Employee not liable for trespass when acting on behalf of othersTrabajador no responsable por usurpación al actuar por cuenta ajena

VOTO N° N° 2025001061 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.- At eleven hours and one minute of November seventh, two thousand twenty-five.- INTERDICTAL POSSESSORY PROTECTION PROCEEDING (PROCESO INTERDICTAL DE AMPARO DE POSESIÓN) brought by THE BEAUTIFUL DRAGONFLY SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, legal identification number three - one hundred two - five hundred eighty-eight thousand five hundred sixty-nine, represented by its general agent without limit of sum, Leinnesker Sánchez Sánchez, of legal age, employed, married once, identity card number one - one thousand three hundred two - zero thirty-six, resident of Ojochal; against CARLOS ENRIQUE GUERRERO LEÓN, of legal age, identity card number seven - one hundred two - four hundred thirteen, resident of Osa; JONATHAN IAN WOODS, of legal age, American, passport five six nine three nine eight nine eight five; and against ASHLEY TARA ALBRAND, of legal age, American, passport five six seven eight zero four zero five seven. The attorney Eduardo Abarca Vargas, bar number nine thousand five, appears as directing lawyer for the plaintiff; and the attorney Andrés Zamora Solera appears as the agrarian public defender for Mr. Carlos Guerrero León. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores Venue.- Judge Fisher González writes; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- Regarding the claims: The plaintiff is the owner of the property Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, located in District 1-Puerto Cortes, Canton 5-Osa, Province of Puntarenas. Property boundaries: north with public road, south with Quijote del Sur Sociedad Anónima, east with Carretera Costanera Sur, west with Quijote del Sur. Area of 78,705.37 square meters, with plan P-1189362-2007. Since acquisition, the represented party has exercised effective possession, carrying out possessory acts such as vigilance, ecosystem conservation, construction of fences and trails, reforestation, and educational and scientific activities. It accepted ecological easements (servidumbres ecológicas) and limiting conditions to preserve the environment. Maintenance of possession of the property through continuous and peaceful possessory acts, including vigilance, conservation, reforestation, and walks to monitor fauna and flora. Constitution of an ecological easement (servidumbre ecológica) to guarantee the conservationist use of the property. In March 2023, the defendants carried out a clandestine invasion, destroying fences, affecting the ecosystem, and disturbing the possession of the represented party. On March 30, officials from MINAET and the Public Force verified the illegal occupation by the defendants, initiating a legal process for usurpation. None of the defendants have rights over the plaintiff's property. For these facts, it requests that the following be declared in the judgment: “1. The present Interdictal Proceeding be granted in all its aspects. 2. The defendants be ordered to avoid in the future any act that disturbs the right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, under the warning of being accused of the crime of Disobedience to Authority. 3. My represented party be declared the sole and current possessor of the entirety of the property Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, especially of the area affected by the acts disturbing the possession carried out by the defendants. 4. The right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, be restored, according to the characteristics expressed in the facts of this complaint. 5. In case of opposition, the defendants be ordered to pay both costs of this action. 6. In case of opposition, the defendants be ordered to pay the damages caused, which will be liquidated in the respective Sentence Execution proceeding," (See file downloaded in pdf format, images 1 to 14).- II.- Defenses raised: The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand were duly notified of the proceeding and did not answer the present action nor appear at any time in the proceeding, for which reason they were declared in default by resolution at sixteen hours and forty-four minutes of June thirteenth, two thousand twenty-three. The defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León answered the complaint untimely. (See file downloaded in pdf format, image 263 and answer in images 255 to 258).- III.- Judge Stephanie Maria Alvarado Bejarano, by judgment N° 2024000009 at eleven hours and twenty-five minutes of January nineteenth, two thousand twenty-four, resolved: "In accordance with the foregoing and legal citations, THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IS PARTIALLY GRANTED, it being understood denied in what is not expressly indicated, filed by The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand. Consequently, IT IS DECLARED: 1. The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima is the sole and current possessor of the property registration Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007. 2. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are ordered to restore the right of possession over the possession of the property registration Folio Real Registration Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007 and to refrain from disturbing said possession, under the legal warning that, should they do so, they will face proceedings for the crime of disobedience to authority, as established in Article 309 of the Penal Code. Let the defendants be personally notified of the warning. 3. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding. The complaint filed against Mr. Carlos Guerrero León is DENIED because it was not proven that the disturbing acts were carried out by him" (See file downloaded in pdf format, images 318 to 327).- IV.- The Court upholds the list of proven facts contained in the appealed ruling as it is the result of the evidence contained in the proceeding. Likewise, of this nature, the following is added: 3) At the time of the facts that motivated this proceeding, the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León was an employee of the defendant Jonathan Ian Woods, performing childcare duties for several children (inspection report carried out on site by SINAC, Osa Conservation Area, Control and Protection Program, on March 30, 2023, in images 71 and 72, report of investigative proceedings carried out by the Judicial Investigation Agency on April 17, 2023 in images 81 to 64, testimony of Hugo Elizondo Morales, Ismael Badilla Lamaitre and Oscar Brenes Arias in audio files linked to the file). On the other hand, regarding the fact held as unproven, it is upheld but the following phrase is added at the end: “on his own behalf.” V.- The plaintiff corporation appeals the judgment rendered based on the following grievances: 1) Within the claim of the complaint, it was requested that the defendants be ordered to pay damages. Although there was no opposition, there was default by the defendants J. Woods and A. Albrand, which implies that the facts are considered proven. Likewise, section 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that in every favorable judgment in interdictal proceedings, the defendant shall be ordered to pay the damages caused. 2) The judgment omits indicating whether it orders payment of one type of costs or both costs, which violates sections 6.2.3 and 61.2.4 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3) Regarding the defendant Carlos E. Guerrero León, evidence was offered in time that was not objected to by the defendant. However, the complaint against him is denied, considering that he was an employee or nanny of the other co-defendants. There are elements that demonstrate his participation, such as the SICAC inspection report dated March 30, 2023, the OIJ CI-124-ORO-2023 report dated April 27, 2023, testimony of Oscar Brenes, which the A Quo even uses to support the conviction of the other defendants. Thus, in the SICAC report, it was recorded that in the inspection carried out on March 30, 2023, said worker was present at the place. The same result regarding the OIJ report of April 27, 2023, in which it is reiterated that this defendant, who identified himself as a worker, was present, and who was given a deadline to leave the site. In the second inspection carried out by the OIJ, in point III, it is indicated that the usurpation continued, because the defendants, including Guerrero, were still at the place. Likewise, Oscar Brenes declared that all the defendants were present when the MINAE order was issued. This witness added that Carlos told him that he was the nanny, as the defendant couple had a lot of children, and that someone had told them they could get in there, with this witness also indicating that the fences were broken. Similarly, in the answer to fact four, Carlos Guerrero accepted that in the month of March, the defendant Mr. Ian asked him to take them to the land, where a shack was built with round rebar and some plastics, and that these works were done because a man called Pilo told Mr. Ian that they could get in to work there, because it was municipal land. In any case, the behavior of the defendant must be assessed, who after the MINAE visit continued to stay on the property. Therefore, posing as an employee is an extremely convenient and simple excuse to avoid being attributed the disturbing act. 4) On the other hand, in the deposition of party rendered by Carlos Guerrero León, the questions formulated in the interrogatory must be taken as answered affirmatively, given that the declarant did not appear at the hearing. The foregoing according to section 42.2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such evidence was not taken into account, which implies there is omission of the same. Furthermore, it must be considered that Mr. Guerrero answered untimely, which implies that the interrogatory admitted as evidence must be considered tacitly admitted by him, according to Article 42.2 of the cited Code. 5) In the judgment, it is taken as proven that the co-defendant Carlos was an employee of the other defendants, but that circumstance was recorded in the reports because he stated so, not because any witness had ascertainable knowledge of it. 6) In the ruling, it is taken as proven that Carlos was among the invaders. This is referred to by the witness Ismael Badilla Lamaitre himself, an employee of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, who mentioned that this defendant was among the invaders and detailed that the actions carried out were the making - with a vehicle - of an access to the beach, where small trees and vegetation were cut, where there was previously a fence. However, in the judgment, it is considered as not proven that Carlos carried out disturbing acts (writing in images 330 to 349).

VI.- The first grievance is admissible. Section 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code - applicable supplementarily by virtue of the provisions of Transitory Provision I of the Agrarian Procedure Code as well as canon 79 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction - provides that in every favorable judgment in interdictal proceedings, the defendant shall be ordered to pay the damages caused; such that the liquidation, the evidence, and the collection shall be done in the execution of judgment phase. Therefore, the complaint having been granted against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Alabrand, the corresponding course of action is to order them to pay the damages caused to the plaintiff, the ruling needing to be revoked regarding that denial. Regarding the grievance about costs, this is not admissible. The appealed judgment ordered the losing party to pay "the costs." In accordance with Article 55 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction, this order must be understood in a broad sense, that is, including both procedural costs and personal costs. Complementarily, Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code regulates costs in a generic sense, and the use of said word implies, unless otherwise provided, the imposition of both categories. Therefore, no imprecision is observed in the first-instance decision on this point, hence it is understood that said defendants must pay both costs to the opposing party.

VII.- In another vein, regarding the reproach that the judgment dismissed the complaint against the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León, since he should have been convicted instead, this Court considers that the challenging party is incorrect. On this matter, this instance has proceeded to assess the evidence based on the principle of free evaluation contained in Article 54 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction, as well as the rules of logic, psychology, and human experience. Thus, it is noted that the A Quo stated that the reason for the rejection was that it was not proven that the disturbing acts were carried out by Guerrero León; to which it should be added in this Court, it was not proven that the presence of this defendant on the day of the events that motivated this proceeding, or actions he performed, were executed on his own behalf, with the intention of dispossession for his personal benefit. Rather, it was proven that he was linked to the events because he was a kind of worker, having been hired by Jonathan Ian Woods. Thus, in the inspection carried out on site by SINAC, Osa Conservation Area, Control and Protection Program, on March 30, 2023, it was recorded that there were three people on the land, specifically it was recorded regarding them: “... they were told that they could not settle in the place as they were on private property within the Playa Tortuga Private Reserve, the people found at the site identified themselves as Jonathan Ian Woods with passport number … of USA nationality, who indicates that they are in the place “because a man named Roberto Ibarra, known as Pilo sold them the land for 500 thousand colones”, another male was also at the site who identified himself as Carlos Enrique Guerrero León ID … resident of …, the same indicates that he is an employee of Mr. Jonathan Ian and he spontaneously indicated that Mr. Jonathan Ian was in the place because he had been deceived, a female person of legal age was also at the place who is the sentimental partner of Mr. Jonathan Ian, she could not be identified as she was very upset by the indicated circumstances. It is necessary to indicate that 7 minors were also at the place” (see the second point of the report in images 71 and 72). Subsequently, in that same document, particularly a FOURTH point is included with the following: “It is necessary to indicate that Messrs. Oscar Brenes Arias Director of the Playa Tortuga Reserve and Mr. Leinesker Sánchez Sánchez Legal Representative of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, grant Mr. Jonathan Ian and his family time until April 10 to leave the place, for which Mr. Jonathan Ian indicated he was grateful and stated that he did not want problems and that they would leave the site in the indicated time” (emphasis is ours). Subsequently, in investigative proceedings carried out in situ by the Judicial Investigation Agency on April 17, 2023, it was recorded that they appeared, verifying that belongings and constructions were still in the place, but that they did not observe the occupants (document in images 81 to 64). Thus, it is clear that the defendant Guerrero León from the beginning spontaneously stated that he was an employee of Mr. Woods. Furthermore, the warning to vacate, granted until April 10, was directed exclusively to Jonathan Ian Woods and his family, which is logical, since it was they who decided to occupy the place with their own interest and to whom the disturbance was really being attributed. On this matter, based on the rules of logic, human experience, and psychology itself, it is understood that it was appreciable at the place, by Guerrero León's attitude and words expressed, that he was a worker, evidently not a family member, who did not claim to have any right over the property. Such situation is reinforced by the testimony of witness Hugo Elizondo Morales, who upon appearing to make a topographical expert report of the area in litis, observed three adults, but especially referring that Woods was the older man “head of the family” and that Carlos for his part was “a man from the area.” Such statement, in the context of what was previously indicated, reflects that who decided to enter and occupy the property was Jonathan Ian Woods and that Carlos was his employee. In the same sense, the declarant Ismael Badilla Lamaitre, narrated that he appeared at the place of the events, stating that “they” said they were in the place because they had bought the property, which must be understood that whoever alleged or explained that was Woods, not Guerrero León, who from the first moment clarified the reason why he was at the site, absolutely different from that which motivated the couple to enter. In addition to the foregoing, Oscar Brenes Arias specified that he directly asked Carlos what he was doing in the place, who replied that he worked as a nanny and that he was an employee of Ian, which is corroborated by the presence of several minors (children of the couple) at the site (audio files linked to the electronic file). Consequently, the appellant's argument is not tenable that because the defendant Guerrero León untimely answered the complaint and did not appear at the trial hearing to render a deposition of party, it must be considered as an acceptance of responsibility for the disturbing acts. On this matter, section 43 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction establishes that even when the complaint has not been answered, this shall not necessarily imply admission of the facts of the complaint, because the Court, when ruling on the merits, must do so taking into consideration the result of the evidence that the proceeding ultimately yields. Similarly, the deposition of party in the absence of the declarant is not absolutely irrefutable proof of the facts contained in the interrogatory, as it must be weighed with the other evidentiary elements, based on the principle of free evaluation contained in Article 54 of the Law of Agrarian Jurisdiction. Therefore, with respect to this defendant, the prerequisite of passive standing contemplated in section 106.2 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been configured, since no disturbing acts were carried out with intent of dispossession and on his own behalf, hence it is appropriate to dismiss the grievances related to the complaint filed against Carlos Guerrero León.

THEREFORE:

The judgment is partially revoked regarding its denial of the order for damages, and in its place, Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Alabrand are ordered to pay the damages caused to the plaintiff. In all other respects, the judgment is upheld.

Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores Seat.- Drafted by Judge Fisher González; and, **CONSIDERANDO:** **I.- Regarding the claims:** The plaintiff is the owner of the property Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, located in District 1-Puerto Cortes, Canton 5-Osa, Province of Puntarenas. Boundaries of the property: north with public street, south with Quijote del Sur Sociedad Anónima, east with Carretera Costanera Sur, west with Quijote del Sur. Area of 78,705.37 square meters, with plan P-1189362-2007. Since acquisition, the represented party has exercised effective possession, performing possessory acts such as surveillance, ecosystem conservation, construction of fences and trails, reforestation, and educational and scientific activities. It accepted ecological easements (servidumbres ecológicas) and limiting conditions to preserve the environment. Maintenance of possession of the property through continuous and peaceful possessory acts, including surveillance, conservation, reforestation, and walks to monitor fauna and flora. Constitution of an ecological easement (servidumbre ecológica) to guarantee the conservationist use of the property. In March 2023, the defendants carried out a clandestine invasion, destroying fences, affecting the ecosystem, and disturbing the possession of the represented party. On March 30, officials from MINAET and the Public Force verified the illegal occupation by the defendants, initiating a legal process for usurpation. None of the defendants have rights over the plaintiff's property. Due to these facts, it requests that the judgment declare: "1. Grant in all its aspects this Interdictal Proceeding. 2. Order the defendants to refrain in the future from any act that disturbs the right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, under warning of being accused of the crime of Disobedience to Authority. 3. Declare my represented party as the sole and current possessor of the entirety of the property Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, especially the area affected by the acts disturbing possession carried out by the defendants. 4. Restore the right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, according to the characteristics expressed in the facts of this claim. 5. In case of opposition, condemn the defendants to pay both sets of costs of this action. 6. In case of opposition, condemn the defendants to pay the damages caused, which will be liquidated in the respective Sentence Enforcement proceeding," (See file downloaded in pdf format, images 1 to 14).- **II.- Defenses raised:** The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand were duly notified of the proceeding and did not answer this action nor appear at any time in the proceeding, for which reason they were declared in default (rebelde) by resolution at sixteen hours and forty-four minutes on June thirteenth, two thousand twenty-three. The defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León answers the claim untimely. (See file downloaded in pdf format, image 263 and answer in images 255 to 258).- **III.-** Judge Stephanie Maria Alvarado Bejarano, through judgment No. 2024000009 at eleven hours and twenty-five minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand twenty-four, resolved: "*According to the foregoing and legal citations, THIS CLAIM IS PARTIALLY GRANTED, it being understood denied in what is not expressly indicated, filed by The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand. Consequently, IT IS DECLARED: 1. That The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima is the sole and current possessor of the property registration Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007. 2. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are ordered to restore the right of possession over the possession of the property registration Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007 and to refrain from disturbing said possession, under the legal warning that, should they do so, they will be subject to a proceeding for the crime of disobedience to authority, as established in article 309 of the Penal Code. Notify the defendants personally of this warning. 3. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are condemned to pay costs of the proceeding. The claim filed against Mr. Carlos Guerrero León is declared WITHOUT MERIT as it was not demonstrated that the disturbing acts were carried out by him*" (See file downloaded in pdf format, images 318 to 327).- **IV.-** The Court endorses the relation of proven facts contained in the appealed ruling as it is the result of the evidence contained in the proceeding. Likewise, the following is added of this nature: **3)** At the time of the facts that motivated this proceeding, the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León was an employee of the defendant Jonathan Ian Woods, performing childcare duties for several children (*inspection report (acta de inspección) conducted at the site by SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Control and Protection Program, on March 30, 2023, in images 71 and 72, record of investigation proceedings conducted by the Judicial Investigation Organization on April 17, 2023 in images 81 to 64, testimony of Hugo Elizondo Morales, Ismael Badilla Lamaitre and Oscar Brenes Arias in audios linked to the file*). On the other hand, regarding the fact held as unproven, it is endorsed but at the end the following phrase is added: “*on his own account*”. **V.-** The plaintiff corporation appeals the judgment issued based on the following grievances: **1)** Within the claim of the lawsuit, it was requested that the defendants be condemned to pay damages. Despite there being no opposition, there was a finding of default (rebeldía) for the defendants J. Woods and A. Albrand, which implies the facts are to be taken as accredited. Likewise, rule 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) provides that in any judgment granting interdictal proceedings, the defendant shall be condemned to pay the damages caused. **2)** The judgment omits indicating whether it condemns to one type of costs or both costs, which violates rules 6.2.3 and 61.2.4 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil). **3)** Regarding defendant Carlos E. Guerrero León, evidence was offered in a timely manner that was not objected to by the defendant. However, the claim is declared without merit against him, considering that he was an employee or nanny for the other co-defendants. There are elements demonstrating his participation, such as the SICAC inspection report dated March 30, 2023, OIJ report CI-124-ORO-2023 dated April 27, 2023, testimony of Oscar Brenes, which the lower court (A Quo) even uses to support the condemnation of the other defendants. Thus, in the SICAC report, it was recorded that during the inspection conducted on March 30, 2023, said worker was present at the site. Same situation regarding the OIJ report dated April 27, 2023, in which it is reiterated that this defendant was present, who identified himself as a worker, and who was given a deadline to leave the site. In the second inspection conducted by the OIJ, in point III, it is indicated that the usurpation continued, because the defendants, including Guerrero, remained on the site. Likewise, Oscar Brenes testified that all the defendants were present when the MINAE order was issued. That witness added that Carlos told him he was the nanny, since the defendant couple had a lot of children, and that someone had told them they could get in there, with said witness also indicating that the fences were broken. Similarly, in the answer to the fourth fact, Carlos Guerrero accepted that in the month of March, Mr. Ian, the defendant, asked him to take them to the land, where a shed was made with round rebar and some plastics, and that those works were done because a man they call Pilo told Mr. Ian they could get in to work there, because it was municipal land. In any case, the behavior of the defendant must be assessed, who after the MINAE visit continued remaining on the property. Therefore, passing oneself off as an employee is an extremely convenient and simple excuse to avoid being attributed the disturbing act. **4)** On the other hand, in the party statement given by Carlos Guerrero León, the questions formulated in the questionnaire must be taken as answered affirmatively, given that the declarant did not appear at the hearing. The foregoing according to rule 42.2 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil). Such evidence was not taken into account, which implies there is pretermission of the same. Furthermore, it must be considered that Mr. Guerrero answered untimely, which implies that the questionnaire of questions admitted as evidence must be deemed tacitly accepted by him, according to article 42.2 of the cited Code. **5)** In the judgment, it is taken as proven that the co-defendant Carlos was an employee of the other defendants, but that circumstance was recorded in the reports because he stated so himself, not because any witness had personal knowledge of it. **6)** In the ruling, it is taken as proven that Carlos was among the invaders. This is stated by the witness Ismael Badilla Lamaitre himself, an employee of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, who mentioned that this defendant was among the invaders and detailed that the actions carried out were the making—with a vehicle—of an access to the beach, where small trees and vegetation were cut, where there was a fence before. However, in the judgment, it is taken as not proven that Carlos carried out disturbing acts (writing in images 330 to 349). **VI.-** The first grievance is admissible. Rule 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil)—applicable supplementarily by virtue of Transitional Provision I of the Agrarian Procedure Code (Código Procesal Agrario) as well as canon 79 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria)—provides that in any judgment granting interdictal proceedings, the defendant party shall be condemned to pay the damages caused; such that the liquidation, the proof, and the collection shall be done in sentence enforcement proceedings. As such, having granted the claim against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand, the corresponding action is to condemn them to pay the damages caused to the plaintiff, the ruling needing to be revoked regarding that denial. Regarding the grievance on costs, this is not admissible. The appealed judgment condemned the losing party to “pay the costs”. According to article 55 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), said condemnation must be understood in a broad sense, that is, including both procedural costs (costas procesales) and personal costs (costas personales). Complementarily, article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) regulates costs in a generic sense, and the use of said term implies, unless otherwise provided, the condemnation of both categories. Therefore, no imprecision is observed in the first instance decision on this point, hence it is understood that said defendants must pay the costs to the opposing party. **VII.-** In another order of ideas, regarding the reproach that the judgment declared the claim without merit against the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León, claiming that he should have been condemned instead, this Court finds that the appellant is not correct. On this matter, this instance has proceeded to assess the evidence based on the principle of free evaluation contained in article 54 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), as well as the rules of logic, psychology, and human experience. As such, it is noted that the lower court (A Quo) indicated that the reason for the dismissal was that it was not demonstrated that the disturbing acts were carried out by Guerrero León; to which this Court must add that it was not accredited that the presence of that defendant on the day of the facts that motivated this proceeding, or actions he may have carried out, were executed on his own account, with the intention of dispossession for his personal benefit. Rather, it was demonstrated that he was linked to the facts because he was a kind of worker, having been hired by Jonathan Ian Woods. Thus, in the site inspection conducted by SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Control and Protection Program, on March 30, 2023, it was recorded that three persons were on the land, specifically regarding them: “*... they were told that they could not establish themselves in the place as they were on private property within the Playa Tortuga Private Reserve, the persons found at the site identified themselves as Jonathan Ian Woods with passport number … of USA nationality, who indicates that they are in the place “because a man named Roberto Ibarra, known as Pilo sold them the land for 500 thousand colones”, at the site there was also another male who identified himself as Carlos Enrique Guerrero León ID … resident of …, the same indicates that he is an employee of Mr. Jonathan Ian and he spontaneously indicated that Mr. Jonathan Ian was in the place because he had been deceived, at the site there was also an adult female person who is the romantic partner of Mr. Jonathan Ian, she could not be identified as she was very upset due to the indicated circumstances. It is necessary to indicate that 7 minors were also present at the site*” (see second point of the report in images 71 and 72).

Next, in that same document, a FOURTH point is specifically included stating the following: “</span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">It is necessary to indicate that Mr. Oscar Brenes Arias, Director of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, and Mr. Leinesker Sánchez Sánchez, Legal Representative of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, grant Mr. Jonathan Ian and his family until April 10th to vacate the premises, to which Mr. Jonathan Ian stated he was grateful and expressed that he did not want any problems and that they would vacate the site within the indicated timeframe</span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">”(emphasis ours). Subsequently, during on-site investigative proceedings carried out by the Judicial Investigation Agency on April 17, 2023, it was recorded that they appeared, verifying that belongings and constructions were still at the location, but that the occupants were not observed (document in images 81 to 64).</span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">Thus, it follows that the defendant Guerrero León spontaneously stated from the beginning that he was an employee of Mr. Woods. Furthermore, the warning to vacate, granted until April 10th, was directed exclusively at Jonathan Ian Woods and his family, which is logical, since it was they who decided to occupy the place for their own interest and who were actually being accused of the disturbance. In this regard, based on the rules of logic, human experience, and psychology itself, it is understood that it was discernible at the location, from the attitude and words expressed by Guerrero León, that he was a worker, evidently not a family member, who did not claim to have any right over the property. This situation is reinforced by the testimony of witness Hugo Elizondo Morales, who upon appearing to conduct a topographic survey (dictamen topográfico) of the area in dispute (litis), observed three adults, but specifically stated that Woods was the older gentleman “head of the family” and that Carlos for his part was “a man from the area.” Such a statement, in the context of the foregoing, reflects that the person who decided to enter and occupy the property was Jonathan Ian Woods and that Carlos was his employee.</span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">In the same vein, the declarant Ismael Badilla Lamaitre narrated that he appeared at the location of the events, stating that “they” said they were at the location because they had bought the property, which must be understood to mean that the person alleging or explaining that was Woods, and not Guerrero León, who from the very first moment clarified the reason he was at the site, which was absolutely different from what motivated the couple to enter. Added to the above, Oscar Brenes Arias specified that he asked Carlos directly “what was he doing there?” and he responded that he worked as a nanny and was an employee of Ian, which is corroborated by the presence of several minors (the couple's children) at the site (audio files linked to the electronic case file (expediente electrónico)). Consequently, the appellant's argument that because the defendant Guerrero León answered the complaint late and did not appear at the trial hearing to give a party deposition (declaración de parte), this should be taken as an acceptance of responsibility for the disturbing acts, is not admissible. In this regard, Article 43 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establishes that even when the complaint has not been answered, this shall not necessarily imply an admission of the facts of the complaint, since the Court, when ruling on the merits, must do so taking into consideration the result of the evidence ultimately yielded by the process. Likewise, the party deposition in the absence of the declarant is not absolutely irrefutable proof of the facts contained in the examination, as it must be weighed against other evidentiary elements, based on the principle of free evaluation contained in Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Therefore, with respect to this defendant, the prerequisite of passive legitimation (legitimación pasiva) contemplated in Article 106.2 of the Código Procesal Civil has not been configured, since he did not carry out disturbing acts with intent to dispossess and on his own account, hence it is appropriate to dismiss the grievances related to the complaint filed against Carlos Guerrero León.</span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:200%; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub">POR TANTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">The judgment is partially overturned insofar as it denied the award of damages (daños y perjuicios) and in its place, Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Alabrand are ordered to pay</span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">the damages caused to the plaintiff.

</span></p></td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:23.25pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:23.25pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span></p> <table><tr><td valign="top" width="283"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:7pt; line-height:12pt">ENRIQUE ULATE CHACÓN - DECISION-MAKING JUDGE</p></td><td valign="top" width="170"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:7pt; text-align:center; line-height:10.25pt"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub"></span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">VPFC9Y2IZBS61</span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">ENRIQUE ULATE CHACÓN - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr></table><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">&#xa0;</span></p><div style="-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">EXP: </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">23-000069-0419-AG</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; text-align:center; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; background-color:#ffffff; -aw-border-bottom:0pt single"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">II Circuito Judicial San Jos</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">é</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">, 4</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">º</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub"> piso, edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Calle Blancos de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Cat</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">ó</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">lica Tel</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">é</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">fonos: 2247-9093.</span></p></div> **EXPEDIENTE:** **23-000069-0419-AG - 3** **PROCESO:** **SUMARIO** **ACTOR/A:** **THE BEAUTIFULL DRAGONFLY SOCIEDAD DE RESPONSABILID** **DEMANDADO/A:** **ASHLEY TARA ALBRAHAND** **VOTO N° 2025001061** **TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- At eleven hours and one minute on November seventh, two thousand twenty-five.-** **INTERDICTAL PROCEEDING FOR POSSESSORY PROTECTION** established by **THE BEAUTIFUL DRAGONFLY SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA,** legal identification number three - one hundred two - five hundred eighty-eight thousand five hundred sixty-nine, represented by the unlimited general power of attorney holder, Leinnesker Sánchez Sánchez, of legal age, employed, married once, identity card number one - one thousand three hundred two - zero thirty-six, resident of Ojochal; against **CARLOS ENRIQUE GUERRERO LEÓN**, of legal age, identity card number seven - one hundred two - four hundred thirteen, resident of Osa; **JONATHAN IAN WOODS,** of legal age, United States citizen, passport five six nine three nine eight nine eight five; and against **ASHLEY TARA ALBRAND**, of legal age, United States citizen, passport five six seven eight zero four zero five seven. Attorney Eduardo Abarca Vargas, bar association number nine thousand five, appears as legal counsel for the plaintiff; and attorney Andrés Zamora Solera appears as the agrarian public defender for Mr. Carlos Guerrero León. Processed before the Agrarian Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Southern Zone, Corredores Venue.- Judge Fisher González writes; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.- Regarding the claims:** The plaintiff is the owner of the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, located in District 1-Puerto Cortes, Canton 5-Osa, Province of Puntarenas. Property boundaries: north with public street, south with Quijote del Sur Sociedad Anónima, east with Carretera Costanera Sur, west with Quijote del Sur. Area of 78,705.37 square meters, with plan P-1189362-2007. Since acquisition, the represented party has exercised effective possession, performing possessory acts such as surveillance, ecosystem conservation, construction of fences and trails, reforestation, and educational and scientific activities. It accepted conservation easements (servidumbres ecológicas) and limiting conditions to preserve the environment. Maintenance of possession of the property through continuous and peaceful possessory acts, including surveillance, conservation, reforestation, and walks to monitor fauna and flora. Constitution of a conservation easement (servidumbre ecológica) to guarantee the conservationist use of the property. In March 2023, the defendants carried out a clandestine invasion, destroying fences, affecting the ecosystem, and disturbing the possession of the represented party. On March 30, officials from MINAET and the Public Force verified the illegal occupation by the defendants, initiating a legal process for usurpation. None of the defendants have rights over the plaintiff's property. For these facts, it requests that the judgment declare: “1. This Interdictal Proceeding is granted in all its aspects. 2. The defendants are ordered to refrain from any future act that disturbs the right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, under the warning of being charged with the crime of Disobedience to Authority. 3. My represented party is declared the sole and current possessor of the entirety of the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, especially the area affected by the disturbing acts of possession carried out by the defendants. 4. The right of possession of my represented party over the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, is restored, according to the characteristics expressed in the facts of this lawsuit. 5. In case of opposition, the defendants are ordered to pay both sets of costs of this action. 6. In case of opposition, the defendants are ordered to pay the damages caused, which will be liquidated in the respective Judgment Enforcement proceeding," (See file downloaded in pdf mode, images 1 to 14).- **II.- Defenses raised:** The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand were duly notified of the proceeding and did not respond to this action nor appear at any point in the proceeding, for which reason they were declared in default by resolution at sixteen hours and forty-four minutes on June thirteenth, two thousand twenty-three. The defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León answered the lawsuit out of time. (See file downloaded in pdf mode, image 263 and answer in images 255 to 258).- **III.-** Judge Stephanie Maria Alvarado Bejarano, by judgment N° 2024000009 at eleven hours and twenty-five minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand twenty-four, resolved: "*According to the foregoing and citations of law, THE PRESENT LAWSUIT IS PARTIALLY GRANTED, understood as denied in what is not expressly indicated, filed by The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand. Consequently, IT IS DECLARED: 1. That The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima is the sole and current possessor of the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007. 2. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are ordered to restore the right of possession over the possession of the property Folio Real Matrícula Number 161657-000, plan P-1189362-2007, and to refrain from disturbing said possession, under the legal warning that, should they do so, they will be subject to prosecution for the crime of disobedience to authority, as established in article 309 of the Criminal Code. The defendants shall be personally notified of this warning. 3. The defendants Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Albrand are ordered to pay the procedural costs. The lawsuit filed against Mr. Carlos Guerrero León is declared WITHOUT MERIT as it was not proven that the disturbing acts were carried out by him*" (See file downloaded in pdf mode, images 318 to 327).- **IV.-** The Tribunal endorses the statement of proven facts contained in the appealed ruling, as it is the result of the evidence in the record. Likewise, the following one of this nature is added: **3)** At the time of the facts that gave rise to this proceeding, the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León was an employee of the defendant Jonathan Ian Woods, performing childcare duties for several children (*inspection report carried out on-site by SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Programa de Control y Protección, on March 30, 2023, in images 71 and 72, report of investigation proceedings conducted by the Judicial Investigation Agency on April 17, 2023, in images 81 to 64, testimony of Hugo Elizondo Morales, Ismael Badilla Lamaitre and Oscar Brenes Arias in audios linked to the file*). On the other hand, regarding the fact held as unproven, it is endorsed, but at the end the following phrase is added: “*on his own account*”.

**V.-** The plaintiff company appeals the judgment based on the following grievances: **1)** Within the claim of the lawsuit, it was requested that the defendants be ordered to pay damages. Despite there being no opposition, there was a default by the defendants J. Woods and A. Albrand, which implies that the facts are taken as accredited. Likewise, article 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that in any estimatory judgment of interdictal proceedings, the defendant shall be ordered to pay the damages caused. **2)** The judgment omits to indicate whether it orders one type of costs or both costs, which violates articles 6.2.3 and 61.2.4 of the Civil Procedure Code. **3)** Regarding the defendant Carlos E. Guerrero León, evidence was offered in a timely manner that was not objected to by the defendant. However, the lawsuit against him is declared without merit, on the grounds that he was a worker or nanny for the other co-defendants. There are elements that demonstrate his participation, such as the inspection report from SICAC dated March 30, 2023, the OIJ report CI-124-ORO-2023 dated April 27, 2023, and the testimony of Oscar Brenes, which the lower court even uses to support the judgment against the other defendants. Thus, in the SICAC report, it was recorded that said worker was present at the site during the inspection conducted on March 30, 2023. The same applies to the OIJ report of April 27, 2023, which reiterates that this defendant was present and identified himself as a worker, who was given a deadline to leave the site. In the second inspection conducted by the OIJ, in point III, it indicates that the usurpation continued because the defendants, including Guerrero, were still at the site. Likewise, Oscar Brenes testified that all the defendants were present when the MINAE order was issued. That witness added that Carlos told him he was the nanny, as the defendant couple had a lot of children, and that someone had told them they could get in there; the witness further stated that the fences were broken. Likewise, in the answer to fact four, Carlos Guerrero accepted that in March, Mr. Ian, the defendant, asked him to take them to the land, where a shed was built with round rebar and some plastics, and that these works were done because a man they call Pilo told Mr. Ian they could get in there to work, because it was municipal land. In any case, the behavior of the defendant must be assessed, who, after the MINAE visit, continued to remain on the property. Therefore, posing as an employee is an extremely convenient and simple excuse to avoid being attributed the disturbing act. **4)** On the other hand, in the party statement given by Carlos Guerrero León, the questions formulated in the written interrogatory must be taken as answered affirmatively, given that the declarant did not appear at the hearing. The foregoing according to article 42.2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such evidence was not taken into account, which implies there is a pretermission thereof. Furthermore, it must be considered that Mr. Guerrero answered out of time, which implies that the written interrogatory admitted as evidence must be considered tacitly admitted by him, according to article 42.2 of the cited Code. **5)** In the judgment, it is taken as proven that the co-defendant Carlos was an employee of the other defendants, but this circumstance was recorded in the reports because he stated it himself, not because any witness attested to it. **6)** In the ruling, it is taken as proven that Carlos was among the invaders. This is stated by the same witness Ismael Badilla Lamaitre, a worker at the Playa Tortuga Reserve, who mentioned that this defendant was among the invaders and detailed that the actions carried out were the construction—with a vehicle—of an access road to the beach, where small trees and vegetation were cut down, where there was previously a fence. However, in the judgment, it is taken as unproven that Carlos carried out disturbing acts (writing in images 330 to 349).

**VI.-** The first grievance is admissible.

Section 106.5 of the Civil Procedure Code—applicable supplementarily by virtue of the provisions of Transitory Provision I of the Agrarian Procedure Code as well as canon 79 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria—provides that in any judgment upholding possessory actions, the defendant party shall be ordered to pay the damages and losses caused; such that the liquidation, proof, and collection shall be carried out in execution of judgment. Thus, given that the claim against Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Alabrand was granted, the corresponding action is to order them to pay the damages and losses caused to the plaintiff, and the ruling must be reversed insofar as that denial. Regarding the grievance on costs, this is not admissible. The appealed judgment ordered the losing party to pay “costs.” Pursuant to Article 55 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, this order must be understood in a broad sense, that is, including both court costs (costas procesales) and legal fees (costas personales). Complementarily, Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code regulates costs in a generic sense, and the use of that term implies, unless otherwise provided, an order to pay both categories. Therefore, no imprecision is observed in the first-instance decision on this point, hence it is understood that said defendants must pay costs to the opposing party.

**VII.-** In another vein, regarding the reproach that the judgment dismissed the claim against the defendant Carlos Enrique Guerrero León, when he should have been ordered instead, this Court finds that the appellant’s argument lacks merit. In this regard, the evidence has been assessed at this instance based on the principle of free evaluation contained in Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, as well as the rules of logic, psychology, and human experience. Thus, it is noted that the lower court indicated that the reason for dismissal was that it was not demonstrated that the acts of disturbance were carried out by Guerrero León; to which it should be added at this Court, it was not proven that this defendant’s presence on the day of the events that motivated this proceeding, or actions he carried out, were executed on his own account, with the intention of dispossession for his personal benefit. Rather, it was shown that he was linked to the events because he was a kind of worker, having been hired by Jonathan Ian Woods. Thus, in the inspection carried out at the site by SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Programa de Control y Protección, on March 30, 2023, it was recorded that three people were on the land, specifically stating regarding them: “... they were told that they could not settle in the place since they were on private property within the Playa Tortuga Private Reserve, the people found at the site identified themselves as Jonathan Ian Woods with passport number … of USA nationality, who indicates that they are in the place ‘because a man named Roberto Ibarra, known as Pilo, sold them the land for 500 thousand colones,’ another male was also at the site who identified himself as Carlos Enrique Guerrero León, ID … resident of …, he indicates that he is a worker for Mr. Jonathan Ian and he himself spontaneously indicated that Mr. Jonathan Ian was in the place because he had been deceived, a female adult who is the common-law wife of Mr. Jonathan Ian was also at the site, she could not be identified because she was very upset by the indicated circumstances. It is necessary to indicate that 7 minors were also at the place” (see second point of the record in images 71 and 72). Following this, in the same document, a FOURTH point is specifically included with the following: “It is necessary to indicate that Mr. Oscar Brenes Arias, Director of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, and Mr. Leinesker Sánchez Sánchez, Legal Representative of the Playa Tortuga Reserve, granted Mr. Jonathan Ian and his family until April 10 to vacate the place, for which Mr. Jonathan Ian indicated he was grateful and stated that he did not want problems and that they would vacate the site within the indicated time” (emphasis ours). Subsequently, in investigative proceedings carried out in situ by the Judicial Investigation Organization on April 17, 2023, it was recorded that they appeared, verifying that belongings and constructions were still in the place, but that they did not observe the occupants (document in images 81 to 64). Thus, it follows that the defendant Guerrero León from the outset spontaneously stated that he was a worker for Mr. Woods. Furthermore, the warning to vacate, granted until April 10, was directed exclusively at Jonathan Ian Woods and his family, which is logical, since it was they who decided to occupy the place with their own interest and who were truly being charged with the disturbance. On this matter, based on the rules of logic, human experience, and psychology itself, it is understood that it was appreciable at the place, by the attitude and words that Guerrero León expressed, that he was a worker, evidently not a family member, who did not claim to have any right over the property. This situation is reinforced by the testimony of the witness Hugo Elizondo Morales, who upon appearing to make a topographic appraisal of the area under litigation, observed three adults, but specifically referring that Woods was the older man “head of the family” and that Carlos for his part was “a man from the area.” Such statement, in the context of what was previously indicated, reflects that the one who decided to enter and occupy the property was Jonathan Ian Woods and that Carlos was his employee. Similarly, the declarant Ismael Badilla Lamaitre narrated that he appeared at the place of the events, stating that “they” said they were in the place because they had bought the property, which must be understood that the one claiming or explaining that was Woods, not Guerrero León, who from the first moment clarified the reason why he was at the site, absolutely distinct from that which motivated the couple to enter. Added to the above, Oscar Brenes Arias specified that he asked Carlos directly “what he was doing in the place?” and he responded that he worked as a nanny and that he was an employee of Ian, which is corroborated by the presence of several minors (the couple’s children) at the site (audios linked to the electronic file). Consequently, the appellant’s argument is not persuasive that because the defendant Guerrero León answered the complaint untimely and did not appear at the trial hearing to render a party statement, this must be taken as an acceptance of responsibility for the acts of disturbance. In this regard, section 43 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria establishes that even if the complaint has not been answered, this will not necessarily imply admission of the facts of the complaint, as the Court, when ruling on the merits, must do so by taking into consideration the result of the evidence that the proceeding ultimately yields. Likewise, a party statement in the declarant’s absence is not absolutely irrefutable proof of the facts contained in the questioning, as it must be weighed with the other evidentiary elements, based on the principle of free evaluation contained in Article 54 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Therefore, with respect to this defendant, the prerequisite of passive standing contemplated in section 106.2 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been established, since no acts of disturbance were exercised with the intention of dispossession and on his own account, hence it is appropriate to dismiss the grievances related to the claim filed against Carlos Guerrero León.

**POR TANTO** The judgment is partially reversed insofar as it denied the award of damages and losses, and in its place, Jonathan Ian Woods and Ashley Tara Alabrand are ordered to pay the damages and losses caused to the plaintiff.

In all other respects, the judgment is upheld.

<table><tr><td style="width:421.3pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; background-color:#ffffff"> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub">Electronically signed by:</span></p> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="\" width=\"200\" height=\"65\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">&#61474;&#61526;&#61504;&#61510;&#61507;&#61497;&#61529;&#61490;&#61513;&#61530;&#61506;&#61523;&#61494;&#61489;&#61474;</span><br /><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">VPFC9Y2IZBS61</span><br /><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">ENRIQUE ULATE CHACÓN - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr></table><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\">&#xa0;</span></p><div style=\"-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">EXP: </span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">23-000069-0419-AG</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; text-align:center; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; background-color:#ffffff; -aw-border-bottom:0pt single\"><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">II Circuito Judicial San Jos</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">é</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">, 4</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">º</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> piso, edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Calle Blancos de Goicoechea frente al parqueo del Hospital Hotel La Cat</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">ó</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">lica Tel</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">é</span><span style=\"font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">fonos: 2247-9093.</span></p></div>

Documento PJEDITOR  SUMARIO ACTOR/A:

THE BEAUTIFULL DRAGONFLY SOCIEDAD DE RESPONSABILID DEMANDADO/A:

ASHLEY TARA ALBRAHAND VOTO N° N° 2025001061 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ.- A las once horas uno minutos del siete de noviembre de dos mil veinticinco.- PROCESO INTERDICTAL DE AMPARO DE POSESIÓN establecido por THE BEAUTIFUL DRAGONFLY SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, cédula jurídica tres - ciento dos - quinientos ochenta y ocho mil quinientos sesenta y nueve, representada por el apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, Leinnesker Sánchez Sánchez, mayor, dependiente, casado una vez, cédula de identidad número uno - mil trescientos dos - cero treinta y seis, vecino de Ojochal; contra CARLOS ENRIQUE GUERRERO LEÓN, mayor, cédula de identidad número siete - ciento dos - cuatrocientos trece, vecino de Osa; JONATHAN IAN WOODS, mayor, estadounidense, pasaporte cinco seis nueve tres nueve ocho nueve ocho cinco; y contra ASHLEY TARA ALBRAND, mayor, estadounidense, pasaporte cinco seis siete ocho cero cuatro cero cinco siete. Interviene como abogado director de la parte actora, el licenciado Eduardo Abarca Vargas, colegiado nueve mil cinco; y como defensor público agrario del señor Carlos Guerrero León, el letrado Andrés Zamora Solera. Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Sur, Sede Corredores.- Redacta la jueza Fisher González; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- De las pretensiones: La parte actora es dueña de la finca Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, ubicada en el Distrito 1-Puerto Cortes, Cantón 5-Osa, Provincia de Puntarenas. Linderos de la finca: norte con calle pública, sur con Quijote del Sur Sociedad Anónima, este con Carretera Costanera Sur, oeste con Quijote del Sur. Superficie de 78,705.37 metros cuadrados, con plano P-1189362-2007. Desde la adquisición, la representada ha ejercido posesión efectiva, realizando actos posesorios como vigilancia, conservación del ecosistema, construcción de cercas y senderos, reforestación, y actividades educativas y científicas. Aceptó servidumbres ecológicas y condiciones limitantes para preservar el medio ambiente. Mantención de la posesión de la finca mediante actos posesorios continuos y pacíficos, incluyendo vigilancia, conservación, reforestación y caminatas para monitorear la fauna y flora. Constitución de servidumbre ecológica para garantizar el uso conservacionista de la propiedad. En marzo de 2023, los demandados realizaron una invasión clandestina, destruyendo cercas, afectando el ecosistema, y perturbando la posesión de la representada. El 30 de marzo, funcionarios del MINAET y la Fuerza Pública verificaron la ocupación ilegal de los demandados, iniciándose un proceso legal por usurpación. Ninguno de los demandados tiene derechos sobre la propiedad de la parte actora. Solicita por estos hechos se declare en sentencia: “1. Con lugar en todos sus extremos el presente Proceso Interdictal. 2. Se ordene a los demandados evitar en el futuro cualquier acto que perturbe el derecho de posesión de mi representada sobre la finca Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plano P-1189362-2007, bajo el apercibimiento de ser acusados por el delito de Desobediencia a la Autoridad. 3. Se declare a mi representada única y actual poseedora de la totalidad de la finca Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plano P-1189362-2007, especialmente del área afectada por los actos perturbatorios de la posesión ejercidos por los demandados. 4. Se restituya el derecho de posesión de mi representada sobre la finca Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plano P-1189362-2007, de acuerdo a las características expresadas en los hechos de la presente demanda. 5. En caso de oposición se condene a los demandados al pago de ambas costas de esta acción. 6. En caso de oposición se condene a los demandados al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados, lo cual se liquidará en el proceso de Ejecución de Sentencia respectivo," (Ver expediente descargado en modo pdf, imágenes 1 a 14).- II.- Excepciones deducidas: Los demandados Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Albrand, fueron debidamente notificados del proceso y no contestaron la presente acción ni se apersonaron en ningún momento al proceso por lo que se le declaró rebelde mediante resolución de las dieciséis horas y cuarenta y cuatro minutos del trece de junio de dos mil veintitrés. El demandado Carlos Enrique Guerrero León contesta la demanda de forma extemporánea. (Ver expediente descargado en modo pdf, imagen 263 y contestación en imágenes 255 a 258).- III.- La jueza Stephanie Maria Alvarado Bejarano mediante sentencia N° 2024000009 de las las once horas y veinticinco minutos del diecinueve de enero de dos mil veinticuatro, resolvió: "De acuerdo a lo expuesto y citas de ley, SE DECLARA PARCIALMENTE CON LUGAR LA PRESENTE DEMANDA, entendiéndose denegada en lo que expresamente no se indique, interpuesta por The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima en contra de Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Albrand. En consecuencia SE DECLARA: 1. A The Beautiful Dragonfly Sociedad Anónima única y actual poseedora de la finca matrícula Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plano P-1189362-2007. 2. Se ordena a los demandados Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Albrand restituir el derecho de posesión sobre la posesión de la finca matrícula Folio Real Matrícula Número 161657-000, plano P-1189362-2007 y abstenerse de perturbar dicha posesión, bajo la advertencia de ley, que en caso de así hacerlo, se le seguirá proceso por el delito de desobediencia a la autoridad, conforme lo establece el artículo 309 del Código Penal. Notifíquese a los demandados personalmente la prevención. 3. Se condena a los demandados Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Albrand al pago de costas del proceso. Se declara SIN LUGAR la demanda interpuesta en contra del señor Carlos Guerrero León por no haberse demostrado que los actos perturbatorios fueran realizados por éste" (Ver expediente descargado en modo pdf, imágenes 318 a 327).- IV.- El Tribunal avala la relación de hechos probados contenida en el fallo recurrido por ser el resultado de las probanzas que constan en el proceso. De igual modo, de esta naturaleza se añade el siguiente: 3) Al momento de los hechos que motivaron este proceso, el demandado Carlos Enrique Guerrero León era trabajador del demandado Jonathan Ian Woods, haciendo labores de cuidado de varios niños (acta de inspección practicada en el sitio por parte del SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Programa de Control y Protección, el día 30 de marzo del 2023, en imágenes 71 y 72, acta de diligencias de investigación realizadas por el Organismo de Investigación Judicial el día 17 de abril del 2023 en imágenes 81 a 64, testimonial de Hugo Elizondo Morales, Ismael Badilla Lamaitre y Oscar Brenes Arias en audios vinculados al expediente). Por otro lado, en cuanto al hecho tenido por indemostrado el mismo se avala pero al final se adiciona la siguiente frase: “por cuenta propia”.

V.- La sociedad actora apela la sentencia dictada con base en los siguientes agravios: 1) Dentro de la pretensión de la demanda, se solicitó se condenara a los demandados al pago de daños y perjuicios. Pese a que no hubo oposición, sí hubo rebeldía de los accionados J. Woods y A. Albrand., lo cual implica se tengan por acreditados los hechos. De igual modo, el ordinal 106.5 del Código Procesal Civil dispone que en toda sentencia estimatoria de procesos interdictales se condenará al demandado al pago de los daños y perjuicios ocasionados. 2) La sentencia omite indicar si condena a un tipo de costas o a ambas costas lo cual violenta los ordinales 6.2.3 y 61.2.4 del Código Procesal Civil. 3) En cuanto al demandado Carlos E. Guerrero León, se ofreció en tiempo prueba que no fue objetada por el demandado. Sin embargo, se declara sin lugar la demanda en cuanto a éste, al estimarse que era trabajador o niñero de los otros codemandados. Existen elementos que demuestran su participación, como el informe de inspección del SICAC de fecha 30 de marzo del 2023, informe del OIJ CI-124-ORO-2023 del 27 de abril del 2023, testimonial de Oscar Brenes, los que incluso utiliza la A Quo para fundamentar la condena a los otros demandados. Así en el informe del SICAC, se hizo contar que en la inspección practicada el 30 de marzo del 2023, se encontraba presente en el lugar dicho trabajador. Igual suerte en cuanto al informe del OIJ del 27 de abril del 2023, en el que se reitera que estaba presente ese demandado quien se identificó como trabajador, a quien se le otorgó un plazo para salir del sitio. En la segunda inspección realizada por el OIJ, en el punto III, se indica que la usurpación seguía, porque los demandados, incluido Guerrero, seguían en el lugar. Asimismo, Oscar Brenes declaró que todos los demandados estaban presentes cuando se dictó la orden del MINAE. Añadió ese testigo, que Carlos le manifestó que era el niñero, pues la pareja de demandados tenían un montón de niños,uy que alguien les había dicho podían meterse ahí, indicando además dicho testigo que lar cercas estaban rotas. De igual modo, en la contestación al hecho cuarto, Carlos Guerrero aceptó que en el mes de marzo, don Ian el demandado, le solicito que los llevara al terreno, donde se realizó una galera con varilla redonda y unos plásticos, y que esos trabajos se hicieron porque un señor que le dicen Pilo le dijo a don Ian que podían meterse a trabajar ahí, porque era terreno municipal. En todo caso, debe de apreciarse el comportamiento del demandado, quien después de la visita del MINAE se siguió manteniendo en la propiedad. Por ende, hacerse pasar por empleado es una excusa sumamente conveniente y sencilla para evitar que se le atribuya el acto perturbatorio. 4) Por otro lado, en la declaración de parte rendida por Carlos Guerrero León, se deben tener por contestadas afirmativamente las preguntas que se formularan en el pliego, dado que el declarante no se apersonó a la audiencia. Lo anterior según ordinal 42.2 del Código Procesal Civil. Tal prueba no fue tomada en cuenta lo que implica que hay preterición de la misma. Además, debe considerarse que el señor Guerrero contestó extemporáneamente, lo cual implica que el pliego de preguntas admitido como prueba se debe tener admitido por éste en forma tácita, según artículo 42.2 del citado Código. 5) En la sentencia se tiene por demostrado que el codemandado Carlos era trabajador de los otros demandados, pero esa circunstancia se consignó en los informes porque éste así lo manifestó, no porque algún testigo así le constara. 6) En el fallo se tiene por demostrado que Carlos estaba dentro de los invasores. Así lo refiere el mismo testigo Ismael Badilla Lamaitre, trabajador de la Reserva Playa Tortuga, quien mencionó que ese demandado estaba dentro de los invasores y detalló que las acciones realizadas fue la hechura -con vehículo- de un acceso a la playa, donde se cortaron árboles pequeños y vegetación, donde antes había una cerca. Sin embargo, en la sentencia se tiene por no probado que Carlos realizara actos perturbatorios (escrito en imágenes 330 a 349).

VI.- El primer agravio resulta de recibo. El ordinal 106.5 del Código Procesal Civil -aplicable supletoriamente en virtud de lo dispuesto en el Transitorio I del Código Procesal Agrario así como el canon 79 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria- dispone que en toda sentencia estimatoria de procesos interdictales se condenará a la parte demandada al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados; de forma tal que la liquidación, la prueba y el cobro se harán en ejecución de sentencia. Así las cosas, habiéndose declarado con lugar la demanda contra Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Alabrand lo correspondiente es condenarlos al pago de los daños y perjuicios ocasionados a la parte actora, debiendo revocarse el fallo en cuanto a esa denegatoria. Respecto al agravio de las costas, este no procede. La sentencia recurrida condenó a la parte vencida al “pago de las costas”. Conforme al artículo 55 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, dicha condena debe entenderse en sentido amplio, es decir, incluyendo tanto las costas procesales como las personales. De forma complementaria, el artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil regula las costas en un sentido genérico, y la utilización de dicho vocablo implica, salvo disposición en contrario, la condenatoria de ambas categorías. Por lo tanto, no se observa imprecisión alguna en la decisión de primera instancia sobre este punto, de ahí que se entiende dichos demandados deban de pagar las costas a la parte contraria.

VII.- En otro orden de ideas, en lo atinente al reproche de que en la sentencia se declaró sin lugar la demanda contra el accionado Carlos Enrique Guerrero León, pues en su lugar debía de condenársele, estima este Tribunal, no lleva razón la parte impugnante. Sobre el particular, se ha procedido en esta instancia a apreciar la prueba con base en el principio de libre valoración contenido en el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, así como las reglas de la lógica, la psicología y la experiencia humana. Así las cosas, se denota que la A Quo señaló que el motivo del rechazo fue el que no se demostrara que los actos perturbatorios fueran realizados por Guerrero León; a lo que cabe añadir en esta Sede, no se acreditó que la presencia de ese accionado el día de los hechos que motivaron este proceso, o acciones que realizara, las ejecutara por cuenta propia, con la intención de despojo para su provecho personal. Más bien se demostró que estuvo vinculado a los hechos en razón de que era una especie de trabajador por haberlo contratado Jonathan Ian Woods. Así, en la inspección practicada en el sitio por parte del SINAC, Área de Conservación Osa, Programa de Control y Protección, el día 30 de marzo del 2023, se hizo constar que en el terreno estaba tres personas, concretamente se consignó en cuanto a ellas: “... a las mismas se les indicó que no podían establecerse en el lugar ya que se encontraban en propiedad privada dentro de la Reserva Privada Playa Tortuga, las personas encontradas en el sitio se identificaron como Jonathan Ian Woods con número de pasaporte … de nacionalidad USA, el cual indica que se encuentran en el lugar “porque un hombre de nombre Roberto Ibarra, conocido como Pilo les vendió el terreno en 500 mil colones”, en el sitio también se encontraba otro masculino el cual se identificó como Carlos Enrique Guerrero León cédula …vecino de …, el mismo indica que él es trabajador del señor Jonathan Ian y el mismo espontáneamente indicó que el señor Jonathan Ian se encontraba en el lugar porque lo habían engañado, en el lugar también se encontraba una persona femenina mayor de edad la cual es la pareja sentimental del señor Jonathan Ian, esta no se logró identificar ya que la misma se encontraba muy alterada por las circunstancias indicadas. Es necesario indicar que en el lugar también se encontraban 7 menores de edad” (ver punto segundo del acta en imágenes 71 y 72). Seguidamente, en ese mismo documento, particularmente se incluye un punto CUARTO con lo siguiente: “Es necesario indicar que por parte de los señores Oscar Brenes Arias Director de la Reserva Playa Tortuga y el señor Leinesker Sánchez Sánchez Representante Legal de la Reserva Playa Tortuga, le conceden tiempo hasta el 10 de abril al señor Jonathan Ian y a su familia para que se retiren del lugar, lo cual el señor Jonathan Ian indicó estar agradecido y manifestó que él no quería problemas y que se retirarían del sitio en el tiempo indicado”(el énfasis es nuestro).Posteriormente, en diligencias de investigación realizadas in situ por parte del Organismo de Investigación Judicial el día 17 de abril del 2023, se hizo constar que se apersonaron, constatando que pertenencias y construcciones todavía estaban en el lugar, pero que no observaron a los ocupantes (documento en imágenes 81 a 64). Así las cosas, se desprende que el demandado Guerrero León desde un inicio manifestó de manera espontánea que era trabajador del señor Woods. Además, el apercibimiento de retiro, concedido hasta el 10 de abril, fue dirigido exclusivamente a Jonathan Ian Woods y su familia, lo cual tiene lógica, pues eran ellos quienes decidieron ocupar el lugar con un interés propio y a quienes realmente se estaba imputando la perturbación. Sobre el particular, con base en los reglas de la lógica, la experiencia humana y la misma psicología, se entiende que era apreciable en el lugar, por la actitud y palabras que expresara Guerrero León, que éste era un trabajador, evidentemente no integrante de la familia, quien no alegó tener algún derecho sobre el bien. Tal situación se refuerza con la declaración del testigo Hugo Elizondo Morales, quien al apersonarse a hacer un dictamen topográfico del área en litis, observó a tres adultos, pero especialmente refiriendo que Woods era el señor mayor “cabeza de familia” y que Carlos por su parte era “un señor de la zona”. Tal manifestación, en el contexto de lo señalado anteriormente, refleja que quien decidió entrar a ocupar el bien fue Jonathan Ian Woods y que Carlos era su empleado. En el mismo sentido el declarante Ismael Badilla Lamaitre, narró que se apersonó al lugar de los hechos, manifestando que “ellos” dijeron estaban en el lugar porque habían comprado la propiedad, lo que debe de entenderse que quien alegaba o explicaba eso era Woods, más no Guerrero León, quien desde el primer momento aclaró el motivo por el cual estaba en el sitio, absolutamente distinto al que motivara a la pareja para ingresar. Aunado a lo anterior, Oscar Brenes Arias, especificó que le preguntó a Carlos directamente ¿qué hacía en el lugar? quien le respondió que trabajaba como niñero y que era empleado de Ian, lo cual se corrobora con la presencia de varios menores de edad (hijos de la pareja) en el sitio (audios vinculados al expediente electrónico). Por consiguiente, no resulta atendible el argumento del apelante que como el demandado Guerrero León contestó extemporáneamente la demanda y no se apersonó a la audiencia de juicio a rendir declaración de parte, deba de tenerse como una aceptación de la responsabilidad de los actos perturbatorios. Sobre el particular, el ordinal 43 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, estatuye que aun cuando no se haya contestado la demanda, ello no implicará, necesariamente, admisión de los hechos de la demanda, pues el Tribunal, al pronunciarse sobre el fondo deberá hacerlo tomando en consideración el resultado de la prueba que en definitiva arroje el proceso. De igual modo, la declaración de parte en ausencia del declarante no es prueba absolutamente irrefutable de los hechos que contenga el interrogatorio, pues debe ponderarse con los otros elementos probatorios, con base en el principio de libre valoración contenido en el artículo 54 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria. Por consiguiente, con respecto a este demandado, no se ha configurado el presupuesto de la legitimación pasiva contemplado en el ordinal 106.2 del Código Procesal Civil, ya que no se ejercieron actos perturbatorios con intención de despojo y por cuenta propia, de ahí que proceda desestimar los agravios relacionados con la demanda interpuesta contra Carlos Guerrero León.

POR TANTO

Se revoca parcialmente la sentencia en cuanto denegó la condenatoria en daños y perjuicios y en su lugar se condena a Jonathan Ian Woods y Ashley Tara Alabrand a pagar los daños y perjuicios ocasionados a la parte actora. En lo demás, se confirma la sentencia.

 MARIA VANESSA FISHER GONZALEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A  CARLOS ADOLFO PICADO VARGAS - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A  ENRIQUE ULATE CHACÓN - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A