Ecological function of property and agro-environmental limitationsFunción ecológica de la propiedad y limitaciones agroambientales

VOTO Nº 0877-F-05 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSE. Goicoechea, at fifteen hours seven minutes on the third of November of two thousand five.- Possessory Information Proceeding, filed by [Nombre1], of legal age, single, farmer, resident of Osa in Puntarenas, identity card number CED1 - - ; and [Nombre2], of legal age, married, homemaker, resident of Osa in Puntarenas, identity card number CED2 - - , processed before the Agrarian Court of the Southern Zone, Corredores. The State and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario were parties to the proceeding, represented by Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes, of legal age, married, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED3 - , and by Wálter Céspedes Salazar, of legal age, married, agronomist expert, resident of San José, in their capacities as agrarian prosecutor and executive president with powers as general attorney-in-fact without limit of amount, respectively. Appearing as special judicial attorney for the applicants is Lic. Ronny Jiménez Porras, of legal age, single, attorney, resident of Corredores, identity card number CED4 - - .-

WHEREAS:

1.- The applicants filed possessory information proceedings for the purpose of registering in the Public Property Registry in their name, the property described as follows: Pasture land and conservation Forest, located in Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, with the following boundaries North: [Nombre3], South: [Dirección1], East: [Nombre4] and West: [Nombre3], with an area according to cadastral plan number P-778582-2002, of nineteen hectares six thousand seven hundred fifty-seven and ninety-five square decimeters, (folio 7).- 2.- The Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario appeared in the proceeding in the terms appearing on folios 25 to 32, 41 and 54; and 36 respectively, both without opposing these proceedings.- 3.- Lic. Wilbert Alvarez Li, judge of the Agrarian Court of the Southern Zone, Corredores, in a judgment issued at nine hours five minutes on the fourth of April of two thousand five, resolved: “Having fulfilled all the requirements demanded by the Law of Possessory Information number one hundred thirty-nine of the fourteenth of July of one thousand nine hundred forty-one and its reforms, with the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario and the Procuraduría General de la República as parties who were in agreement with these proceedings, consequently, let it be registered in the Public Property Registry without prejudice to third parties with better right and in equal parts in favor of [Nombre1], of legal age, single, farmer, identity card CED5 - - , resident of Palmar Sur de Osa province of Puntarenas, and [Nombre2], of legal age, married once, homemaker identity card CED2 - - , resident of Los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección2], the property described as follows: the property described as follows: Pasture land and conservation Forest. LOCATED: Community of los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección3] from [Dirección4] province of Puntarenas. BOUNDARIES: NORTH Carlos Montero Díaz, [Dirección5], EAST Mariano Prendas Obando, WEST Carlos Montero Díaz. MEASURES: Nineteen hectares and six thousand seven hundred fifty-seven and ninety-five square decimeters. PLAN: Cadastral Plan number P- seven hundred seventy-eight thousand five hundred eighty-two - two thousand, in the name of [Nombre2] and [Nombre1]. POSSESSORY ACTS: Demarcation of the land, maintenance of access paths, care and protection of the natural resource. NOTICE:- The legal notice was published in the Judicial Bulletin number two hundred thirty-one dated the twenty-fifth of November of two thousand four. ACQUISITION: It was acquired from Mr. [Nombre5], of legal age, widower once, farmer, identity card CED6 - - , resident of Palmar Sur de Osa in the province of Puntarenas, [Dirección6], according to deed number two hundred five granted before notary public Ronny Jiménez Porras, at fourteen hours thirty minutes on the twenty-ninth day of July of the year two thousand four. ESTIMATION: The property is estimated in the sum of one million colones. LIENS AND REAL CHARGES: There are none. There are no co-owners. LIMITATIONS: The area adjacent to the streams indicated in Article 33 Subsection b) of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), constitutes a protected area where the cutting and elimination of trees is prohibited, and that the channel and waters of those currents are of public domain ( Water Law (Ley de Aguas), articles 1, Subsection IV, and 3, Subsection III)”, (folio 60 and 61.- 4.- In the substantiation of the proceeding, the legal prescriptions have been observed, with the existence of errors and omissions capable of producing the nullity of the ruling being evident, which will be set forth in detail in the recitals section. This resolution is issued within the legal term.- Judge ULATE CHACÓN writes; and, RECITALS:

I.- The ruling issued at 9:05 hours on April 4, 2005, is appealed, partially, insofar as it imposes “limitations” on the areas affected by the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and the Water Law (Ley de Aguas).

II.- The attorney for the titleholders claims that the judgment is not in accordance with the law, because the property cannot be ordered to be registered with “limitations”, given that Article 33 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) does not impose them, and one should rather speak of prohibitions, because the concept of “limitations” injures the right of property. According to Article 19 of the Law of Possessory Information, a prohibition and not a limitation is deduced.

III.- The appellant is not correct in his grievances. On the contrary, the reply of the Agrarian Prosecutor is clear in the sense that Articles 33 and 34 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) constitute legitimate limitations of a general nature on the right of property, by reason of the protection of a social and environmental interest of the community. On this subject, this Tribunal has pronounced itself in various resolutions, extensively developing the issue of limitations and the intrinsic ecological function of the institution of property, which will be analyzed in the following recitals.

IV.Since the last century, our Constituent Legislature has been concerned with regulating the Institution of Property as one of the fundamental rights of the Human Being. Property was the maximum expression in the sphere of the citizen's economic freedom. It was conceived as a sacred, absolute and inviolable right. However, since the Constitution of 1821, the possibility of imposing limitations through the Law was established. This was evident with the enactment of special agrarian legislation. The truth is that our Constituent Legislature never undertook to indicate what the minimum or essential content of the property right would be. It is the legislator who is responsible for establishing said minimum and essential content, through the limitations on the right, and it is the Constitutional Court that is responsible for exercising control over that legislative power, to prevent that by way of limitations, the owners are deprived of ownership. Article 45 of the Political Constitution is the norm that makes explicit reference to the Right of property. That norm provides: \"Property is inviolable; no one may be deprived of his own if not for legally verified public interest, upon prior compensation in accordance with the law. In case of war or internal commotion, it is not indispensable that the compensation be prior. However, the corresponding payment shall be made no later than two years after the state of emergency has concluded (…)”. For reasons of public necessity, the Legislative Assembly may, by vote of two-thirds of the totality of its members, impose limitations of social interest on property.\" As has been repeatedly stated by Constitutional Jurisprudence, the two paragraphs of the constitutional norm originated in different historical moments: one influenced by the principles and values of the Liberal State, and another by the economic and social rights inherent to the Social Rule of Law. Now then, the question that immediately arises is: Is it a single property or can diverse types of properties be admitted (?). Undoubtedly, the distinct nature and function of goods imposes upon us the distinction between “the” properties. Without a doubt, the Political Constitution recognizes, as in most modern constitutions, property as an Institution. And as such, it is one. However, regarding the right of property as a subjective right, \"the properties\" are distinguished today, based on the Italian doctrine of Professor Salvatore Pugliatti, as they undoubtedly differ in their function and in their structure. The function of property refers to the social utility of the good, to its diverse productive nature: thus we could speak of agricultural, livestock, forestry, urban nature, etcetera. And the structure, referred to the set of rights and obligations of the owner which will differ depending on the function assigned to the good. In other terms, the rights and obligations of the owner of a forested land are different from the rights and obligations of the owner of a property located in an urban area. Today this thesis is shared by the most outstanding doctrine, both national and international, and also by the criteria expressed by jurisprudence. It is a secret to no one that the right of property, as a subjective right, entails a set of rights and duties, powers and obligations for its holder, which are being shaped by special agrarian legislation, attending to the nature of the goods upon which it falls, and to the new principles and values that are shaping the entire legal system.

V.- The Código Fiscal, of 1885, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos (No. 13 of January 10, 1939, repealed by the Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825), the Law of Possessory Information and the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, were the first regulations to deal with a regulation on the rational use of natural resources, to conserve them. But they also propitiated the occupation, titling, and destruction of forests. In the second half of this century, the interest in the production and exploitation of the land prevailed, which was justified by the imposition of the economic and social function of agrarian property. Indeed, Costa Rican agrarian doctrine had already manifested itself for an agrarian culture tending to put the land to production to fulfill its economic destiny: “...The land multiplied its fertility with the help of mechanization and technique, which supposes the increasing use of certain movable goods... . But if the land shares its importance with movable agrarian capital, losing its primacy, it has acquired a new relief as the seat of the goods that constitute the agricultural exploitation... . Said goods are considered agrarian property in their economic aspect, as instruments or means of agricultural production, and in their social aspect, relative to its control and the distribution of its benefits... Agrarian property is characterized by the individual and social demand of the necessary destination for production, to preserve the quality and the productive capacity of the good. The social demand for production becomes more obvious in the norms that authorize the expropriation of agrarian goods not used in exploitation or employed deficiently and in those that prohibit or limit the indirect forms of tenure and exploitation...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, Universidad de Costa Rica, 2nd edition, 1982, page 228-229). The same Ley de Terrenos Baldíos allowed the acquisition of lands by private parties, up to a maximum of 30 hectares. It was prohibited, except in that case, to enclose with fences the vacant lands property of the State, to fell woodlands or establish on them constructions or crops or extract firewood, timber or other products. With this, the intention of our legislator to conserve forest resources was evident. The Ley de Tierras y Colonización of 1961, regulated the economic and social function of property with greater prevalence than the environmental one. This was a cultural demand, to guarantee not only the real “access” to property, through the intervention of the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, but also to demand that the economic destiny of the productive goods be fulfilled (among others, articles 1, 2 and 5). National doctrine affirmed that “From the enactment, then, of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, the occupation of State lands is illegal. But those begun before its validity are licit, within the limits and conditions established by the General Law of Vacant Lands or any others in force at the commencement of the occupation and serve for the effects of positive prescription” ([Nombre6], ibid, p. 231). It was thus that in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, alongside the economic and social function, a series of provisions tending to conserve natural resources were enacted (articles 1 and 68). In particular, it was established that lands that did not have the conservation and adequate use regime for the reserves of renewable natural resources of the nation that existed on them were failing to fulfill the social function of property. (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, article 153 subsection 4). However, its excessive application, due to the culture that was inherent to it, regarding the economic and social function, led to the abusive exercise of the property right. For this reason, it is also warned that “The undue appropriation of lands in national reserves by private parties acquires alarming characteristics when it is carried out by owners of large estates with the aim of increasing their capacity and even more so if the purpose pursued is limited to hoarding lands without cultivating them.” ([Nombre6], op. cit., page 235). The legislator imposed a series of limitations on property, particularly on agrarian property, directed at fulfilling its economic and social function. The Ley de Tierras y Colonización makes express reference to both functions (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, articles 6; 21 subsection 1; 58, 142, 144, 150). On one hand, it imposes on the State the obligation to provide persons lacking land or who possess it insufficiently, with sufficient lands for their individual and social development (article 2). The obligation to produce the land is also established, since the breach of that productive economic function would eventually imply the expropriation of the same if they are found uncultivated, abandoned, indirectly exploited, or insufficiently cultivated. And it punishes the anti-economic exercise of lands suitable for agriculture destined for livestock (article 144). It imposes on the beneficiaries of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, as one of their obligations, the conservation of renewable natural resources, since failure to comply with these provisions may imply the revocation of the parcel.

VI.- On the other hand, the Law of Multiple Land Titling (No. 5064 of August 22, 1972), declared unconstitutional, subjected the titled properties to agro-environmental limitations imposed by the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) (No. 276 of August 15, 1942, articles 72 and 73), since the waters, riverbeds or channels and basins of waters that are of public domain are excluded from private ownership; and an easement (servidumbre) of public use is imposed on the banks of non-navigable rivers. Other limitations contained in said Law were linked to the General Roads Law and the prohibition of destroying forests and groves that contain plant or animal specimens that are in the process of extinction in the country (Law of Multiple Titling, article 5 subsection c). The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) of 1969 (No. 4465 of November 25, 1969) also imposed important limitations on agrarian property tending to subject obligatorily to the forestry regime those forests and lands that the Executive Branch considered indispensable to establish on them protective zones, forest reserves, national reserves, and biological reserves. In case of refusal by the owners, expropriation would proceed (Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), article 2 subsection b, 71 and 72). Indeed, from the enactment of said Law, the environmental function of property begins to manifest itself with greater depth. Conservation, afforestation, and reforestation policies for forests and lands, and the promotion, through incentives, of forestry activity are contemplated. The forest heritage of the state is constituted by the national reserves, the forest reserves, the national parks, the state forest nurseries, the protective zones, and the biological reserves. “When the conservation of the forest and forestry lands is inspired by the purpose of protecting the soils, or of maintaining and regulating the hydrological regime, the climate, or the environment, the areas destined for those ends are called protective zones. In them, the soil erosion process is halted, since the roots of the trees secure and retain the topsoil layer and the fallen leaves cover the ground through which the water runs, thus preventing it from dragging the soil particles. The protective zones may be situated on state property or on private property. In both, agricultural labors that imply the destruction of the vegetation are prohibited. The maintenance and regulation of the hydrological regime is another important function of the forests. For this reason, they have merited detailed treatment in the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), which declares as forestry zones those bordering springs (nacientes) and a small strip of the bank of rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, or natural reservoirs. Within the national reserves, a wide strip on both sides of the riverbanks, and a wide one on both sides of the maximum depression of the hydrographic basins, are protective areas. The function of forests in relation to waters is so important that it can transcend the national sphere, as would be the case of a river that runs through several countries.” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, op. cit., page 706.).

VII.- The doctrine (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil, Tomo III, Derecho de bienes, Barcelona, 8th edition, 1994, pages 259 to 262) has distinguished between boundaries and limitations of the property right, in the context of the content of that right. According to ALBALADEJO, the normal content of the property right must be framed by indicating the boundaries of ownership: “Sometimes the boundary consists in that the owner cannot do something; others in that he has the duty to do it, thus being deprived of the freedom to omit it (for example, that of not revoking the façade of the building or that of not cultivating the rustic property)... As the boundaries of ownership constitute the normal regime of the same, neither is a special act required to impose them on each particular thing, nor must they be proven... rather it is sufficient to invoke (when pertinent) the legal norm that establishes them. On the contrary, in the case of limitations, they must be established by a special act relating to the thing whose property is at issue, and, as they are exceptional, they must be proven, since, otherwise, the property is presumed free of them.” (ibid, page 262). These can be established for reasons of private interest, or for reasons of public interest, the latter being the predominant ones. For example, those established in the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) or in special agrarian or environmental legislation. Our national Jurisprudence made the distinction between boundaries and limitations to the property right: “Traditionally, 'boundaries' and 'limitations' have been used as synonyms, but today a distinction is made between both terms, to understand as 'boundaries' those that are imposed by law in a generalized manner without referring to an individualized thing or an individualized owner, they apply to all those who are in the same situation; meanwhile, 'limitations' as a general rule are imposed voluntarily by the owners, even if based on the law, and always for concrete cases... But it should be noted that the two-thirds vote does not constitute authorization to impose all kinds of limitations on property, since the text refers only to those of 'social interest'” (Full Court, Extraordinary Session, of March 25, 1983). The Jurisprudence emanating, at that time from the Full Court, acting as the Constitutional Court, very clearly pointed out the principle of the social economic function of property, as a restriction imposed on property with general effects. Specifically, in the sphere of forestry property, Jurisprudence established the importance of limitations from the environmental point of view: “In the appeal, the unconstitutionality of articles 30, 71, 88, 98, 101, subsections b) and d), 103, 104 and 105 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) is alleged as being injurious to the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution, since according to the appellant's criterion, the first cited article violates the inviolability of property by requiring approval from the Dirección General Forestal to carry out forest elimination works for the purpose of colonizing or parceling out lands or any agricultural or livestock enterprise, given that with this (sic) intrusion of the State, the power to administer private property is placed in the latter's hands. To the foregoing, it must be noted that no clash occurs between article 30 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and article 45 of the Political Constitution, since the property right is not absolute. Indeed, even if the constituent legislature categorically declared that property is inviolable, it immediately established restrictions to that principle, one of them the possibility of expropriation 'for legally verified public interest', and another in which it is provided that the Legislative Assembly may impose on property limitations of social interest 'by vote of two-thirds of the totality of its members', from which it must be concluded that the first declaration has two limitations referred to public interest and social interest. The classic concept of property which held it as absolute and without limits, has varied notably, now allowing that 'limitations of social interest' be imposed, as authorized by the second paragraph of article 45, whereby it has been possible for the legislator to establish, as an essential function of the State, that of 'ensuring the protection, utilization, conservation and promotion of the country's forest resources' (article 1 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal)), a function that is fulfilled through the series of restrictions that the cited Law imposes on the exploitation of forests. From the same constitutional norm it is concluded that those limits are not a disregard for the property right, as alleged by the appellant, but rather a limitation to achieve the fulfillment of superior ends, more important than the strictly individual ones in favor of the owner, being those of the community and of future generations who must count on forest resources, including for the protection of the environment and sanitation... It is certain that it has been limited in its exercise, in protection of the forest interests of the State that seek the conservation of natural resources and environmental sanitation; but this is permitted by the constitutional norm that the appellant himself estimates to be injured... VIII.- This Court has already repeatedly stated that the exercise of the freedoms granted by the Constitution is not absolute, and that they may be subject to regulation and even restrictions when superior interests are at stake. It would be inappropriate to label as unconstitutional, for example, article 371 of the General Health Law, in that it punishes with imprisonment anyone who cultivates opium poppy, coca or marijuana plants, for violating the freedom of agriculture established in article 46 of the Constitution, a norm that the appellant considers violated by the restrictions that the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) imposes on agricultural work. And if the criterion already expressed is taken into consideration that this Law protects interests of higher rank than the merely individual ones of the possessor or owner of lands subject to forestry regulation, it is also concluded here that the restrictions accused of being unconstitutional do not injure the guarantee of article 46 of the Political Charter, since it has already been said that what the State has done is to restrict for reasons of social interest the exercise of the attributes of property. IX. The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) aims to protect natural resources, a circumstance that impacts the organization of production. Hydrological resources, environmental changes, the sanitation of the place are factors that influence agricultural production and are directly related to the forest resources of the area; therefore, the regulations on forest exploitation do not injure but, on the contrary, affirm the constitutional guarantee of article 50, insofar as it provides that the State must organize production. X. With the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), the appellant is not being prevented from the possibility of obtaining honest and useful work, with which to procure the subsistence and well-being of himself and his family. It is undeniable that the right granted by article 56 of the Political Constitution is not unrestricted, since it is subject to the laws and regulations regarding the modalities and conditions of exercising it. Thus Mr. Elizondo Villegas may dedicate himself to agriculture if that is his wish; but in the exercise of such right, it is not licit for him to act against the legislation in force that protects forest resources and regulates agricultural production. There are prohibited crops (such as the aforementioned marijuana), and restricted agricultural practices (such as burning), by legal norms that make it impossible for farmers to dedicate themselves to those crops or use said practices. However, those norms are not unconstitutional, since they do not illegitimately restrict the right to work, but rather regulate it to safeguard other interests of higher rank that guarantee coexistence, the ultimate end to which the legal system tends.\" (Full Court, extraordinary session held on May 17, 1984, bold not from the original).

VIII.- The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), starting in 1990, more clearly recognizes the dynamic character of the property right, and the possibility of imposing within its structure –a set of rights and obligations of the owner– limitations of social interest, to prevent the antisocial or abusive exercise of that right which is not unlimited. Within said context, it implicitly recognizes the existence of special properties, with distinct particularities attending to the nature of the good in question, and its specific function: “The owner's power over the property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the property right has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only is the right of the owners protected, but also various general or social interests that coexist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of law implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relative to an agricultural fund are very different from those corresponding to a property located in an intensely utilized urban sector.” Said limitations, according to the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), must be reasonable and not empty the content of the right, as it would become a total deprivation of the same (Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), No. 5097-93 of 10:24 hours on October 15, 1993).

IX.- The exercise of the economic and social function of property, without considering the environmental function, was something normal within the prevailing agrarian culture until the early 1990s. A large number of lands were titled. State banks promoted, with financing, the clearing and destruction of the forest to expand the agricultural frontier, through agricultural and livestock activities, with minimal soil and devastated area recovery practices. Agrarian property fell on a good essentially of a productive nature. But the legislator's mandates to adequately conserve natural resources were ignored, which implied different forms of exercising agrarian activity. The increase in population, the scarce techniques in agrarian production, the dependence on agrochemicals due to the loss of soil fertility, and the agrarian culture itself were generating the destruction of our precious resources, with scarce State control. There were no clear criteria to put an end to the abusive and antisocial exercise of property, since the majority of norms have protected and promoted the inadequate exercise of that right, and the excessive exploitation of natural resources.

Although it is true that for many years the Legislature had been pursuing sustainable development through clear agro-environmental limitations, it is not until the advent of third-generation Human Rights that a transcendental cultural shift for the entire legal system occurs. Therefore, the establishment of agro-environmental limits on property, within the scope of its economic, social, and environmental function, is fundamental to truly achieving sustainable development, weighing the constitutional values and principles that should guide this development model.

X.- Agrarian case law makes a clear distinction between the different types of property, following the thesis of PUGLIATTI: “The most productive among things is the land, which yields its fruits and products spontaneously, but from it, from the land, civilized man lives, no longer merely gathering its spontaneous products, but fertilizing it with his labor. The natural productive potentiality of the land becomes actual production, through the work of man. With work, the land is humanized, becomes spiritual possession and property of man, not a thing, not natural, dominated by chance or causality, but nurtured by the man who cares for it, cultivates it; it enters the sphere not only of human interests and the motives of man's action, but also of the ends of values, becomes the basis of human consortium, seat and cradle of the society of men, regulated by the laws of social life, by law” (PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. La proprietá nel nuovo Diritto. , Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p 203). Although it is true that agrarian property is defined as essentially possessory, as a property of entrepreneurial activity aimed at achieving the best productive destiny of the asset, the interest in conserving it is also imposed. Within the scope of exercising the subjective right, to protect his right, the owner is required to “... have exercised it fulfilling the economic destiny of the asset, to have exercised possessory acts on it aimed at cultivating and improving it, and to have developed an agrarian entrepreneurial activity on the asset, understood as an economically organized activity for the purpose of producing animals or plants, using natural resources...”. Under this conception, our case law clearly integrates the environmental function as part of the economic and social function when it states: “Today this principle has evolved and is identified as the economic-social principle of property, insofar as it unfolds into two: 1) On one hand, called the subjective function, and it refers to the obligations of the owner with the property, which could be synthesized in his duty to cultivate the productive asset of which he is the owner, thus fulfilling the economic purpose of the asset: to be productive or of productive aptitude; he also has the obligation to improve his property so that production and productivity increase, he must respect the adequate maintenance and development of an ecologically balanced environment, and in the case of some particular properties, comply with all the obligations imposed by the special regulations; 2) The objective function is the obligation of the State to provide all subjects who do not have productive assets, or have them insufficiently, and they have the capacity to develop an entrepreneurial activity, with those assets so that the subjects can be incorporated into the productive process, developing humanly on the social and economic planes. The first is the basically economic function, the second is above all social...” (Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 230 of 16:00 hours on July 20, 1990). In this ruling, a clear jurisprudential trend is evident, reiterated in many others (In the same sense, Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 241 of 16:25 hours on July 27, 1990, No. 50 of 14:20 hours on August 5, 1993.) of introducing, as part of the same economic and social function, the environmental function to achieve sustainable development. But it is in the realm of forest property, as limited property, where the principle of the ecological function of property has achieved greater jurisprudential development. We particularly refer to the limitations suffered by the owner of a land that has been declared a protective zone (zona protectora) under the forest regime, and who unsuccessfully claims their right to be compensated: Here, the first problem can be dispelled regarding the plaintiff's thesis of having suffered a limitation on their rights of enjoyment and use of the farm affected as a protective zone, which, having been declared a forest reserve -and based on the pronouncement of the Procuraduría- did not undergo the corresponding purchase or expropriation procedure, wherefore Decree No. 12608-A is unconstitutional and illegal. This is not so, for what was constituted was a protective zone and not a forest reserve. It would be compensable if the asset is destined for a forest reserve, but not if it is declared within a protective zone. Article 45 of the Constitución Política distinguishes two different situations: compensation is appropriate when there is expropriation, but compensation should not be provided if limitations on property are established. In the forest regime, when it is declared of public order, one is in the presence of the well-known phenomenon of "administrative limits to private property" ([Name7], . Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, l963). Decreto Ejecutivo No. 12608-A subjected both public and private assets located within the "Zona Protectora El Rodeo" to a mandatory forest regime, declaring those of the national reserves inalienable and not susceptible to registration in the Registry. That was the legally possible treatment for the different types of assets; consequently, the plaintiff's farm was affected with a limitation of social interest. Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). The Sala Primera referred several years ago to Ecological Law, and the inherent environmental function of property, whose principles are enshrined in a great number of norms and international treaties: “All the foregoing, although abundant, have guidelines of extremely high axiological content whose development is not exclusively national, but, on the contrary, it is a movement of a universal character whose result has been to place the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as a true human right. It is placed within the so-called third-generation rights: a step forward from the classic human rights, civil or political (of the first generation) and economic, social, and cultural rights (of the second generation). This has given basis for formulating a new legal classification: that of Ecological Law, which today has a very defined object in natural resources, and its complex of sources characterized by organicity and completeness.” (Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). Indeed, the danger posed by the antisocial exercise of the right of property, without respecting its environmental function, led our courts to rethink old jurisprudential criteria regarding the protection of property, to demand from possessors and owners the fulfillment of the triple function: economic, social, and environmental or ecological.

XI.- The Sala Constitucional has accepted amparo remedies against abusive agrarian or other activities by owners who, disrespecting the agro-environmental limits imposed by the legislator, endanger natural assets or resources and human life. Thus, forest resources have been protected against activities that produce the indiscriminate felling of trees adjacent to a Forest Reserve, due to a mining activity, establishing as canons of constitutional order the protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation, of natural resources (Sala Constitucional, No. 2233-93). Private activities, exercised within the scope of the right of property and freedom of enterprise, must respect agro-environmental limits, and particularly the collective interest. This situation is applicable to productive agrarian activities of animal husbandry or plant cultivation, as they cannot be exercised to the detriment of health or the environment. That would be allowing the abuse of right. The Sala Constitucional has also established this, when it points out: “On the other hand, while it is true that the State must respect the right of individuals to work and to private enterprise, it is also true that it must ensure the well-being of the community. Any person can dedicate themselves to animal husbandry as a business, provided that they do not thereby threaten the health or safety of persons, and must prevent the business operation from becoming a source of infection or causing environmental pollution. Public Health and environmental protection are principles protected both in the constitutional sphere (articles 21, 74 and 89 of the Carta Magna), and through international regulations.” (Sala Constitucional, No. 741 of 10:55 hours on March 13, 1992. Constitutional case law was outlining the bases to incorporate the principles of Sustainable Development as a model, to reorient in their fair balance all those productive activities, including agrarian activity, that were harming the environment and endangering ecological balance, freedom of enterprise, and the defense of consumer health: “It must be taken into consideration that environmental protection and the promotion of economic development are not independent challenges – says the Sala. Development cannot subsist in an environment of deterioration of the resource base, and one cannot protect when growth plans constantly disregard it. It is necessary to opt for sustainable development, which meets the needs of the present without compromising our capacity to face those of the future. This development means recognizing that if we wish to have continuous access to the resources that make life possible and if we make the benefits of industrial progress expand, we must be aware of the implications and limitations that taking that path entails.” (Sala Constitucional, Judgment No. 4423-93). This new orientation of case law, on the agricultural phenomenon, recognizes the dependence of the biological cycle (typical of agrarian activity) on the use of natural resources, linking it closely with the concept of sustainable development. “Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as vital space, food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources; thus, for example, both the generation of foreign currency through agricultural and tourism exploitation, and the success of important infrastructure investments depend, ultimately, on the conservation of those. The goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. Speaking of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is speaking of the demand for natural resources in the individual sphere and the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products” (Sala Constitucional, No. 3705 of 15:00 hours on July 30, 1993, bold not in original).

XII.- When the fundamental right of every citizen to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is expressly enshrined in our Constitución Política – Article 50 amended by Ley No. 7412 of May 24, 1994 – and the right of consumers to the protection of health, environment, safety, and economic interests is established – Article 46 amended by Ley No. 7607 of May 29, 1996 – new constitutional principles and values emerge that permeate special legislation. It is important to integrate, through constitutional interpretation (systematic, material, and evolutionary), all those norms dedicated to protecting economic relations, with the principles and values of sustainable development. The freedom of private economic initiative presupposes, in the scope of the private initiative of the agrarian entrepreneur (MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1ª. Edición, Editora Córdoba, 1996, p. 49-51), the right to choose the agrarian activity (Article 56), the freedom to contract freely for the operation or constitution of the agrarian enterprise (Article 46), the freedom of territorial movement of agrarian plant or animal goods; the right to form agrarian associations (Article 25), the right to enjoy productive agrarian property in its economic, social, and environmental function (Article 45), freedom of competition, the subjective right to access the market and remain in it (Article 46). But all manifestations of the freedom of economic initiative within the scope of agrarian activity, and in the exercise of property, must be in accordance with the constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 50 and 69 of the Constitución Política, that is, the promotion of sustainable development through productive activity, guaranteeing the equitable distribution of production and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. As these are constitutional provisions, which do not establish a distinctive regulation for agrarian matters, it is understood that agrarian enterprises and property owners are bound to comply with said obligations. The demands of consumers within the agri-food market are directed at consuming agrarian products (plant or animal), subjected to production, agro-industrial, or agro-marketing processes with the minimum of contaminating substances that could affect health. Therefore, aspects of adequate hygienic-sanitary quality are demanded both in the production process and in the successive processes of handling agrarian products. The entrepreneurial agrarian activity must be based on more natural and less artificial techniques. The reduction of biological risk, typical of productive activity, must not be to the detriment of consumer health. Agro-environmental activity must reconcile with nature in order to guarantee a healthy environment for consumers. In this, the technical fact of agriculture plays a fundamental role, to seek productive and agro-industrial processes that are less harmful to health and the environment. Any agrarian activity based on artificial methods, with toxic chemical substances, harms health and the environment. Therefore, compliance with the constitutional principles, which protect consumer rights, in favor of health and human life, is imperative. The doctrine has delved deeper into the topic of the ecological function (DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, 647 p.), as an inseparable quality of the social function, but it makes a clear distinction between the two. The ecological function arises from the impact of the Environment with an ethical foundation, within the Third-generation Human Rights. It seeks to protect collective interests, and above all, it is based on solidarity, to protect health and the healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The social function is insufficient to achieve the purposes of the new values that permeate society. It is not enough merely to fulfill the economic destiny of the assets. It is necessary to protect ecological and environmental interests. “The social function therefore provides the dogmatic scheme, the legal basis from which the ecological function transforms the right of property into a right to the limited use of one's own asset in such a way that it does not harm the Environment. Using synonyms from the experimental sciences, we would say that the ecological function is the catalyst that transforms the normal regime of ownership into something different that comes to configure it and give it a very precise form—not the one the owner projects onto his thing, but the form it acquires through its use most suitable for the Environment, a use that includes the farmer's own productive activity.” ([Name8], op. cit., page 81). Therefore, it is necessary to delve deeper into how this environmental function has been manifesting itself within property, what obligations the legislator has been imposing on landowners to achieve their conservation, as well as the recovery of degraded ones.

XIII.- The agro-environmental limitations on property reach a great many aspects in the exercise of productive activities and in the field of the conservation of natural resources, Biodiversity, the use and conservation of soils, the protection of forests and ecosystems, the use and control of pesticides and chemically synthesized products, plant and animal phytosanitary and health control, agricultural waste, water conservation, the use and management of wastewater in agriculture, the recovery of soils and hydrographic basins, etc. In the next section, we will refer only to some of these limitations. Within the context of the constitutional principles and values described, a large number of agro-environmental laws begin to be enacted, which not only mark the consolidation of a sustainable development model, but also impose a series of agro-environmental limitations on property and freedom of enterprise, also seeking to consolidate a new agrarian and environmental or ecological culture. 1) The Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (No. 7554 of October 4, 1995) establishes the obligation of the State to promote sustainable economic and environmental development, which necessarily implies imposing environmental limits on the exercise of productive economic activities and the exercise of the right of property. But for these limits to have real application, a cultural change is necessary. From the traditional agrarian culture, where only the economic mattered, a shift must be made to an environmental or agro-environmental culture for sustainable development (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16). Among the most important limits imposed on property, to guarantee the economic, social, and environmental function, the following can be highlighted: A.- The exercise of any agro-environmental activity that could alter or destroy elements of the environment necessarily requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), the approval of which must be prior to the project. The assessment is also required when marine, coastal, and wetland resources could be affected by works or infrastructure. B.- Territorial planning, to balance sustainable development, implies the territorial relocation of productive activities, which could mean significant limits on the right of property, as consideration must be given, among other aspects, to natural resources, predominant economic activities, soil use capacity, and zoning by agricultural products and activities, based on ecological and productive considerations. C.- The Poder Ejecutivo is empowered to include within protected wild areas the private farms necessary for fulfilling the environmental function, or to create legal easements (servidumbres legales) for ecological protection. In cases where the Law requires compensation, private parties may voluntarily submit to the forest regime, in which case the property is encumbered in the Registro Público (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 37). D.- Activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles of wetland ecosystems, which could cause their deterioration and elimination, are prohibited (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 45). E.- Productive activities must avoid water contamination, treat wastewater, and prevent or minimize the deterioration or contamination of hydrographic basins, as well as the soil. F.- Organic agriculture, as a form of exercising sustainable agrarian activities, implies a form of compliance with the economic, social, and environmental function, as environmental certification of organic products obtained without applying chemically synthesized inputs or products is required (Articles 73-75). G.- Environmental credit: is intended to finance the costs of reducing pollution in productive processes. When they involve land use, a land management and use plan is required in accordance with use capacity (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 113). Undoubtedly, the structure of property and its function is conditioned, in this case, by the environmental element, required in the business operation. 2) The Ley Forestal (No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, amended by laws No. 7609 of June 11, 1996, 7761 of April 2, 1998, and 7788 of April 30, 1998), guided by the constitutional principles of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources, establishes regulations regarding the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests, and for the production, harvesting, industrialization, and promotion of forest resources, seeking the incorporation of private parties into the sustained exercise of silvicultural activities. Although it is true that the MINAE is empowered to create protected wild areas on private lands, this requires compensation, unless the owner decides to voluntarily submit to the forest regime, or they are already State property, within its National Reserve heritage. The Law foresees two clear limits, in the interest of protected areas: a: “In the case of forest reserves, protective zones, and wildlife refuges, and in the event that payment or expropriation has not been carried out, and while it is being carried out, the areas shall be subject to an environmental management plan that includes the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) and subsequently, to the management, recovery, and replenishment plan for resources.” (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 37, in relation to Article 2 of the Ley Forestal. This amendment was introduced by the Ley de Biodiversidad, in Article 14). This constitutes a clear limit for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property. B. “When, following prior scientific and technical justification of public interest, it is determined by law that the land is essential to conserve biological diversity or water resources, a limitation on property shall be constituted that will prevent cutting trees and changing land use (cambio de uso del suelo). This restriction must be registered as an encumbrance in the Registro Público.” (Ley Forestal, Article 2, second paragraph). As observed, this is not an unreasonable limit. On the contrary, the owner could exercise their activity as long as it is compatible with the environmental function that, by nature, is assigned to the property, to conserve water resources or biological diversity. Title III of the Law, referring to private forest property, as a special property, establishes a set of rights and obligations for forest owners that condition the fulfillment of the environmental function, considering the nature of the asset: a) Owners are not permitted to change land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the Administración Forestal del Estado can grant permission to carry out works complementary to agroforestry activity, provided the forest cut is limited, proportional, and reasonable (Ley Forestal, Article 19. When necessary, an environmental impact assessment would be required); b) Forest harvesting can only be carried out if the owner has a management plan that contains the potential environmental impact, based on scientific sustainability criteria; c) Payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) (The Law defines environmental services as: “Those provided by the forest and forest plantations that directly affect the protection and improvement of the environment. They are the following: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (fixation, reduction, sequestration, storage, and absorption), protection of water for urban, rural, or hydroelectric use, protection of biodiversity for its conservation and sustainable, scientific, and pharmaceutical use, research and genetic improvement, protection of ecosystems, life forms, and scenic natural beauty for tourism and scientific purposes.”) constitutes one of the most modern manifestations of exercising the environmental function, as the owner commits to conserving the forest for a period of no less than twenty years, to receive the Certificado de Conservación del Bosque. It is also received by owners who wish to subject their property to forest regeneration, for areas that, due to their deteriorated state and environmental needs, must be converted to forest use. The encumbrances and limitations, as well as the incentives, are registered in the Registro Público as an encumbrance on the property; d) Forest plantations, including agroforestry systems and individually planted trees, do not require a permit for cutting, transport, industrialization, or export, except when there is a management plan derived from a forest contract with the State; e) Every owner is prohibited from cutting or eliminating trees in the protection areas established by Law for permanent springs (nacientes permanentes), rivers, lakes, and springs (manantiales) (Ley Forestal, Articles 33 and 34.); f) It is prohibited to carry out burns on forest lands, or adjacent lands, without obtaining the respective permit from the Administración Forestal del Estado; g) As part of the environmental function, properties voluntarily submitted to the forest regime or dedicated to that activity enjoy special protection against invasions, and can request immediate protection from the police authorities; h) Forest credit is consolidated as an institute to finance small and medium producers, through credits and other mechanisms to promote forest management, reforestation processes, forest nurseries, agroforestry systems, and recovery of denuded areas. The financing also includes the payment for environmental services provided by forests and forest plantations. The land with forest and standing trees will serve as collateral for said credits, being recorded as encumbrances on the property (Ley Forestal, Articles 46, 48, and 49). 3).- The Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos (No. 7779 of April 30, 1998), is of fundamental importance for the fulfillment of the economic, social, and environmental function of property. It aims to achieve the sustainable management, conservation, and recovery of soils, integrated with other natural resources, achieving more active participation of communities and producers, and promoting the implementation and control of improved practices in land-use systems, to avoid erosion and degradation of the resource. Agroecology is proposed as a way to achieve convergence between the objectives of agricultural production and the conservation of soil and water resources. The Law proposes a set of agro-environmental limitations, to achieve compliance with the stated objectives: In critical areas of basins or sub-basins (with severity in soil degradation and its surroundings, as a limiting factor for any activity), whether public or private domain, landowners must forcibly apply all measures and practices that lead to the recovery of the soil and preservation of the environment in general. Any land adjudication carried out by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario shall have the limitation that the land use cannot go against its use capacity, the breach of which becomes grounds for revocation.

The obligations of private parties include, among others: To promote, contribute to, and execute all the practices and activities necessary for soil management, conservation, and recovery; it is a right-obligation to monitor and control compliance with soil legislation; to prevent soil degradation that may be caused by water, for which purpose all practices that increase the infiltration capacity on their lands or the evacuation of excess water toward natural channels must be applied; to prevent or impede the contamination of aquifers and groundwater layers; to permit the entry of authorized technicians to verify the maintenance of soil management, conservation, and recovery practices. 4) Perhaps the most important limitations, established by the Legislator, for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property have been mentioned. Many more could be determined in other special laws, such as the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), Controlled Burns Law (Ley de Quemas controladas), Civil Aviation Law – on agricultural aviation rules – among others.

XIV.- One of the most controversial issues, regarding limitations on property for the fulfillment of its environmental function, is that of the possession and titling of forests and lands located in protected areas. The treatment of this issue, in the areas of possessory protection, private property, and adverse possession (usucapión), has been the subject of analysis and discussion, both in doctrine and in jurisprudence. The issue of ecological possession is not peacefully accepted. Various doctrinal approaches have been put forward, and jurisprudence requires demonstrating the fulfillment of the ecological function to protect possession and property. It all originates from the application of Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which currently states: “Artículo 7.- When the real estate to which the information refers is comprised within a protected wilderness area, whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate that they are the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession (posesión decenal), exercised for at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area. Farms located outside those areas and containing forests may only be titled if the proponent demonstrates that they are the holder of the legal rights of ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years, and have protected that natural resource, on the understanding that the real estate must be duly demarcated and with fences or clean lanes…” (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, artículo 7. Amended by Ley Forestal, No. 7575 of February 5, 1996). In relation to the application of this provision, contrary to what was indicated by the lower court in its considerations on the merits – regarding the impossibility of applying the mentioned Article 7 retroactively – the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that it is possible to apply said provision retroactively, from the moment the public domain is affected, since the ten-year possession consolidated before the declaration of any reserve or protected area finds protection in the referred-to legal provision (See Constitutional Chamber, No. 4597 at 15:45 hours on August 5, 1997). Hence, the Tribunal does not share the trial judge's assertion in that sense. In any case, the situation of this proceeding, as we shall see, is completely different, since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have possessed, as owners, lands that have belonged and continue to belong to the State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado).

XV.The ecological function influences the resolution of specific agrarian conflicts, as greater importance is given to those sustainable productive activities. Within this context, the Jurisprudence has been playing a leading role in the search for balance between agriculture and the environment. The First Chamber admitted the existence of Ecological Law and its object (First Chamber of the Court, Judgment No. 189 at 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991): the protection of natural resources. It established that forest property is limited, and in the event of the creation of a Protected Zone (Zona Protectora), compensation is not necessary, as the owner can continue exercising an agroforestry activity, conserving and protecting the forest resource. In judgment No. 51 at 15:15 hours on May 25, 1995, the Chamber further developed the issue of forest property and applied the institute of ecological possession to the specific case. It was a conflict regarding a better right of possession, in an area declared a Forest Reserve. It was stated: "The failure to deliver a parcel is not sufficient reason to claim the better right of possession. The most important thing would have been the conservation of the forest resource... an effective agrarian possession was required and even the demonstration of possessory acts aimed at the conservation of the forest. This aspect was not demonstrated by the appellant; on the contrary, lands of forest suitability were turned into pastures... That is, despite the existing limitation for conservation purposes, the possessors continued exploiting the forest. Evidently, the work carried out did not tend toward the exercise of a forestal possession in accordance with the nature of the property. On the contrary, they deforested to plant. They ignored the limitations and continued destroying the forest. Their possessory acts are, consequently, contrary to the ecological function of conservation of natural resources to maintain the balance of the ecosystems in the Forest Reserve of the Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste (Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste)."

XVI.The maximum reaffirmation of the environmental function of property, whose constitutional basis is now indisputable, is found in the recently enacted Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad, No. 7788 of April 30, 1998). This Law responds to the commitment assumed by Costa Rica, on a global level, to conserve biological diversity, genetic resources, species, and ecosystems, within the framework of sustainable development. It is projected within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and goes further – following the same convention – than conservation, as it regulates the sustainable use of biological resources, incorporates norms on access to genetic resources, and seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits derived from the utilization of genetic material, access to technology, and biotechnology. Article 8 of the Law expressly incorporates the environmental function of property in its text: “As part of the economic and social function, real estate properties must fulfill an environmental function.” The legislator did nothing more than recognize a principle that had a solid constitutional foundation and development in our Jurisprudence. However, it was essential to reaffirm not only the principle but also the agro-environmental limitations to property, in the interests of achieving true sustainable development in the use of biological diversity resources. It is very important to point out that the loss of biological diversity is due, above all, to economic factors, especially the reduced value assigned to it and the ecological functions, such as the protection of hydrographic basins, the nutrient cycle, the control of pollution, soil formation, photosynthesis, and evolution. Biological resources and the diversity of the systems that maintain them constitute the essential foundation of sustainable development. On the other hand, today the importance of genetic diversity in the exercise of sustainable productive activities is known. “Human beings have been using, and in some cases increasing, genetic diversity for thousands of years, especially in agriculture. Just as genetic diversity allows species to survive, human beings, especially indigenous and local communities, have relied on genetic diversity to create a wide spectrum of genetically diverse crops, animals, and microbes that have facilitated their survival. Farmers have domesticated wild animals, improving them to achieve desirable characteristics such as size, coat thickness, or disease resistance. Likewise, farmers have domesticated hundreds of plant species which, over time, they have improved to create tens of thousands of varieties with desirable characteristics such as seed color, flavor, fruit size, or disease resistance. Modern breeders also rely on and depend on genetic diversity. For these reasons, the effective conservation of genetic diversity must go far beyond the simple conservation of species: it is not sufficient to conserve viable populations of species, to the extent that said populations may not have the genetic diversity necessary for their own survival nor for that of human beings.” (IUCN, Environmental Law Centre. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Spanish Edition, 1996, page 27). It was essential to integrate conservation with the sustainable use of Biodiversity, the active participation of social sectors, to guarantee social, economic, and cultural sustainability, through the formation of an environmental culture and awareness. It was also essential to achieve the consolidation of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación), creating systems of incentives and retribution for environmental services for the conservation, sustainable use, and elements of Biodiversity, since only in this way could compliance with the environmental function of public and private property be guaranteed. The Conservation Areas, whose territorial competence reaches the entire territory of both protected areas and private areas of economic exploitation, have the difficult task of applying agro-environmental legislation, especially the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Ley Forestal, the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), and the Law Creating the National Parks Service (Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales). The environmental function of property, to protect Biodiversity, requires that human activities conform to the scientific and technical norms issued by the Ministry of the Environment and competent public entities for the maintenance of vital ecological processes, both inside and outside protected areas, but especially in those activities related to human settlements, agriculture, tourism, and industry or any other that may affect said processes.

XVII.- By reason of all the foregoing, the appellant being incorrect, the appealed resolution must be confirmed, in that which has been the object of the appeal.

POR TANTO:

In that which has been the object of the appeal, the appealed resolution is confirmed.

[Nombre9] ANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA VANESSA FISHER GONZÁLEZ C.B.M INFORMACION POSESORIA TIT:// [Nombre2] Y OTRO It is the legislator who is responsible for establishing said minimum and essential content, through the limitations on the right, and it is the Constitutional Court that is responsible for exercising control over that legislative power, to prevent limitations from depriving titleholders of their ownership. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Article 45 of the Political Constitution is the provision that explicitly refers to the Right of property. That provision states: "Property is inviolable; no one may be deprived of their own except for legally proven public interest, with prior compensation according to the law.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> In case of war or internal upheaval, it is not indispensable that the compensation be prior. However, the corresponding payment shall be made no later than two years after the end of the state of emergency (…)”. For reasons of public necessity, the Legislative Assembly may, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, impose upon property </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">limitations of social interest</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">." As Constitutional Jurisprudence has repeatedly stated, the two paragraphs of the constitutional provision originated at different historical moments:</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> one influenced by the principles and values of the Liberal State, and the other by the economic and social rights characteristic of the Social State of Law. Now then, the question that immediately arises is:</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> Is there a single property or can different types of properties be admitted (?).</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> Undoubtedly, the distinct nature and function of goods imposes upon us the distinction between "the" properties. Without any doubt, the Political Constitution recognizes, as in the majority of modern constitutions, property as an Institution.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> And as such, it is a single one. However, regarding the right of property as a subjective right, today we distinguish</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> "the properties," based on the Italian doctrine of Professor Salvatore Pugliatti, since they undoubtedly differ in their function and their structure. The function of property refers to the social utility of the good, to its diverse productive nature:</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> thus we could speak of agricultural, livestock, forest, urban nature, etcetera.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> And the structure refers to the set of rights and obligations of the owner, which will differ depending on the function assigned to the good.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> In other terms, the rights and obligations of a holder of forest land are different from the rights and obligations of the holder of a property located in an urban area. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Today, this thesis is shared by the most outstanding doctrine, both national and international,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> and also by the criteria expressed by jurisprudence. It is no secret to anyone that the right of property, as a subjective right, entails a set of rights and duties, powers and obligations for its holder, which are being shaped by special agrarian legislation, attending to the nature of the goods upon which it falls, and to the new principles and values that are shaping the entire legal system.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The Fiscal Code of 1885, the Law of Public Lands (Ley de Terrenos Baldíos) (No. 13 of January 10, 1939, repealed by the Law of Lands and Colonization No. 2825), the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), and the Law of Lands and Colonization, were the first regulations to address the rational use of natural resources, in order to conserve them. But they also fostered the occupation, titling, and destruction of forests. In the second half of this century, interest in production and land exploitation prevailed, which was justified by the imposition of the economic and social function of agrarian property. In effect, Costa Rican agrarian doctrine had already manifested itself through an agrarian culture tending to put land into production to fulfill its economic purpose:</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> “...The land multiplied its fertility with the aid of mechanization and technology, which supposes the increasing use of certain movable goods... . But if the land shares its importance with movable agrarian capital, losing its primacy, it has acquired a new prominence as the base for the goods that constitute the agricultural operation... . Said goods are considered agrarian property in its economic aspect, as instruments or means of agricultural production, and in its social aspect, relating to its control and the distribution of its benefits... Agrarian property is characterized by the individual and social demand of the necessary allocation to production, to preserve the quality and productive capacity of the good.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The social demand for production becomes more obvious in the provisions that authorize the expropriation of agrarian goods not used in exploitation or deficiently employed, and in those that prohibit or limit indirect forms of tenure and exploitation...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, Universidad de Costa Rica, 2nd edition, 1982, pages 228-229). The Law of Public Lands (Ley de Terrenos Baldíos) itself allowed the acquisition of lands by private individuals, up to a maximum of 30 hectares.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> It was prohibited, except in that case, to fence off public lands owned by the State, to clear forests, or to establish</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> constructions or crops on them, or to extract firewood, timber, or other products.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> With this, the intention of our legislator to conserve forest resources was evident. The Law of Lands and Colonization of 1961 regulated the economic and social function of property with greater prevalence than the environmental one. This was a cultural requirement, to guarantee not only the real "access" to property, through the intervention of the Institute of Lands and Colonization (Instituto de Tierras y Colonización), but also to demand compliance with the economic purpose of productive goods (among others, Articles 1, 2, and 5). National doctrine affirmed that “From the enactment, then, of the Law of Lands and Colonization, the occupation of State lands is illegal. But those begun before its effectiveness are lawful, within the limits and conditions established by the General Law of Public Lands (Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos) or any others in force at the beginning of the occupation, and serve for the purposes of positive prescription” ([Nombre6], ibid, p. 231). It was thus that in the Law of Lands and Colonization, alongside the economic and social function, a series of provisions aimed at conserving natural resources were enacted (Articles 1 and 68).</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> In particular, it was established that lands that did not have a regime of conservation and adequate use of the reserves of renewable natural resources of the nation that existed on them were breaching the social function of property (Law of Lands and Colonization, Article 153, subsection 4). However, its excessive application, due to the culture inherent to it regarding the economic and social function, led to the abusive exercise of the right of property. For this reason, it is also warned that "The improper appropriation of lands in national reserves by private individuals acquires alarming characteristics when it is carried out by owners of large estates for the purpose of increasing their area, and even more so if the pursued purpose is limited to hoarding land without cultivating it." ([Nombre6], op. cit.,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> page 235). The legislator imposed a series of limitations on property, particularly agrarian property, directed at fulfilling its economic and social function.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The Law of Lands and Colonization makes express reference to both functions (Law of Lands and Colonization, Articles 6; 21, subsection 1; 58, 142, 144, 150).</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> On the one hand, it imposes the obligation on the State to provide persons lacking land or who possess it insufficiently with sufficient land for their individual and social development (Article 2). It also establishes the obligation to produce the land, since the failure to fulfill this productive economic function would potentially imply the expropriation of the same if they are found uncultivated, abandoned, indirectly exploited, or insufficiently cultivated. And it punishes the uneconomical exercise of land suitable for agriculture but destined for livestock (Article 144). It imposes on the beneficiaries of the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), as one of their obligations, the conservation of renewable natural resources, since the failure to comply with these provisions may imply the revocation of the parcel.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> On the other hand, the Law of Multiple Land Titling (Ley de Titulación Múltiple de Tierras) (No. 5064 of August 22, 1972), declared unconstitutional, subjected titled farms to agro-environmental limitations imposed by the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) (No. 276 of August 15, 1942, Articles 72 and 73), since waters, beds or channels, and basins of waters that are of public domain are excluded from private domain; and a public use easement (servidumbre) is imposed on the banks of non-navigable rivers. Other limitations contained in said Law were linked to the General Law of Roads (Ley General de Caminos) and the prohibition of destroying forests and groves containing plant or animal specimens that are in the process of extinction in the country (Law of Multiple Land Titling, Article 5, subsection c). The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) of 1961 (No. 4465 of November 25, 1969) also imposed important limitations on agrarian property aimed at obligatorily subjecting to the forest regime those forests and lands that the Executive Branch considered indispensable to establish protective zones (zonas protectoras), forest reserves, national reserves, and biological reserves in them. In case of refusal by the owners, expropriation would proceed (Forestry Law, Article 2, subsection b, 71, and 72). In effect, from the enactment of said Law, the environmental function of property began to manifest itself with greater depth. Policies for conservation, forestation, and reforestation of forests and lands, and for the promotion, by means of incentives, of forestry activity are contemplated. The state forest heritage is constituted by national reserves, forest reserves, national parks, state forest nurseries, protective zones, and biological reserves. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> “When the conservation of the forest and forest lands is inspired by the purpose of protecting soils, or maintaining and regulating the hydrological regime, climate, or the environment, the areas destined for those purposes are called protective zones. In them, the process of soil erosion is halted, since tree roots hold and retain the topsoil, and falling leaves cover the ground where water runs, thus preventing it from dragging away soil particles. Protective zones can be located on state property or private property. In both, agricultural work that implies the destruction of vegetation is prohibited. The maintenance and regulation of the hydrological regime is another important function of forests. For this reason, they have received detailed treatment in the Forestry Law, which declares as forest zones those bordering springs (nacientes) and a small strip along the banks of rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, or natural reservoirs. Within national reserves, a wide strip on either side of riverbanks, and a broad strip on either side of the maximum depression of hydrographic basins are protective areas. The function of forests in relation to water is so important that it can transcend the national sphere, as would be the case of a river that runs through several countries.” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, op. cit., page 706.).</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VII.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Doctrine (ALBALADEJO,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> Manuel. Derecho Civil, Volume III, Derecho de bienes, Barcelona, 8th edition, 1994,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> pages 259 to 262) has distinguished between limits (límites) and limitations (limitaciones)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> of the right of property, in the context of the content of that right. According to ALBALADEJO, the normal content of the right of property must be framed by indicating the limits of ownership: "Sometimes the limit consists of the owner not being able to do something; other times, in having the duty to do it, thus removing the freedom to omit it (for example, the duty not to repair the facade of the building or not to cultivate the rustic farm)... Since the limits of ownership constitute its normal regime, no special act is needed to impose them on each particular thing, nor do they need to be proven... but it is sufficient to invoke (when applicable) the legal provision that establishes them. On the contrary, in the case of limitations, they must be established by a special act relating to the thing whose property is concerned, and, as they are exceptional, they must be proven; otherwise, the property is presumed free of them." (ibid, page 262). These may be established for reasons of private interest or for reasons of public interest, the latter being predominant. For example, those established in the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) or in special agrarian or environmental legislation. Our national Jurisprudence</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> made the distinction between limits and limitations to the right of property: "Traditionally, 'limits' and 'limitations' have been used as synonyms, but today a difference is made between both terms, understanding 'limits' as those imposed by law in a generalized manner without referring to an individualized thing or owner, applying to all those who are in the same situation; whereas 'limitations' as a general rule are imposed voluntarily by the owners, even if based on law, and always for specific cases... But note that the two-thirds vote does not constitute authorization to impose all kinds of limitations on property, since the text refers only to those of 'social interest'" (Full Court, Extraordinary Session, of March 25, 1983). The Jurisprudence emanating, at that time from the Full Court, acting as the Constitutional Court, very clearly pointed out the principle of the social economic function of property,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> as a restriction imposed on property with general effects. Specifically, in the field of forest property, Jurisprudence established the importance of limitations from the environmental point of view: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">"The appeal alleges the unconstitutionality of Articles 30, 71, 88, 98, 101, subsections b) and d), 103, 104, and 105 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) for finding them harmful to the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution, since according to the appellant's criterion, the first cited article threatens the inviolability of property by requiring approval from the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) to carry out forest elimination work for the purpose of carrying out colonization or parceling of land or any agricultural or livestock enterprise, given that with this State interference, the power to administer private property is placed in the hands of the State.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> To the above, it must be pointed out that no conflict arises between Article 30 of the Forestry Law and Article 45 of the Political Constitution, because the right of property is not absolute.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> In effect, while the constituent power categorically declared that property is inviolable, it immediately established restrictions to that principle, one being the possibility of expropriation "for legally proven public interest," and another being that it is provided that the Legislative Assembly may impose limitations of social interest on property "by a two-thirds vote of all its members," from which it must be concluded that the first declaration has two limiting factors relating to public interest and social interest. The classic concept of property, which considered it absolute and without limits, has changed notably, now allowing the imposition of "limitations of social interest," as authorized by the second paragraph of Article 45, by which it has been possible for the legislator to establish, as an essential function of the State, that of "ensuring the protection, use, conservation, and promotion of the country's forest resources" (Article 1 of the Forestry Law), a function that is fulfilled with the series of restrictions that said Law imposes on forest exploitation.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> From the same constitutional provision, it is concluded that these limits are not a denial of the right of property, as the appellant argues,</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> but a limitation to achieve the fulfillment of superior purposes, more important than the strictly individual interests in favor of the owner, being those of the community and future generations that must count on forest resources, including for the protection of the environment and health... It is true that its exercise has been limited, in protection of the State's forest interests that seek the conservation of natural resources and environmental health; but this is permitted by the constitutional provision that the appellant himself considers violated... VIII.- This Court has already repeatedly stated that the exercise of the freedoms granted by the Constitution is not absolute, and that they may be subject to regulation and even restrictions when higher interests are at stake.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> It would hardly be possible to label as unconstitutional, for example, Article 371 of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), insofar as it punishes with imprisonment anyone who cultivates opium poppy, coca, or marijuana plants, for violating the freedom of agriculture established in Article 46 of the Constitution, a provision that the appellant considers violated by the restrictions that the Forestry Law imposes on agricultural work.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> And if the criterion already expressed is taken into consideration, that said Law protects interests of a higher rank than the merely individual interests of the possessor or owner of lands subject to forestry regulation, it is also concluded here that the restrictions accused of being unconstitutional do not violate the guarantee of Article 46 of the Political Constitution, since it has already been stated that what the State has done is restrict, for reasons of social interest, the exercise of the attributes of property.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> IX. The Forestry Law aims to protect natural resources, a circumstance that affects the organization of production.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> Hydrological resources, environmental changes, and the health of the place are factors that influence agricultural production and are directly related to the forest resources of the area; therefore, regulations on forest exploitation do not harm but, on the contrary, affirm the constitutional guarantee of Article 50, insofar as it provides that the State must organize production.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> X. With the Forestry Law, the appellant is not being prevented from the possibility of obtaining honest and useful work, with which he may provide for the subsistence and well-being of himself and his family.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> It is unquestionable that the right granted by Article 56 of the Political Constitution is not unrestricted, since it is subject to the laws and regulations regarding the manner and conditions of exercising it.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> Thus, Mr. Elizondo Villegas can dedicate himself to agriculture if that is his wish; but in exercising that right, it is not lawful for him to act against the current legislation that protects forest resources and regulates agricultural production.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> There are prohibited crops (such as the aforementioned marijuana), and restricted agricultural practices (such as burning), by legal provisions that make it impossible for farmers to dedicate themselves to those crops or use said practices.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> However, those provisions are not unconstitutional</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">, since they do not illegitimately restrict the right to work, but rather regulate it to safeguard other higher-ranking interests that guarantee coexistence, the ultimate end to which the legal system tends."</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (Full Court, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">extraordinary session held on May 17, 1984, emphasis not in the original).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VIII.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), starting in 1990, more clearly recognizes the dynamic character of the right of property, and the possibility of imposing within its structure – the set of rights and obligations of the owner – limitations of social interest, to prevent the antisocial or abusive exercise of that right, which is not unlimited. Within said context, it implicitly recognizes the existence of special properties, with distinct particularities attending to the nature of the good in question, and its specific function: "The</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> power of the owner over the property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the right of property has undergone important transformations. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Currently, not only is the right of owners protected, but also various general or social interests that coexist with it</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of right implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relating to an agricultural estate are very different from those corresponding to a farm located in an intensively used urban sector." Such limitations, according to the Constitutional Chamber, must be reasonable and not empty the content of the right, for it would then become a total deprivation thereof (Constitutional Chamber, No. 5097-93 of 10:24 a.m. on October 15, 1993).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">IX.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> The exercise of the economic and social function of property, without considering the environmental one, was normal within the prevailing agrarian culture until the early 1990s.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> A large quantity of lands were titled. State banks promoted, through financing, the clearing and destruction of forests to expand the agricultural frontier,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> through agricultural and livestock activities, with minimal soil recovery practices and devastated areas. Agrarian property fell upon a good essentially of a productive nature. But the legislator's mandates to adequately conserve natural resources were ignored, which implied different forms of exercising agrarian activity.</span> Population growth, scarce agricultural production techniques, dependence on agrochemicals due to the loss of soil fertility, and the agrarian culture itself gradually led to the destruction of our precious resources, with scant State control. There were no clear criteria to put an end to the abusive and antisocial exercise of property, since the majority of norms protected and fostered the improper exercise of that right, and the excessive exploitation of natural resources. Although it is true that for many years the Legislator had been seeking, through clear agro-environmental limitations, sustainable development, it was not until the third-generation Human Rights that a momentous cultural change occurred for the entire legal system. Therefore, the establishment of agro-environmental limits on property, within the scope of its economic, social, and environmental function, is fundamental to truly achieving sustainable development, weighing the constitutional values and principles that should guide this development model.

**X.-** Agrarian case law makes a clear distinction between the different types of property, following PUGLIATTI's thesis: “The most productive among things is the land, which yields its fruits and products spontaneously, but from it, from the land, civilized man lives, no longer merely gathering its spontaneous products, but fertilizing it with his work. The natural productive potential of the land becomes actual production, through man's labor. With labor, the land is humanized, becomes man's spiritual possession and property, not a thing, not natural, dominated by chance or causality, but nourished by man who cares for it, cultivates it; it enters the realm not only of human interests and the motives for man's actions, but also into the ends of values, becomes the basis of human consortium, seat and cradle of the society of men, regulated by the laws of social living, by law" (PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. La proprietá nel nuevo Diritto. , Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p 203). Although it is true that agrarian property is defined as essentially possessive, as a property of entrepreneurial activity aimed at achieving the best productive destiny of the asset, the interest in conserving it also imposes itself. In the context of the exercise of subjective rights, to protect their right, the owner is required to have “... exercised it fulfilling the economic destiny of the asset, that they performed possessory acts on it aimed at cultivating it and improving it, and that they developed an agrarian entrepreneurial activity on the asset, understood as an economically organized activity for the purpose of producing animals or plants, with the use of natural resources...”. Under this conception, our Case Law clearly integrates the environmental function, as part of the economic and social function, when it states: “Today this principle has evolved and is identified as the economic-social principle of property, insofar as it unfolds into two: 1) On one hand, called the subjective function, which refers to the obligations of the owner with the property, which could be synthesized as their duty to cultivate the productive asset they own, thus fulfilling the economic purpose of the asset: to be productive or of productive aptitude; they also have the obligation to improve their property so that production and productivity increase, they must respect the adequate maintenance and development of an ecologically balanced environment, and in the case of some particular properties, fulfill all the obligations imposed by special regulations; 2) The objective function is the State's obligation to provide all subjects who do not have productive assets, or have them insufficiently, and who have the capacity to develop an entrepreneurial activity, with those assets so that the subjects can join the productive process, developing themselves humanly on the social and economic planes. The first is the basically economic function, the second is above all social...” (Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 230 of 16:00 hours on July 20, 1990). In said ruling, a clear jurisprudential trend is evident, reiterated in many others (To the same effect, Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 241 of 16:25 hours on July 27, 1990, No. 50 of 14:20 hours on August 5, 1993.) of introducing, as part of the same economic and social function, the environmental function to achieve sustainable development. However, it is in the field of forest property, as limited property, that the principle of the ecological function of property has achieved greater jurisprudential development. We refer particularly to the limitations suffered by the owner of a land declared a protected zone (zona protectora) under the forest regime, and who unsuccessfully claims their right to be compensated: Here, the first problem can be dispelled regarding the plaintiff's thesis of having suffered a limitation in their rights to enjoy and dispose of the property affected as a protected zone (zona protectora), which having been declared a forest reserve—and based on the Office of the Attorney General's pronouncement—did not undergo the corresponding purchase or expropriation procedure, whence Decree No. 12608-A is unconstitutional and illegal. This is not so, because what was constituted was a protected zone (zona protectora) and not a forest reserve. It would be compensable if the asset were designated as a forest reserve, but it is not if it is declared within a protected zone (zona protectora). Article 45 of the Political Constitution distinguishes two different situations: compensation is appropriate when there is expropriation, but no compensation should be paid if limitations on property are established. In the forest regime, when it is declared of public order, one is in the presence of the well-known phenomenon of "administrative limits on private property" ([Name7], . Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, 1963). Executive Decree No. 12608-A submitted both public and private assets located within the "El Rodeo Protected Zone (Zona Protectora El Rodeo)" to the mandatory forest regime, declaring those of the national reserves inalienable and not susceptible to registration in the Registry. That was the legally possible treatment for the different types of assets; consequently, the plaintiff's property was affected by a limitation of social interest. Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). Sala Primera referred several years ago to Environmental Law, and the environmental function inherent to property, whose principles are enshrined in a great number of norms and international treaties: “All of the above, although abundant, have guidelines of extremely high axiological content whose development is not exclusively national, but, on the contrary, it is a universal movement whose result has been to place the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as a true human right. It is located within the so-called third-generation rights: a step forward from the classic human rights, civil or political (first generation) and economic, social, and cultural rights (second generation). This has provided the basis for formulating a new legal classification: that of Environmental Law, which today has a very defined object in natural resources, and a complex of sources characterized by organicity and completeness. "( Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). Indeed, the danger caused by the antisocial exercise of property rights, without respecting its environmental function, led our courts to rethink old jurisprudential criteria regarding the protection of property, in order to demand from possessors and owners the fulfillment of the triple function: economic, social, and environmental or ecological.

**XI.-** The Sala Constitucional has accepted writs of amparo against agrarian or other activities, abusive on the part of owners who, disregarding the agro-environmental limits imposed by the legislator, endanger natural assets or resources and human life. Thus, forest resources have been protected against activities that produce indiscriminate felling of trees adjacent to a Forest Reserve, due to a mining activity, establishing the protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of natural resources, as canons of constitutional order (Sala Constitucional, No. 2233-93). Private activities, exercised within the scope of property rights and freedom of enterprise, must respect agro-environmental limits, and particularly the collective interest. This situation is applicable to productive agrarian activities involving animal husbandry or plant cultivation, since they cannot be exercised to the detriment of health or the environment. To do so would be to permit abuse of rights. This has also been established by the Sala Constitucional, when it points out: “Furthermore, although it is true that the State must respect the right of individuals to work and to private enterprise, it is also true that it must ensure the well-being of the community. Any person may dedicate themselves to animal husbandry as a business, provided they do not thereby threaten the health or safety of persons, and must prevent the business exploitation from becoming a source of infection or causing environmental contamination. Public Health and environmental protection are principles protected both in the constitutional sphere (articles 21, 74 and 89 of the Magna Carta) and through international regulations.” (Sala Constitucional, No. 741 of 10:55 hours on March 13, 1992). Constitutional Case Law was outlining the bases for incorporating the principles of Sustainable Development as a model, to reorient in their just balance all those productive activities, including agrarian activity, that threatened the environment and endangered the ecological balance, the freedom of enterprise, and the defense of consumer health: "It must be taken into consideration that environmental protection and the promotion of economic development are not independent challenges—says the Chamber. Development cannot subsist in an environment of deterioration of the resource base and the environment cannot be protected when growth plans constantly ignore that. It is necessary to opt for sustainable development, which meets the needs of the present without compromising our capacity to meet those of the future. This development means recognizing that if we wish to have continuous access to the resources that make life possible and if we expand the benefits of industrial progress, we must be aware of the implications and limitations involved in taking that course." (Sala Constitucional, Ruling No. 4423-93). This new orientation of case law, on the agricultural phenomenon, recognizes the dependence of the biological cycle (characteristic of agrarian activity) on the use of natural resources, linking it closely with the concept of sustainable development. “Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating, the main source of which is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources; thus, for example, both the generation of foreign exchange through agricultural and tourism exploitation, and the success of important investments in infrastructure depend, ultimately, on the conservation of those resources. The goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, environmental quality and the survival of other species. Speaking of sustainable development in terms of meeting present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is speaking of the demand for natural resources in the individual sphere and of the direct or support means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products” (Sala Constitucional, No. 3705 of 15:00 hours on July 30, 1993, the bold is not original).

**XII.-** When the fundamental right of every citizen to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is expressly enshrined in our Political Constitution –Article 50 reformed by Law No. 7412 of May 24, 1994– and the right of consumers to the protection of health, environment, safety, and economic interests is established –article 46 Reformed by Law No. 7607 of May 29, 1996–, new constitutional principles and values emerge that permeate special legislation. It is important to integrate, through constitutional interpretation (systematic, material, and evolutionary), all those norms dedicated to protecting economic relations, with the principles and values of sustainable development. Freedom of private economic initiative implies, within the scope of the private initiative of the agrarian entrepreneur (MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1st. Edition, Editora Córdoba, 1996, pp. 49-51), the right to choose the agrarian activity (article 56), the freedom to contract freely for the exercise or constitution of the agrarian enterprise (article 46), the freedom of territorial circulation of agrarian plant or animal goods; the right to form agrarian associations (article 25), the right to enjoy productive agrarian property in its economic, social, and environmental function (article 45), freedom of competition, the subjective right to access the market and remain in it (article 46). But all manifestations of the freedom of economic initiative in the sphere of agrarian activity, and in the exercise of property, must be in accordance with the constitutional principles enshrined in articles 50 and 69 of the Political Constitution, that is, the promotion of sustainable development through productive activity, guaranteeing the equitable distribution of production and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. As these are constitutional provisions that do not establish a distinctive regulation for agrarian matters, it is understood that agrarian enterprises and real estate owners are bound to comply with said obligations. The demands of consumers within the agri-food market are directed toward consuming agrarian products (plant or animal), subjected to production, agro-industrial, or agri-commercialization processes with the minimum of contaminating substances that could affect health. Therefore, adequate hygienic-sanitary quality aspects are required both in the productive process and in the successive handling processes of agrarian products. The entrepreneurial agrarian activity must be based on more natural and less artificial techniques. The reduction of biological risk, characteristic of productive activity, must not be to the detriment of consumer health. Agro-environmental activity must reconcile with nature for the sake of guaranteeing a healthy environment for consumers. In this, the technical fact of agriculture plays a fundamental role, to seek productive and agro-industrial processes that are less harmful to health and the environment. Any agrarian activity based on artificial methods, with toxic chemical substances, damages health and the environment. Therefore, compliance with the constitutional principles that protect consumer rights, in favor of human health and life, is imperative. The doctrine has delved deeper into the topic of the ecological function (DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, 647 p.), as an inseparable quality of the social function, but makes a clear distinction between one and the other. The ecological function arises from the impact on the Environment with an ethical foundation, within the Third Generation Human Rights. It seeks to protect collective interests, and above all, it is based on solidarity, to protect health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The social function is insufficient to achieve the purposes of the new values that permeate society. It is not only required to fulfill the economic destiny of the assets. It is necessary to protect ecological and environmental interests. “The social function therefore provides the dogmatic scheme, the legal basis from which the ecological function transforms the right of property into a right of limited use of one's own asset so as not to harm the Environment. Using synonyms from the experimental sciences, we would say that the ecological function is the catalyst that transforms the normal regime of ownership into something different that ends up configuring it and giving it a very precise form, not the one projected by the owner onto their thing, but the form the latter acquires through the use of it that is most appropriate for the Environment, a use that includes the farmer's own productive activity.” ([Name8] , op. cit., page 81). Therefore, it is necessary to delve deeper into how this environmental function is manifesting itself within property, which obligations the legislator is imposing on landowners to achieve their conservation, as well as the recovery of degraded lands.

**XIII.-** The agro-environmental limitations on property encompass a great number of aspects in the exercise of productive activities and in the scope of the conservation of natural resources, Biodiversity, the use and conservation of soils, the protection of forests and ecosystems, the use and control of pesticides and chemical synthesis products, plant and animal phytosanitary and health control, agricultural waste, water conservation, the use and management of residual water in agriculture, the recovery of soils and watersheds, etcetera. In the next section, we will refer only to some of these limitations. Within the context of the constitutional principles and values described, a large quantity of agro-environmental laws began to be enacted, which not only mark the consolidation of a sustainable development model, but also impose a series of agro-environmental limitations on property and freedom of enterprise, also seeking to consolidate a new agrarian and environmental or ecological culture. 1) The Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) (No. 7554 of October 4, 1995) establishes the State's obligation to promote sustainable economic and environmental development, which necessarily implies imposing environmental limits on the exercise of productive economic activities and on the exercise of property rights. But for these limits to have true application, a cultural change is necessary. From the traditional agrarian culture, where only the economic mattered, one must move to an environmental or agro-environmental culture for sustainable development (Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), articles 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16). Among the most important limits imposed on property, to guarantee the economic, social, and environmental function, the following can be highlighted: A.- The exercise of any agro-environmental activity that may alter or destroy elements of the environment necessarily requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), whose approval must be prior to the project. The assessment is also required when works or infrastructure may affect marine, coastal, and wetland resources. B.- Territorial planning, to balance sustainable development, implies the territorial relocation of productive activities, which could mean significant limits to property rights, since aspects such as natural resources, the predominant economic activities, the land-use capacity (capacidad de uso de los suelos), and zoning by products and agricultural activities, due to ecological and productive considerations, must be taken into account. C.- The Executive Branch is empowered to include private properties necessary for the fulfillment of the environmental function within protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas), or to create legal easements (servidumbres legales) for ecological protection. In cases where the Law requires compensation, private individuals may voluntarily submit to the forest regime, in which case the property is affected in the Public Registry (Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), article 37). D.- Activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles of wetland ecosystems, which may cause their deterioration and elimination, are prohibited (Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), article 45). E.- Productive activities must avoid water contamination, treat residual water, and prevent or minimize the deterioration or contamination of watersheds, as well as soil. F.- Organic agriculture, as a form of exercising sustainable agrarian activities, implies a form of fulfilling the economic, social, and environmental function, since an environmental certification of organic products obtained without applying inputs or chemical synthesis products is required (articles 73-75). G.- Environmental credit: is destined to finance the costs of reducing contamination in productive processes. When it involves land use, a land management and use plan is required in accordance with the land-use capacity (capacidad de uso) (Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), article 113). Undoubtedly, the structure of property and its function is conditioned, in this case, by the environmental element, required in the entrepreneurial exercise. 2) The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) (No.

7575 of February 5, 1996, amended by Laws No. 7609 of June 11, 1996, 7761 of April 2, 1998, and 7788 of April 30, 1998), guided by the constitutional principles of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources, establishes regulations regarding the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests, and for the production, use, industrialization, and promotion of forest resources, seeking the incorporation of private parties into the sustained exercise of silvicultural activities. While it is true that MINAE is empowered to create protected wilderness areas on private lands, this requires compensation, unless the owner decides to voluntarily submit to the forestry regime, or they are already State property, within its National Reserves heritage. The Law provides two clear limits, in the interest of protected areas: a: "In the case of forest reserves, protective zones (zonas protectoras), and wildlife refuges, and in the event that payment or expropriation has not been carried out and while it is being carried out, the areas *shall be subject to an environmental management plan that includes the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) and subsequently, to the plan for management, recovery, and restoration of resources*." (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 37, in relation to Article 2 of the Ley Forestal. Said reform was introduced by the Ley de Biodiversidad, in Article 14). This constitutes a clear limit for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property. B. "When, upon prior scientific and technical justification of public interest, it is determined by law that *the land is essential to conserve biological diversity or water resources, a limitation on the property shall be constituted that will prevent cutting trees and changing land use (cambio de uso del suelo)*. This restriction must be registered as an encumbrance (afectación) in the Public Registry." (Ley Forestal, Article 2, second paragraph). As can be observed, this is not an unreasonable limit. On the contrary, the owner could carry out their activity as long as it is compatible with the environmental function that, by nature, is assigned to the property, to conserve water resources or biological diversity. Title III of the Law, referring to private forest property, as special property, establishes a set of rights and obligations for forest owners that condition the fulfillment of the environmental function, attending to the nature of the asset: a) Holders are not permitted to change land use, nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forestry Administration may grant permission to carry out works complementary to agroforestry activity, provided that the forest clearing is limited, proportional, and reasonable (Ley Forestal, Article 19. When necessary, an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) would be required); b) The use of the forest can only be carried out if the owner has a management plan that contains the impact it may cause to the environment, according to scientific sustainability criteria; c) Payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) (The Law defines environmental services as: "Those provided by the forest and forest plantations that directly affect the protection and improvement of the environment. They are the following: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (fixation, reduction, sequestration, storage, and absorption), protection of water for urban, rural, or hydroelectric use, protection of biodiversity for its conservation and sustainable use, scientific and pharmaceutical, research and genetic improvement, protection of ecosystems, life forms, and natural scenic beauty for tourism and scientific purposes.), constitutes one of the most modern manifestations of the exercise of the environmental function, as the owner commits to conserving the forest for a period of no less than twenty years, to receive the Forest Conservation Certificate (Certificado de Conservación del Bosque). It is also received by owners who wish to subject their property to forest regeneration, for areas that, due to their deteriorated state and environmental needs, must be converted to forest use. The encumbrances and limitations, as well as the incentives, are registered in the Public Registry as an encumbrance on the property; d) Forest plantations, including agroforestry systems and individually planted trees, do not require a permit for cutting, transportation, industrialization, or export, except when a management plan exists derived from a forestry contract with the State; e) Every owner is prohibited from cutting or eliminating trees in the protection areas established by Law for permanent springs (nacientes permanentes), rivers, lakes, and water sources (Ley Forestal, Articles 33 and 34.); f) It is prohibited to carry out burning on forest lands, or adjacent lands, without obtaining the respective permit from the State Forestry Administration; g) As part of the environmental function, properties voluntarily submitted to the forestry regime or dedicated to that activity enjoy special protection against invasions, being able to request immediate protection from police authorities; h) The forest credit is consolidated as an institute to finance small and medium producers, through credits and other mechanisms for the promotion of forest management, reforestation processes, forest nurseries, agroforestry systems, and recovery of denuded areas. The financing also includes the payment for environmental services provided by forests and forest plantations. Land with forest and standing trees will serve as a guarantee for said credits, being recorded as encumbrances on the property (Ley Forestal, Articles 46, 48, and 49). 3).- The Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils (Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos, No. 7779 of April 30, 1998), is of fundamental importance for the fulfillment of the economic, social, and environmental function of property. It seeks to achieve the management, conservation, and recovery of soils in a sustainable manner, integrated with other natural resources, achieving more active participation from communities and producers, and promoting the implementation and control of improved practices in land-use systems, to prevent erosion and degradation of the resource. Agroecology is proposed as a way to achieve convergence between the objectives of agricultural production and the conservation of soil and water resources. The Law sets forth a set of agro-environmental limitations, to achieve the stated objectives: In critical areas of watersheds or sub-watersheds (with severity in soil degradation and its surroundings, as a limiting factor to any activity), whether public or private domain, land owners must forcibly apply all measures and practices that lead to the recovery of the soil and preservation of the environment in general. Any land adjudication carried out by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario will have the limitation that the land use cannot go against its use capacity, the breach of which becomes grounds for revocation. The obligations of private parties are established, among others: To promote, contribute to, and execute all practices and activities necessary for the management, conservation, and recovery of soils; it is a right-obligation to monitor and control compliance with soil legislation; to prevent the degradation of soils that may be caused by water, for which all practices that increase the infiltration capacity on their land or the evacuation of excess water toward natural channels must be applied; to prevent or impede the contamination of aquifers and groundwater layers; to allow the entry of authorized technicians to verify the maintenance of management, conservation, and recovery of soils practices. 4) Perhaps the most important limitations, established by the Legislator, for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property have been mentioned. Many more could be determined in other special laws, such as the Ley de Aguas, Ley General de Salud, Law on Controlled Burns, Civil Aviation Law – on agricultural aviation rules –, among others.

**XIV.-** One of the most controversial topics, regarding limitations on property, for the fulfillment of its environmental function, is that of the possession and titling of forests and lands located in protected areas. The treatment of this topic, in the field of possessory protection, private property, and adverse possession (usucapión) has been the subject of analysis and discussion, both in doctrine and in jurisprudence. The topic of ecological possession, is not one of peaceful acceptance. Various doctrinal approaches have been made, and jurisprudence requires demonstrating the fulfillment of the ecological function to protect possession and property. Everything originates in the application of Article 7 of the Law of Possessory Claims (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which currently establishes: "Article 7.- When the property to which the claim refers is comprised within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the claimant must demonstrate being the holder of legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree in which that wilderness area was created. Farms located outside those areas and containing forests may only be titled if the promoter demonstrates being the holder of the legal rights of ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years and having protected that natural resource, in the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated and with fences or clean paths..."(Law of Possessory Claims, Article 7. Amended by Ley Forestal, No. 7575 of February 5, 1996). In relation to the application of this provision, contrary to what was indicated by the lower court in its substantive considerations – regarding the impossibility of applying the aforementioned Article 7 retroactively –, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated that it is possible to apply said provision retroactively, since the encumbrance on the public domain occurred, as the ten-year possession consolidated before the declaration of any reserve or protected area finds protection in the referred legal provision (See Sala Constitucional, No. 4597 of 15:45 hours on August 5, 1997). Hence, the Tribunal does not share the affirmation of the trial judge in that sense. In any case, the situation of this process, as we shall see, is totally different, since neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant have possessed as owners, lands that have belonged and continue to belong to the State Forest Heritage.

**XV.** The ecological function influences the resolution of specific agrarian conflicts, as greater importance is given to those sustainable productive activities. Within this context, Jurisprudence has been playing a leading role in the search for a balance between agriculture and the environment. The First Chamber (Sala Primera) admitted the existence of Ecological Law and its object (Sala Primera de la Corte, Judgment No. 189 of 14 hours twenty minutes on October 30, 1991): the protection of natural resources. In it, it established that forest property is limited, and in the event of the creation of a Protective Zone (Zona Protectora), compensation is not necessary, as the owner can continue with the exercise of an agroforestry activity, conserving and protecting the forest resource. In judgment No. 51 of 15 hours 15 minutes on May 25, 1995, the Chamber again developed the topic of forest property, and applied the institute of ecological possession to the specific case. It involved a conflict of better right of possession, in an area declared a Forest Reserve. It was stated: "The failure to deliver a plot is not sufficient reason to claim the better right of possession. *The most important thing would have been the conservation of the forest resource... effective agrarian possession was required and even the demonstration of possessory acts aimed at forest conservation. This aspect was not demonstrated by the appellant; on the contrary, lands of forest aptitude were converted into pastures... That is, despite the existing limitation for conservation purposes, the possessors continued exploiting the forest. Evidently, the work carried out did not tend to the exercise of forest possession according to the nature of the asset. On the contrary, they deforested to plant. They ignored the limitations and continued destroying the forest. Their possessory acts are, consequently, contrary to the ecological function of conserving natural resources to maintain the balance of ecosystems in the Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste Forest Reserve*." **XVI.** The maximum reaffirmation of the environmental function of property, whose constitutional foundation is now indisputable, is found in the recently enacted Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998). This Law responds to the commitment assumed by Costa Rica, on a global scale, to conserve biological diversity, genetic resources, species, and ecosystems, within the framework of sustainable development. It is projected within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and goes further – following the same convention – than conservation, as it regulates the sustainable use of biological resources, incorporates rules on access to genetic resources, and seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits derived from the use of genetic material, access to technology, and biotechnology. Article 8 of the Law expressly incorporates the environmental function of property in its text: "*As part of the economic and social function, real properties must fulfill an environmental function*." The legislator did nothing more than recognize a principle that had a solid constitutional foundation, and a development in our Jurisprudence. However, it was essential to reaffirm not only the principle, but also the agro-environmental limitations on property, for the sake of achieving true sustainable development in the use of biological diversity resources. It is very important to point out that the loss of biological diversity is mainly due to economic factors, especially the reduced value that was assigned to it and to ecological functions, such as watershed protection, the nutrient cycle, pollution control, soil formation, photosynthesis, and evolution. Biological resources and the diversity of the systems that maintain them constitute the essential foundation of sustainable development. On the other hand, today we know the importance of genetic diversity in the exercise of sustainable productive activities. "Human beings have been using and, in some cases, increasing genetic diversity for thousands of years, especially in agriculture. Just as genetic diversity allows species to survive, human beings, especially indigenous and local communities, have relied on genetic diversity to create a wide spectrum of genetically diverse crops, animals, and microbes, which have facilitated their survival. Farmers have domesticated wild animals, improving them to achieve desirable characteristics such as size, thickness of their coat, or diseases. Likewise, farmers have domesticated hundreds of plant species that, over time, they have improved to create tens of thousands of varieties with desirable characteristics such as seed color, taste, fruit size, or disease resistance. Modern breeders also rely on and depend on genetic diversity. For these reasons, the effective conservation of genetic diversity must go far beyond the simple conservation of species: it is not enough to conserve viable populations of species, to the extent that said populations may not have the necessary genetic diversity for their own survival nor for that of human beings." (IUCN, Environmental Law Centre. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Spanish edition, 1996, page 27). It was essential to integrate conservation with the sustainable use of Biodiversity, the active participation of social sectors, to guarantee social, economic, and cultural sustainability, through the formation of environmental culture and awareness. It was also essential to achieve the consolidation of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), creating systems of incentives and retribution for environmental services for the conservation, sustainable use, and the elements of Biodiversity, as only in that way could the fulfillment of the environmental function of public and private property be guaranteed. The Conservation Areas, whose territorial competence reaches the entire territory both in protected areas and in private areas of economic exploitation, have the difficult task of applying agro-environmental legislation, especially, the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley Forestal, the Wildlife Conservation Law, and the Law Creating the National Parks Service. The environmental function of property, to protect Biodiversity, requires that human activities conform to the scientific and technical standards issued by the Ministry of the Environment and competent public entities for the maintenance of vital ecological processes, both inside and outside protected areas, but especially in those activities related to human settlements, agriculture, tourism, and industry or any other that may affect said processes.

**XVII.-** By reason of all the foregoing, the appellant being incorrect, the appealed resolution must be confirmed, in what has been the object of the appeal.

**POR TANTO:** In what has been the object of appeal, the appealed resolution is confirmed.

**[Nombre9]** **ANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA** **VANESSA FISHER GONZÁLEZ** **C.B.M** Nº EXPN1 **POSSESSORY INFORMATION** **TIT:// [Nombre2] AND ANOTHER** 228-229, 235, PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. La proprietá nel nuevo Diritto. , Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p. 203, GIANNINI, Massimo Severo. Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, l963, MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1st. Edition, Editora Córdoba, 1996, pp. 49-51, DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, p. 81, 647 , IUCN, Environmental Law Centre. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Spanish edition, 1996, p. 27", "sourceName": "Documents", "formatoDocumento": "WRITTEN", "tipoResolucion": "On the Merits", "tipoInformacion": "Judicial Resolution", "normasNacionales": [ "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4869||art_num::21||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4893||art_num::45||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4898||art_num::50||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4917||art_num::69||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4922||art_num::74||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::871||norm_num::0||norm_nom::Constitución Política||art_id::4937||art_num::89||bdt::1||norm_fecha::07 Nov 1949||tipo_norma::Constitución Política||norm_ver::935||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::10044||norm_num::139||norm_nom::Ley de Informaciones Posesorias||art_id::57842||art_num::7||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Jul 1941||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::10749||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::10044||norm_num::139||norm_nom::Ley de Informaciones Posesorias||art_id::57843||art_num::8||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Jul 1941||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::10749||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::11950||norm_num::276||norm_nom::Ley de Aguas||art_id::212667||art_num::72||bdt::1||norm_fecha::27 Ago 1942||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::12842||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::11950||norm_num::276||norm_nom::Ley de Aguas||art_id::212668||art_num::73||bdt::1||norm_fecha::27 Ago 1942||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::12842||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149841||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149842||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149845||art_num::5||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149846||art_num::6||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149861||art_num::21||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||norm_detalle::Paragraph 1||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149898||art_num::58||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149908||art_num::68||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149982||art_num::142||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149984||art_num::144||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149990||art_num::150||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::32840||norm_num::2825||norm_nom::Ley de Tierras y Colonización (ITCO IDA)||art_id::149993||art_num::153||bdt::1||norm_fecha::14 Oct 1961||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::34655||norm_detalle::Paragraph 4||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::1896||norm_num::5064||norm_nom::Ley de Titulación de Tierras||art_id::10059||art_num::5||bdt::1||norm_fecha::22 Ago 1972||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::2020||norm_detalle::Paragraph f||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132388||art_num::12||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132389||art_num::13||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132390||art_num::14||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132391||art_num::15||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132392||art_num::16||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132413||art_num::37||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132421||art_num::45||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132449||art_num::73||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132450||art_num::74||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132451||art_num::75||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::27738||norm_num::7554||norm_nom::Ley Orgánica del Ambiente||art_id::132489||art_num::113||bdt::1||norm_fecha::04 Oct 1995||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::29343||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181923||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181924||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181941||art_num::19||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181952||art_num::30||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181955||art_num::33||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181956||art_num::34||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181968||art_num::46||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181970||art_num::48||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181971||art_num::49||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181993||art_num::71||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::41661||norm_num::7575||norm_nom::Ley Forestal||art_id::181994||art_num::72||bdt::1||norm_fecha::13 Feb 1996||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::43911||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::39796||norm_num::7788||norm_nom::Ley de Biodiversidad||art_id::175172||art_num::14||bdt::1||norm_fecha::30 Abr 1998||tipo_norma::Law||norm_ver::41934||art_subnum::0" ], "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title></title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">\"</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">I.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The judgment issued at 9:05 a.m. on April 4, 2005, is appealed, partially, insofar as it imposes “restrictions” (limitaciones) on the areas affected by the Ley Forestal and the Ley de Aguas. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">II.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The legal representative of the title applicants claims that the sentence is not in accordance with law, because the property cannot be ordered to be registered with “restrictions,” since Article 33 of the Ley Forestal does not impose them, and one should rather speak of prohibitions, because the concept of “restrictions” harms the right of property. According to Article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, a prohibition and not a restriction is inferred.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> III.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The appellant’s grievances are unfounded. On the contrary, the Agrarian Prosecutor’s reply is clear in that Articles 33 and 34 of the Ley Forestal constitute legitimate restrictions of a general nature on the right of property, by reason of protecting a social and environmental interest of the community. On this subject, this Court has ruled in various decisions, extensively developing the subject of restrictions and the intrinsic ecological function in the institution of property, which will be analyzed in the following recitals (considerandos). </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">IV. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Since the last century, our Constituent has been concerned with regulating the Institution of Property as one of the fundamental rights of the Human Being. Property was the maximum expression in the sphere of the citizen's economic freedom. It was conceived as a sacred, absolute, and inviolable right. However, since the Constitution of 1821, the possibility of imposing restrictions through Law has been established. This was evident with the enactment of special agrarian legislation. The truth is that our Constituent never bothered to indicate what the minimum or essential content of the property right would be. It is up to the legislator to establish said minimum and essential content, through restrictions on the right, and it is up to the Constitutional Court to exercise control over this legislative power, to prevent the dispossession of owners through the path of restrictions. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">Article 45 of the Constitución Política is the norm that makes explicit reference to the Right of property. That norm provides: \"Property is inviolable; no one may be deprived of what is theirs except for legally proven public interest, prior compensation according to the law.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> In case of war or internal commotion, it is not essential that the compensation be prior. However, the corresponding payment shall be made at the latest two years after the state of emergency has concluded (…)”. For reasons of public necessity, the Legislative Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of the total membership, impose on property </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">restrictions of social interest</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">.\" As Constitutional Jurisprudence has repeatedly stated, the two paragraphs of the constitutional norm originated in different historical moments:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> one influenced by the principles and values of the Liberal State, and another by the economic and social rights inherent to the Social State of Law. Now, the question that immediately arises is:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Is there only one property or can various types of properties be admitted (?).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Undoubtedly, the different nature and function of goods impose upon us the distinction between “the” properties. Without a doubt, the Constitución Política recognizes, as in most modern constitutions, property as an Institution.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> And as such, it is one. However, regarding the right of property as a subjective right, today a distinction is made among</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> \"the properties\", based on the Italian doctrine of Professor Salvatore Pugliatti, since they undoubtedly differ in their function and structure. The function of property refers to the social utility of the good, to its diverse productive nature:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> thus we could speak of agricultural, livestock, forestry (forestal), urban nature, etc.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> And the structure, referring to the set of rights and obligations of the owner which will differ depending on the function assigned to the good.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> In other terms, the rights and obligations of an owner of forestry land are different from the rights and obligations of the owner of a property located in an urban zone. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Today this thesis is shared by the most outstanding doctrine, both national and international,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> and also by the criteria expressed by the jurisprudence. It is no secret to anyone that the right of property, as a subjective right, entails a set of rights and duties, powers and obligations for its holder, which are being shaped by special agrarian legislation, attending to the nature of the goods upon which it falls, and to the new principles and values that are shaping the entire legal system. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">V.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The Código Fiscal of 1885, the Ley de Terrenos Baldíos (No. 13 of January 10, 1939, repealed by the Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825), the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and the Ley de Tierras y Colonización were the first regulations to deal with regulating the rational use of natural resources, to conserve them. But they also fostered the occupation, titling, and destruction of forests. In the second half of this century, the interest in the production and exploitation of the land prevailed, which was justified by the imposition of the economic and social function of agrarian property. Indeed, Costa Rican agrarian doctrine had already manifested itself in favor of an agrarian culture aimed at putting land to production to fulfill its economic destiny:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> “...The land multiplied its fertility with the aid of mechanization and technique, which supposes the increasing use of certain movable goods... . But if land shares its importance with movable agrarian capital, losing its primacy, it has acquired a new prominence as the seat of the goods that constitute the agricultural operation... . Said goods are considered agrarian property in its economic aspect, as instruments or means of agricultural production, and in its social aspect, related to its control and the distribution of its benefits... Agrarian property is characterized by the individual and social requirement of the necessary destination to production, to preserve the quality and productive capacity of the good.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The social requirement of production becomes more obvious in the norms that authorize the expropriation of agrarian goods not used in the exploitation or inefficiently employed and in those that prohibit or limit indirect forms of tenure and exploitation...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, University of Costa Rica, 2nd edition, 1982, pages 228-229). The same Ley de Terrenos Baldíos allowed the acquisition of land by private individuals, up to a maximum of 30 hectares.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> It was prohibited, except for that case, to enclose state-owned public lands (terrenos baldíos) with fences, to cut down woods or to establish</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> constructions or crops on them, or to extract firewood, timber, or other products.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> With this, the intention of our legislator to conserve forest resources was evident. The Ley de Tierras y Colonización of 1961 regulated the economic and social function of property with greater prevalence than the environmental function. This was a cultural requirement, to guarantee not only the real “access” to property, through the intervention of the Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, but also to demand fulfillment of the economic destiny of productive goods (among others, articles 1, 2, and 5). Patriotic doctrine affirmed that “As of the enactment of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, the occupation of State lands is illegal. But those begun before its effectiveness are lawful, within the limits and conditions established by the Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos or any others in force at the start of the occupation and serve for the effects of adverse possession (prescripción positiva)” (Barahona, ibid, p. 231). It was thus that in the Ley de Tierras y Colonización, alongside the economic and social function, a series of provisions aimed at conserving natural resources were enacted (articles 1 and 68).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> In particular, it was established that lands that had not implemented the regime of conservation and adequate use of the reserves of renewable natural resources of the nation existing therein were failing to fulfill the social function of property. (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, article 153, paragraph 4). However, its disproportionate application, due to the culture inherent to it, regarding the economic and social function, led to the abusive exercise of the property right. Therefore, it is also warned that “The improper appropriation of lands in national reserves by private individuals acquires alarming characteristics when it is carried out by owners of large estates (latifundios) for the purpose of increasing their extent and even more so if the intended purpose is limited to hoarding land without cultivating it.” ([Name1] , op. cit.,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> page 235). The legislator imposed on property, in particular on agrarian property, a series of restrictions aimed at fulfilling its economic and social function.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The Ley de Tierras y Colonización makes express reference to both functions (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, articles 6; 21 paragraph 1; 58, 142, 144, 150).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> On the one hand, it imposes on the State the obligation to provide persons lacking land or possessing it insufficiently with sufficient land for their individual and social development (article 2). The obligation to produce the land is also established, since the non-fulfillment of this economic-productive function would eventually imply the expropriation thereof if they are found uncultivated, abandoned, exploited indirectly, or insufficiently cultivated. And it punishes the uneconomic use of land suitable for agriculture destined for livestock farming (article 144). The beneficiaries of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario are imposed, as one of their obligations, the conservation of renewable natural resources, since failure to comply with these provisions can imply the revocation of the parcel.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> VI.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> On the other hand, the Ley de Titulación Múltiple de Tierras (No. 5064 of August 22, 1972), declared unconstitutional, subjected the titled properties (fincas) to agro-environmental restrictions imposed by the Ley de Aguas (No. 276 of August 15, 1942, articles 72 and 73), since waters, riverbeds or channels (álveos o cauces), and basins of waters that are of public domain are excluded from private domain; and a public use easement (servidumbre de uso público) is imposed on the banks of non-navigable rivers. Other restrictions contained in said Law were linked to the Ley General de Caminos and the prohibition of destroying forests and groves that contain plant or animal specimens that are in danger of extinction in the country (Ley de Titulación Múltiple, article 5, paragraph c). The Ley Forestal of 1961 (No. 4465 of November 25, 1969) also imposed important restrictions on agrarian property aimed at compulsorily submitting to the forestry regime those forests and terrains that the Executive Branch considered indispensable to establish protective zones (zonas protectoras), forest reserves, national reserves, and biological reserves. In case of refusal by the owners, expropriation would proceed (Ley Forestal, articles 2 paragraph b, 71, and 72). Indeed, upon the enactment of said Law, the environmental function of property began to manifest itself with greater depth. Policies of conservation, forestation, and reforestation of forests and terrains, and of promotion, through incentives, of forestry activity are contemplated. The state's forest heritage (patrimonio forestal del estado) is constituted by the national reserves, forest reserves, national parks, state forest nurseries, protective zones, and biological reserves. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> “When the conservation of the forest and forestry terrains is inspired by the purpose of protecting soils, or maintaining and regulating the hydrological regime, climate, or the environment, the areas destined for these purposes are called protective zones. In them, the soil erosion process is halted, since the tree roots hold and retain the topsoil and the falling leaves cover the ground over which water runs, thus preventing it from dragging away soil particles. The protective zones may be situated on state property or on private property. In both, agricultural work that implies the destruction of vegetation is prohibited. The maintenance and regulation of the hydrological regime is another important function of forests. For this reason, they have received detailed treatment in the Ley Forestal, which declares as forest zones those bordering springs (manantiales) and a small strip of the bank of rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, or natural reservoirs. Within the national reserves, a wide strip on both sides of the river banks, and a wide strip on both sides of the maximum depression of the hydrographic basins, are protective areas. The function of forests in relation to water is so important that it can transcend the national sphere, as would be the case of a river that runs through several countries.” ([Name1] , op. cit., page 706.). </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">VII.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> The doctrine (ALBALADEJO,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Manuel. Derecho Civil, Volume III, Derecho de bienes, Barcelona, 8th edition, 1994,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> pages 259 to 262) has distinguished between limits (límites) and restrictions (limitaciones)</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> of the property right, in the context of the content of that right. According to ALBALADEJO, the normal content of the property right must be framed by indicating the limits of ownership: “Sometimes the limit consists in the owner not being able to do something; other times in having the duty to do it, thus removing the freedom to omit it (for example, not revoking the facade of the building or not cultivating the rural property)... As the limits of ownership constitute its normal regime, a special act is neither needed to impose them on each particular thing, nor must they be proven... it is enough to invoke (when appropriate) the legal norm that establishes them. On the contrary, in the case of restrictions, they must be established by a special act relating to the thing whose property is dealt with, and, as they are exceptional, they must be proven, since, otherwise, the property is presumed free of them.” ( ibid, page 262). These can be established for reasons of private interest, or for reasons of public interest, the latter being predominant. For example, those established in the Ley de Aguas or in the special agrarian or environmental legislation. Our national Jurisprudence</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> made the distinction between limits and restrictions on the property right: “Traditionally, 'limits' and 'restrictions' have been used as synonyms, but nowadays the difference is made between both terms, to understand 'limits' as those imposed by law in a generalized manner without referring to an individualized thing or owner, they apply to all who are in the same situation; while 'restrictions' are, as a general rule, imposed voluntarily by the owners, even if based on law, and always for specific cases...

But note that the two-thirds vote does not constitute authorization to impose all kinds of limitations on property, since the text refers only to those of "social interest" (Corte Plena, Extraordinary Session of March 25, 1983). The case law issued, at that time, by Corte Plena, acting as the Constitutional Court, very clearly indicated the principle of the social economic function of property, as a restriction imposed on property with general effects. Specifically, in the realm of forest property, the case law established the importance of limitations from the environmental point of view: "The appeal alleges the unconstitutionality of Articles 30, 71, 88, 98, 101, subsections b) and d), 103, 104, and 105 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) for finding them harmful to the provisions of Article 45 of the Constitution, since according to the appellant's criteria, the first article cited violates the inviolability of property by requiring approval from the General Forestry Directorate to carry out forest clearance works for the purpose of colonizations or land subdivisions or any agricultural or livestock enterprise, given that with this (sic) State intrusion, the power to administer private property is placed in its hands. To the above, it must be noted that no conflict arises between Article 30 of the Forest Law and Article 45 of the Political Constitution, because the right of property is not absolute. Indeed, while the constituent power categorically declared that property is inviolable, it immediately established restrictions to that principle, one being the possibility of expropriation 'for legally proven public interest,' and another in that it provides that the Legislative Assembly may impose limitations of social interest on property 'by the vote of two-thirds of its total membership,' from which it must be concluded that the first declaration has two limiting factors referring to public interest and social interest. The classic concept of property, which considered it absolute and without limits, has changed notably, now allowing for the imposition of 'limitations of social interest,' as authorized by the second paragraph of Article 45, whereby it has been possible for the legislator to establish, as an essential function of the State, that of 'ensuring the protection, use, conservation, and promotion of the country's forest resources' (Article 1 of the Forest Law), a function fulfilled through the series of restrictions that the cited Law imposes on the exploitation of forests. From the same constitutional norm, it is concluded that these limits are not a disregard for the right of property, as the appellant claims, but rather a limitation to achieve the fulfillment of superior purposes, more important than the strictly individual ones in favor of the owner, namely those of the community and of future generations who must count on forest resources, including for the protection of the environment and public health... It is true that its exercise has been limited to protect the State's forest interests, which seek the conservation of natural resources and environmental health; but this is permitted by the constitutional norm that the appellant himself deems violated... VIII.- This Court has repeatedly stated that the exercise of the liberties granted by the Constitution is not absolute, and that they may be subject to regulation and even restrictions when superior interests are at stake. One could hardly brand as unconstitutional, for example, Article 371 of the General Health Law, insofar as it punishes with imprisonment anyone who cultivates opium poppy, coca, or marijuana plants, for violating the freedom of agriculture established in Article 46 of the Constitution, a norm that the appellant considers violated by the restrictions that the Forest Law imposes on agricultural work. And if one considers the already expressed criterion that this Law protects interests of a higher rank than the merely individual ones of the possessor or owner of land subject to forest regulation, it is also concluded here that the restrictions accused of being unconstitutional do not harm the guarantee of Article 46 of the Political Charter, since it has already been stated that what the State has done is restrict, for reasons of social interest, the exercise of the attributes of property. IX. The Forest Law seeks to protect natural resources, a circumstance that affects the organization of production. Hydrological resources, environmental changes, and the health of the place are factors that influence agricultural production and are directly related to the forest resources of the area; therefore, the regulations on forest exploitation do not harm but, on the contrary, affirm the constitutional guarantee of Article 50, insofar as it provides that the State must organize production. X. With the Forest Law, the appellant is not being prevented from the possibility of achieving honest and useful work, with which he can seek the subsistence and well-being of himself and his family. It is undeniable that the right granted by Article 56 of the Political Constitution is not unrestricted, since it is subject to the laws and regulations regarding the manner and conditions of exercising it. Thus, Mr. Elizondo Villegas can dedicate himself to agriculture if that is his wish; but in the exercise of such right, it is not lawful for him to act against the current legislation that protects forest resources and regulates agricultural production. There are prohibited crops (such as the aforementioned marijuana), and restricted agricultural practices (such as burning), by legal norms that make it impossible for farmers to dedicate themselves to those crops or use said practices. However, those norms are not unconstitutional, since they do not illegitimately restrict the right to work, but rather regulate it to safeguard other higher-ranking interests that guarantee coexistence, the ultimate purpose that the legal system aims for." (Corte Plena, extraordinary session held on May 17, 1984, emphasis not in the original). VIII.- The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), starting in 1990, more clearly recognizes the dynamic nature of the right of property, and the possibility of imposing within its structure – the set of rights and obligations of the owner – limitations of social interest, to avoid the antisocial or abusive exercise of that right, which is not unlimited. Within this context, it implicitly recognizes the existence of special properties, with distinct particularities according to the nature of the good in question and its specific function: "The owner's power over property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the right of property has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only is the right of owners protected, but also various general or social interests that coexist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of law implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relating to an agricultural property are very different from those corresponding to a property located in an urban sector of intense use." These limitations, according to the Constitutional Chamber, must be reasonable and not empty the content of the right, as this would become a total deprivation of it (Constitutional Chamber, No. 5097-93 of 10:24 a.m. on October 15, 1993). IX.- The exercise of the economic and social function of property, without considering the environmental one, was normal within the prevailing agrarian culture until the early 1990s. A large number of lands were titled. State banks promoted, through financing, the clearing and destruction of forests to expand the agricultural frontier, through agricultural and livestock activities, with minimal soil recovery practices and devastated areas. Agrarian property fell on an essentially productive good. But the legislator's mandates to adequately conserve natural resources were ignored, which implied different forms of exercising agrarian activity. The increase in population, scarce techniques in agricultural production, dependence on agrochemicals due to the loss of soil fertility, and the agrarian culture itself generated the destruction of our precious resources, with scarce State control. There were no clear criteria to put an end to the abusive and antisocial exercise of property, since most norms have protected and promoted the inadequate exercise of that right, and the excessive exploitation of natural resources. Although it is true that the Legislator had been seeking, for many years, through clear agro-environmental limitations, a sustainable development, it was not until the Third Generation Human Rights that a transcendental cultural change occurred for the entire legal system. Therefore, the establishment of agro-environmental limits on property, within the scope of its economic, social, and environmental function, is fundamental to truly achieving sustainable development, weighing the constitutional values and principles that should guide this development model. X.- Agrarian case law makes a clear distinction between the different types of property, following the thesis of PUGLIATTI: "The most productive among things is the land, which gives its fruits and products spontaneously, but from it, from the land, civilized man lives, not only by gathering its spontaneous products, but by fertilizing it with his work. The natural productive potentiality of the land becomes actual production, through the work of man. With work, the land is humanized, becomes spiritual possession and property of man, not a thing, not natural, dominated by chance or causality, but nourished by man who cares for it, cultivates it; it enters into the realm not only of human interests and man's motives for action, but also into the ends of values, becomes the basis of human consortium, seat and cradle of human society, regulated by the laws of social living, by law" (PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. La proprietá nel nuevo Diritto. , Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p 203). Although agrarian property is defined as essentially possessory, as a property of business activity aimed at achieving the best productive destination of the good, the interest in conserving it is also imposed. In the scope of exercising the subjective right, to protect his right, the owner is required to have "... exercised it fulfilling the economic destination of the good, that he exercised possessory acts aimed at cultivating and improving it, and that he developed an agrarian business activity on the good, meaning by this an economically organized activity with the purpose of producing animals or vegetables, with the use of natural resources...". Under this conception, our case law clearly integrates the environmental function, as part of the economic and social one, when it states: "Today this principle has evolved and is identified as the economic-social principle of property, insofar as it unfolds into two: 1) On one hand, called the subjective function, and it refers to the obligations of the owner with the property, which could be synthesized in his duty to cultivate the productive good of which he is the owner, thus fulfilling the economic purpose of the good: to be productive or of productive aptitude; he also has the obligation to improve his property so that production and productivity increase, he must respect the adequate maintenance and development of an ecologically balanced environment, and in the case of some particular properties, fulfill all the obligations that special regulations impose on him; 2) The objective function is the obligation of the State to provide all subjects who do not have productive goods, or have them insufficiently, and they have the capacity to develop a business activity, with those goods so that the subjects can be incorporated into the productive process, developing humanly on the social and economic levels. The first is the basically economic function, the second is above all social..." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala Primera de la Corte), No. 230 of 4:00 p.m. on July 20, 1990). In that judgment, a clear jurisprudential tendency is evident, reiterated in many others (In the same sense, First Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 241 of 4:25 p.m. on July 27, 1990, No. 50 of 2:20 p.m. on August 5, 1993.) to introduce, as part of the same economic and social function, the environmental function to achieve sustainable development. But it is in the realm of forest property, as a limited property, where the principle of the ecological function of property has achieved greater jurisprudential development. We particularly refer to the limitations suffered by the owner of land that has been declared a protected zone under the forest regime, and who unsuccessfully claims his right to be compensated: "Here the first problem can be dispelled in relation to the plaintiff's thesis of having suffered a limitation in her rights of use and enjoyment of the property affected as a protected zone, which, having been declared a forest reserve -and based on the Attorney General's Office's pronouncement- was not subject to the corresponding purchase or expropriation procedure, hence Decree No. 12608-A is unconstitutional and illegal. This is not so, because what was constituted was a protected zone and not a forest reserve. It would be compensable if the good is destined for a forest reserve, but it is not if it is declared within a protected zone. Article 45 of the Political Constitution distinguishes two different situations: compensation is appropriate when there is expropriation, but compensation should not be provided if limitations on property are established. In the forest regime, when it is declared of public order, one is in the presence of the well-known phenomenon of 'administrative limits on private property' ([Name2], . Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, 1963). Executive Decree No. 12608-A submitted both public and private goods located within the 'El Rodeo Protected Zone' to mandatory forest regime, declaring those of the national reserves inalienable and not susceptible to registration in the Registry. That was the legally possible treatment for the different types of goods; consequently, the plaintiff's property was affected by a limitation of social interest." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 189 of 2:20 p.m. on October 30, 1991). The First Chamber referred several years ago to Ecological Law, and the environmental function inherent in property, whose principles are enshrined in a large number of norms and international treaties: "All the foregoing, although abundant, have guidelines of the highest axiological content whose development is not exclusively national, but, on the contrary, it is a movement of a universal character whose result has been to place the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as a true human right. It is placed within the so-called third generation rights: a step forward from classic human rights, civil or political (first generation) and economic, social, and cultural rights (second generation). This has provided the basis for formulating a new legal classification: that of Ecological Law, which today has a very defined object in natural resources, and its complex of sources characterized by organicity and completeness." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 189 of 2:20 p.m. on October 30, 1991). Indeed, the danger caused by the antisocial exercise of the right of property, without respecting its environmental function, led our courts to rethink the old jurisprudential criteria regarding the protection of property, to require possessors and owners to fulfill the triple function: economic, social, and environmental or ecological. XI.- The Constitutional Chamber has granted amparo appeals against agrarian or other activities that are abusive by owners who, disregarding the agro-environmental limits imposed by the legislator, endanger natural goods or resources and human life. Thus, forest resources have been protected against activities that produce the indiscriminate felling of trees adjacent to a Forest Reserve, on the occasion of a mining activity, establishing the protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation, of natural resources as canons of constitutional order (Constitutional Chamber, No. 2233-93). Private activities, exercised within the scope of the right of property and freedom of enterprise, must respect agro-environmental limits, and particularly the collective interest. This situation is applicable to productive agricultural activities of animal breeding or vegetable cultivation, since they cannot be exercised to the detriment of health or the environment. That would be to allow abuse of rights. The Constitutional Chamber has also established this, when it states: "On the other hand, while it is true that the State must respect the right of individuals to work and private enterprise, it is also true that it must ensure the well-being of the community. Any person can dedicate themselves to animal breeding as a business, provided they do not threaten the health or safety of people with it, and must prevent the business operation from becoming a source of infection or causing environmental pollution. Public Health and environmental protection are principles protected both in the constitutional sphere (Articles 21, 74, and 89 of the Magna Carta), as well as through international regulations." (Constitutional Chamber, No. 741 of 10:55 a.m. on March 13, 1992). Constitutional case law was outlining the bases to incorporate the principles of Sustainable Development as a model, to reorient in a fair balance all those productive activities, including agrarian activity, that threatened the environment and endangered the ecological balance, freedom of enterprise, and the defense of consumer health: "It must be taken into consideration that environmental protection and the promotion of economic development are not independent challenges – says the Chamber. Development cannot subsist in an environment of deterioration of the resource base, and protection cannot be provided when growth plans constantly disregard it. It is necessary to opt for sustainable development, which satisfies the needs of the present without compromising our capacity to meet those of the future. This development means recognizing that if we wish to have continued access to the resources that make life possible and if we want to expand the benefits of industrial progress, we must be aware of the implications and limitations that taking that course entails." (Constitutional Chamber, Judgment No. 4423-93). This new orientation of case law, on the agricultural phenomenon, recognizes the dependence of the biological cycle (typical of agrarian activity) with the use of natural resources, tightly linking it with the concept of sustainable development. "Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy operating, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands – such as living space, food, energy, housing, health, and recreation – would be impossible. Similarly, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources; thus, for example, both the generation of foreign currency through agricultural and tourism exploitation, and the success of important infrastructure investments depend, ultimately, on the conservation of those resources. The goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, of environmental quality and the survival of other species. To speak of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak of the demand for natural resources at the individual level and of the direct or supporting means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products" (Constitutional Chamber, No. 3705 of 3:00 p.m. on July 30, 1993, emphasis is not in the original). XII.- When the fundamental right of every citizen to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is expressly enshrined in our Political Constitution –Article 50 amended by Law No.

7412 of May 24, 1994 - and the right of consumers to the protection of health, environment, safety, and economic interests is established - Article 46 as Amended by Law No. 7607 of May 29, 1996 -, new constitutional principles and values emerge that permeate the special legislation. It is important to integrate, through constitutional interpretation (systematic, material, and evolutionary), all those norms dedicated to protecting economic relations, with the principles and values of sustainable development. The freedom of private economic initiative implies, in the sphere of the private initiative of the agricultural entrepreneur (MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1st. Edition, Editora Córdoba, 1996, pp. 49-51), the right to choose the agricultural activity (Article 56), the freedom to contract freely for the exercise or constitution of the agricultural enterprise (Article 46), the freedom of territorial circulation of plant or animal agricultural goods; the right to form agricultural associations (Article 25), the right to enjoy productive agricultural property in its economic, social, and environmental function (Article 45), the freedom of competition, the subjective right to access the market and remain in it (Article 46). But all manifestations of the freedom of economic initiative in the sphere of agricultural activity, and in the exercise of property, must be in accordance with the constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 50 and 69 of the Political Constitution, that is, the promotion of sustainable development through productive activity, guaranteeing the equitable distribution of production and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. As these are provisions of constitutional order, which do not establish distinctive regulations for agricultural matters, it is understood that agricultural enterprises and property owners are subject to compliance with said obligations. The demands of consumers within the agri-food market are directed at consuming agricultural products (plant or animal), subjected to production, agro-industrial, or agro-commercialization processes with the minimum of contaminating substances that could affect health. Therefore, adequate hygienic-sanitary quality aspects are demanded both in the production process and in the successive handling processes of agricultural products. Entrepreneurial agricultural activity must be based on more natural and less artificial techniques. The reduction of biological risk, inherent to productive activity, should not be to the detriment of consumers' health. Agro-environmental activity must be reconciled with nature in order to guarantee a healthy environment for consumers. In this, the technical fact of agriculture plays a fundamental role, in seeking productive and agro-industrial processes that are less harmful to health and the environment. Any agricultural activity based on artificial methods, with toxic chemical substances, damages health and the environment. Therefore, compliance with constitutional principles, which protect consumer rights, in favor of health and human life, is imposed. Doctrine has delved into the topic of the ecological function (DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, 647 pp.), as an inseparable quality of the social function, but makes a clear distinction between one and the other. The ecological function arises from the impact on the Environment with an ethical foundation, within the Human Rights of the Third Generation. It seeks to protect collective interests, and above all is based on solidarity, to protect health and the healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The social function is insufficient to achieve the purposes of the new values that permeate society. It is not only required to fulfill the economic purpose of goods. It is necessary to protect ecological and environmental interests. “The social function therefore supplies the dogmatic scheme, the legal basis from which the ecological function transforms the right of property into a right to the limited use of one's own property in such a way that it does not harm the Environment. Using synonyms from the experimental sciences, we would say that *the ecological function is the catalyst that transforms the normal regime of ownership into something different that comes to shape it and give it a very precise form, not the one the owner projects onto his thing, but the form that this acquires by the use of it most suitable for the Environment, a use that includes the farmer's own productive activity*.” ([Nombre3] , op. cit., page 81). Because of the foregoing, it is necessary to delve deeper into how this environmental function has been manifesting within the heart of property, what obligations the legislator has been imposing on landowners to achieve their conservation, as well as the recovery of degraded ones. XIII.- The agro-environmental limitations on property cover a great number of aspects in the exercise of productive activities and in the sphere of the conservation of natural resources, Biodiversity, the use and conservation of soils, the protection of forests and ecosystems, the use and control of pesticides and chemically synthesized products, phytosanitary and animal and plant health control, agricultural waste, water conservation, the use and management of wastewater in agriculture, the recovery of soils and watersheds, etcetera. In the next section, we will refer only to some of these limitations. Within the context of the constitutional principles and values described, a large number of agro-environmental laws begin to be enacted, which not only mark the consolidation of a sustainable development model, but also impose a series of agro-environmental limitations on property and freedom of enterprise, also seeking to consolidate a new agricultural and environmental or ecological culture. 1) The Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (No. 7554 of October 4, 1995) establishes the State's obligation to promote sustainable economic and environmental development, which necessarily implies imposing environmental limits on the exercise of productive economic activities and on the exercise of property rights. But for those limits to have a true application, a cultural change is necessary. From the traditional agricultural culture, where only the economic mattered, we must move to an environmental or agro-environmental culture for sustainable development (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16). Among the most important limits imposed on property, to guarantee the economic, social, and environmental function, the following can be highlighted: A.- The exercise of any agro-environmental activity that could alter or destroy elements of the environment necessarily requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), the approval of which must be prior to the project. The assessment (evaluación) is also required when works or infrastructure could affect marine, coastal, and wetland resources. B.- Territorial planning, to balance sustainable development, implies the territorial relocation of productive activities, which could mean important limits to the property right, since, among other aspects, natural resources, predominant economic activities, the land-use capacity (capacidad de uso de los suelos), and zoning by agricultural products and activities must be taken into consideration, due to ecological and productive considerations. C- The Executive Branch is empowered to include privately owned farms within protected wild areas necessary for the fulfillment of the environmental function, or to create legal easements (servidumbres legales) for ecological protection. In cases where the Law requires compensation, private parties may voluntarily submit to the forest regime, in which case the property is recorded as affected in the Public Registry (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 37). D.- Activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles of wetland ecosystems, which could cause their deterioration and elimination, are prohibited (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 45). E.- Productive activities must avoid water contamination, treat wastewater, and prevent or minimize the deterioration or contamination of watersheds, as well as soil. F.- Organic agriculture, as a form of exercising sustainable agricultural activities, implies a form of fulfilling the economic, social, and environmental function, since an environmental certification is required for organic products obtained without applying chemically synthesized inputs or products (Articles 73-75). G.- Environmental credit: is intended to finance the costs of reducing pollution in productive processes. When it involves land use, a land management and use plan is required in accordance with the land-use capacity (capacidad de uso) (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 113). Undoubtedly, the structure of property and its function is conditioned, in this case, by the environmental element required in business practice. 2) The Ley Forestal (No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, amended by laws No. 7609 of June 11, 1996, 7761 of April 2, 1998, and 7788 of April 30, 1998), guided by the constitutional principles of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources, establishes regulations regarding the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests, and for the production, utilization, industrialization, and promotion of forest resources, seeking the incorporation of private parties into the sustained exercise of silvicultural activities. Although it is true that MINAE is empowered to create protected wild areas on private lands, this requires compensation, unless the owner decides to voluntarily submit to the forest regime, or they are already State property within its National Reserves patrimony. The Law provides for two clear limits, in the interest of protected areas: a: "In the case of forest reserves (reservas forestales), protective zones (zonas protectoras), and wildlife refuges, and in the event that payment or expropriation has not been carried out and while it is being carried out, the areas *shall be subject to an environmental management plan that includes the environmental impact assessment and subsequently, to the management, recovery, and replacement plan for resources*." (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Article 37, in relation to Article 2 of the Ley Forestal. Said amendment was introduced by the Ley de Biodiversidad, in Article 14). This constitutes a clear limit for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property. B. "When, upon prior scientific and technical justification of public interest, it is determined by law that *the land is essential for conserving biological diversity or water resources, a limitation on property shall be constituted that will prevent cutting trees and changing land use* (cambio de uso del suelo). This restriction must be registered as an affectation in the Public Registry." (Ley Forestal, Article 2, second paragraph). As observed, this is not an unreasonable limit. On the contrary, the owner could carry out their activity as long as it is compatible with the environmental function that, by nature, is assigned to the property, to conserve water resources or biological diversity. Title III of the Law, referring to private forest property as special property, establishes a set of rights and obligations for forest owners that condition the fulfillment of the environmental function, according to the nature of the property: a) Holders are not permitted to change the land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forest Administration can grant permission to carry out works complementary to agroforestry activity, as long as the clearing of the forest is limited, proportional, and reasonable (Ley Forestal, Article 19. When necessary, an environmental impact assessment would be required); b) Forest utilization can only be carried out if the owner has a management plan that contains the impact it may cause to the environment, according to scientific sustainability criteria; c) Payment for environmental services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales) (The Law defines environmental services as: "Those provided by forests and forest plantations that directly impact the protection and improvement of the environment. They are the following: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (fixation, reduction, sequestration, storage, and absorption), protection of water for urban, rural, or hydroelectric use, protection of biodiversity for conservation and sustainable, scientific, and pharmaceutical use, research and genetic improvement, protection of ecosystems, life forms, and natural scenic beauty for tourism and scientific purposes."), constitutes one of the most modern manifestations of the exercise of the environmental function, as the owner commits to conserve the forest for a period of no less than twenty years, in order to receive the Forest Conservation Certificate. It is also received by owners who wish to subject their property to forest regeneration, for areas that, due to their deteriorated state and environmental needs, must be converted to forest use. The affectations and limitations, as well as the incentives, are registered in the Public Registry as an affectation to the property; d) Forest plantations, including agroforestry systems and individually planted trees, do not require a permit for cutting, transportation, industrialization, or export, except when a management plan derived from a forest contract with the State exists; e) Every owner is prohibited from cutting or eliminating trees in the protection areas established by Law for permanent springs (nacientes permanentes), rivers, lakes, and water sources (Ley Forestal, Articles 33 and 34). f) Burning on forest lands or adjacent lands is prohibited without obtaining the respective permit from the State Forest Administration; g) As part of the environmental function, properties voluntarily submitted to the forest regime or dedicated to that activity enjoy special protection against invasions, being able to request immediate protection from police authorities; h) Forest credit is consolidated as an institute to finance small and medium producers, through credits and other mechanisms for promoting forest management, reforestation processes, forest nurseries, agroforestry systems, and recovery of denuded areas. The financing also includes payment for the environmental services provided by forests and forest plantations. Land with forest and standing trees will serve as collateral for said credits, being recorded as affectations to the property (Ley Forestal, Articles 46, 48, and 49). 3).- The Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos (No. 7779 of April 30, 1998), is of fundamental importance for the fulfillment of the economic, social, and environmental function of property. It aims to achieve the management, conservation, and recovery of soils in a sustainable manner, integrated with the other natural resources, achieving more active participation from communities and producers, and promoting the implementation and control of improved practices in use systems, to prevent erosion and degradation of the resource. Agroecology is proposed as a way to achieve convergence between the objectives of agricultural production and the conservation of soil and water resources. The Law establishes a set of agro-environmental limitations to achieve the stated objectives: In critical areas of watersheds or sub-watersheds (with severity in soil degradation and its surroundings, as a limiting factor for any activity), whether publicly or privately owned, landowners must mandatorily apply all measures and practices that lead to the recovery of the soil and preservation of the environment in general. Every land allocation made by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (INDER) will have as a limitation that the use of the land cannot go against its land-use capacity (capacidad de uso), the non-compliance of which becomes grounds for revocation. The obligations of private parties include, among others: To promote, contribute to, and execute all practices and activities necessary for the management, conservation, and recovery of soils; it is a right-obligation to monitor and control compliance with soil legislation; to prevent the degradation of soils that could be caused by water, for which all practices that increase infiltration capacity on their lands or the evacuation of excess water towards natural channels must be applied; to prevent or impede the contamination of aquifers and groundwater layers; to allow the entry of authorized technicians to verify the maintenance of management, conservation, and recovery practices for soils. 4) Perhaps the most important limitations, established by the Legislator, for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property have been mentioned. Many more could be determined in other special laws, such as the Ley de Aguas, Ley General de Salud, Ley de Quemas Controladas, Ley de Aviación Civil – regarding the rules of agricultural aviation -, among others. XIV.- One of the most controversial topics regarding limitations on property for the fulfillment of its environmental function is that of the possession and titling of forests and lands located in protected areas. The treatment of this topic, in the field of possessory protection, private property, and adverse possession (usucapión), has been the object of analysis and discussion, both in doctrine and in jurisprudence. The topic of ecological possession is not of peaceful acceptance. Various doctrinal approaches have been made, and jurisprudence requires demonstrating the fulfillment of the ecological function to protect possession and property. Everything originates from the application of Article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which currently establishes: "Article 7.- When the property to which the information refers is included within a protected wild area, whatever its management category, the applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wild area. Farms located outside of those areas and that contain forests may only be titled if the applicant demonstrates being the holder of the legal rights of ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years, and having protected that natural resource, with the understanding that the property must be duly demarcated and with fences or clean lanes..." (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, Article 7. Amended by Ley Forestal, No. 7575 of February 5, 1996). In relation to the application of this provision, contrary to what was indicated by the lower court (a-quo) in its substantive considerations – regarding the impossibility of retroactively applying the aforementioned Article 7 -, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated that it is possible to apply said provision retroactively, from the moment the affectation to the public domain occurs, since ten-year possession consolidated before the declaration of any reserve or protected area finds protection in the referred legal provision (See *Sala Constitucional*, No. 4597 of 15:45 hours of August 5, 1997). Hence, the Court does not share the statement of the trial judge in that sense. In any case, the situation of this process, as we will see, is totally different, since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have possessed, as owners, lands that have belonged and continue to belong to the State Forest Patrimony. XV. The ecological function influences the resolution of specific agrarian conflicts, as greater importance is given to those sustainable productive activities. Within this context, Jurisprudence has been playing a leading role in the search for balance between agriculture and the environment. The First Chamber (Sala Primera) admitted the existence of Ecological Law and its object (Sala Primera de la Corte, Judgment No. 189 of 14 hours twenty minutes of October 30, 1991): the protection of natural resources. In it, it established that forest property is limited, and in the case of the creation of a Protective Zone (Zona Protectora), compensation is not necessary, as the owner can continue with the exercise of an agroforestry activity, conserving and protecting the forest resource. In judgment No. 51 of 15 hours 15 minutes of May 25, 1995, the Chamber further developed the topic of forest property and applied the institute of ecological possession to the specific case. It involved a conflict over the better right of possession in an area declared a Forest Reserve. It was stated: "The lack of delivery of a parcel is not a sufficient reason to claim the better right of possession. *The most important thing would have been the conservation of the forest resource... effective agrarian possession and even the demonstration of possessory acts aimed at forest conservation were required. This aspect was not demonstrated by the appellant; on the contrary, lands of forest aptitude were converted into pastures... That is, despite the existing limitation for conservation purposes, the possessors continued exploiting the forest. Evidently, the work carried out did not tend toward the exercise of forest possession in accordance with the nature of the property. On the contrary, they deforested to plant. They ignored the limitations and continued destroying the forest. Their possessory acts are, consequently, contrary to the ecological function of conserving natural resources to maintain the balance of ecosystems in the Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste Forest Reserve*". XVI. The maximum reaffirmation of the environmental function of property, whose constitutional foundation is now indisputable, is found in the recently enacted Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998). This Law responds to the commitment assumed by Costa Rica, on a global scale, to conserve biological diversity, genetic resources, species, and ecosystems, within the framework of sustainable development. It is projected within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and goes further – following the convention itself – than conservation, as it regulates the sustainable use of biological resources, incorporates norms on access to genetic resources, and aims to achieve an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits derived from the use of genetic material, access to technology, and biotechnology. Article 8 of the Law expressly incorporates the environmental function of property in its text: "*As part of the economic and social function, real properties must fulfill an environmental function*." The legislator did nothing other than recognize a principle that had a solid constitutional foundation and development in our Jurisprudence. However, it was essential to reaffirm not only the principle, but also the agro-environmental limitations on property, in order to achieve true sustainable development in the use of biological diversity resources. It is very important to note that the loss of biological diversity is mainly due to economic factors, especially the reduced value that was assigned to it and the ecological functions, such as watershed protection, the nutrient cycle, pollution control, soil formation, photosynthesis, and evolution. Biological resources and the diversity of the systems that maintain them constitute the essential foundation of sustainable development. On the other hand, it is now known the importance of genetic diversity in the exercise of sustainable productive activities. "Humans have spent thousands of years using and in some cases increasing genetic diversity, especially in agriculture." Just as genetic diversity allows species to survive, human beings, especially indigenous and local communities, have relied on genetic diversity to create a broad spectrum of genetically diverse crops, animals, and microbes that have facilitated their survival. Farmers have domesticated wild animals, improving them to achieve desirable traits such as size, coat thickness, or disease resistance. Likewise, farmers have domesticated hundreds of plant species which, over time, they have improved to create tens of thousands of varieties with desirable traits such as seed color, flavor, fruit size, or disease resistance. Modern breeders also rely on and depend on genetic diversity. For these reasons, the effective conservation of genetic diversity must go far beyond the simple conservation of species: it is not enough to conserve viable populations of species, insofar as said populations may not have the genetic diversity necessary for their own survival or for that of human beings." (IUCN, Environmental Law Centre. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Spanish Edition, 1996, page 27). It was essential to integrate conservation with the sustainable use of Biodiversity, and the active participation of social sectors, to guarantee social, economic, and cultural sustainability, through the formation of environmental culture and awareness. It was also essential to achieve the consolidation of the National System of Conservation Areas, creating systems of incentives and retribution for environmental services for the conservation, sustainable use, and elements of Biodiversity, since only in that way could compliance with the environmental function of public and private property be guaranteed. The Conservation Areas, whose territorial competence covers the entire territory, both in protected areas and in private areas of economic exploitation, have the difficult task of applying agro-environmental legislation, in particular, the Organic Environmental Law, the Ley Forestal, the Wildlife Conservation Law, and the Law Creating the National Parks Service. The environmental function of property, in order to protect Biodiversity, requires that human activities conform to the scientific and technical standards issued by the Ministry of Environment and competent public entities for the maintenance of vital ecological processes, both within and outside protected areas, but especially in those activities related to human settlements, agriculture, tourism, and industry, or any other that may affect said processes. XVII.- By reason of all the foregoing, the appellant being incorrect, the appealed resolution must be upheld, in what has been the subject of the appeal."</span></p></div></body></html>" }, "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [] } ], "contenidosInteresOrden": "3", "despacho": "Tribunal Agrario", "despachoOrden": "11", "enteSistematizador": "CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "0", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "0", "esVotoSalvado": "0", "expediente": "040001200419AG", "fecha": "2005-11-03", "formatoDocumento": "ESCRITO", "hora": "15:07", "id": "sen-1-0034-323652", "numeroDocumento": "00877", "redactor": "Enrique Ulate Chacón", "sourceName": "Documentos", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "tipoDocumento": "SNT", "tipoInformacion": "Resolución Judicial", "tipoResolucion": "De Fondo", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title>021602280507AGINFORMACION POSESORIA</title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">VOTO Nº 0877-F-05</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSE.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Goicoechea, a las quince horas siete minutos del tres de noviembre de dos mil cinco.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Proceso </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Información Posesoria</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, planteado por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, agricultor, vecino de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED1 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">; y </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casada, del hogar, vecina de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED2 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores. En el proceso se tuvo como parte al Estado y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, representados por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED3</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, y por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Wálter Céspedes Salazar</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casado, perito agrónomo, vecino de San José, en la condición de procurador agrario y presidente ejecutivo con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, respectivamente. Interviene como apoderado especial judicial de los promoventes, el licenciado </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Ronny Jiménez Porras</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, abogado, vecino de Corredores, cédula de identidad número CED4 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">RESULTANDO:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">1.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Los promovente, plantean diligencias de información posesoria al fin de que se inscriba en el Registro Publico de la Propiedad a</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> su nombre, la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potrero y Montaña en conservación, situada Mogos de sierpe de Osa, con los siguientes linderos Norte: [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, Sur: [Dirección1] , Este: [Nombre4]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">y Oeste: [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, con una medida según plano catastrado número P-778582-2002,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> de diecinueve hectáreas seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros con noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados, (folio 7).-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">2.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La Procuraduría General de la República y el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, se apersonaron al proceso en los términos que corren de folio 25 a 32, 41 y 54; y 36 respectivamente, sin oponerse ambos a las presentes diligencias.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> 3.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">El licenciado Wilbert Alvarez Li, juez del Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores, en sentencia de las nueve horas cinco minutos del cuatro de abril del dos mil cinco, resolvió: “Habiendo llenado todos los requisitos que exige la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias número ciento treinta y nueve del catorce de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno y sus reformas, teniéndose como parte al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario y a la Procuraduría General de la República quienes estuvieron conforme con las presentes diligencias, en consecuencia inscríbase en el Registro Público de la Propiedad sin perjuicio de terceros con mejor derecho y en partes iguales a favor de</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED5 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa provincia de Puntarenas, y </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casada una vez, del hogar cédula de identidad CED2 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecina de Los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, el inmueble que se describe así: la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potreros y Montaña en conservación. SITUADO: Comunidad de los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">de [Dirección4] provincia de Puntarenas. COLINDANCIAS: NORTE Carlos Montero Díaz, [Dirección5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, ESTE Mariano Prendas Obando,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> OESTE Carlos Montero Díaz. MIDE: Diecinueve hectáreas con seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros y noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados. PLANO: Plano Catastrado número P- setecientos setenta y ocho mil quinientos ochenta y dos - dos mil, a nombre de [Nombre2] y [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> ACTOS POSESORIOS: Deslinde del terreno, mantenimiento de carriles, cuidado y protección del recurso natural. EDICTO:- El edicto de ley salió publicado en el Boletín Judicial número doscientos treinta y uno de fecha veinticinco de noviembre de dos mil cuatro. ADQUISICIÓN: Fue adquirida del señor [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, viudo una vez, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED6 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa en la provincia de Puntarenas, [Dirección6]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, según escritura número doscientos cinco otorgada ante el notario público Ronny Jiménez Porras, al ser las catorce horas treinta minutos del día veintinueve de Julio del año dos mil cuatro. ESTIMACIÓN: El inmueble se estima en la suma de un millón de colones. GRAVAMENES Y CARGAS REALES: No hay. No existen condueños. LIMITACIONES: El área contiguo a las quebradas que señala el artículo 33 Inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, constituye área de protección donde queda prohibida la corta y eliminación de árboles, y que el cauce y las aguas de esas corrientes son de dominio público ( ley de Aguas, artículos 1, Inciso IV, y 3, Inciso III)”, (folio 60 y 61.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">4.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, evidenciándose la existencia de errores y omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo, las cuales serán expuestas en detalle en la parte considerativa. La presente resolución se dicta dentro del plazo legal.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Redacta el juez</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">ULATE</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> CHACÓN</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">; y,</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">CONSIDERANDO:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">I.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Se apela del fallo dictado a las 9:05 horas del 4 de abril del 2005, parcialmente, en cuanto impone “limitaciones” en las áreas afectas por la Ley Forestal y la Ley de Aguas.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">II.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Reclama el apoderado de los titulantes,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> que la sentencia no se ajusta a derecho, por cuanto no puede ordenarse inscribir la finca con “limitaciones”, toda vez que el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal no las impone, debiendo hablarse más bien de prohibiciones, porque el concepto de “limitaciones” lesiona el derecho de propiedad. De acuerdo al artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, se deduce una prohibición y no una limitación. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">III.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> No lleva razón el recurrente en sus agravios. Por el contrario la réplica del Procurador Agrario es clara en el sentido de que los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley Forestal constituyen limitaciones legítimas de carácter general al derecho de propiedad, en razón de la tutela a un interés social y ambiental de la colectividad.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Sobre el tema, este Tribunal en diversas resoluciones se ha pronunciado, desarrollando ampliamente el tema de las limitaciones y de la función ecológica intrínseca en el instituto de la propiedad, lo cual se analizará en los próximos considerandos.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">IV. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Desde el siglo pasado, nuestro Constituyente se ha preocupado por regular el Instituto de la Propiedad como uno de los derechos fundamentales del Ser Humano.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La propiedad fue la máxima expresión en el ámbito de la libertad económica del ciudadano. Se concibió como un derecho sagrado, absoluto e inviolable. Sin embargo, desde la Constitución de 1821, se establece la posibilidad de imponer limitaciones a través de la Ley.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Ello fue evidente con la promulgación de la legislación especial agraria.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Lo cierto es que nuestro Constituyente nunca se ocupó de indicar cuál sería el contenido mínimo o esencial del derecho de propiedad. Es al legislador a quien corresponde establecer dicho contenido mínimo y esencial, a través de las limitaciones al derecho, y es al Tribunal Constitucional, a quien le corresponde ejercer el control de esa facultad legislativa, para evitar que por la vía de las limitaciones se prive del dominio a los titulares. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">El artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, es la norma que hace referencia explícita al Derecho de propiedad. Tal norma dispone: \"La propiedad es inviolable; a nadie puede privarse de la suya si no es por interés público legalmente comprobado, previa indemnización conforme a la ley.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> En caso de guerra o conmoción interior, no es indispensable que la indemnización sea previa. Sin embargo, el pago correspondiente se hará a más tardar dos años después de concluido el estado de emergencia (…)”. Por motivos de necesidad pública podrá Asamblea Legislativa, mediante el voto de los dos tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros, imponer a la propiedad </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">limitaciones de interés social</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">.\" Como lo ha dicho en forma reiterada la Jurisprudencia Constitucional, los dos párrafos de la norma constitucional, se originaron en momentos históricos diferentes:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> uno influenciado por los principios y valores del Estado Liberal, y otro por los derechos económicos y sociales propios del Estado Social de Derecho. Ahora bien, la pregunta que nace de inmediato es:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Se trata de una sola propiedad o puede admitirse diversos tipos de propiedades (?).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Indudablemente, la distinta naturaleza y función de los bienes, nos impone la distinción entre “las” propiedades. Sin duda alguna, la Constitución Política reconoce, como en la mayoría de constituciones modernas, la propiedad como Institución.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Y como tal, es una sola. Sin embargo, respecto del derecho de propiedad como derecho subjetivo hoy se distinguen</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> \"las propiedades\", a partir de la doctrina italiana del Profesor Salvatore Pugliatti, pues sin duda difieren en su función y en su estructura. La función de la propiedad está referida a la utilidad social del bien, a su diversa naturaleza productiva:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> así podríamos hablar de naturaleza agrícola, ganadera, forestal, urbana, etcétera.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Y la estructura, referida al conjunto de derechos y obligaciones del propietario los cuales, van a diferir dependiendo de la función que le venga asignada al bien.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> En otros términos, los derechos y obligaciones de un titular de un terreno forestal, son distintos a los derechos y obligaciones del titular de un inmueble ubicado en zona urbana. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Hoy esa tesis es compartida por la más sobresaliente doctrina, tanto nacional como internacional,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> y también por los criterios vertidos por la jurisprudencia. Para nadie es un secreto que el derecho de propiedad, como derecho subjetivo, entraña un conjunto de derechos y deberes, facultades y obligaciones para su titular, las cuales vienen siendo moldeados por la legislación especial agraria, atendiendo a la naturaleza de los bienes sobre los cuales recaiga, y a los nuevos principios y valores que van moldeando el entero ordenamiento jurídico.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">V.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> El Código Fiscal, de 1885, la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos (No. 13 del 10 de enero de 1939, derogada por la Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825), la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, fue la primer normativa en ocuparse de una regulación en el uso racional de los recursos naturales, para conservarlos. Pero también propiciaron la ocupación, titulación y destrucción de los bosques. En la segunda mitad de este siglo, prevalecieron el interés en la producción y la explotación de la tierra, lo cual venía justificado por la imposición de la función económica y social de la propiedad agraria. En efecto, la doctrina agraria costarricense ya se había manifestado por una cultura agraria tendiente a poner a producir la tierra para cumplir con su destino económico:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> “...La tierra multiplicó su feracidad con el auxilio de la mecanización y la técnica, que supone el uso creciente de ciertos bienes muebles... . Pero si la tierra comparte su importancia con el capital mueble agrario, perdiendo su primacía, ha adquirido un nuevo relieve como asiento de los bienes que constituyen la explotación agropecuaria... . Dichos bienes son considerados propiedad agraria en su aspecto económico, en cuanto a instrumentos o medios de producción agropecuaria, y en su aspecto social, relativo a su control y a la distribución de sus beneficios... La propiedad agraria, se caracteriza por la exigencia individual y social de la necesaria destinación a la producción, para preservar la calidad y la capacidad productiva del bien.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La exigencia social de la producción se hace más obvia en las normas que autorizan la expropiación de los bienes agrarios no utilizados en la explotación o empleados deficientemente y en las que vedan o limitan las formas indirectas de tenencia y explotación...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, Universidad de Costa Rica, 2ª edición, 1982, página 228-229).</span></p></div></body></html>" }, "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [] } ], "contenidosInteresOrden": "3", "despacho": "Tribunal Agrario", "despachoOrden": "11", "enteSistematizador": "CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "0", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "0", "esVotoSalvado": "0", "expediente": "040001200419AG", "fecha": "2005-11-03", "formatoDocumento": "ESCRITO", "hora": "15:07", "id": "sen-1-0034-323652", "numeroDocumento": "00877", "redactor": "Enrique Ulate Chacón", "sourceName": "Documentos", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "tipoDocumento": "SNT", "tipoInformacion": "Resolución Judicial", "tipoResolucion": "De Fondo", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title>021602280507AGINFORMACION POSESORIA</title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">VOTO Nº 0877-F-05</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSE.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Goicoechea, a las quince horas siete minutos del tres de noviembre de dos mil cinco.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Proceso </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Información Posesoria</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, planteado por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, agricultor, vecino de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED1 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">; y </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casada, del hogar, vecina de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED2 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores. En el proceso se tuvo como parte al Estado y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, representados por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED3</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, y por </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Wálter Céspedes Salazar</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casado, perito agrónomo, vecino de San José, en la condición de procurador agrario y presidente ejecutivo con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, respectivamente. Interviene como apoderado especial judicial de los promoventes, el licenciado </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">Ronny Jiménez Porras</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, abogado, vecino de Corredores, cédula de identidad número CED4 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">RESULTANDO:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">1.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Los promovente, plantean diligencias de información posesoria al fin de que se inscriba en el Registro Publico de la Propiedad a</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> su nombre, la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potrero y Montaña en conservación, situada Mogos de sierpe de Osa, con los siguientes linderos Norte: [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, Sur: [Dirección1] , Este: [Nombre4]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">y Oeste: [Nombre3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, con una medida según plano catastrado número P-778582-2002,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> de diecinueve hectáreas seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros con noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados, (folio 7).-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">2.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La Procuraduría General de la República y el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, se apersonaron al proceso en los términos que corren de folio 25 a 32, 41 y 54; y 36 respectivamente, sin oponerse ambos a las presentes diligencias.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> 3.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">El licenciado Wilbert Alvarez Li, juez del Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores, en sentencia de las nueve horas cinco minutos del cuatro de abril del dos mil cinco, resolvió: “Habiendo llenado todos los requisitos que exige la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias número ciento treinta y nueve del catorce de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno y sus reformas, teniéndose como parte al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario y a la Procuraduría General de la República quienes estuvieron conforme con las presentes diligencias, en consecuencia inscríbase en el Registro Público de la Propiedad sin perjuicio de terceros con mejor derecho y en partes iguales a favor de</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, soltero, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED5 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa provincia de Puntarenas, y </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">[Nombre2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, casada una vez, del hogar cédula de identidad CED2 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecina de Los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección2]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, el inmueble que se describe así: la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potreros y Montaña en conservación. SITUADO: Comunidad de los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección3]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">de [Dirección4] provincia de Puntarenas. COLINDANCIAS: NORTE Carlos Montero Díaz, [Dirección5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, ESTE Mariano Prendas Obando,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> OESTE Carlos Montero Díaz. MIDE: Diecinueve hectáreas con seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros y noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados. PLANO: Plano Catastrado número P- setecientos setenta y ocho mil quinientos ochenta y dos - dos mil, a nombre de [Nombre2] y [Nombre1]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> ACTOS POSESORIOS: Deslinde del terreno, mantenimiento de carriles, cuidado y protección del recurso natural. EDICTO:- El edicto de ley salió publicado en el Boletín Judicial número doscientos treinta y uno de fecha veinticinco de noviembre de dos mil cuatro. ADQUISICIÓN: Fue adquirida del señor [Nombre5]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, mayor, viudo una vez, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED6 -</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa en la provincia de Puntarenas, [Dirección6]</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">, según escritura número doscientos cinco otorgada ante el notario público Ronny Jiménez Porras, al ser las catorce horas treinta minutos del día veintinueve de Julio del año dos mil cuatro. ESTIMACIÓN: El inmueble se estima en la suma de un millón de colones. GRAVAMENES Y CARGAS REALES: No hay. No existen condueños. LIMITACIONES: El área contiguo a las quebradas que señala el artículo 33 Inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, constituye área de protección donde queda prohibida la corta y eliminación de árboles, y que el cauce y las aguas de esas corrientes son de dominio público ( ley de Aguas, artículos 1, Inciso IV, y 3, Inciso III)”, (folio 60 y 61.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">4.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, evidenciándose la existencia de errores y omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo, las cuales serán expuestas en detalle en la parte considerativa. La presente resolución se dicta dentro del plazo legal.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Redacta el juez</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">ULATE</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\"> CHACÓN</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">; y,</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">CONSIDERANDO:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">I.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Se apela del fallo dictado a las 9:05 horas del 4 de abril del 2005, parcialmente, en cuanto impone “limitaciones” en las áreas afectas por la Ley Forestal y la Ley de Aguas.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">II.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Reclama el apoderado de los titulantes,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> que la sentencia no se ajusta a derecho, por cuanto no puede ordenarse inscribir la finca con “limitaciones”, toda vez que el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal no las impone, debiendo hablarse más bien de prohibiciones, porque el concepto de “limitaciones” lesiona el derecho de propiedad. De acuerdo al artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, se deduce una prohibición y no una limitación. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">III.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> No lleva razón el recurrente en sus agravios. Por el contrario la réplica del Procurador Agrario es clara en el sentido de que los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley Forestal constituyen limitaciones legítimas de carácter general al derecho de propiedad, en razón de la tutela a un interés social y ambiental de la colectividad.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Sobre el tema, este Tribunal en diversas resoluciones se ha pronunciado, desarrollando ampliamente el tema de las limitaciones y de la función ecológica intrínseca en el instituto de la propiedad, lo cual se analizará en los próximos considerandos.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">IV. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Desde el siglo pasado, nuestro Constituyente se ha preocupado por regular el Instituto de la Propiedad como uno de los derechos fundamentales del Ser Humano.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La propiedad fue la máxima expresión en el ámbito de la libertad económica del ciudadano. Se concibió como un derecho sagrado, absoluto e inviolable. Sin embargo, desde la Constitución de 1821, se establece la posibilidad de imponer limitaciones a través de la Ley.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Ello fue evidente con la promulgación de la legislación especial agraria.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> Lo cierto es que nuestro Constituyente nunca se ocupó de indicar cuál sería el contenido mínimo o esencial del derecho de propiedad. Es al legislador a quien corresponde establecer dicho contenido mínimo y esencial, a través de las limitaciones al derecho, y es al Tribunal Constitucional, a quien le corresponde ejercer el control de esa facultad legislativa, para evitar que por la vía de las limitaciones se prive del dominio a los titulares. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">El artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, es la norma que hace referencia explícita al Derecho de propiedad. Tal norma dispone: \"La propiedad es inviolable; a nadie puede privarse de la suya si no es por interés público legalmente comprobado, previa indemnización conforme a la ley.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> En caso de guerra o conmoción interior, no es indispensable que la indemnización sea previa. Sin embargo, el pago correspondiente se hará a más tardar dos años después de concluido el estado de emergencia (…)”. Por motivos de necesidad pública podrá Asamblea Legislativa, mediante el voto de los dos tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros, imponer a la propiedad </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">limitaciones de interés social</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">.\" Como lo ha dicho en forma reiterada la Jurisprudencia Constitucional, los dos párrafos de la norma constitucional, se originaron en momentos históricos diferentes:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> uno influenciado por los principios y valores del Estado Liberal, y otro por los derechos económicos y sociales propios del Estado Social de Derecho. Ahora bien, la pregunta que nace de inmediato es:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Se trata de una sola propiedad o puede admitirse diversos tipos de propiedades (?).</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Indudablemente, la distinta naturaleza y función de los bienes, nos impone la distinción entre “las” propiedades. Sin duda alguna, la Constitución Política reconoce, como en la mayoría de constituciones modernas, la propiedad como Institución.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Y como tal, es una sola. Sin embargo, respecto del derecho de propiedad como derecho subjetivo hoy se distinguen</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> \"las propiedades\", a partir de la doctrina italiana del Profesor Salvatore Pugliatti, pues sin duda difieren en su función y en su estructura. La función de la propiedad está referida a la utilidad social del bien, a su diversa naturaleza productiva:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> así podríamos hablar de naturaleza agrícola, ganadera, forestal, urbana, etcétera.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> Y la estructura, referida al conjunto de derechos y obligaciones del propietario los cuales, van a diferir dependiendo de la función que le venga asignada al bien.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\"> En otros términos, los derechos y obligaciones de un titular de un terreno forestal, son distintos a los derechos y obligaciones del titular de un inmueble ubicado en zona urbana. </span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">Hoy esa tesis es compartida por la más sobresaliente doctrina, tanto nacional como internacional,</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> y también por los criterios vertidos por la jurisprudencia. Para nadie es un secreto que el derecho de propiedad, como derecho subjetivo, entraña un conjunto de derechos y deberes, facultades y obligaciones para su titular, las cuales vienen siendo moldeados por la legislación especial agraria, atendiendo a la naturaleza de los bienes sobre los cuales recaiga, y a los nuevos principios y valores que van moldeando el entero ordenamiento jurídico.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold\">V.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> El Código Fiscal, de 1885, la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos (No. 13 del 10 de enero de 1939, derogada por la Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825), la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, fue la primer normativa en ocuparse de una regulación en el uso racional de los recursos naturales, para conservarlos. Pero también propiciaron la ocupación, titulación y destrucción de los bosques. En la segunda mitad de este siglo, prevalecieron el interés en la producción y la explotación de la tierra, lo cual venía justificado por la imposición de la función económica y social de la propiedad agraria. En efecto, la doctrina agraria costarricense ya se había manifestado por una cultura agraria tendiente a poner a producir la tierra para cumplir con su destino económico:</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> “...La tierra multiplicó su feracidad con el auxilio de la mecanización y la técnica, que supone el uso creciente de ciertos bienes muebles... . Pero si la tierra comparte su importancia con el capital mueble agrario, perdiendo su primacía, ha adquirido un nuevo relieve como asiento de los bienes que constituyen la explotación agropecuaria... . Dichos bienes son considerados propiedad agraria en su aspecto económico, en cuanto a instrumentos o medios de producción agropecuaria, y en su aspecto social, relativo a su control y a la distribución de sus beneficios... La propiedad agraria, se caracteriza por la exigencia individual y social de la necesaria destinación a la producción, para preservar la calidad y la capacidad productiva del bien.</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Arial\"> La exigencia social de la producción se hace más obvia en las normas que autorizan la expropiación de los bienes agrarios no utilizados en la explotación o empleados deficientemente y en las que vedan o limitan las formas indirectas de tenencia y explotación...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, Universidad de Costa Rica, 2ª edición, 1982, página 228-229).</span></p></div></body></html>" }, "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [] } ], "contenidosInteresOrden": "3", "despacho": "Tribunal Agrario", "despachoOrden": "11", "enteSistematizador": "CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "0", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "0", " The same Baldíos Lands Law permitted the acquisition of lands by private individuals, up to a maximum of 30 hectares. Except in that case, it was prohibited to enclose with fences the baldíos lands owned by the State, to cut down forests, or to establish on them constructions or crops, or to extract firewood, timber, or other products. The intention of our legislator to conserve forest resources was thus evident. The 1961 Land and Colonization Law regulated the economic and social function of property with greater prevalence than the environmental one. This was a cultural demand, to guarantee not only real "access" to property, through the intervention of the Institute of Lands and Colonization, but also to require compliance with the economic purpose of productive assets (among others, articles 1, 2, and 5). The national doctrine affirmed that "From the enactment of the Land and Colonization Law onward, the occupation of State lands is illegal. But those begun before its validity are lawful, within the limits and conditions established by the General Law of Baldíos Lands or any other laws in force at the beginning of the occupation, and serve for the purposes of adverse possession (prescripción positiva)" ([Nombre6], ibid, p. 231). It was thus that the Land and Colonization Law, alongside the economic and social function, dictated a series of provisions aimed at conserving natural resources (articles 1 and 68). In particular, it established that lands on which a regime of conservation and adequate use of the nation's renewable natural resource reserves existing on them had not been implemented were failing to fulfill the social function of property (Land and Colonization Law, article 153, subsection 4). However, its excessive application, due to the inherent culture regarding the economic and social function, led to the abusive exercise of the right of property. For this reason, it is also warned that "The undue appropriation of lands in national reserves by private individuals acquires alarming characteristics when it is carried out by owners of large estates for the purpose of increasing their acreage, and even more so if the intended purpose is limited to hoarding lands without cultivating them" ([Nombre6], op. cit., page 235). The legislator imposed on property, particularly on agrarian property, a series of limitations aimed at fulfilling its economic and social function. The Land and Colonization Law expressly refers to both functions (Land and Colonization Law, articles 6; 21 subsection 1; 58, 142, 144, 150). On one hand, it imposes the obligation on the State to provide persons lacking land or possessing it insufficiently with sufficient lands for their individual and social development (article 2). It also establishes the obligation to produce from the land, since non-compliance with that productive economic function could eventually lead to its expropriation if it is found uncultivated, abandoned, indirectly exploited, or insufficiently cultivated. And it punishes the uneconomic use of lands suitable for agriculture but destined for livestock raising (article 144). Beneficiaries of the Agrarian Development Institute are obligated to conserve renewable natural resources, as failure to comply with these provisions may result in the revocation of the parcel.

**VI.-** On the other hand, the Multiple Titling of Lands Law (No. 5064 of August 22, 1972), declared unconstitutional, subjected titled farms to agro-environmental limitations imposed by the Water Law (Law No. 276 of August 15, 1942, articles 72 and 73), since waters, streambeds or channels, and water bodies that are public domain are excluded from private ownership; and a public-use easement (servidumbre) is imposed on the banks of non-navigable rivers. Other limitations contained in said Law were linked to the General Roads Law and the prohibition of destroying forests and groves containing plant or animal specimens that are in the process of extinction in the country (Multiple Titling Law, article 5 subsection c). The Forest Law of 1969 (No. 4465 of November 25, 1969) also imposed important limitations on agrarian property aimed at mandatorily subjecting to the forestry regime those forests and lands that the Executive Branch considered indispensable for establishing in them protective zones, forest reserves, national reserves, and biological reserves. In case of refusal by the owners, expropriation would proceed (Forest Law, article 2 subsection b, 71, and 72). Indeed, from the enactment of said Law onward, the environmental function of property began to manifest itself more deeply. Policies for conservation, afforestation, and reforestation of forests and lands were contemplated, as well as promotion, through incentives, of forestry activity. The state's forest patrimony is constituted by national reserves, forest reserves, national parks, state forest nurseries, protective zones, and biological reserves. "When the conservation of the forest and forest lands is inspired by the purpose of protecting soils, or of maintaining and regulating the hydrological regime, the climate, or the environment, the areas destined for these purposes are called protective zones. In them, the soil erosion process is halted, since tree roots hold and retain the topsoil, and the falling leaves cover the ground over which water runs, thus preventing it from dragging soil particles. Protective zones may be situated on state property or private property. In both, agricultural work that implies the destruction of vegetation is prohibited. The maintenance and regulation of the hydrological regime is another important function of forests. For this reason, they have received detailed treatment in the Forest Law, which declares as forest zones those bordering springs (nacientes) and a small strip along the banks of rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, or natural reservoirs. Within national reserves, a wide strip on both sides of riverbanks and a broad strip on both sides of the maximum depression of hydrographic basins are protective areas. The function of forests in relation to water is so important that it can transcend the national sphere, as would be the case of a river that runs through several countries." (BARAHONA ISRAEL, op. cit., page 706.).

**VII.-** The doctrine (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Civil Law, Volume III, Property Law, Barcelona, 8th edition, 1994, pages 259 to 262) has distinguished between limits and limitations of the right of property, within the context of the content of that right. According to ALBALADEJO, the normal content of the right of property must be framed by indicating the limits of ownership: "Sometimes the limit consists of the owner not being able to do something; other times, of having the duty to do it, thus removing the freedom to omit it (for example, the duty not to alter the façade of the building or the duty to cultivate the rural farm)... Since the limits of ownership constitute its normal regime, there is no need for a special act to impose them on each individual thing, nor must they be proven... rather, it suffices to invoke (when appropriate) the legal norm that establishes them. On the contrary, in the case of limitations, they must be established by a special act relating to the thing whose property is concerned, and, since they are exceptional, they must be proven, for otherwise, the property is presumed free of them." (ibid, page 262). These can be established for reasons of private interest, or for reasons of public interest, the latter being predominant. For example, those established in the Water Law or in special agrarian or environmental legislation. Our national jurisprudence made the distinction between limits and limitations of the right of property: "Traditionally, 'limits' and 'limitations' have been used as synonyms, but today a distinction is made between both terms, to understand as 'limits' those imposed by law in a generalized manner without referring to an individualized thing or owner; they apply to all those in the same situation; whereas 'limitations' are generally imposed voluntarily by the owners, even if based on the law, and always for specific cases... But note that the two-thirds vote does not constitute authorization to impose all kinds of limitations on property, since the text refers only to those of 'social interest'" (Corte Plena, Extraordinary Session, of March 25, 1983). The jurisprudence emanating, at that time, from the Corte Plena, acting as Constitutional Court, very clearly pointed out the principle of the social and economic function of property, as a restriction imposed on property with general effects. Specifically, in the field of forest property, the jurisprudence established the importance of limitations from the environmental point of view: "The appeal alleges the unconstitutionality of articles 30, 71, 88, 98, 101, subsections b) and d), 103, 104, and 105 of the Forest Law, finding them harmful to the provisions of article 45 of the Constitution, since, according to the appellant's criterion, the first article cited violates the inviolability of property by requiring approval from the Dirección General Forestal to carry out work to eliminate forests for the purpose of carrying out colonizations or parceling of lands or any agricultural or livestock enterprise, given that with this State intrusion, the power to administer private property is placed in the hands of the latter. To the above, it must be noted that no conflict arises between article 30 of the Forest Law and article 45 of the Political Constitution, since the right of property is not absolute. Indeed, even though the constituent power categorically declared that property is inviolable, it immediately established restrictions to that principle: one, the possibility of expropriation 'for legally proven public interest,' and another, in which it provides that the Legislative Assembly may impose limitations of social interest on property 'by the vote of two-thirds of its total membership,' from which it must be concluded that the first declaration has two limitations referring to public interest and social interest. The classic concept of property, which considered it absolute and limitless, has changed notably, now allowing for the imposition of 'limitations of social interest,' as authorized by the second paragraph of article 45, making it possible for the legislator to establish, as an essential function of the State, 'to ensure the protection, use, conservation, and promotion of the nation's forest resources' (article 1 of the Forest Law), a function that is fulfilled through the series of restrictions that said Law imposes on the exploitation of forests. From the same constitutional norm, it is concluded that these limits are not a denial of the right of property, as the appellant claims, but a limitation to achieve the fulfillment of higher purposes, more important than those strictly individual in favor of the owner, namely those of the community and future generations who must count on forest resources, including for the protection of the environment and public health... It is true that its exercise has been limited, in protection of the State's forest interests that seek the conservation of natural resources and environmental health; but this is permitted by the constitutional norm that the appellant himself considers violated... VIII. This Court has already repeatedly stated that the exercise of the freedoms granted by the Constitution is not absolute, and that they may be subject to regulation and even restrictions when higher interests are at stake. One could hardly brand as unconstitutional, for example, article 371 of the General Health Law, insofar as it punishes with imprisonment anyone who cultivates opium poppy, coca, or marijuana plants, on the grounds that it violates the freedom of agriculture established in article 46 of the Constitution, a norm that the appellant considers violated by the restrictions that the Forest Law imposes on agricultural work. And if the criterion already expressed is considered, that this Law protects interests of a higher rank than those merely individual of the possessor or owner of lands subject to forestry regulation, it is concluded here also that the restrictions accused of being unconstitutional do not injure the guarantee of article 46 of the Political Charter, since it has already been said that what the State has done is to restrict, for reasons of social interest, the exercise of the attributes of property. IX. The Forest Law seeks to protect natural resources, a circumstance that affects the organization of production. Hydrological resources, environmental changes, and the health of the place are factors that influence agricultural production and are directly related to the forest resources of the area; therefore, the regulations on forest exploitation do not injure, but, on the contrary, affirm the constitutional guarantee of article 50, insofar as it provides that the State must organize production. X. The Forest Law is not preventing the appellant from the possibility of finding honest and useful work, by which he may seek the subsistence and well-being of himself and his family. It is undeniable that the right granted by article 56 of the Political Constitution is not unrestricted, since it is subject to the laws and regulations regarding the manner and conditions of exercising it. Thus, Mr. Elizondo Villegas can dedicate himself to agriculture if that is his desire; but in the exercise of that right, it is not lawful for him to act against the current legislation that protects forest resources and regulates agricultural production. There are prohibited crops (such as marijuana, as noted above) and restricted agricultural practices (such as burning), by legal norms that make it impossible for farmers to dedicate themselves to those crops or use those practices. However, these norms are not unconstitutional, for they do not illegitimately restrict the right to work, but rather regulate it to safeguard other interests of a higher rank that guarantee coexistence, the ultimate goal to which the legal system aspires." (Corte Plena, extraordinary session held on May 17, 1984, bold not in original).

**VIII.-** The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), as of 1990, more clearly recognizes the dynamic character of the right of property, and the possibility of imposing within its structure—the set of rights and obligations of the owner—limitations of social interest, to prevent the antisocial or abusive exercise of that right, which is not unlimited. Within this context, it implicitly recognizes the existence of special properties, with distinct particularities depending on the nature of the asset in question and its specific function: "The owner's power over the property is determined by the function it fulfills. The object of the right of property has undergone important transformations. Currently, not only is the right of owners protected, but also various general or social interests that coexist with it. Objective law frames the content of subjective rights. Each object of law implies a peculiar form of appropriation. Thus, for example, the powers of ownership relating to an agricultural fund are very different from those corresponding to a farm located in an urban sector of intense use." Such limitations, according to the Sala Constitucional, must be reasonable and not empty the content of the right, for it would then become a total deprivation thereof (Sala Constitucional, No. 5097-93 of 10:24 a.m. on October 15, 1993).

**IX.-** The exercise of the economic and social function of property, without considering the environmental one, was normal within the prevailing agrarian culture until the early 1990s. A large quantity of land was titled. State banks facilitated, through financing, the clearing and destruction of the forest to increase the agricultural frontier, through agricultural and livestock activities, with minimal soil recovery practices and devastated areas. Agrarian property fell on an asset essentially productive in nature. But the legislator's mandates to adequately conserve natural resources, which implied different forms of exercising agrarian activity, were ignored. The increase in population, the scarce techniques in agricultural production, the dependence on agrochemicals due to the loss of soil fertility, and the agrarian culture itself were generating the destruction of our precious resources, with scarce State control. There were no clear criteria to put an end to the abusive and antisocial exercise of property, since the majority of norms have protected and fostered the inadequate exercise of that right, and the excessive exploitation of natural resources. Although it is true that the legislator had been seeking, for many years, through clear agro-environmental limitations, sustainable development, it is only with the third-generation Human Rights that a transcendental cultural change occurs for the entire legal system. Therefore, the establishment of agro-environmental limits of property, within the scope of its economic, social, and environmental function, is fundamental to truly achieving sustainable development, weighing the constitutional values and principles that should guide this development model.

**X.-** Agrarian jurisprudence makes a clear distinction between the different types of property, following PUGLIATTI's thesis: "The most productive among things is the land, which yields its fruits and products spontaneously, but from it, from the land, civilized man lives, no longer merely gathering its spontaneous products, but fertilizing it with his labor. The natural productive potentiality of the land becomes actual production, through man's work. Through work, the land is humanized, becomes spiritual possession and property of man, not a thing, not natural, dominated by chance or causality, but nourished by man who cares for it, cultivates it; it enters the sphere not only of human interests and motives for man's action, but also into the ends of values, becomes the base of human consortium, seat and cradle of the society of men, regulated by the laws of social living, by law" (PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. Proprietá nel nuevo Diritto, Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p. 203). Although it is true that agrarian property is defined as essentially possessory, as a property of entrepreneurial activity aimed at achieving the best productive purpose of the asset, the interest in conserving it is also imposed. In the field of the exercise of the subjective right, to protect his right, the owner is required to have "...exercised it fulfilling the economic purpose of the asset, to have exercised possessory acts on it aimed at cultivating and improving it, and to have developed an entrepreneurial agrarian activity on the asset, understood as an economically organized activity for the purpose of producing animals or plants, using natural resources...". Under this conception, our jurisprudence clearly integrates the environmental function as part of the economic and social one when it states: "Today this principle has evolved and is identified as the social and economic principle of property, insofar as it splits into two: 1) On one hand, called the subjective function, which refers to the owner's obligations with the property, which could be synthesized as his duty to cultivate the productive asset of which he is the owner, thus fulfilling the economic purpose of the asset: to be productive or of productive aptitude; he also has the obligation to improve his property with the aim of increasing production and productivity, must respect the adequate maintenance and development of an ecologically balanced environment, and, in the case of some particular properties, comply with all the obligations imposed by special regulations; 2) The objective function is the obligation of the State to provide all subjects who lack productive assets, or possess them insufficiently, and who have the capacity to develop an entrepreneurial activity, with those assets so that the subjects can incorporate into the productive process, developing humanly on the social and economic planes. The first is the basically economic function, the second is above all social..." (Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 230 of 4:00 p.m. on July 20, 1990). In that ruling, a clear jurisprudential tendency is evident, reiterated in many others (In the same sense, Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 241 of 4:25 p.m. on July 27, 1990, No. 50 of 2:20 p.m. on August 5, 1993), of introducing, as part of the very economic and social function, the environmental function to achieve sustainable development.

But it is in the realm of forest property, as limited property, where the principle of the ecological function of property has achieved its greatest jurisprudential development. We refer particularly to the limitations suffered by the owner of land that has been declared a protective zone (zona protectora) under the forest regime, and who unsuccessfully claims the right to be compensated: Here the first problem can be dispelled regarding the plaintiff's thesis of having suffered a limitation on her rights of enjoyment and use of the property affected as a protective zone (zona protectora), which, having been declared a forest reserve—and based on the Attorney General’s pronouncement—was not subjected to the corresponding purchase or expropriation procedure, from which Executive Decree No. 12608-A is unconstitutional and illegal. This is not so, because what was constituted was a protective zone (zona protectora) and not a forest reserve. It would be compensable if the property is destined for a forest reserve, but not if it is declared within a protective zone (zona protectora). Article 45 of the Constitution distinguishes two different situations: compensation is appropriate when there is expropriation, but compensation should not be provided if limitations on property are established. In the forest regime, when it is declared of public order, we are in the presence of the well-known phenomenon of "administrative limits on private property" ([Name7], . Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, 1963). Executive Decree No. 12608-A subjected both public and private property located within the "El Rodeo Protective Zone" (Zona Protectora El Rodeo) to the mandatory forest regime, declaring those of the national reserves inalienable and not susceptible to registration in the Registry. That was the legally possible treatment for the different types of property; consequently, the plaintiff's farm was affected by a limitation of social interest. First Chamber of the Court, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). The First Chamber referred several years ago to Ecological Law, and the environmental function inherent to property, whose principles are enshrined in a large quantity of norms and international treaties: “All of the above, although abundant, have guidelines of extremely high axiological content whose development is not exclusively national, but, on the contrary, it is a movement of universal character whose result has been to place the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment as a true human right. It is placed within the so-called third-generation rights: a step ahead of classic, civil, or political human rights (of the first generation) and of economic, social, and cultural rights (of the second generation). This has provided the basis for formulating a new legal classification: that of Ecological Law, which today has a very defined object in natural resources, and its complex of sources characterized by organicity and completeness." (First Chamber of the Court, No. 189 of 14:20 hours on October 30, 1991). Indeed, the danger caused by the antisocial exercise of the right of property, without respecting its environmental function, led our courts to rethink the old jurisprudential criteria regarding the protection of property, to require possessors and owners to fulfill the triple function: economic, social, and environmental or ecological.

**XI.-** The Constitutional Chamber has granted amparo remedies against agricultural or other activities, abusive on the part of owners who, disrespecting the agro-environmental limits imposed by the legislator, endanger natural assets or resources and human life. Thus, forest resources have been protected against activities that produce the indiscriminate felling of trees adjacent to a Forest Reserve, on the occasion of a mining activity, establishing the protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation, of natural resources as canons of constitutional order (Constitutional Chamber, No. 2233-93). Private activities, exercised within the scope of exercising the right of property and freedom of enterprise, must respect agro-environmental limits, and particularly the collective interest. That situation is applicable to productive agricultural activities of animal breeding or plant cultivation, since they cannot be exercised to the detriment of health or the environment. That would be to permit abuse of right. The Constitutional Chamber has also established this, when it indicates: “On the other hand, although it is true that the State must respect the right of individuals to work and to private enterprise, it is also true that it must ensure the well-being of the community. Any person can dedicate themselves to animal breeding as a business, provided that they do not thereby threaten the health or safety of people, and must prevent the business exploitation from becoming a source of infection or causing environmental contamination. Public Health and environmental protection are principles protected both in the constitutional sphere (articles 21, 74, and 89 of the Constitution), and through international norms.” (Constitutional Chamber, No 741 of 10:55 hours on March 13, 1992. Constitutional Jurisprudence was outlining the bases for incorporating the principles of Sustainable Development as a model, to reorient in its fair balance all those productive activities, including agricultural activity, that threatened the environment and endangered the ecological balance, freedom of enterprise, and the defense of consumer health: “It must be taken into consideration that environmental protection and the promotion of economic development are not independent challenges—says the Chamber—. Development cannot subsist in an environment of deterioration of the resource base and it cannot be protected when growth plans constantly ignore it. It is necessary to opt for sustainable development, which satisfies the needs of the present without compromising our capacity to meet those of the future. This development means recognizing that if we wish to have continuous access to the resources that make life possible and if we expand the benefits of industrial progress, we have to be aware of the implications and limitations that taking that path entails.” (Constitutional Chamber, Judgment No. 4423-93). This new orientation of jurisprudence, on the agricultural phenomenon, recognizes the dependence of the biological cycle (typical of agricultural activity) on the use of natural resources, closely linking it with the concept of sustainable development. “Our country has depended and will continue to depend, like any other nation, on its natural resources and its environment to meet the basic needs of its inhabitants and keep operating the productive apparatus that sustains the national economy, whose main source is agriculture and, in recent years, tourism, especially in its ecotourism dimension. Soil, water, air, marine and coastal resources, forests, biological diversity, mineral resources, and the landscape make up the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as living space, food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. Likewise, our economy is also intimately linked to the state of the environment and natural resources; thus, for example, both the generation of foreign exchange through agricultural and tourism exploitation, and the success of important infrastructure investments depend, ultimately, on the conservation of those. The goals of sustainable development have to do with the survival and well-being of the human being and with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, that is, of environmental quality and the survival of other species. To speak of sustainable development in terms of satisfying present and future human needs and improving the quality of life is to speak of the demand for natural resources in the individual sphere and of the direct or supporting means necessary for the economy to function, generating employment and creating capital goods, which in turn make possible the transformation of resources into consumer, production, and export products” (Constitutional Chamber, No. 3705 of 15:00 hours on July 30, 1993, bold text is not from the original).

**XII.-** When the fundamental right of every citizen to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is expressly enshrined in our Constitution—Article 50 amended by Law No. 7412 of May 24, 1994—and the right of consumers to the protection of health, environment, safety, and economic interests is established—Article 46 Amended by Law No. 7607 of May 29, 1996—new constitutional principles and values arise that permeate special legislation. It is important to integrate, through constitutional interpretation (systematic, material, and evolutionary), all those norms dedicated to protecting economic relations, with the principles and values of sustainable development. The freedom of private economic initiative supposes, in the sphere of the private initiative of the agricultural entrepreneur (MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1st. Edition, Editora Córdoba, 1996, p. 49-51), the right to choose agricultural activity (Article 56), the freedom to contract freely for the exercise or constitution of the agricultural enterprise (Article 46), the freedom of territorial movement of agricultural plant or animal goods; the right to form agricultural associations (Article 25), the right to enjoy productive agricultural property in its economic, social, and environmental function (Article 45), the freedom of competition, the subjective right to access the market and remain in it (Article 46). But all manifestations of the freedom of economic initiative in the sphere of agricultural activity, and in the exercise of property, must be in accordance with the constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 50 and 69 of the Constitution, that is, the promotion of sustainable development through productive activity, guaranteeing the equitable distribution of production and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Since these are constitutional provisions, which do not establish distinctive regulations for agriculture, it is understood that agricultural enterprises and property owners are bound to fulfill said obligations. The demands of consumers within the agri-food market are directed at consuming agricultural products (plant or animal), subjected to production, agro-industrial, or agro-commercialization processes with the minimum of contaminating substances that could affect health. Therefore, adequate hygienic-sanitary quality aspects are required both in the productive process and in the successive handling processes of agricultural products. Agricultural business activity must be based on more natural and less artificial techniques. The reduction of biological risk, inherent to productive activity, must not be to the detriment of consumer health. Agro-environmental activity must be reconciled with nature in order to guarantee a healthy environment for consumers. In this, the technical fact of agriculture plays a fundamental role, to seek productive and agro-industrial processes less harmful to health and the environment. Any agricultural activity based on artificial methods, with toxic chemical substances, damages health and the environment. Therefore, compliance with constitutional principles that protect consumer rights, in favor of health and human life, is imposed. Doctrine has deepened on the topic of the ecological function (DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, 647 p.), as an inseparable quality of the social function, but makes a clear distinction between one and the other. The ecological function arises from the impact on the Environment with an ethical foundation, within the Third Generation Human Rights. It seeks to protect collective interests, and above all is based on solidarity, to protect health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The social function is insufficient to achieve the purposes of the new values that permeate society. It is not only required to fulfill the economic destination of goods. It is necessary to protect ecological and environmental interests. “The social function, therefore, provides the dogmatic scheme, the legal basis from which the ecological function transforms the right of property into a right to the limited use of the property itself in such a way that it does not harm the Environment. Using synonyms from the experimental sciences, we would say that the ecological function is the catalyst that transforms the normal regime of ownership into something different that comes to configure it and give it a very precise form, not the one the owner projects onto his thing, but the form that it acquires through the use of it most suitable to the Environment, a use that includes the farmer's own productive activity.” ([Name8], op. cit., page 81). Given the above, it is necessary to delve deeper into how that environmental function is manifesting itself within property, what obligations the legislator is imposing on landowners, to achieve their conservation, as well as the recovery of degraded ones.

**XIII.-** Agro-environmental limitations on property encompass a large number of aspects in the exercise of productive activities and in the sphere of the conservation of natural resources, Biodiversity, the use and conservation of soils, the protection of forests and ecosystems, the use and control of pesticides and chemical synthesis products, plant and animal phytosanitary and sanitary control, agricultural waste, water conservation, the utilization and management of wastewater in agriculture, the recovery of soils and watersheds, etc. In the next section, we will refer only to some of these limitations. Within the context of the constitutional principles and values described, a large number of agro-environmental laws begin to be enacted, which not only mark the consolidation of a sustainable development model, but also impose a series of agro-environmental limitations on property and freedom of enterprise, seeking also to consolidate a new agricultural and environmental or ecological culture.

• 1)The Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) (No. 7554 of October 4, 1995) establishes the obligation of the State to promote sustainable economic and environmental development, which necessarily implies imposing environmental limits on the exercise of productive economic activities and on the exercise of the right of property. But for those limits to have a true application, a cultural change is necessary. From the traditional agricultural culture, where only the economic mattered, a transition must be made to an environmental or agro-environmental culture for sustainable development (Organic Law of the Environment, articles 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16). Among the most important limits imposed on property, to guarantee the economic, social, and environmental function, the following can be highlighted: A.- The exercise of any agro-environmental activity that may alter or destroy elements of the environment necessarily requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental), the approval of which must be prior to the project. The assessment is also required when works or infrastructure may affect marine, coastal, and wetland resources. B.- Territorial planning, to balance sustainable development, implies the territorial relocation of productive activities, which could mean significant limits on the right of property, since, among other aspects, natural resources, predominant economic activities, the capacity for use of soils, and zoning by agricultural products and activities, must be taken into consideration, due to ecological and productive considerations. C- The Executive Branch is empowered to include within protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) the private properties necessary to fulfill the environmental function, or to create legal easements (servidumbres) for ecological protection. In cases where the Law requires compensation, private parties may voluntarily submit to the forest regime, in which case the property is recorded as affected in the Public Registry (Organic Law of the Environment, Article 37). D.- Activities aimed at interrupting the natural cycles of wetland ecosystems, which may cause their deterioration and elimination, are prohibited (Organic Law of the Environment, Article 45). E.- Productive activities must avoid water contamination, treat wastewater, and prevent or minimize the deterioration or contamination of watersheds, as well as soil. F.- Organic agriculture, as a form of exercising sustainable agricultural activities, implies a form of fulfilling the economic, social, and environmental function, since an environmental certification is required for organic products that have been obtained without applying inputs or products of chemical synthesis (Articles 73-75). G.- Environmental credit: is intended to finance the costs of reducing pollution in productive processes. When they involve soil use, a land management and use plan is required in accordance with the capacity for use (Organic Law of the Environment, Article 113). Undoubtedly, the structure of property and its function is conditioned, in this case, by the environmental element, required in the business exercise. 2) The Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) (No. 7575 of February 5, 1996, amended by laws No. 7609 of June 11, 1996, 7761 of April 2, 1998, and 7788 of April 30, 1998), oriented by the constitutional principles of adequate and sustainable use of renewable natural resources, establishes regulations regarding the conservation, protection, and administration of natural forests, and for the production, utilization, industrialization, and promotion of forest resources, seeking the incorporation of private parties into the sustained exercise of silvicultural activities. Although it is true that MINAE is empowered to create protected wilderness areas on private lands, this requires compensation, unless the owner decides to voluntarily submit to the forest regime, or they are already State property, within its National Reserves patrimony. The Law provides for two clear limits, in the interest of protected areas: a: "In the case of forest reserves, protective zones (zonas protectoras), and wildlife refuges, and in the event that payment or expropriation has not been made and while it is being made, the areas shall be subject to an environmental management plan that includes the environmental impact assessment and subsequently, to the management, recovery, and replacement plan for resources." (Organic Law of the Environment, Article 37, in relation to Article 2 of the Forestry Law. Said amendment was introduced by the Biodiversity Law, in Article 14). This constitutes a clear limit for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property. B. "When, after prior scientific and technical justification of public interest, it is determined by law that the land is essential to conserve biological diversity or water resources, a limitation on property shall be constituted that will prevent cutting trees and changing land use (cambio de uso del suelo). This restriction must be registered as an affectation in the Public Registry." (Forestry Law, Article 2 second paragraph). As observed, this is not an unreasonable limit. On the contrary, the owner could exercise his activity provided it is compatible with the environmental function that, by nature, is assigned to the property, to conserve water resources or biological diversity. Title III of the Law, referring to private forest property, as special property, establishes a set of rights and obligations for forest owners that condition the fulfillment of the environmental function, considering the nature of the asset: a) It is not permitted for owners to change land use (cambio de uso del suelo), nor to establish forest plantations. However, the State Forest Administration may grant permission to carry out works complementary to agroforestry activity, provided that forest cutting is limited, proportional, and reasonable (Forestry Law, Article 19. When necessary, an environmental impact assessment would be required); b) Forest utilization can only be carried out if the owner has a management plan that contains the impact it may cause on the environment, according to scientific sustainability criteria; c) Payment for environmental services (payment for environmental services, PSA) (The Law defines environmental services as: "Those provided by forests and forest plantations and that directly affect the protection and improvement of the environment. They are the following: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (fixation, reduction, sequestration, storage, and absorption), protection of water for urban, rural, or hydroelectric use, protection of biodiversity for its conservation and sustainable, scientific, and pharmaceutical use, research and genetic improvement, protection of ecosystems, life forms, and natural scenic beauty for tourist and scientific purposes.), constitutes one of the most modern manifestations of exercising the environmental function, since the owner commits to conserving the forest for a period of no less than twenty years, to receive the Forest Conservation Certificate. It is also received by owners who wish to subject their property to forest regeneration, for areas that, due to their deteriorated state and environmental needs, must be converted to forest use. The affectations and limitations, as well as the incentives, are registered in the Public Registry as an affectation on the property; d) Forest plantations, including agroforestry systems and individually planted trees, do not require a permit for cutting, transportation, industrialization, or export, except when there is a management plan derived from a forest contract with the State; e) Every owner is prohibited from cutting or eliminating trees in the protection areas established by Law for permanent springs (nacientes), rivers, lakes, and water sources (Forestry Law, Articles 33 and 34). f) It is prohibited to carry out burns on forest lands, or adjacent lands, without obtaining the respective permit from the State Forest Administration; g) As part of the environmental function, properties voluntarily submitted to the forest regime or dedicated to that activity enjoy special protection against invasions, and the immediate protection of police authorities may be requested; h) Forest credit is consolidated as an institute to finance small and medium producers, through credits and other mechanisms to promote forest management, reforestation processes, forest nurseries, agroforestry systems, and recovery of denuded areas.

The financing also includes the payment for the environmental services provided by forests and forest plantations. The land with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) and standing trees shall serve as collateral for such credits, being recorded as encumbrances on the property (Ley Forestal, articles 46, 48, and 49). 3).- The Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos (No. 7779 of April 30, 1998), is of fundamental importance for the fulfillment of the economic, social, and environmental function of property. The aim is to achieve the sustainable management, conservation, and recovery of soils, integrated with other natural resources, achieving more active participation by communities and producers, and promoting the implementation and control of improved practices in land-use systems to prevent erosion and degradation of the resource. Agroecology is proposed as a way to achieve convergence between the objectives of agricultural production and the conservation of soil and water resources. The Law sets forth a set of agri-environmental limitations to achieve the stated objectives: In critical areas of watersheds or sub-watersheds (with severity of soil degradation and its surroundings, as a limiting factor to any activity), whether publicly or privately owned, landowners must mandatorily apply all measures and practices that lead to soil recovery and preservation of the environment in general. Any land adjudication carried out by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario will have the limitation that the land use cannot contradict its land-use capability, and non-compliance becomes grounds for revocation. Among others, the obligations of private individuals are established as follows: To promote, contribute to, and execute all necessary practices and activities for soil management, conservation, and recovery; it is a right and an obligation to monitor and control compliance with soil legislation; to prevent soil degradation that may be caused by water, for which all practices that increase the infiltration capacity on their lands or the evacuation of excess water toward natural channels must be applied; to prevent or impede the contamination of aquifers and underground water layers; to allow the entry of authorized technicians to verify the maintenance of soil management, conservation, and recovery practices. 4) Perhaps the most important limitations, established by the Legislature for the fulfillment of the environmental function of property, have been mentioned. Many more could be identified in other special laws, such as the Ley de Aguas, Ley General de Salud, Ley de Quemas Controladas, Ley de Aviación Civil – regarding agricultural aviation rules – among others.

**XIV.-** One of the most controversial issues, regarding limitations on property for the fulfillment of its environmental function, is that of possession and titling of forests and lands located in protected areas. The treatment of this subject, in the context of possessory protection, private property, and usucapion (usucapión), has been the object of analysis and discussion, both in doctrine and jurisprudence. The topic of ecological possession (posesión ecológica) is not one of peaceful acceptance. Various doctrinal approaches have been raised, and jurisprudence requires demonstrating the fulfillment of the ecological function to protect possession and property. Everything originates in the application of article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which currently establishes: “Article 7.- When the real property to which the information refers is included within a protected wild area, whatever its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they are the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession (posesión decenal), exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wild area. Farms located outside those areas and containing forests may only be titled if the promoter demonstrates that they are the holder of the legal rights of ten-year possession, exercised for at least ten years, and that they have protected that natural resource, on the understanding that the real property must be duly demarcated and with fences or clean lanes..." (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, article 7. Amended by Ley Forestal, No. 7575 of February 5, 1996). Regarding the application of this provision, contrary to what was stated by the lower court in its substantive considerations – concerning the impossibility of applying the aforementioned article 7 retroactively – the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that it is possible to apply said provision retroactively, from the moment the public domain encumbrance is produced, since the ten-year possession consolidated before the declaration of any reserve or protected area finds protection in the referred legal provision (See *Sala Constitucional*, No. 4597 at 15:45 on August 5, 1997). Hence, the Court does not share the statement of the instance judge in that regard. In any event, the situation of this proceeding, as we shall see, is completely different, since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant have possessed, as owners, lands that have belonged and continue to belong to the Forest Heritage of the State.

**XV.** The ecological function influences the resolution of specific agrarian conflicts, as greater importance is given to those sustainable productive activities. Within this context, jurisprudence has been playing a leading role in seeking the balance between agriculture and the environment. The First Chamber admitted the existence of ecological law and its object (Sala Primera de la Corte, Ruling No. 189 at fourteen hours and twenty minutes on October 30, 1991): the protection of natural resources. In it, it established that forest property is limited, and in the event of the creation of a Protective Zone (Zona Protectora), compensation is not necessary, because the owner can continue exercising an agroforestry activity, conserving and protecting the forest resource. In ruling No. 51 at fifteen hours and fifteen minutes on May 25, 1995, the Chamber further developed the topic of forest property and applied the institute of ecological possession to the specific case. It concerned a conflict over the better right of possession in an area declared a Forest Reserve. It was stated: "The lack of delivery of a parcel is not sufficient reason to claim the better right of possession. *The most important thing would have been the conservation of the forest resource... effective agrarian possession was required, and even the demonstration of possessory acts aimed at the conservation of the forest. This aspect was not demonstrated by the appellant; on the contrary, lands of forest aptitude were converted into pasturelands... That is, despite the existing limitation for conservation purposes, the possessors continued to exploit the forest. Evidently, the work carried out was not aimed at exercising forest possession in accordance with the nature of the asset. On the contrary, they deforested to plant. They ignored the limitations and continued destroying the forest. Their possessory acts are, consequently, contrary to the ecological function of conserving natural resources to maintain the equilibrium of ecosystems in the Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste Forest Reserve*." **XVI.** The ultimate reaffirmation of the environmental function of property, whose constitutional foundation is now indisputable, is found in the recently enacted Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 of April 30, 1998). This Law responds to the commitment assumed by Costa Rica, on a global scale, to conserve biological diversity, genetic resources, species, and ecosystems, within the framework of sustainable development. It is projected within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and goes beyond – following the same convention – conservation, as it regulates the sustainable use of biological resources, incorporates rules on access to genetic resources, and seeks to achieve an equitable distribution of the costs and benefits derived from the use of genetic material, access to technology, and biotechnology. Article 8 of the Law expressly incorporates the environmental function of property into its text: “*As part of the economic and social function, real properties must fulfill an environmental function*.” The Legislature did nothing more than recognize a principle that had a solid constitutional basis and a development in our jurisprudence. However, it was essential to reaffirm not only the principle, but also the agri-environmental limitations on property, for the sake of achieving true sustainable development in the use of biological diversity resources. It is very important to point out that the loss of biological diversity is due, above all, to economic factors, especially the low value assigned to it and to ecological functions such as watershed protection, the nutrient cycle, pollution control, soil formation, photosynthesis, and evolution. Biological resources and the diversity of the systems that maintain them constitute the essential foundation of sustainable development. On the other hand, the importance of genetic diversity in the exercise of sustainable productive activities is now known. “Human beings have been using and, in some cases, increasing genetic diversity for thousands of years, especially in agriculture. Just as genetic diversity allows species to survive, human beings, especially indigenous and local communities, have relied on genetic diversity to create a wide spectrum of genetically diverse crops, animals, and microbes that have facilitated their survival. Farmers have domesticated wild animals, improving them to achieve desirable characteristics such as size, coat thickness, or disease resistance. Likewise, farmers have domesticated hundreds of plant species that, over time, they have improved to create tens of thousands of varieties with desirable characteristics such as seed color, taste, fruit size, or disease resistance. Modern breeders also rely and depend on genetic diversity. For these reasons, the effective conservation of genetic diversity must go far beyond the simple conservation of species: it is not enough to conserve viable populations of species, insofar as those populations may not have the genetic diversity necessary for their own survival nor for that of human beings.” (IUCN, Environmental Law Centre. Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Spanish Edition, 1996, page 27). It was essential to integrate conservation with the sustainable use of biodiversity and the active participation of social sectors to guarantee social, economic, and cultural sustainability, through the formation of environmental culture and awareness. It was also essential to achieve the consolidation of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), creating systems of incentives and retribution for environmental services for conservation, sustainable use, and the elements of biodiversity, because only in that way could compliance with the environmental function of public and private property be guaranteed. The Conservation Areas, whose territorial competence covers the entire territory in both protected areas and private areas of economic exploitation, have the difficult task of applying agri-environmental legislation, especially the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley Forestal, the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, and the Law Creating the National Parks Service. The environmental function of property, to protect biodiversity, requires that human activities conform to the scientific and technical standards issued by the Ministry of Environment and competent public entities for the maintenance of vital ecological processes, both inside and outside protected areas, but especially in those activities related to human settlements, agriculture, tourism, and industry or any other that may affect said processes.

**XVII.-** By reason of all the foregoing, as the appellant is not correct, the appealed resolution must be confirmed, in what has been the object of the appeal.

**POR TANTO:** In what has been the object of appeal, the appealed resolution is confirmed.

[Name9] **ANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA VANESSA FISHER GONZÁLEZ** **C.B.M** **EXP. Nº EXPN1** **INFORMACION POSESORIA** **TIT:// [Name2] AND ANOTHER**

VOTO Nº 0877-F-05 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSE. Goicoechea, a las quince horas siete minutos del tres de noviembre de dos mil cinco.- Proceso Información Posesoria, planteado por [Nombre1] , mayor, soltero, agricultor, vecino de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED1 - - ; y [Nombre2] , mayor, casada, del hogar, vecina de Osa de Puntarenas, cédula de identidad número CED2 - - , tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores. En el proceso se tuvo como parte al Estado y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, representados por Víctor Bulgarelli Céspedes, mayor, casado, abogado, vecino de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED3 - , y por Wálter Céspedes Salazar, mayor, casado, perito agrónomo, vecino de San José, en la condición de procurador agrario y presidente ejecutivo con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, respectivamente. Interviene como apoderado especial judicial de los promoventes, el licenciado Ronny Jiménez Porras, mayor, soltero, abogado, vecino de Corredores, cédula de identidad número CED4 - - .-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Los promovente, plantean diligencias de información posesoria al fin de que se inscriba en el Registro Publico de la Propiedad a su nombre, la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potrero y Montaña en conservación, situada Mogos de sierpe de Osa, con los siguientes linderos Norte: [Nombre3] , Sur: [Dirección1] , Este: [Nombre4] y Oeste: [Nombre3] , con una medida según plano catastrado número P-778582-2002, de diecinueve hectáreas seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros con noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados, (folio 7).- 2.- La Procuraduría General de la República y el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, se apersonaron al proceso en los términos que corren de folio 25 a 32, 41 y 54; y 36 respectivamente, sin oponerse ambos a las presentes diligencias.- 3.- El licenciado Wilbert Alvarez Li, juez del Juzgado Agrario de la Zona Sur, Corredores, en sentencia de las nueve horas cinco minutos del cuatro de abril del dos mil cinco, resolvió: “Habiendo llenado todos los requisitos que exige la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias número ciento treinta y nueve del catorce de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno y sus reformas, teniéndose como parte al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario y a la Procuraduría General de la República quienes estuvieron conforme con las presentes diligencias, en consecuencia inscríbase en el Registro Público de la Propiedad sin perjuicio de terceros con mejor derecho y en partes iguales a favor de [Nombre1] , mayor, soltero, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED5 - - , vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa provincia de Puntarenas, y [Nombre2] , mayor, casada una vez, del hogar cédula de identidad CED2 - - , vecina de Los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección2] , el inmueble que se describe así: la finca que se describe así: Terreno de potreros y Montaña en conservación. SITUADO: Comunidad de los Mogos de Sierpe de Osa, [Dirección3] de [Dirección4] provincia de Puntarenas. COLINDANCIAS: NORTE Carlos Montero Díaz, [Dirección5] , ESTE Mariano Prendas Obando, OESTE Carlos Montero Díaz. MIDE: Diecinueve hectáreas con seis mil setecientos cincuenta y siete metros y noventa y cinco decímetros cuadrados. PLANO: Plano Catastrado número P- setecientos setenta y ocho mil quinientos ochenta y dos - dos mil, a nombre de [Nombre2] y [Nombre1] . ACTOS POSESORIOS: Deslinde del terreno, mantenimiento de carriles, cuidado y protección del recurso natural. EDICTO:- El edicto de ley salió publicado en el Boletín Judicial número doscientos treinta y uno de fecha veinticinco de noviembre de dos mil cuatro. ADQUISICIÓN: Fue adquirida del señor [Nombre5] , mayor, viudo una vez, agricultor, cédula de identidad CED6 - - , vecino de Palmar Sur de Osa en la provincia de Puntarenas, [Dirección6] , según escritura número doscientos cinco otorgada ante el notario público Ronny Jiménez Porras, al ser las catorce horas treinta minutos del día veintinueve de Julio del año dos mil cuatro. ESTIMACIÓN: El inmueble se estima en la suma de un millón de colones. GRAVAMENES Y CARGAS REALES: No hay. No existen condueños. LIMITACIONES: El área contiguo a las quebradas que señala el artículo 33 Inciso b) de la Ley Forestal, constituye área de protección donde queda prohibida la corta y eliminación de árboles, y que el cauce y las aguas de esas corrientes son de dominio público ( ley de Aguas, artículos 1, Inciso IV, y 3, Inciso III)”, (folio 60 y 61.- 4.- En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones legales, evidenciándose la existencia de errores y omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad del fallo, las cuales serán expuestas en detalle en la parte considerativa. La presente resolución se dicta dentro del plazo legal.- Redacta el juez ULATE CHACÓN; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- Se apela del fallo dictado a las 9:05 horas del 4 de abril del 2005, parcialmente, en cuanto impone “limitaciones” en las áreas afectas por la Ley Forestal y la Ley de Aguas.

II.- Reclama el apoderado de los titulantes, que la sentencia no se ajusta a derecho, por cuanto no puede ordenarse inscribir la finca con “limitaciones”, toda vez que el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal no las impone, debiendo hablarse más bien de prohibiciones, porque el concepto de “limitaciones” lesiona el derecho de propiedad. De acuerdo al artículo 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, se deduce una prohibición y no una limitación.

III.- No lleva razón el recurrente en sus agravios. Por el contrario la réplica del Procurador Agrario es clara en el sentido de que los artículos 33 y 34 de la Ley Forestal constituyen limitaciones legítimas de carácter general al derecho de propiedad, en razón de la tutela a un interés social y ambiental de la colectividad. Sobre el tema, este Tribunal en diversas resoluciones se ha pronunciado, desarrollando ampliamente el tema de las limitaciones y de la función ecológica intrínseca en el instituto de la propiedad, lo cual se analizará en los próximos considerandos.

IV.Desde el siglo pasado, nuestro Constituyente se ha preocupado por regular el Instituto de la Propiedad como uno de los derechos fundamentales del Ser Humano. La propiedad fue la máxima expresión en el ámbito de la libertad económica del ciudadano. Se concibió como un derecho sagrado, absoluto e inviolable. Sin embargo, desde la Constitución de 1821, se establece la posibilidad de imponer limitaciones a través de la Ley. Ello fue evidente con la promulgación de la legislación especial agraria. Lo cierto es que nuestro Constituyente nunca se ocupó de indicar cuál sería el contenido mínimo o esencial del derecho de propiedad. Es al legislador a quien corresponde establecer dicho contenido mínimo y esencial, a través de las limitaciones al derecho, y es al Tribunal Constitucional, a quien le corresponde ejercer el control de esa facultad legislativa, para evitar que por la vía de las limitaciones se prive del dominio a los titulares. El artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, es la norma que hace referencia explícita al Derecho de propiedad. Tal norma dispone: "La propiedad es inviolable; a nadie puede privarse de la suya si no es por interés público legalmente comprobado, previa indemnización conforme a la ley. En caso de guerra o conmoción interior, no es indispensable que la indemnización sea previa. Sin embargo, el pago correspondiente se hará a más tardar dos años después de concluido el estado de emergencia (…)”. Por motivos de necesidad pública podrá Asamblea Legislativa, mediante el voto de los dos tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros, imponer a la propiedad limitaciones de interés social." Como lo ha dicho en forma reiterada la Jurisprudencia Constitucional, los dos párrafos de la norma constitucional, se originaron en momentos históricos diferentes: uno influenciado por los principios y valores del Estado Liberal, y otro por los derechos económicos y sociales propios del Estado Social de Derecho. Ahora bien, la pregunta que nace de inmediato es: Se trata de una sola propiedad o puede admitirse diversos tipos de propiedades (?). Indudablemente, la distinta naturaleza y función de los bienes, nos impone la distinción entre “las” propiedades. Sin duda alguna, la Constitución Política reconoce, como en la mayoría de constituciones modernas, la propiedad como Institución. Y como tal, es una sola. Sin embargo, respecto del derecho de propiedad como derecho subjetivo hoy se distinguen "las propiedades", a partir de la doctrina italiana del Profesor Salvatore Pugliatti, pues sin duda difieren en su función y en su estructura. La función de la propiedad está referida a la utilidad social del bien, a su diversa naturaleza productiva: así podríamos hablar de naturaleza agrícola, ganadera, forestal, urbana, etcétera. Y la estructura, referida al conjunto de derechos y obligaciones del propietario los cuales, van a diferir dependiendo de la función que le venga asignada al bien. En otros términos, los derechos y obligaciones de un titular de un terreno forestal, son distintos a los derechos y obligaciones del titular de un inmueble ubicado en zona urbana. Hoy esa tesis es compartida por la más sobresaliente doctrina, tanto nacional como internacional, y también por los criterios vertidos por la jurisprudencia. Para nadie es un secreto que el derecho de propiedad, como derecho subjetivo, entraña un conjunto de derechos y deberes, facultades y obligaciones para su titular, las cuales vienen siendo moldeados por la legislación especial agraria, atendiendo a la naturaleza de los bienes sobre los cuales recaiga, y a los nuevos principios y valores que van moldeando el entero ordenamiento jurídico.

V.- El Código Fiscal, de 1885, la Ley de Terrenos Baldíos (No. 13 del 10 de enero de 1939, derogada por la Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825), la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, fue la primer normativa en ocuparse de una regulación en el uso racional de los recursos naturales, para conservarlos. Pero también propiciaron la ocupación, titulación y destrucción de los bosques. En la segunda mitad de este siglo, prevalecieron el interés en la producción y la explotación de la tierra, lo cual venía justificado por la imposición de la función económica y social de la propiedad agraria. En efecto, la doctrina agraria costarricense ya se había manifestado por una cultura agraria tendiente a poner a producir la tierra para cumplir con su destino económico: “...La tierra multiplicó su feracidad con el auxilio de la mecanización y la técnica, que supone el uso creciente de ciertos bienes muebles... . Pero si la tierra comparte su importancia con el capital mueble agrario, perdiendo su primacía, ha adquirido un nuevo relieve como asiento de los bienes que constituyen la explotación agropecuaria... . Dichos bienes son considerados propiedad agraria en su aspecto económico, en cuanto a instrumentos o medios de producción agropecuaria, y en su aspecto social, relativo a su control y a la distribución de sus beneficios... La propiedad agraria, se caracteriza por la exigencia individual y social de la necesaria destinación a la producción, para preservar la calidad y la capacidad productiva del bien. La exigencia social de la producción se hace más obvia en las normas que autorizan la expropiación de los bienes agrarios no utilizados en la explotación o empleados deficientemente y en las que vedan o limitan las formas indirectas de tenencia y explotación...” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, Rodrigo. Derecho Agrario, San José, Universidad de Costa Rica, 2ª edición, 1982, página 228-229). La misma Ley de Terrenos Baldíos permitió la adquisición de tierras por particulares, hasta un máximo de 30 hectáreas. Quedó prohibido, salvo ese caso, cerrar con cercas los terrenos baldíos propiedad del Estado, derribar montes o establecer en ellos construcciones o cultivos o extraer leña, madera u otros productos. Con ello era evidente la intención de nuestro legislador de conservar los recursos forestales. La Ley de Tierras y Colonización de 1961, reguló la función económica y social de la propiedad con mayor prevalencia que la ambiental. Ello era una exigencia cultural, en garantizar no solamente el “acceso” real a la propiedad, a través de la intervención del Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, sino también exigir que se cumpliera con el destino económico de los bienes productivos (entre otros, artículo 1, 2 y 5). La doctrina patria afirmó que “A partir pues, de la promulgación de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización es ilegal la ocupación de tierras del Estado. Pero las comenzadas antes de su vigencia son lícitas, dentro de los límites y condiciones establecidas por la Ley General de Terrenos Baldíos u otras cualesquiera vigentes al iniciarse la ocupación y sirven a los efectos de la prescripción positiva” ([Nombre6], ibid, p. 231). Fue así como en la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, junto a la función económica y social, se dictaron una serie de disposiciones tendientes a conservar los recursos naturales (artículo 1 y 68). En particular, se establecía que las tierras que no tuvieren implantado el régimen de conservación y uso adecuado de las reservas que en ellas existían de recursos naturales renovables de la nación estaban incumpliendo la función social de la propiedad. (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, artículo 153 inciso 4). Sin embargo, su aplicación desmedida, por la cultura que le era inherente, en cuanto a la función económica y social, llevaron al ejercicio abusivo del derecho de propiedad. Por ello también se advierte que “La apropiación indebida de tierras en las reservas nacionales por particulares adquiere caracteres alarmantes cuando es realizada por propietarios de latifundios con el fin de aumentar su cabida y más aún si el propósito que se persigue se limita a acaparar tierras sin cultivarlas.” ([Nombre6] , op. cit., página 235). El legislador impuso a la propiedad, en particular a la propiedad agraria una serie de limitaciones dirigidas a cumplir su función económica y social. La Ley de Tierras y Colonización hace referencia expresa a ambas funciones (Ley de Tierras y Colonización, artículos 6; 21 inciso 1; 58, 142, 144, 150). Por un lado, le impone la obligación al Estado de dotar a personas carentes de tierras o las poseen en forma insuficiente, dotarlos de terrenos suficientes para su desarrollo individual y social (artículo 2). También se establece la obligación de producir la tierra, pues el incumplimiento de esa función económico productiva implicaría eventualmente la expropiación de las mismas si se encuentran incultas, abandonadas, explotadas indirectamente, o insuficientemente cultivadas. Y castiga el ejercicio antieconómico de terrenos aptos para la agricultura destinados a la ganadería (artículo 144). Se le impone a los beneficiarios del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, como una de sus obligaciones la conservación de los recursos naturales renovables, pues la falta a estas disposiciones pueden implicar la revocatoria de la parcela.

VI.- Por otra parte, la Ley de Titulación Múltiple de Tierras (No. 5064 del 22 de agosto de 1972) declarada insconstitucional, sujetaba a las fincas tituladas, a limitaciones agroambientales impuestas por la Ley de Aguas (Nº. 276 del 15 de agosto de 1942, artículos 72 y 73), pues se excluyen del dominio privado las aguas, álveos o cauces y vasos de las aguas que sean de dominio público; y se impone servidumbre de uso público sobre las riberas de los ríos no navegables. Otras limitaciones contendidas en dicha Ley estaban vinculadas con la Ley General de Caminos y la prohibición de destruir bosques y arboledas que contengan especímenes vegetales o animales que estén en proceso de extinción en el país (Ley de Titulación Múltiple, artículo 5 inciso c). La Ley Forestal de 1961(No. 4465 del 25 de noviembre de 1969) también impuso importantes limitaciones a la propiedad agraria tendientes a someter obligatoriamente al régimen forestal aquellos bosques y terrenos que el Poder Ejecutivo considerase indispensables para establecer en ellos zonas protectoras, reservas forestales, reservas nacionales y reservas biológicas. En caso de negativa de los propietarios procedería la expropiación (Ley Forestal, artículo 2 inciso b, 71 y 72). En efecto, a partir de la promulgación de dicha Ley comienza a manifestarse con mayor profundidad la función ambiental de la propiedad. Se contemplan políticas de conservación, forestación y reforestación de los bosques y terrenos, y de promoción, por medio de incentivos, a la actividad forestal. El patrimonio forestal del estado lo constituyen las reservas nacionales, las reservas forestales, los parques nacionales, los viveros forestales del Estado, las zonas protectoras y las reservas biológicas. “Cuando la conservación del bosque y de los terrenos forestales está inspirada en el propósito de proteger los suelos, o de mantener y regular el régimen hidrológico, el clima o el medio ambiente, las áreas destinadas a esos fines se denominan zonas protectoras. En ellas se detiene el proceso de erosión de los suelos, ya que las raíces de los árboles sujetan y retienen la capa vegetal y las hojas que caen cubren el suelo por donde corre el agua, evitando así que arrastre las partículas de la tierra. Las zonas protectoras pueden estar situadas en propiedad estatal o en propiedad privada. En una y otra se prohíbe las labores agrícolas que impliquen la destrucción de la vegetación. El mantenimiento y regulación del régimen hidrológico es otra función importante de los bosques. Por ello han merecido un tratamiento detallado en la Ley Forestal, la cual declara zonas forestales las que bordean manantiales y una pequeña franja de la ribera de los ríos, arroyos, lagos, lagunas o embalses naturales. Dentro de las reservas nacionales, son áreas protectoras una ancha franja a uno y otro lado de las riveras de los ríos, y una amplia a uno y otro lado de la depresión máxima de las cuencas hidrográficas. La función de los bosques en relación con las aguas es tan importante que puede trascender del ámbito nacional, como sería el caso de un río que corre por varios países.” (BARAHONA ISRAEL, op. cit., página 706.).

VII.- La doctrina (ALBALADEJO, Manuel. Derecho Civil, Tomo III, Derecho de bienes, Barcelona, 8ª edición, 1994, páginas 259 a 262) ha distinguido entre límites y limitaciones del derecho de propiedad, en el contexto del contenido de ese derecho. Según ALBALADEJO, el contenido normal del derecho de propiedad debe enmarcarse mediante la indicación de los límites del dominio: “A veces el límite consiste en que el propietario no puede hacer algo; otras en que tiene el deber de hacerlo, quitándosele así la libertad de omitirlo (por ejemplo, la de no revocar la fachada del inmueble o la de no cultivar la finca rústica)... Como los límites del dominio constituyen régimen normal del mismo, ni hace falta un acto especial para imponerlos a cada cosa en particular, ni hay que probarlos... sino que basta invocar (cuando proceda) la norma jurídica que los establece. Por el contrario, tratándose de limitaciones han de establecerse por un acto especial relativo a la cosa de cuya propiedad se trata, y, como son excepcionales, han de ser probadas, pues, en otro caso, la propiedad se presume libre de ellas.” ( ibid, página 262). Estos pueden establecerse por razones de interés privado, o por razones de interés público, siendo estos últimos los predominantes. Por ejemplo los establecidos en la Ley de Aguas o en la Legislación especial agraria o ambiental. Nuestra Jurisprudencia patria hizo la distinción entre los límites y limitaciones al derecho de propiedad: “Tradicionalmente se han usado como sinónimos “límites” y “limitaciones”, pero ya hoy día se hace la diferencia entre ambos términos, para entender como “límites” los que son impuestos por la ley en forma generalizada sin referirse a una cosa o a un propietario individualizados, se aplican a todos los que están en una misma situación; mientras que las “limitaciones” por regla general son impuestas voluntariamente por los propietarios, aunque sea con base en la ley, y siempre para casos concretos... Pero nótese que la votación de dos tercios no constituye autorización para imponer toda clase de limitaciones a la propiedad, pues el texto se refiere únicamente a las de “interés social” ” (Corte Plena, Sesión Extraordinaria, del 25 de marzo de 1983). La Jurisprudencia emanada, en aquél entonces de Corte Plena, conociendo como Tribunal Constitucional, señaló muy claramente el principio de la función económica social de la propiedad, como una restricción impuesta a la propiedad con efectos generales. Específicamente, en el ámbito de la propiedad forestal, la Jurisprudencia estableció la importancia de las limitaciones desde el punto de vista ambiental: “En el recurso se alega la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 30, 7l, 88, 98, l0l, incisos b) y d), l03, l04 y l05 de la Ley Forestal por encontrarlos lesivos de lo dispuesto en el artículo 45 constitucional, pues según el criterio del recurrente, el primer artículo citado atenta contra la inviolabilidad de la propiedad al exigir aprobación de la Dirección General Forestal para poder efectuar trabajos de eliminación de bosques con el objeto de realizar colonizaciones o parcelación de tierras o cualquier empresa agrícola o ganadera, toda vez que con esas (sic) intromisión del Estado se pone en manos de éste la facultad de administrar la propiedad privada. A lo anterior es de señalar que ningún choque se produce entre el artículo 30 de la Ley Forestal y el 45 de la Constitución Política, pues el derecho de propiedad no es absoluto. En efecto, si bien el constituyente declaró categóricamente que la propiedad es inviolable, de seguido estableció restricciones a ese principio, una de ellas la posibilidad de expropiación "por interés público legalmente comprobado", y por otra en que se dispone que la Asamblea Legislativa puede imponer a la propiedad limitaciones de interés social "mediante el voto de los dos tercios de la totalidad de sus miembros", de donde debe concluirse que la primera declaración tiene dos limitantes referidas al interés público y al interés social. El concepto clásico de propiedad que la tenía como absoluta y sin límites, ha variado notablemente, permitiendo ahora que se impongan "limitaciones de interés social", conforme lo autoriza el párrafo segundo del artículo 45, con lo cual ha sido posible que el legislador estableciera, como función esencial del Estado, la de "velar por la protección, aprovechamiento, conservación y fomento de los recursos forestales del país" (artículo 1º de la Ley Forestal), función que se cumple con la serie de restricciones que la citada Ley impone a la explotación de los bosques. De la misma norma constitucional se concluye que esos límites no son un desconocimiento del derecho de propiedad, como lo alega el recurrente, sino una limitante para lograr el cumplimiento de fines superiores, más importantes que los estrictamente individuales en favor del propietario, sean los de la comunidad y de las futuras generaciones que deben contar con recursos forestales, incluso en protección del ambiente y la sanidad... Es cierto que se le ha limitado en su ejercicio, en protección de los intereses forestales del Estado que procuran la conservación de los recursos naturales y la sanidad ambiental; pero ello está permitido por la norma constitucional que el propio recurrente estima lesionada... VIII.- Ya en forma reiterada esta Corte ha dicho que el ejercicio de las libertades acordadas por la Constitución no es absoluto, y que pueden ser objeto de reglamentación y aún de restricciones cuando se encuentren de por medio intereses superiores. Mal podría tildarse de inconstitucional, por ejemplo, el artículo 371 de la Ley General de Salud, en cuanto reprime con prisión a quien cultivare plantas de adormidera, coca o marihuana, por atentar contra la libertad de agricultura establecida en el artículo 46 de la Constitución, norma que el recurrente estima como violada por las restricciones que a la labor agrícola impone la Ley Forestal. Y si se toma en consideración el criterio ya externado de que esa Ley protege intereses de mayor rango que los meramente individuales del poseedor o propietario de terrenos sometido a regulación forestal, se concluye aquí también que las restricciones que se acusan de inconstitucionales no lesionan la garantía del artículo 46 de la Carta Política, pues ya se dijo que lo que ha hecho el Estado es restringir por razones de interés social el ejercicio de los atributos de la propiedad. IX. La Ley Forestal pretende proteger los recursos naturales, circunstancia que incide en la organización de la producción. Los recursos hidrológicos, los cambios ambientales, la sanidad del lugar son factores que influyen en la producción agropecuaria y se encuentran directamente relacionados con los recursos forestales de la zona; por ello las regulaciones sobre explotación forestal no lesionan sino que, por el contrario, afirman la garantía constitucional del artículo 50, en cuanto dispone que el Estado debe organizar la producción. X. Con la Ley Forestal no se le está impidiendo al recurrente la posibilidad de lograr trabajo, honesto y útil, con el que procure por la subsistencia y bienestar de él y de su familia. Es indudable que el derecho que otorga el artículo 56 de la Constitución Política no es irrestricto, pues se encuentra sometido a las leyes y reglamentos respecto a la modalidad y condiciones de ejercerlo. Así el señor Elizondo Villegas puede dedicarse a la agricultura si ése es su deseo; pero en ejercicio de tal derecho no le es lícito actuar contra la legislación vigente que protege los recursos forestales y regula la producción agrícola. Existen cultivos prohibidos (como el señalado anteriormente, la marihuana), y prácticas agrícolas restringidas (como las quemas), por normas jurídicas que imposibilitan a los agricultores para dedicarse a esos cultivos o utilizar las prácticas dichas. Sin embargo, esas normas no son inconstitucionales, pues no restringen ilegítimamente el derecho al trabajo, sino que lo regulan para salvaguardar otros intereses de mayor rango que garantizan la convivencia, fin último al que tiende el sistema jurídico." (Corte Plena, sesión extraordinaria celebrada el l7 de mayo de l984 la negrita no del original).

VIII.- La Sala Constitucional, a partir del año 1990, reconoce más claramente el carácter dinámico del derecho de propiedad, y la posibilidad de imponer dentro de su estructura –conjunto de derechos y obligaciones del propietario- limitaciones de interés social, para evitar el ejercicio antisocial o abusivo de ese derecho que no es ilimitado. Dentro de dicho contexto reconoce, implícitamente, la existencia de propiedades especiales, con particularidades distintas atendiendo a la naturaleza del bien de que se trate, y su función específica: “El poder del propietario sobre la propiedad está determinado por la función que ésta cumpla. El objeto del derecho de propiedad ha sufrido transformaciones importantes. Actualmente, no sólo se tutela el derecho de los propietarios, sino también diversos intereses generales o sociales que coexisten con aquél. El derecho objetivo enmarca del contenido de los derechos subjetivos. Cada objeto de derecho implica una peculiar forma de apropiación. Así por ejemplo las facultades del dominio relativas a un fundo agrícola son muy distintas de las correspondientes a una finca ubicada en el sector urbano de intensa utilización.” Dichas limitaciones, según la Sala Constitucional, deben ser razonables y no vaciar el contenido del derecho, pues pasaría a ser una privación total del mismo (Sala Constitucional, No. 5097-93 de las 10:24 horas del 15 de octubre de 1993).

IX.- El ejercicio de la función económica y social de la propiedad, sin considerar la ambiental, fue algo normal dentro de la cultura agraria imperante hasta inicios de la década de los 90. Se titularon gran cantidad de terrenos. Los bancos del Estado propiciaron, con el financiamiento, el desmonte y la destrucción del bosque para aumentar la frontera agrícola, a través de actividades agrícolas y ganaderas, con mínimas prácticas de recuperación de suelos y áreas devastadas. La propiedad agraria recaía sobre un bien esencialmente de naturaleza productiva. Pero se hizo caso omiso a los mandatos del legislador en conservar adecuadamente los recursos naturales, lo que implicaba formas distintas de ejercicio de la actividad agraria. El aumento de la población, las escasas técnicas en la producción agraria, la dependencia de los agroquímicos por la pérdida de fertilidad del suelo, y la misma cultura agraria fueron generando la destrucción de nuestros preciados recursos, con el escaso control Estatal. No existían criterios claros para poner termino al ejercicio abusivo y antisocial de la propiedad, pues la mayoría de las normas han protegido y propiciado el ejercicio inadecuado de ese derecho, y la explotación desmedida de los recursos naturales. Si bien es cierto el Legislador desde hacía muchos años venía procurando, a través de claras limitaciones agroambientales, un desarrollo sostenible, no es sino con los Derechos Humanos de la tercera generación se da un cambio cultural trascendental para el entero ordenamiento jurídico. Por lo anterior, el establecimiento de los límites agroambientales de la propiedad, en el ámbito de su función económica, social y ambiental, es fundamental para alcanzar verdaderamente un desarrollo sostenible, ponderando los valores y principios constitucionales que deben orientar este modelo de desarrollo.

X.- La Jurisprudencia agraria hace una clara distinción entre los diferentes tipos de propiedad, siguiendo la tesis de PUGLIATTI: “La más productiva entre las cosas es la tierra, la cual de sus frutos y productos espontáneamente, pero de ella, de la tierra, el hombre civil vive, no ya solamente recogiendo sus productos espontáneos, sino fecundándola con su obra. La natural potencialidad productiva de la tierra deviene en producción actual, por el trabajo del hombre. Con el trabajo la tierra se humaniza, deviene espiritual posesión y propiedad del hombre, no cosa, no natural, dominada por el caso o por la causalidad, sino nutrida por el hombre que la cuida, la cultiva; entre en el ámbito no solo de los intereses humanos y de los motivos de acción del hombre, sino también en los fines de los valores, deviene base del consorcio humano, sede y cuna de la sociedad de los hombres, reguladas por las leyes del vivir social, por el derecho” (PUGLIATTI, Salvatore. La proprietá nel nuevo Diritto. , Milano Editores Giuffré, 1964, p 203). Si bien es cierto se define a la propiedad agraria como esencialmente posesiva, como una propiedad de actividad empresarial tendiente a lograr el mejor destino productivo del bien, también se impone el interés de conservarla. En el ámbito del ejercicio del derecho subjetivo, para proteger su derecho se le exige al propietario que “... la ejerció cumpliendo con el destino económico del bien, que ejerció en ella actos posesorios tendientes a cultivarla y mejorarla, y que sobre el bien desarrolló una actividad agraria empresarial, entendiéndose por tal una actividad económicamente organizada con el fin de la producción de animales o vegetales, con el uso de los recursos naturales...”. Bajo esa concepción, claramente nuestra Jurisprudencia integra la función ambiental, como parte de la económica y la social cuando expresa: “Hoy este principio ha evolucionado y se le identifica como el principio económico social de la propiedad, en cuanto el mismo se desdobla en dos: 1) Por una parte denominado función subjetiva, y se refiere a las obligaciones del propietario con la propiedad, las cuales podrían sintetizarse en su deber de cultivar el bien productivo de que es propietario, cumpliendo así con el fin económico del bien: de ser productivo o de aptitud productiva; también tiene la obligación de mejorar su propiedad con el objeto de que aumente la producción y productividad, debe respetar el adecuado mantenimiento y desarrollo de un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, y tratándose de algunas propiedades particulares cumplir con todas las obligaciones que la normativa especial le impone; 2) La función objetiva es la obligación del Estado de dotar a todos los sujetos que no tengan bienes productivos, o los tengan en forma insuficiente, y ellos tengan capacidad para desarrollar una actividad empresarial, con esos bienes para que puedan los sujetos incorporarse al proceso productivo, desarrollándose humanamente en los planos social y económico. La primera es la función básicamente económica, la segunda es sobre todo social...” (Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 230 de las 16 horas del 20 de julio de 1990). En dicha sentencia, se evidencia una clara tendencia jurisprudencial, reiterada en muchas otras (En igual sentido, Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 241 de las 16:25 horas del 27 de julio de 1990, No. 50 de las 14:20 horas del 5 de agosto de 1993.) de introducir, como parte de la misma función económica y social, la función ambiental para alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible. Pero es en el ámbito de la propiedad forestal, como propiedad limitada, en donde ha alcanzado un mayor desarrollo jurisprudencial el principio de la función ecológica de la propiedad. Particularmente nos referimos a las limitaciones que sufre el titular de un terreno que se ha declarado zona protectora bajo el régimen forestal, y reclama sin éxito su derecho a ser indemnizado: Aquí puede disiparse el primer problema en relación con la tesis de la actora de haber sufrido una limitación en sus derechos de goce y disfrute de la finca afectada como zona protectora, la cual al haber sido declarada como reserva forestal -y con base en el pronunciamiento de la Procuraduría- no se le siguió el trámite de compra o expropiación correspondiente, de donde el Decreto Nº 12608-A resulta inconstitucional e ilegal. Ello no es así pues lo constituido fue una zona protectora y no una reserva forestal. Sería indemnizable si el bien se destina a reserva forestal pero no lo es si se le declara dentro de una zona protectora. El artículo 45 de la Constitución Política distingue dos situaciones distintas: procede la indemnización cuando hay expropiación, pero no debe mediar indemnización si se establecen limitaciones a la propiedad. En el régimen forestal, cuando se le declara de orden público, se está en presencia del conocido fenómeno de los "límites administrativos a la propiedad privada" ([Nombre7], . Il beni pubblici, Librería Ricerche, Roma, l963). El Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 12608-A sometió a régimen forestal obligatorio tanto a los bienes públicos como privados ubicados dentro de la "Zona Protectora El Rodeo", declarando inalienables y no susceptibles de inscripción en el Registro los de las reservas nacionales. Ese era el trato jurídicamente posible para los distintos tipos de bienes, en consecuencia la finca de la actora se afectó con una limitación de interés social. Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 de las 14:20 horas del 30 de octubre de 1991).La Sala Primera se refirió hace varios años al Derecho Ecológico, y la función ambiental inherente a la propiedad, cuyos principios son consagrados en gran cantidad de normas y tratados internacionales: “Todas las anteriores, aun cuando abundantes, tienen lineamientos de altísimo contenido axiológico cuyo desarrollo no es exclusivamente nacional, sino, por el contrario, se trata de un movimiento de carácter universal cuyo resultado ha sido el de colocar al derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado como un verdadero derecho humano. Se le ubica dentro de los denominados derechos de la tercera generación: un paso adelante de los derechos humanos clásicos, civiles o políticos (de la primera generación) y de los económicos, sociales y culturales (de la segunda generación). Ello ha dado base para formular una nueva clasificación jurídica: la del Derecho Ecológico, el cual hoy tiene un objeto muy definido en los recursos naturales, y su complejo de fuentes caracterizados por la organicidad y completes. "( Sala Primera de la Corte, No. 189 de las 14:20 horas del 30 de octubre de 1991). En efecto, el peligro que causaba el ejercicio antisocial del derecho de propiedad, sin respetar su función ambiental, llevó a nuestros tribunales, a replantear los viejos criterios jurisprudenciales en torno a la tutela de la propiedad, para exigirle a los poseedores y propietarios el cumplimiento de la triple función: económica, social y ambiental o ecológica.

XI.- La Sala Constitucional ha acogido recursos de amparo frente a actividades agrarias o de otra naturaleza, abusivas de parte de los propietarios que, irrespetando los límites agroambientales impuestos por el legislador, pongan en peligro los bienes o recursos naturales y la vida humana. Así, se han protegido los recursos forestales, frente a actividades que produzcan la tala indiscriminada de árboles aledaña a una Reserva Forestal, con motivo de una actividad minera, estableciendo como cánones de orden constitucional la protección y preservación, así como la explotación racional de los recursos naturales (Sala Constitucional, No. 2233-93). Las actividades privadas, ejercidas dentro del ámbito de ejercicio del derecho de propiedad y de la libertad de empresa, deben respetar los límites agroambientales, y particularmente el interés colectivo. Esa situación es aplicable a las actividades agrarias productivas de cría de animales o cultivo de vegetales, pues no pueden ejercitarse en daño a la salud o al medio ambiente. Ello sería permitir el abuso del derecho. Así lo ha establecido también la Sala Constitucional, cuando señala: “Por otra parte, si bien es cierto que el Estado debe respetar el derecho de los individuos al trabajo y a la empresa privada, también lo es que debe velar por el bienestar de la comunidad. Cualquier persona puede dedicarse a la cría de animales como negocio, siempre y cuando no amenace con ello la salud o la seguridad de las personas, debiendo evitar que la explotación empresarial se constituya en foco de infección u ocasione contaminación ambiental. La Salud Pública y la protección del medio ambiente son principios tutelados tanto en el ámbito constitucional (artículos 21, 74 y 89 de la Carta Magna), como a través de la normativa internacional.” (Sala Constitucional, No 741 de las 10:55 horas del 13 de marzo de 1992. La Jurisprudencia Constitucional fue delineando las bases para incorporar los principios del Desarrollo Sostenible como modelo, para reorientar en su justo equilibrio todas aquellas actividades productivas, entre la actividad agraria, que atentaban contra el ambiente y ponían en peligro el equilibrio ecológico, la libertad de empresa y la defensa de la salud de los consumidores: “Se debe tomar en consideración que la protección del medio ambiente y la promoción del desarrollo económico no son desafíos independientes –dice la Sala-. El desarrollo no puede subsistir en un ambiente de deterioro de la base de recursos y no se puede proteger cuanto los planes de crecimiento constantemente hacen caso omiso de ello. Es preciso optar por el desarrollo sostenible, el cual satisface las necesidades del presente sin comprometer nuestra capacidad para hacer frente a las del futuro. Este desarrollo significa reconocer que si deseamos tener acceso continuo a los recursos que posibilitan la vida y si hacemos expandir los beneficios del progreso industrial, tenemos que estar conscientes de las implicaciones y limitaciones que supone tomar ese derrotero”. (Sala Constitucional, Sentencia No. 4423-93). Esta nueva orientación de la jurisprudencia, sobre el fenómeno agrícola, reconoce la dependencia del ciclo biológico (propio de la actividad agraria), con la utilización de los recursos naturales, vinculándolo estrechamente con el concepto de desarrollo sostenible. “Nuestro país ha dependido y seguirá dependiendo, al igual que cualquier otra nación, de sus recursos naturales y su medio ambiente para llenar las necesidades básicas de sus habitantes y mantener operando el aparato productivo que sustenta la economía nacional, cuya principal fuente la constituye la agricultura y, en los últimos años, el turismo, especialmente en su dimensión de ecoturismo. El suelo, el agua, el aire, los recursos marinos y costeros, los bosques, la diversidad biológica, los recursos minerales y el paisaje conforman el marco ambiental sin el cual las demandas básicas- como espacio vital, alimentación, energía, vivienda, sanidad y recreación- serían imposibles. De igual modo, nuestra economía también está íntimamente ligada al estado del ambiente y de los recursos naturales; así, por ejemplo, tanto la generación de divisas por explotación agrícola y turística, como el éxito de importantes inversiones en infraestructura dependen, en última instancia, de la conservación de aquellos. Las metas del desarrollo sostenible tienen que ver con la supervivencia y el bienestar del ser humano y con el mantenimiento de los procesos ecológicos esenciales, es decir, de la calidad ambiental y de la sobrevivencia de otras especies. Hablar de desarrollo sostenible en términos de satisfacción de las necesidades humanas presentes y futuras y del mejoramiento de la calidad de vida es hablar de la demanda de los recursos naturales en el ámbito individual y de los medios directos o de apoyo necesarios para que la economía funcione generando empleo y creando los bienes de capital, que a su vez hagan posible la transformación de los recursos en productos de consumo, de producción y de exportación” (Sala Constitucional, No.3705 de las 15:00 horas del 30 de julio de 1993 la negrita no es del original).

XII.- Cuando se consagran expresamente en nuestra Constitución Política el derecho fundamental de todo ciudadano a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado –Artículo 50 reformado por Ley No. 7412 del 24 de mayo de 1994- y se establece el derecho de los consumidores a la protección de la salud, ambiente, seguridad e intereses económicos –artículo 46 Reformado Por Ley No. 7607 del 29 de mayo de 1996-, surgen nuevos principios y valores constitucionales que impregnan la legislación especial. Es importante integrar, a través de la interpretación constitucional (sistemática, material y evolutiva), todas aquellas normas dedicadas a tutelar las relaciones económicas, con los principios y valores del desarrollo sostenible. La libertad de iniciativa económica privada supone, en el ámbito de la iniciativa privada del empresario agrario (MORALES LAMBERTI, Alicia. Introducción al Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Nacional y Regional), Argentina, 1ª. Edición, Editora Córdoba, 1996, pág. 49-51), el derecho de elegir la actividad agraria (artículo 56), la libertad de contratar libremente para el ejercicio o la constitución de la empresa agraria (artículo 46), la libertad de circulación territorial de los bienes agrarios vegetales o animales; el derecho de formar asociaciones agrarias (artículo 25), el derecho a gozar de la propiedad agraria productiva en función económica, social y ambiental (artículo 45), la libertad de competencia, el derecho subjetivo de acceder al mercado y permanecer en él (artículo 46). Pero todas las manifestaciones de la libertad de iniciativa económica en el ámbito de la actividad agraria, y en el ejercicio de la propiedad deben estar en función de los principios constitucionales consagrados en los artículos 50 y 69 de la Constitución Política, es decir el fomento del desarrollo sostenible a través de la actividad productiva, garantizando la distribución equitativa de la producción y el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Como son disposiciones de orden constitucional, que no establecen una normativa distintiva para lo agrario, se entiende que las empresas agrarias y los propietarios de inmuebles quedan afectas al cumplimiento de dichas obligaciones. Las exigencias de los consumidores dentro mercado agroalimentario van dirigidos a consumir productos agrarios (vegetales o animales), sometidos a procesos de producción, agroindustria o agrocomercialización con el mínimo de sustancias contaminantes que puedan afectar la salud. Por ello se exigen aspectos de calidad higiénico-sanitarias adecuadas tanto en el proceso productivo, como en los procesos sucesivos de manipulación de los productos agrarios. La actividad agraria empresarial debe basarse en técnicas más naturales y menos artificiales. La disminución del riesgo biológico, propio de la actividad productiva no debe ir en detrimento de la salud de los consumidores. La actividad agroambiental debe reconciliarse con la naturaleza en aras de garantizar un ambiente sano a los consumidores. En ello juega un rol fundamental el hecho técnico de la agricultura, para buscar procesos productivos y agroindustriales menos nocivos para la salud y el ambiente. Toda actividad agraria basada en métodos artificiales, con sustancias químicas tóxicas daña la salud y el medio ambiente. Por ello se impone el cumplimiento de los principios constitucionales, que protegen los derechos del consumidor, a favor de la salud y la vida humana. La doctrina a profundizado sobre el tema de la función ecológica (DELGADO DE MIGUEL, Juan Francisco. Derecho Agrario Ambiental (Propiedad y Ecología). Navarra, Editorial Aranzadi, 1992, 647 p.), como cualidad inescindible de la función social, pero hace una clara distinción entre una y otra. La función ecológica surge del impacto del Medio Ambiente con un fundamento ético, dentro de los Derechos Humanos de la Tercera generación. Se busca proteger los intereses colectivos, y sobre todo se basa en la solidaridad, para proteger la salud y el ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La función social es insuficiente para lograr los propósitos de los nuevos valores que impregnan la sociedad. No solamente se requiere cumplir con el destino económico de los bienes. Es necesario proteger los intereses ecológicos y ambientales. “La función social por tanto suministra el esquema dogmático, la base jurídica a partir de la cual, la función ecológica transforma el derecho de propiedad en un derecho al uso limitado del propio bien de forma que no lesiones el Medio Ambiente. Utilizando sinónimos procedentes de las ciencias experimentales diríamos que la función ecológica es el catalizador que transforma el régimen normal del dominio en algo distinto que llega a configurarlo y darle una forma bien precisa no la que proyecta el titular sobre su cosa, sino la forma que ésta adquiere por el uso de ella más adecuado al Medio Ambiente, uso que incluye la propia actividad productiva del agricultor.” ([Nombre8] , op. cit., página 81) . Por lo anterior, es necesario profundizar, sobre cómo se viene manifestando esa función ambiental en el seno de la propiedad, cuáles obligaciones viene imponiendo el legislador a los propietarios de terrenos, para lograr la conservación de los mismos, así como la recuperación de los degradados.

XIII.- Las limitaciones agroambientales de la propiedad, alcanzan gran cantidad de aspectos en el ejercicio de actividades productivas y en el ámbito de la conservación de los recursos naturales, la Biodiversidad, el uso y conservación de suelos, la protección del bosque y los ecosistemas, el uso y control de los plaguicidas y productos de síntesis química, el control fitosanitario y sanitario animal y vegetal, los desechos agrícolas, la conservación de las aguas, la utilización y manejo de aguas residuales en agricultura, la recuperación de suelos y cuencas hidrográficas, etcétera. En el próximo apartado, haremos referencia solo a algunas de dichas limitaciones. Dentro del contexto de los principios y valores constitucionales descritos, comienza a dictarse gran cantidad de leyes agroambientales, que no solo marcan la consolidación de un modelo de desarrollo sostenible, sino que además, imponen una serie de limitaciones agroambientales a la propiedad y la libertad de empresa, buscando consolidar también una nueva cultura agraria y ambiental o ecológica. 1) La Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (No. 7554 del 4 de octubre de 1995) establece la obligación del Estado de propiciar un desarrollo económico y ambiental sostenible, lo que implica, necesariamente imponer límites ambientales al ejercicio de las actividades económicas productivas y al ejercicio del derecho de propiedad. Pero para que esos límites tengan una verdadera aplicación, es necesario un cambio cultural. De la cultura agraria tradicional, en donde solo importaba lo económico, debe pasarse a una cultura ambiental o agroambiental para el desarrollo sostenible (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículos 12, 13, 14, 15 y 16). Entre los límites más importantes impuestos a la propiedad, para garantizar la función económica, social y ambiental, pueden destacarse los siguientes: A.- El ejercicio de toda actividad agroambiental, que pueda alterar o destruir elementos del ambiente, requiere necesariamente de una evaluación de impacto ambiental, cuya aprobación debe ser previa al proyecto. También se exige la evaluación cuando por obras o infraestructura puedan afectarse recursos marinos, costeros y humedales. B.- El ordenamiento territorial, para equilibrar el desarrollo sostenible, implica la reubicación territorial de las actividades productivas, lo que podría significar límites importantes al derecho de propiedad, pues deben tomarse en consideración, entre otros aspectos, los recursos naturales, las actividades económicas predominantes, la capacidad de uso de los suelos y la zonificación por productos y actividades agropecuarias, en razón de consideraciones ecológicas y productivas. C- El Poder Ejecutivo está facultado para incluir dentro de las áreas silvestres protegidas las fincas de particulares necesarias para el cumplimiento de la función ambiental, o crear las servidumbres legales para la protección ecológica. En los casos donde la Ley exija indemnización, los particulares pueden someterse voluntariamente al régimen forestal, caso en el cual la propiedad queda afectada en el Registro Público (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 37). D.- Están prohibidas las actividades orientadas a interrumpir los ciclos naturales de los ecosistemas de humedales, que puedan provocar su deterioro y la eliminación (Ley orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 45). E.- Las actividades productivas deben evitar la contaminación del agua, dar tratamiento a las aguas residuales, impedir o minimizar el deterioro o contaminación de cuencas hidrográficas, así como del suelo. F.- La agricultura orgánica, como forma de ejercicio de actividades agrarias sostenibles, implica una forma de cumplimiento de la función económica, social y ambiental, pues se exige una certificación ambiental de los productos orgánicos que se hayan obtenido sin aplicar insumos o productos de síntesis química (artículos 73-75). G.- El crédito ambiental: está destinado a financiar los costos de reducción de la contaminación en procesos productivos. Cuando implican el uso del suelo se requiere un plan de manejo y uso de tierras de conformidad con la capacidad de uso (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 113). Indudablemente, la estructura de la propiedad y su función está condicionada, en este caso por el elemento ambiental, requerido en el ejercicio empresarial. 2) La Ley Forestal (No. 7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996, reformada por leyes No. 7609 de 11 de junio de 1996, 7761 de 2 de abril de 1998 y 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998), orientada por los principios constitucionales de uso adecuado y sostenible de los recursos naturales renovables, establece regulaciones en cuanto a la conservación, protección y administración de los bosques naturales, y por la producción, aprovechamiento, industrialización y fomento de los recursos forestales, buscando la incorporación de los particulares al ejercicio sostenido de actividades silviculturales. Si bien es cierto, el MINAE está facultado para crear áreas silvestres protegidas en terrenos privados, ello requiere indemnización, salvo que el propietario decida someterse voluntariamente al régimen forestal, o sean ya propiedad del Estado, dentro de su patrimonio de Reservas Nacionales. La Ley prevé dos claros límites, en interés de las áreas protegidas: a: “Tratándose de reservas forestales, zonas protectoras y refugios de vida silvestre y en caso de que el pago o la expropiación no se haya efectuado y mientras se efectúa, las áreas quedarán sometidas a un plan de ordenamiento ambiental que incluye la evaluación de impacto ambiental y posteriormente, al plan de manejo, recuperación y reposición de recursos.” (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 37, en relación con el artículo 2 de la Ley Forestal. Dicha reforma fue introducida por la Ley de Biodiversidad, en el artículo 14). Lo cual constituye un claro límite para el cumplimiento de la función ambiental de la propiedad. B.“Cuando, previa justificación científica y técnica de interés público, se determine mediante ley que el terreno es imprescindible para conservar la diversidad biológica o los recursos hídricos, quedará constituida una limitación a la propiedad que impedirá cortar árboles y cambiar el uso del suelo. Esta restricción deberá inscribirse como afectación en el Registro Público.” (Ley Forestal, artículo 2 párrafo segundo). Como se observa, no se trata de un límite irrazonable. Por el contrario el propietario podría ejercer su actividad siempre y cuando sea compatible con la función ambienta que, por naturaleza, viene asignada al inmueble, para conservar recursos hídricos o diversidad biológica. El Título III de la Ley, referido a la propiedad forestal privada, como propiedad especial, establece un conjunto de derechos y obligaciones para los propietarios de bosques que condicionan el cumplimiento de la función ambiental, atendiendo a la naturaleza del bien: a) No es permitido a los titulares cambiar el uso del suelo, ni establecer plantaciones forestales. Sin embargo, la Administración Forestal del Estado puede otorgar permiso para realizar obras complementarias a la actividad agroforestal, siempre y cuando la corta del bosque sea limitada, proporcional y razonable (Ley Forestal, artículo 19. Cuando sea necesario, se exigiría evaluación de impacto ambiental); b) El aprovechamiento del bosque solo se puede realizar si el propietario cuenta con un plan de manejo que contenga el impacto que pueda ocasionar al ambiente, según criterios de sostenibilidad científica; c) El pago por servicios ambientales (La Ley define los servicios ambientales como: “Los que brindan el bosque y las plantaciones forestales y que inciden directamente en la protección y el mejoramiento del medio ambiente. Son los sguientes: mitigación de emisiones de gases efecto invernadero (fijación, reducción, secuestro, almacenamiento y absorción), proteción del agua para uso urbano, rural o hidroeléctrico, protección de la biodiversidad para conservarla y uso sostenible, científico y farmacéutico, investigación y mejoramiento genético, protección de ecosistemas, formas de vida y belleza escénica natural para fines turísticos y científicos.), constituye una de las manifestaciones más modernas de ejercicio de la función ambiental, pues el propietario se compromete a conservar el bosque por un período no inferior a los veinte años, para recibir el Certificado de Conservación del Bosque. También lo recibe los propietarios que deseen someter su inmueble a la regeneración del bosque, para áreas que por su estado deteriorado y necesidades ambientales, deben convertirse al uso forestal. Las afectaciones y limitaciones, así como los incentivos se inscribe en el Registro Público como afectación a la propiedad; d) Las plantaciones forestales, incluidos sistemas agroforestales y árboles plantados individualmente, no requieren permiso de corta, transporte, industrialización ni exportación, salvo cuanto exista plan de manejo derivado de un contrato forestal con el Estado; e) Todo propietario tiene prohibiciones de cortar o eliminar árboles en las áreas de protección establecidas por Ley para las nacientes permanentes, ríos, lagos y manantiales (Ley Forestal, artículo 33 y 34.). f) Está prohibido realizar quemas en terrenos forestales, ni aledaños, sin obtener el permiso respectivo de la Administración Forestal del Estado; g) Como parte de la función ambiental, los inmuebles sometidos voluntariamente al régimen forestal o dedicados a esa actividad, gozan de una protección especial respecto de invasiones, pudiendo solicitar la protección inmediata de las autoridades de policía; h) El crédito forestal, se consolida como instituto para financiar a pequeños y medianos productores, mediante créditos y otros mecanismos de fomento del manejo de bosques, procesos de reforestación, viveros forestales, sistemas agroforestales, recuperación de áreas denudadas. El financiamiento comprende, además, el pago de los servicios ambientales que brindan los bosques y plantaciones forestales. La tierra con bosque y los árboles en pie servirán como garantía de dichos créditos, quedando anotadas como afectaciones a la propiedad (Ley Forestal, artículos 46, 48 y 49). 3).- La Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos (No. 7779 de 30 de abril de 1998), es de fundamental importancia para el cumplimiento de la función económica, social y ambiental de la propiedad. Se pretende lograr el manejo, conservación y recuperación de suelos en forma sostenible, integrada con los demás recursos naturales, logrando una participación más activa de las comunidades y los productores, e impulsando la implementación y control de prácticas mejoradas en los sistemas de uso, para evitar la erosión y degradación del recurso. Se plantea la agroecología, como una forma de lograr la convergencia entre los objetivos de la producción agrícola y la conservación de los recursos suelo y agua. La Ley plantea un conjunto de limitaciones agroambientales, para lograr cumplir con los objetivos señalados: En áreas críticas de cuencas o subcuencas (con gravedad en degradación del suelo y su entorno, como limitante a cualquier actividad), sean de dominio público o privado, los dueños de terrenos deben aplicar forzosamente todas las medidas y prácticas que conlleven la recuperación del suelo y preservación del ambiente en general. Toda adjudicación de terrenos que realice el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, tendrá como limitación que el uso del terreno no puede ir en contra de su capacidad de uso, cuyo incumplimiento se convierte en causal para revocarla. Como obligaciones de los particulares se establecen entre otras: Fomentar, contribuir y ejecutar todas las prácticas y actividades necesarias para el manejo, conservación y recuperación de suelos; es un derecho obligación vigilar y controlar el cumplimiento de la legislación en materia de suelos; prevenir la degradación de los suelos que pueda ser causada por las aguas, para lo cual deberán aplicarse todas las prácticas que aumenten la capacidad de infiltración en sus terrenos o la evacuación de aguas sobrantes hacia cauces naturales; prevenir o impedir la contaminación de acuíferos y capas de agua subterránea; permitir el ingreso de técnicos autorizados para verificar el mantenimiento de las prácticas de manejo, conservación y recuperación de suelos. 4) Quizás se han mencionado las limitaciones más importantes, establecidas por el Legislador, para el cumplimiento de la función ambiental de la propiedad. Podría determinarse muchas más en otras leyes especiales, tales como la Ley de Aguas, Ley General de Salud, Ley de Quemas controladas, Ley de Aviación Civil –sobre las reglas de aviación agrícola -, entre otras.

XIV.- Uno de los temas más controvertidos, en materia de limitaciones a la propiedad, para el cumplimiento de su función ambiental, es el de la posesión y titulación de bosques y terrenos ubicados en áreas protegidas. El tratamiento de este tema, en el ámbito de la protección posesoria, de la propiedad privada y de la usucapión ha sido objeto de análisis y discusión, tanto en doctrina como en jurisprudencia. El tema de la posesión ecológica, no es de pacífica aceptación. Se han dado diversos planteamientos doctrinales y la jurisprudencia exige demostrar el cumplimiento de la función ecológica para proteger la posesión y propiedad. Todo se origina en la aplicación del artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, que en la actualidad establece: “Artículo 7.- Cuando el inmueble al que se refiera la información esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegidas, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser el titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por los menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre. Las fincas ubicadas fuera de esas áreas y que contengan bosques, sólo podrán ser tituladas si el promovente demuestra ser el titular de los derechos legales de posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos durante diez años y haber protegido ese recurso natural, en el entendido de que el inmueble tendrá que estar debidamente deslindado y con cercas o carriles limpios...”(Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, artículo 7. Reformado por Ley Forestal, No. 7575 del 5 de febrero de 1996). En relación con la aplicación de esta disposición, contrario a lo señalado por la a-quo en sus consideraciones de fondo – en cuanto a la imposibilidad de aplicar retroactivamente el artículo 7 mencionado -, la Sala Constitucional ha indicado que es posible aplicar dicha disposición en forma retroactiva, desde que se produce la afectación al dominio público, pues la posesión decenal consolidada antes de la declaratoria de cualquier reserva o área protegida encuentra tutela en la referida disposición legal (Ver Sala Constitucional, No. 4597 de las 15:45 horas del 5 de agosto de 1997). De ahí que no comparta el Tribunal la afirmación de la juzgadora de instancia en tal sentido. En todo caso, la situación de este proceso, como veremos, es totalmente diferente, ya que ni el actor, ni el demandado han poseído a título de dueños, terrenos que han pertenecido y continúan perteneciendo al Patrimonio Forestal del Estado.

XV.La función ecológica incide en la solución de conflictos agrarios específicos, pues se le da mayor importancia a aquellas actividades productivas sostenibles. Dentro de dicho contexto, la Jurisprudencia ha venido jugando un papel protagónico en la búsqueda del equilibrio entre agricultura y medio ambiente. La Sala Primera admitió la existencia del Derecho ecológico y su objeto (Sala Primera de la Corte, Sentencia No. 189 de las 14 horas veinte minutos del 30 de octubre de 1991): la protección de los recursos naturales. En ella estableció que la propiedad forestal es limitada, y en caso de creación de una Zona Protectora no es necesaria la indemnización, pues el propietario puede continuar con el ejercicio de una actividad agroforestal, conservando y protegiendo el recurso boscoso. En la sentencia No. 51 de las 15 horas 15 minutos del 25 de mayo de 1995, la Sala desarrolló nuevamente el tema de la propiedad forestal, y aplicó al caso concreto el instituto de la posesión ecológica. Se trató de un conflicto de mejor derecho de posesión, en una área declarada como Reserva Forestal. Se dijo: "La falta de entrega de una parcela no es motivo suficiente para pretender el mejor derecho de posesión. Lo más importante hubiera sido la conservación del recurso forestal... se exigió una posesión agraria efectiva e incluso la demostración de actos posesorios encaminados a la conservación del bosque. Este aspecto no fue demostrado por el recurrente, al contrario se convirtieron terrenos de aptitud forestal en potreros... Es decir, a pesar de la limitación existente con fines de conservación los poseedores siguieron explotando el bosque. Evidentemente, los trabajos realizados no tendían al ejercicio de una posesión forestal conforme a la naturaleza del bien. Al contrario deforestaban para sembrar. Hicieron caso omiso a las limitaciones y siguieron destruyendo el bosque. Sus actos posesorios son, en consecuencia, contrarios a la función ecológica de conservación de los recursos naturales para mantener el equilibrio de los ecosistemas en la Reserva Forestal de la Cordillera Volcánica de Guanacaste".

XVI.La máxima reafirmación de la función ambiental de la propiedad, cuyo fundamento constitucional es ya indiscutible, se encuentra en la recién promulgada Ley de Biodiversidad (No. 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998). Esta Ley responde al compromiso asumido por Costa Rica, en el ámbito mundial, de conservar la diversidad biológica, los recursos genéticos, las especies y los ecosistemas, dentro del marco del desarrollo sostenible. Se proyecta dentro del marco del Convenio sobre la Biodiversidad Biológica, y va mas allá –siguiendo el mismo convenio- de la conservación, pues se regula la utilización sostenible de los recursos biológicos, se incorporan normas sobre el acceso a los recursos genéticos, y se pretende lograr una distribución equitativa de los costos y beneficios derivados de la utilización del material genético, el acceso a la tecnología y la biotecnología. El artículo 8 de la Ley incorpora en forma expresa la función ambiental de la propiedad en su texto: “Como parte de la función económica y social, las propiedades inmuebles deben cumplir con una función ambiental.” El legislador no hizo otra cosa que reconocer un principio que tenía un sólido fundamento constitucional, y un desarrollo en nuestra Jurisprudencia. Sin embargo, era imprescindible reafirmar no-solo el principio, sino también las limitaciones agroambientales a la propiedad, en aras del alcanzar un verdadero desarrollo sostenible en la utilización de los recursos de la diversidad biológica. Es muy importante señalar, que la pérdida de la diversidad biológica se debe, sobre todo, a factores económicos, especialmente al reducido valor que se le asignaba y las funciones ecológicas, tales como la protección de cuencas hidrográficas, el ciclo de los nutrientes, el control de la contaminación, la formación de suelos, la fotosíntesis y la evolución. Los recursos biológicos y la diversidad de los sistemas que los mantienen, constituyen el fundamento esencial del desarrollo sostenible. Por otro lado, hoy se sabe de la importancia que tiene la diversidad genética en el ejercicio de actividades productivas sostenibles. “Los seres humanos llevan miles de años utilizando y en algunos casos incrementando la diversidad genética, especialmente en agricultura. Así como la diversidad genética permite a las especies sobrevivir, los seres humanos, especialmente las comunidades indígenas y locales, se han basado en la diversidad genética para crear un amplio espectro de cultivos, animales y microbios, genéticamente diversos, que han facilitado su supervivencia. Los agricultores han domesticado animales silvestres, mejorándolos para lograr características deseables tales como tamaño, grosor de su abrigo o enfermedades. Igualmente, los agricultores han domesticado cientos de especies de plantas que, a lo largo del tiempo, han mejorado para crear decenas de miles de variedades con características deseables tales como color de semillas, sabor, tamaño de los frutos o resistencia a las enfermedades. Los mejoradores modernos también se apoyan y dependen de la diversidad genética. Por estas razones, la efectiva conservación de la diversidad genética debe ir mucho más allá de la simple conservación de especies: no resulta suficiente conservar poblaciones viables de especies, en la medida que dichas poblaciones pueden no tener la diversidad genética necesaria para su propia supervivencia ni para la de los seres humanos.” (UICN, Centro de Derecho Ambiental. Guía del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica, Edición en español, 1996, página 27). Era imprescindible integrar la conservación con el uso sostenible de la Biodiversidad, la participación activa de los sectores sociales, para garantizar una sostenibilidad social, económica y cultural, a través de la formación de la cultura y conciencia ambiental. También era imprescindible lograr la consolidación del Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservación, creando sistemas de incentivos y retribución de servicios ambientales para la conservación, el uso sostenible y los elementos de la Biodiversidad, pues solo de esa manera se podría garantizar el cumplimiento de la función ambiental de la propiedad pública y privada. Las Areas de Conservación, cuya competencia territorial alcanza todo el territorio tanto en áreas protegidas, como en áreas privadas de explotación económica, tienen la difícil tarea de aplicar la legislación agroambiental, en especial, la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, La Ley Forestal, la Ley de Conservación de la Vida silvestre y la Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales. La función ambiental de la propiedad, para proteger a la Biodiversidad, exige que las actividades humanas se ajusten a las normas científicas y técnicas emitidas por el Ministerio del Ambiente y entes públicos competentes para el mantenimiento de los procesos ecológicos vitales, tanto dentro y fuera de las áreas protegidas, pero especialmente en aquellas actividades relacionadas con asentamientos humanos, agricultura, turismo e industria u otra que pueda afectar dichos procesos.

XVII.- En razón de todo lo antes expuesto, no llevando razón el recurrente, deberá confirmarse la resolución apelada, en lo que ha sido objeto del recurso.

POR TANTO:

En lo que ha sido objeto de recurso, se confirma la resolución apelada.

[Nombre9] ANTONIO DARCIA CARRANZA VANESSA FISHER GONZÁLEZ C.B.M INFORMACION POSESORIA TIT:// [Nombre2] Y OTRO