiere que el Registro Inmobiliario establezca un procedimiento, de tal manera, que todas esas fincas se consignen con algún tipo de código (…)” (imágenes 341 y 342).

Por medio del oficio GG-855-2019, el INDER comunicó al Registro Nacional, una lista definitiva de 921 fincas inscritas ubicadas en 15 territorios indígenas, dentro de las cuales, consta la finca de la cooperativa actora (imágenes 355 a 363).

Mediante Decreto Ejecutivo número 41708 del 8 de marzo del 2019, fue declarado zona catastrado el distrito 03, Pejibaye, cantón 4 Jiménez, Provincia 3 Cartago, habiéndose convocado a los titulares acreedores hipotecarios o anotantes, para que asistieran a la exposición pública a que examinara los datos consignados mediante el Diario Oficial la Gaceta número 149 del 3 de agosto del 2002 y en el diario de circulación nacional al día del 12 de agosto del 2012, información que hace de conocimiento que el inmueble estaba situado en territorio indígena.

El 23 de mayo de 2019, el Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón), da curso al proceso de ejecución hipotecario presentado por la actora en razón del impago de la deuda y señala remate para las 10:00 horas del 30 de agosto de 2019 (imágenes 24 a 54 del expediente judicial).

El 30 de agosto de 2019, la Cooperativa se adjudica en un primer remate la propiedad por la base del abono al crédito monto el cual corresponde a veintisiete millones quinientos cuarenta y ocho mil cuatrocientos setenta y tres colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos (acta de remate en imagen 64 del expediente judicial).

En expediente No. 2019-70-RIM de Diligencias Administrativas, a petición del INDER y del CONAI, el Registro Inmobiliario señaló mediante resolución de las 11:05 horas del 12 de setiembre del año 2019, que de conformidad con lo establecido en el Plan Nacional de Recuperación de Territorios Indígenas (PLAN-RTI) el cual había sido avalado por el CONAI desde fecha 21 de marzo de 2001, procede a ordenar la anotación en todas las fincas comprendidas dentro de dicha resolución, lo cual incluía la finca objeto de discusión en esta causa, consignando el código “ZONA A.B.R.E. (INMUEBLE SITUADO EN TERRITORIO INDIGENA” (imágenes 79 a 98).

El 18 de octubre de 2019, el Juzgado de Cobro I Circuito Judicial Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) aprueba el remate celebrado a las 10:00 del 30 de agosto del 2019 por suma de veintisiete millones quinientos cuarenta y ocho mil cuatrocientos setenta y tres colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos, libre de gravámenes y anotaciones y se ordena la protocolización notarial correspondiente con el fin de adjudicar la propiedad a la actora. La puesta en posesión quedó consignada en acta del 11 de febrero del 2020 (imágenes 71 y 72, 77, 363).

El inmueble fue inscrito a nombre de la Cooperativa accionante, el 11 de noviembre de 2019 (imagen 324).

El 11 de febrero del 2020, la Delegación Cantonal de Pérez Zeledón del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública realiza la puesta en posesión de la propiedad a nombre de la actora, levanta el acta respectiva y procede a desalojar a los ocupantes de la propiedad (imágenes 74 a 77 del expediente judicial).

V.- Sobre el objeto del proceso. En esencia, en la presente causa se dirimen dos supuestos distintos de responsabilidad del Estado, a saber: a) reclama responsabilidad por conducta lícita, en el tanto el Estado incorporó por la vía de decreto ejecutivo la finca objeto de este proceso, dentro de la reserva China Kichá y no procedió con las diligencias de expropiación, de modo que estima la accionante que está en el deber de indemnizarle, por haberle vaciado su derecho de propiedad, o bien, en su lugar y de manera subsidiria, pide que se ordene a la Administración efectuar el proceso de expropiación del terreno; y b) responsabilidad por conducta ilícita que reclama al CONAI y al INDER, por no haber diligenciado oportunamente para afectar registralmente los terrenos al territorio indígena; contra la Junta Directiva del Registro Nacional, reclama el no haber puesto el gravamen o limitación en el asiento registral desde que se emitió dicho decreto. Estima que estas omisiones llevaron a que se constituyera como acreedora hipotecaria sobre la buena fe y publicidad registral, promoviendo posteriormente la adjudicación en remate del inmueble, del cual no puede disponer.

VI.- Sobre la inadmisibilidad de las pretensiones declaratorias del CONAI. El CONAI se apersona en su escrito de contestación y plantea argumentos de nulidad de ciertas actuaciones que le dan pie a interponer pretensiones materiales en aras de que esta Cámara “declare la nulidad absoluta de pleno derecho de la hipoteca en primer grado sobre el inmueble localizado en el territorio indígena de China Kichá. Así como la resolución emitida por el Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) de 18 de octubre de 2019 en la cual aprueba el remate celebrado a las 10 horas del treinta de agosto del 2019.” Sin embargo, no media una contrademanda de su parte en la que plantee esas pretensiones declaratorias, lo cual sería la única vía para que esta Cámara pudiera entrar a conocerlas. Para ello, habría que superar la etapa de admisión y sustanciación de la reconvención, una vez que hubiere reunido todos los requisitos de ley establecidos para cualquier demanda contenciosa, si tenía interés de hacer valer sus propios derechos contra la parte actora, sin necesidad de entablar otro juicio, por razones de economía procesal. Además, es claro que la pretensión dirigida a que se anulen actuaciones jurisdiccionales no puede ser ventilada en esta sede, sino dentro del mismo proceso cobratorio, mismo que pudo haberse ordinariado oportunamente a efecto de que se conociera la causa originaria de la obligación, mas nada de ello consta en autos. En estas circunstancias, esta Cámara está en la obligación de declarar la inadmisibilidad de estas pretensiones de la CONAI.

VII.- Sobre el régimen jurídico de los territorios indígenas. Para el análisis correcto de esta causa, es menester entender cómo se regula el tema de los territorios indígenas, específicamente respecto de aquellos inmuebles que, por la vía de decreto ejecutivo, han sido incorporados a las respectivas reservas, a pesar de que hubieren propietarios o poseedores de buena fe, no indígenas. El primer registro legislativo se encuentra en la Ley Sobre Terrenos Baldíos número 13 del 10 de enero de 1939, en su artículo 8 rezaba "... se declara inalienable y de propiedad exclusiva de los indígenas, una zona prudencial a juicio del Poder Ejecutivo en los lugares en donde existan tribus de éstos, a fin de conservar nuestra raza autóctona y de librarlos de futuras injusticias", por medio del cual se reconoció el dominio sobre sus terrenos por parte de las comunidades indígenas, a los cuales se les daba el carácter inalienable. Con base en las competencias otorgadas por el legislador al Poder Ejecutivo, se emitió el Decreto Ejecutivo 45 del 3 de diciembre de 1945, que reiteró la inalienabilidad de las tierras ocupadas por los pueblos indígenas, que por primera vez se denominaron “reservas indígenas”, y en el Decreto Ejecutivo 34 de 15 de noviembre de 1956, se identificaron tres reservas distintas, a saber, la “Boruca-Térraba”, “Ujarrás-Salitre- Cabagra” y “China Kichá”. La consolidación del derecho de propiedad, exclusiva y excluyente, además de comunitaria o colectiva, fue reconocida jurídicamente en nuestro país con la suscripción del Convenio número 107 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, denominado “Convenio Relativo a la Protección e Integración de las Poblaciones Indígenas y de otras Poblaciones Tribales y Semitribales en los Países Independientes" mediante Ley de la República No. 2330 del 09 de abril de 1959. A partir de allí se dispuso la responsabilidad de los gobiernos en el desarrollo de programas coordinados y sistemáticos con miras a dar protección de las poblaciones indígenas, (artículo 2), debiendo “reconocer el derecho de propiedad, colectivo o individual, a favor de los miembros de las poblaciones en cuestión sobre las tierras tradicionalmente ocupadas por ellas” (artículo 5), constituyéndose así como normas con rango superior a la ley ordinaria, de conformidad con el artículo 7 de nuestra Constitución Política, proporcionando mayor protección a los derechos fundamentales de los indígenas. Con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización número 2825 del 14 de mayo de 1961 se derogó la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos, y se dispuso en el artículo 75, que el ITCO -Instituto de Tierras y Colonización- velaría por el acondicionamiento de las comunidades o familias indígenas, el cual luego pasó a ser el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (1982) y evolucionó hasta ser hoy el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (2012). Con la Ley Indígena No. 6172 de 29 de noviembre de 1977, se reconoció que los territorios de las reservas indígenas son propiedad de su respectiva comunidad, inalienables, imprescriptibles, no transferibles y exclusivos de las comunidades indígenas que los habitan, no encontrándose permitido a los no indígenas, pese ser estos sus titulares, alquilar, arrendar, comprar o de cualquier otra manera adquirir terrenos o fincas comprendidas dentro de estas reservas, siendo todo traspaso o negociación de tierras o las mejoras de éstas en las reservas indígenas, entre indígenas y no indígenas, absolutamente nulo con las consecuencias legales del caso (artículo 3). Luego se promulgó la Ley de Creación de la Comisión Nacional de Asuntos Indígenas número 5251, del 11 de julio de 1973, cuyo ordinal 4 le asignó la competencia de “…b) Servir de instrumento de coordinación entre las distintas instituciones públicas obligadas a la ejecución de obras y a la prestación de servicios en beneficio de las comunidades indígenas; (…) e) Velar por el respeto a los derechos de las minorías indígenas, estimulando la acción del Estado a fin de garantizar al indio la propiedad individual y colectiva de la tierra; el uso oportuno de crédito; mercadeo adecuado de la producción y asistencia técnica eficiente; (…)”, siendo encargada de proveer de los terrenos suficientes para destinarlos exclusivamente a estas comunidades, debiendo delimitarlos y deslindarlos. El artículo 1 de la Ley número 5651 de 13 de diciembre de 1974, denominada Reforma Creación de CONAI Comisión Nacional Asuntos Indígenas, reiteró la inalienabilidad de las reservas indígenas inscritas a nombre del Instituto de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO). El Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29451 del 22 de marzo del 2001, señaló que las reservas indígenas son propiedad de esas comunidades y estableció que los límites de esos territorios una vez “reconocidos” por el Estado, no podrán ser variados en disminución en su cabida si no lo es mediante ley de la República. El 03 de noviembre de 1992 fue promulgada la Ley número 7316 publicada en el Diario Oficial “La Gaceta” número 234, del 04 de diciembre de 1992, “Convenio 169 sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales en Países Independientes”, de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, conforme el cual se regula puntualmente el tema de la propiedad indígena. En su artículo 13, se dio especial énfasis a los valores culturales y espirituales intrínsecos de la tierra y en el ordinal 14, se dispuso que “Los gobiernos deberán tomar las medidas que sean necesarias para determinar las tierras que los pueblos interesados ocupan tradicionalmente y garantizar la protección efectiva de sus derechos de propiedad y posesión. 3. Deberán instituirse procedimientos adecuados en el marco del sistema jurídico nacional para solucionar las reivindicaciones de tierras formuladas por los pueblos interesados”.

VIII.- Sobre el caso en concreto. Teniendo claro que nuestro país ha asumido un rol protagónico en defensa del patrimonio indígena, a efectos de tener un mejor entendimiento de esta causa y dar solución adecuada, es necesario hacer lectura del artículo 5 de la Ley Indígena -Ley 6172-, que reguló el mecanismo mediante el cual se restituiría a las comunidades indígenas, la integralidad de sus territorios; al efecto la norma literalmente dispone:

“En el caso de personas no indígenas que sean propietarias o poseedoras de buena fe dentro de las reservas indígenas, el ITCO deberá reubicarlas en otras tierras similares, si ellas lo desearen; si no fuere posible reubicarlas o ellas no aceptaren la reubicación, deberá expropiarlas e indemnizarlas conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en la Ley de Expropiaciones.

Los estudios y trámites de expropiación e indemnización serán efectuados por el ITCO en coordinación con la CONAI.

Si posteriormente hubiere invasión de personas no indígenas a las reservas, de inmediato las autoridades competentes deberán proceder a su desalojo, sin pago de indemnización alguna.

Las expropiaciones e indemnizaciones serán financiadas con el aporte de cien millones de colones en efectivo, que se consignarán mediante cuatro cuotas anuales de veinticinco millones de colones cada una, comenzando la primera en el año de 1979; dichas cuotas serán incluidas en los presupuestos generales de la República de los años 1979, 1980, 1981 y 1982. El fondo será administrado por la CONAI, bajo la supervisión de la Contraloría General de la República”.

Como se aprecia, el legislador resolvió la manera mediante la cual se concretaría la entrega efectiva y definitiva de los terrenos pertenecientes a las comunidades indígenas. Así, cada reserva vería establecidos sus límites por medio de una labor coordinada entre el INDER y la CONAI, dentro de la cual se identificarían las personas no indígenas que ocuparen dichos territorios. En caso de tratarse de poseedores o titulares registrales de buena fe, la primera solución sería proveerles de una reubicación y, solamente en caso de que ello no prosperare, se procedería a efectuar la correspondiente expropiación o indemnización. Ante el supuesto en que no procediera la reubicación, se continuaría con el trámite de indemnización mediante las diligencias de expropiación, cuya competencia recae hoy día en el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural. Ello implicaría necesariamente, que una vez delimitada cada reserva indígena por parte del INDER, cualquier persona no indígena debería abandonar el fundo, ya fuera por medio de la reubicación o mediante expropiación, para que así el territorio entrara a ser parte integral y efectiva de cada reserva. Según lo dispuso el transcrito artículo, todo acto de disposición de estos terrenos realizado posterior a la vigencia de la Ley Indígena por no indígenas, deviene en nulo. De la lectura se desprende que la intención siempre fue que las tierras quedaran libres de personas no indígenas para que pasaran a ser ocupadas legítimamente por los pueblos indígenas. Precisamente, por ello la misma norma establece que cualquier invasor posterior podía ser desalojado o expulsado de forma inmediata por las vías legales previstas al efecto sin derecho a indemnización alguna. De ello es posible entender entonces que La ley previó las únicas personas que serían susceptibles de obtener indemnización, serían quienes fueron propietarios registrales o poseedores de buena fe para el momento en que se definieron los límites de cada reserva.

IX.- La reserva indígena China Kicha fue creada mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 34 de La Gaceta No. 3 De 5 de enero de 1957 y posteriormente restablecida mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 29447-G del 21 de marzo del 2001, el cual dispuso los límites y sus coordenadas específicas. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 3 de la Ley Indígena, a partir de la entrada en vigor de este último decreto, todo propietario registral y poseedor de buena fe, entraría dentro del supuesto de reubicación o, en su defecto, del pago de la correspondiente indemnización por la vía de la expropiación. Como quedó demostrado en autos, la finca con matrícula de folio real del partido de San José 635188-000, nació mediante documento citas 212-348963 y su adicional 2013-96478 y fue inscrita el 22 de abril del 2013, con una cabida de 107.657 m2, ubicada en el distrito 7 Pejibaye, del cantón Pérez Zeledón, sobre la base del plano catastrado SJ-1646758-2013 que fue inscrito el 8 de abril del 2013 y quien se encargó de la segregación de la finca madre y fuere su propietario registral, era conocedor de que se encontraba dentro de la reserva indígena China Kicha, pues el plano que utilizó para la inscripción ante el Registro Inmobiliario obtuvo el visado de la CONAI que así lo indicaba. Entonces, la suscripción de ese crédito con garantía hipotecaria fue un acto de disposición del bien contrario a la ley, puesto que los terrenos ya eran propiedad de la reserva indígena, de conformidad con el artículo 5 de la Ley Indígena. Apela la accionante a una buena fe a la hora de suscribir dicho contrato crediticio, pues se basó en la información registral, que acusa según su parecer, de haber estado incompleta por no indicar en el asiento registral de la finca, la limitación o gravamen por encontrarse dentro de territorio indígena, para así justificar su derecho a la indemnización; sin embargo, ello debió ser advertido por la Cooperativa accionante a la hora de hacer el análisis del crédito con un examen integral y cuidadoso, tanto del título de propiedad como del plano que le correspondía, de previo a aprobar el crédito y girar el dinero al deudor. De haberse percatado de esa circunstancia, probablemente no hubiera otorgado ese préstamo. Posteriormente, ante el impago de la obligación dineraria, la Cooperativa continuó con las diligencias judiciales de remate de la finca hasta obtener la correspondiente adjudicación y la inscripción registral.

X.- Sobre la responsabilidad por conducta lícita. Estima esta Cámara que la tesis que plantea la Cooperativa demandante a efecto de que se le indemnice por conducta lícita no se ajusta a la regulación especial contenida en la Ley Indígena, debido a que el legislador previó quién era el sujeto que sería beneficiario de la indemnización por la vía de la expropiación. A criterio de este cuerpo de juzgadores, la figura de la expropiación regulada en la Ley Indígena fue la solución prevista por Ley para todas las personas que tuvieren título registral o fueren poseedores de buena fe y responde a los fines ulteriores del Estado de garantizar el restablecimiento de los territorios indígenas, en cumplimiento de los objetivos de la ley y los instrumentos internacionales suscritos por nuestra Nación, que buscan el resguardo y protección de todo el acervo cultural e histórico de las comunidades indígenas. Es una regulación especial que, ante el despojo de los terrenos, reconoce la indemnización siempre y cuando se cumplan los supuestos previstos en la propia Ley Indígena, mediante el procedimiento establecido en la Ley de Expropiaciones. La figura de la expropiación prevista en ese cuerpo normativo es diferente a la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y funcionamiento normal conforme a las disposiciones de los artículos 190 y 194 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En la responsabilidad por conducta lícita y funcionamiento normal, no se produce la reparación de toda o cualquier lesión antijurídica por el hecho simple de haberse producido, pues la indemnización del daño injusto imputable a la Administración, exige que éste sea especial y anormal, “por la pequeña proporción de afectados o por la intensidad excepcional de la lesión”, supuesto que debe ser alegado y demostrado por la parte que aspira a la obtención de esa reparación. La demanda no hace reparo alguno en cuanto a estas condiciones excepcionales para la procedencia del daño reparable por conducta lícita o funcionamiento normal, pues su tesis queda limitada al reclamo de la indemnización del valor del terreno, por el simple hecho de que el Estado constituyó los límites de la reserva China Kicha, incorporó el inmueble y no procedió a indemnizar oportunamente, alegato que no se apega a los requisitos de daño especial y anormal. Es claro que el despojo de los atributos al derecho de propiedad, de haberse producido, se concretó muchos años antes sobre quien probablemente ostentaba el título de propietario o era poseedor de buena fue cuando se publicó el Decreto Ejecutivo 29447-G del 21 de marzo del 2001. No es correcto afirmar, como lo hace la parte actora, que vio vaciado su derecho de propiedad hasta el momento en que se produjo la anotación de “Zona A.B.R.E” en el registro inmobiliario. Lo cierto es que desde que suscribió el contrato de crédito hipotecario, la garantía estaba viciada pues recaía sobre un bien que, a pesar de que según el asiento registral era propiedad de un particular, en sentido contrario mediaba una Ley, el decreto en mención y un plano catastrado que consignaban la pertenencia del bien a la comunidad indígena. Por lo indicado, no es posible aceptar la tesis de la accionante, que aspira a que el Estado le indemnice por responsabilidad por conducta lícita, pues no fue víctima de un vaciamiento de su derecho de propiedad en el tanto fue copartícipe de una transacción contraria a la ley, en la que aceptó una garantía crediticia irregular y desconoció la verdadera titularidad del inmueble. La demandante, en su condición de adjudicataria del bien por la vía del remate judicial, no era propietaria registral ni poseedora de buena fe para la entrada en vigor del decreto mencionado, ni se aprecia la existencia de un nexo de causalidad entre la actividad estatal una vez que emitió el decreto que delimitó el asentamiento indígena China Kicha y el daño alegado, de modo que no existe posibilidad de aprobarle su pretensión 1 tendiente a que se declare la responsabilidad estatal por conducta lícita y se le condene a pagarle el valor del terreno que quedó consignado en el peritaje judicial, por lo que se dispone la improcedencia de la pretensión.

XI.- Sobre la responsabilidad por conducta ilícita y funcionamiento anormal. En esta causa es un hecho no controvertido que la finca 635188-000 del partido de San José, está dentro de los límites del territorio indígena China Kicha, desde el mencionado Decreto Ejecutivo 29447-G del 21 de marzo del 2001. Considera la parte actora que media una conducta ilícita y anormal de parte del INDER, el CONAI y el Registro Nacional, debido a que una vez que el Estado emitió el decreto ejecutivo que declarara la ampliación de la zona de reserva indígena China Kicha, tanto el INDER como el CONAI omitieron durante muchos años, anotar las propiedades y proceder a su debido trámite de expropiación, lo que le ocasionó graves daños y perjuicios a la actora, puesto que al momento de suscripción del crédito hipotecario, la propiedad se encontraba libre de gravámenes y anotaciones que le llevó a actuar de buena fe en la constitución del crédito hipotecario. Respecto de la responsabilidad del Registro Público, acusa que se configura el nexo de causalidad debido a que para la fecha de la demanda aún continuaba el inmueble libre de anotaciones y gravámenes, puesto que omitió realizar la anotación en el inmueble y sobre la base de la publicidad registral, se constituyó en acreedora hipotecaria, se adjudicó en remate judicial el inmueble y de igual manera continuó la propiedad sin poderse anotar, habiendo perdido el dinero que prestó, aunado a que no puede ejercer los atributos del dominio por la limitación existente en la zona. Las conductas ilegitimas que reclama al INDER y al CONAI, residen en la omisión en iniciar los trámites de expropiación a la luz de lo establecido en los artículos 3 y 5 de la Ley Indígena 6172, que establece la obligación de expropiación de aquellos terrenos ubicados en reservas indígenas. Estima la actora que al momento de constitución del crédito y de la inscripción de la hipoteca, la finca no tenía ningún gravamen o afectación de reserva indígena y fue posteriormente, cuando el Registro Inmobiliario, mediante resolución de las 11:05 horas de 12 de setiembre del año 2019, correspondiente al expediente 2019-70-RIM, que procede a anotar la finca, actuaciones que acusa omisivas por parte del INDER, la CONAI y el Registro Público. En primer lugar, debe advertirse que la delimitación de las zonas indígenas produce el traslado del derecho de propiedad a favor de cada reserva, utilizando ya sea la figura de la reubicación o de la indemnización, de modo que sus anteriores titulares, dejan de serlo. Por lo tanto, la advertencia que inserte el Registro Nacional al margen del asiento registral, no es una limitación o gravamen -como erróneamente entiende la accionante-, sino un verdadero aviso público de que el terreno ha pasado a ser propiedad de alguna comunidad indígena, aún y cuando exista un título registral a nombre de un tercero. En segundo lugar, tal y como se advirtió en el Considerando anterior, desde que se constituyó la hipoteca por parte de la Cooperativa, se tuvo a la vista el plano catastrado SJ-1646758-2013 –pues así se consigna en la escritura pública-, que desde antes de su inscripción en el Catastro Nacional había sido visado por la CONAI con la advertencia de que el terreno era propiedad indígena. Las codemandadas se defienden indicando que con ese plano se demuestra que sí había publicidad registral sobre la situación real del fundo. La actora se defiende en el escrito de réplica indicando que “si se analiza lo que indica el plano SJ-1646758-2013, es un visado para segregación de la propiedad, que casualmente dice que EL VISADO ES PROCEDENTE YA QUE LA FINCA EXISTE ANTES DE RESTABLECIMIENTO DE LA RESERVA INDIGENA. De igual manera, pasa por alto la representación estatal lo establecido en el artículo 301 del Código Civil costarricense, al indicar que: “ARTÍCULO 301.- La mensura de un terreno, sea o no protestada, no basta por sí sola para probar la posesión del mismo terreno”. Es decir, no puede alegarse publicidad registral respecto de un visado que se encuentra en un plano, lo cual no puede estar por encima de la anotación de limitación de reserva indígena que debe de existir conforme a ley, en el Registro Inmobiliario.” Estima la Cooperativa que el Estado reconoció que la responsabilidad de la indemnización es del INDER y de la CONAI, además de la responsabilidad del Registro por omisión en no publicar la afectación a la reserva indígena, lo que significa que le da la razón en cuanto a que si existe responsabilidad por la omisión apuntada. Estos alegatos no son de recibo y, por el contrario, estima esta Cámara que las codemandadas están en lo correcto. Como fácilmente se aprecia, de la lectura integral del plano catastrado se desprende la información de CONAI sobre la condición y titularidad de este terreno, de modo que la accionante fue la que incurrió en una falencia a la hora de aprobar el crédito, ya fuere porque no advirtió esta situación o, si se percató de ello -porque pudo hacerlo-, asumió las consecuencias nocivas del negocio al finiquitar una transacción en la que la garantía era un terreno inalienable. El ordinal 301 citado por la accionante y el Reglamento a la Ley de Catastro Nacional no es aplicable al caso, pues regula los alcances limitados de la actividad topográfica reflejada en los planos de agrimensura para demostrar posesión, cuando en esta causa lo que se ventila es la publicidad registral que brindaba un acto administrativo como es ese visado de la CONAI, que se encuentra inserto en el plano catastrado. Por ello, toda la tesis planteada en la demanda que acusa que debido a la ausencia de información registral y con base en la confianza legítima y buena fe, se suscribió el crédito y luego se adjudicó en sede judicial un inmueble del cual no puede disponer, no es de recibo, debido a que sí había información pública registral que daba fe de las condiciones del inmueble y su particularidad de ser parte de una reserva indígena. Estima esta Cámara que el daño sufrido fue por culpa de la víctima, al haber otorgado el préstamo en estas condiciones ilegítimas. Por lo expuesto, no se aprecia la existencia de un nexo de causalidad para decretar la responsabilidad por conducta ilícita, por omisión de las demandadas, puesto que aún y cuando el INDER y la CONAI hubieran promovido la notación de la “zona A.B.R.E.” en el asiento registral de la finca hasta el año 2019 y el Registro Público lo hubiere consignado hasta después de la presentación de esta demanda, ya existía desde el año 2013 información registral suministrada por la CONAI al respecto, consignada en el plano catastrado, que proveía a la accionante de los insumos necesarios para evitar ser víctima de alguna transacción fraudulenta. Por ello, la pretensión 3 que promueve la Cooperativa para que “se declare la responsabilidad objetiva solidaria por conducta ilícita del CONAI y del INDER por la omisión de ejecutar lo indicado en el decreto ejecutivo número N° 29447-G que determinó la existencia y ampliación de la reserva indígena CHINA KICHA, en el sentido de no haber instaurado los procedimientos administrativos correspondientes para resguardar los derechos de los propietarios y para que se produjeran los oficios o resoluciones para que se anotase al margen del inmueble afectado propiedad de mi representada”, la pretensión 4 que aspira a que “se declare la responsabilidad objetiva por conducta ilícita del Registro Nacional por la omisión de dejar de publicitar registralmente las anotaciones, inmovilizaciones y/o gravámenes de reserva indígena en el inmueble propiedad de mi representada, desde la emisión y publicación del decreto ejecutivo N° 29447-G, omisión que se mantiene hasta el día de hoy”, y la pretensión 5 que pide “Que se condene a todos los co-demandados al pago del daño causado que consisten en el valor actual de la propiedad que se determinará pericialmente en este proceso”, resultan improcedentes ante la ausencia de un nexo de causalidad que permita concluir que la conducta omisiva reclamada fue la generadora del daño alegado, y así se dispone.

XII.- Sobre la pretensión subsidiaria. Además, dado que la accionante no se constituye en el propietario registral o poseedor de buena fe para el momento en que entró en vigencia el Decreto N° 29447-G del año 2001 en los términos que exige el ordinal 5 de la Ley Indígena, puesto que promovió la titularidad del bien hasta el año 2019, tampoco se puede ordenar iniciar el trámite de expropiación a su favor, con lo que se evidencia que carece de legitimación ad causam activa, por lo que no puede ser beneficiaria de la pretensión accesoria que aspira a “que se obligue al INDER a realizar los trámites de expropiación e indemnización plena del inmueble propiedad de mi representado número de folio real 1-635188-000, por existir un evidente interés público en la declaratoria de reseña indígena China Kicha mediante decreto ejecutivo N° 29447-G, procedimientos que ha omitido hasta el día de hoy el co-demandado INDER”. Por lo descrito, esta pretensión subsidiaria debe ser rechazada también.

XIII.- Excepciones. Las partes accionadas interpusieron la defensa de falta de derecho, la cual se debe acoger, por cuanto no se configura ninguno de los supuestos de responsabilidad de la Administración, por conducta lícita o ilícita, ni funcionamiento normal o anormal, debiendo rechazarse las defensas de falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva, por cuanto se plantearon pretensiones principales indemnizatorias por omisión de la Administración que no resultaron procedentes. En lo que concierne a la legitimación ad causam, activa y pasiva, se admite la excepción de falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva únicamente respecto de la pretensión subsidiaria, debido a que la parte accionante no es beneficiaria de la expropiación por disposición del legislador.

XIV.- Costas. Según lo estipulado en el artículo 193 del CPCA, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el solo hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En este sentido, no es posible dispensar a la parte perdidosa de las costas, las cuales deberán ser pagadas por la Cooperativa accionante.

POR TANTO

Se declaran inadmisibles las pretensiones materiales planteadas por la CONAI, tendientes a que "“... se declare la nulidad absoluta de pleno derecho de la hipoteca en primer grado sobre el inmueble localizado en el territorio indígena de China Kichá. Así como la resolución emitida por el Juzgado de Cobro del I Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur (Pérez Zeledón) de 18 de octubre de 201 9 en la cual aprueba el remate celebrado a las 10 horas del treinta de agosto del 2019”. Se rechazan las defensas de falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva respecto de las pretensiones principales, se acoge la defensa de falta de legitimación ad causam activa respecto de la pretensión subsidiaria. Se declara con lugar la defensa de falta de derecho opuesta por los codemandados y se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos, la demanda interpuesta. Son las costas a cargo de la Cooperativa actora.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Alinne Solano Ramírez Fabián Núñez Castrillo ???????????????

Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected]