Possessory information in biological reserve — lack of just title due to excess areaInformación posesoria en reserva biológica — falta de justo título por exceso de área

VOTO Nº 0654-F-07 VOTO Nº 0654-F-07 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at ten hours two minutes on the fourteenth of August of two thousand seven.- POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS (DILIGENCIAS DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA) promoted by [Nombre1], of legal age, married, farmer, resident of Alajuela, with identity card number CED1 - . The INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO appears as a party, legal ID CED2 - , represented by [Nombre2], of legal age, married, agronomist, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED3 - , in his capacity as managerial advisor with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact, and the PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, represented by Susana Fallas Cubero, of legal age, attorney, resident of San José, identity card number: CED4 - . Processed before the Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela. Attorney Róger Barboza Lépiz acts as the legal representative for the petitioner, whose particulars are unknown in the case file.-

WHEREAS

1. The title applicant files possessory information proceedings (Información Posesoria), valued at the sum of one hundred thousand colones, in order to register with the Public Property Registry the unregistered property: which is mountainous terrain and cultivated land, located in [Dirección1], of the second canton of San Ramón in the Province of Alajuela. With an area of one hundred seventy-seven hectares, one thousand seven hundred meters, and seventy square decimeters; bordering to the north with the Palmital River; to the south with the Jamaical River; to the east with [Nombre3] and a right-of-way easement (servidumbre de Paso); and to the west with [Nombre4], described in surveyed plan number A- Quinientos noventa y dos mil ciento cincuenta y ocho - noventa y nueve, (folios 11, 89, and 104).

2. For its part, the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario appeared in the proceedings and indicated that the lands comprising the property to be titled are located within the Alberto Manuel Brenes Biological Reserve, (folio 40). The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the proceedings and stated that the proceedings still have to meet a series of requirements, as can be inferred from folios 43 to 45.

3. Attorney Ronald Alberto Rodríguez Cubillo, the first-instance judge, in a judgment rendered at fifteen hours thirty minutes on the thirtieth of July of the year two thousand four, resolved: "THEREFORE (POR TANTO) In accordance with the foregoing and cited articles, the present POSSESSORY INFORMATION (INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA) promoted by [Nombre1] is hereby DENIED. The case file is ordered to be archived once this ruling becomes final," (folios 350 to 363).

4. The judicial representative of the petitioner filed an appeal for reversal before this Tribunal, with an express indication of the reasons on which they relied to refute the trial court's thesis, (folios 367 to 370).

The judicial representative of the moving party filed an appeal before this Court with an express indication of the reasons relied upon to refute the lower court's thesis (folios 367 to 370).

**5.** In the proceedings and time periods, the formalities of law have been observed. No defects or omissions capable of causing any defenselessness to the parties are noted.

Drafted by Judge **PICADO VARGAS**; and; **CONSIDERANDO:** **I.-** The moving party offers as evidence for a better resolution that the statements given by the witnesses who have testified in these proceedings be expanded. This Court rejects said request, considering it unnecessary since the evidence taken at first instance is sufficient.

**II.-** The list of proven facts is adopted as it corresponds to the merit of the evidence produced in the process.

**III.-** The sole fact held as not proven is shared, and it is supplemented with the following: 2.- The moving party did not demonstrate the cause and manner of acquisition of possession (posesión) over the excess area of five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters and twenty square decimeters that the submitted map No. A-59158-99 shows with respect to the total area subject to transfer in the purchase and sale documents.

**IV.-** The moving party files an appeal against the judgment issued at fourteen hours on the twenty-fifth of April of two thousand seven, which rejected these possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria). The grievances indicated are: 1).- He alleges inconsistency in the ruling because it acknowledges that the moving party has possessed the property to be titled and subsequently concludes that said possession has not been demonstrated due to the imprecision of the deponents. He argues that it must be considered that the testifying witnesses in the proceedings, although they are elderly and as a general rule have diminished capacities due to their age, all attested to having known the property under the uninterrupted possession (posesión) of third-party Private Law subjects who have transmitted the possession to the appellant and therefore it has never been under State ownership. 2).- He claims an error in the assessment of the documentary evidence insofar as it considers that the Ministry of Environment and Energy expressly recognizes him as the holder and possessor of the property in the document issued by said entity regarding the benefits of environmental services (servicios ambientales), coupled with the fact that he has cared for the natural resource, and therefore titling should be ordered in his name. 3).- He argues that it was demonstrated that there are no water sources (fuentes hídricas) necessary for nearby communities on the property, so there is no legal reason for the State to oppose the titling (folios 267 to 270).- **V.-** Regarding this type of proceeding, this Court has repeatedly determined that "Possessory Information is a non-contentious judicial activity proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has come to be acquired by usucapión, fulfilling the corresponding legal requirements. It is required to demonstrate possession at the title of owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 856 of the Civil Code). The titling party, apart from lacking a registered or registrable title in the Public Registry, must expressly state that the property has not been previously registered in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid a double registry inscription over the same good, or to protect third parties with superior right to the titling party, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition procedure within the Possessory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Ley de Informaciones Posesorias orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore personally notify them from the start of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners, as the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. It also orders notification to co-owners or co-condominium owners. Likewise, in safeguarding the State's interests, it orders that the Procuraduría General de la República and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario be considered parties, for the protection of property subject to public domain and state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law commands to summon all interested parties, through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin, who may have a legitimate interest in the process. (See numeral 5 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (see Voto Nº 755 at 9:45 hours on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries (fences, lanes, etc.) is also required. The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the property is dedicated to livestock; identity card or respective identification document of the titling party; the cadastral map; updated certification from the Public Registry clarifying whether other properties have been titled by the moving party and what their measurement is; updated certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy on whether or not the land is included within any protected area (área protegida). The current legislation on soils requires demonstrating the use of the land according to its suitability (conforming land-use study (estudio conforme de uso del suelo)). The judge is also obligated, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if springs (nacientes) or water sources exist, to request the respective report from the competent entity (articles 50 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3 and 17 of the Ley de Aguas N°276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Ley Forestal Nº 7575 of February 5, 1996, and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997). **Tribunal Agrario, Voto N° 943 at 15:40 hours on December 6, 2004.** - **VI.-** On the other hand, regarding the alleged inconsistency of the lower court regarding the demonstration of the moving party's possession (posesión), this Court does not find such a defect in the contested ruling. From reading it, in its correct contextualization, it is clear that the lower court concluded that while the moving party demonstrated having exercised possession over the property from the moment they acquired that factual power, they did not manage to demonstrate, given the imprecisions and contradictions of the witnesses with the documentary evidence, that said possession prior to that exercised by the moving party was held for at least ten years before the declaration creating the Alberto Manuel Brenes Biological Reserve, aspects that are developed below.

**VII.-** Regarding the first substantive grievance, the appellant is not correct. While it is true that within what procedural law has developed as the "psychology of testimony," memory is among the factors for evaluating testimonial evidence, which affects a person's statement, in the present case this Court does not find any indication that the fact that the deponents are elderly affected their statements. Presuming that the condition of being elderly causes, in all cases, ambiguity in the content of a testimonial statement would be a prejudice that the Ley del Adulto Mayor itself seeks to eradicate; as there is no evidence that the deponents have, as the appellant alleges, diminished mental capacities due to their age. To hold such a position would imply that said persons are subject to a declaration of interdiction, which would rather detract from the validity of the evidence. On the contrary, the object of said means of proof being a possession (posesión) held for so many years in this case, the suitability of the witness in cases like the one at hand lies precisely in being a resident of the canton where the property is located, which implies knowing it throughout the entire possessory state, and therefore, being of sufficient age to attest to such facts.

**VIII.-** The chain of possessory transmissions was not reliably accredited by the witnesses, nor were the periods of time during which each of the transferors held possession (posesión). The witness [Nombre5], refers to the possessory chain, in the following order: [Nombre6] and [Nombre7] for twelve or fifteen years, [Nombre8] for eight years, [Nombre9] for twenty to twenty-five years, and then the moving party, for twenty-two to twenty-five years to date (folios 55 to 56). If we add up all the possessory periods declared by the previous witness, the total is sixty-two years, which detracts from the credibility of his testimony, since said gentleman claimed to have known the property for forty years. For his part, the witness [Nombre10] at folio 57 describes the possessory history of the property as follows: [Nombre11] and [Nombre12], then [Nombre13], and subsequently the moving party for twenty-five years; which does not agree with what the previous witness said. The last witness, [Nombre14], at folio 167 to 169, described said possessory succession as follows: [Nombre11], [Nombre15], [Nombre16], and [Nombre17], without being precise as to how long or since when the possessory relationship began, just as with the previous witnesses. It must be considered that the requirements to be able to acquire a property through a common agrarian usucapión, are, in addition to sustainable agrarian possession (posesión agraria) developed publicly, peacefully, continually, and as an owner; a just title (justo título) and good faith. Therefore, given the imprecisions of the witnesses, it cannot be held as demonstrated that the appellant together with their previous transferors held a ten-year possession prior to June 20, 1975. Consequently, the first grievance is rejected.

**IX.-** Regarding the second and third grievances, the appellant is also not correct. Having requested the benefit of environmental services from the MINAE, by itself, does not demonstrate possession (posesión) or the just title (justo título), just as the fact that there are no water sources (fuentes hídricas) of importance for communal consumption on the land is not sufficient. Just title is understood as the cause of acquisition of possession, which, according to Voto 4587-97 of the Sala Constitucional, can be original or derivative. In either case, the moving party has the burden of proof to demonstrate how they effectively acquired possession. While in an original form, possession makes the title presumed, the cause of unilateral taking of possession must be evidenced with suitable proof. But it could not be presumed that possession is acquired in a derivative form in cases where the moving party themselves maintains that it is derivative, that is, that they acquired it through a legal transaction inter vivos or mortis causa. In the case at hand, the moving party, in their initial brief and in the character of a sworn statement, argues that they have acquired possession over the land subject to these proceedings in a derivative form (folio 11). To prove the cause of acquisition (just title), they provide documentary evidence consisting of two deeds, the first granted before Notary Orlando Arguedas Molina, in which [Nombre11] transfers to the appellant a property whose measurement is fifty-four hectares, seven thousand thirty square meters (folio 8). The second, granted before notary Rafael Ángel Montero Mayorga, Messrs. [Nombre18] and [Nombre16], sell the appellant a right of possession over an unregistered property whose measurement is one hundred sixteen hectares, nine thousand two hundred thirty-five square meters and fifty square decimeters (folio 9). Secondly, the moving party also provides a map in which said properties are combined with a total measurement of one hundred seventy-seven hectares, one thousand seven hundred square meters and seventy square decimeters (folio 18), which in correct arithmetic corresponds to an excess of five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters and twenty square decimeters between what was transferred and what is expressed on the map. The problem lies in the fact that the cause or just title of acquisition by the moving party of the remaining five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters and twenty square decimeters has not been demonstrated, since there is no coherence between the area acquired through said deeds, in contradiction to the area described in the cadastral map number A-592158-99 which describes practically five hectares and the remainder. In this sense, the lower court is correct. The witnesses produced in the process refer to the area possessed, but not to the manner in which the moving party acquired said excess. There is no evidence in this sense as it cannot be determined how they acquired possession over said areas (just title). The moving party alleges they acquired it derivatively but could not prove their statement, which excludes it having been in an original form. If the moving party seeks to assert a derivative possession from their transferors, because by themselves they do not accumulate a ten-year possession prior to the creation of said protected zone, in this type of case it is important to assess the documentary evidence presented, especially if the witnesses are remiss in referring to the mode or cause of acquisition of the derivative possession alleged by the moving party, who bears the burden of proof. In the case at hand, the documents presented as proof of the possessory transfers indicate a measurement of the acquired land much smaller than what is intended to be registered based on the new map presented. The reasons on which the appellant bases their grievance are not receivable, nor credible, since the margin of error between what was acquired and what is alleged is too large.

The difference of five hectares and four hundred thirty-five thousand square meters is so enormous as to consider it an error given that it concerns an unregistered land, and therefore it could not be taken as proven that both the applicant and the prior possessors wielded such de facto power over the property in the full area in which it is claimed to have been exercised. In this regard, a similar case resolved by VOTO Nº 472-F-04 of fourteen hours and twenty minutes on June thirtieth, two thousand four, can be consulted, as well as the more recent Voto 495- F-07, of ten hours and zero minutes on June twenty-first, two thousand seven. Therefore, regarding what was appealed, the challenged judgment must be confirmed.

POR TANTO:

The request for evidence for a better resolution is denied. Regarding what was appealed, the judgment that was challenged is confirmed.

[Nombre19] [Nombre20] MAGDA DÍAZ BOLAÑOS INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVIDA POR [Nombre1] [Nombre21] / + **VOTE No. 0654-F-07** **AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ.** Goicoechea, at ten hours two minutes on the fourteenth of August of two thousand seven.- **POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS** promoted by **[Name1]** , of legal age, married, farmer, resident of Alajuela, with identity card number CED1 - . Appearing as parties are the **AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, INDER)** , legal identification number CED2 - , represented by **[Name2]** , of legal age, married, agronomist, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED3 - , in his capacity as management advisor with powers of a general unlimited attorney-in-fact, and the **PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA**, represented by Susana Fallas Cubero, of legal age, attorney, resident of San José, identity card number: CED4 - . Processed before the Agrarian Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela. Acting as legal counsel for the petitioner is attorney Róger Barboza Lépiz, whose qualifications are unknown in the case file.

**WHEREAS** **1.** The title claimant files possessory information proceedings, estimated in the sum of one hundred thousand colones, for the purpose of registering in the Public Property Registry the unregistered Property: which is mountain and cultivated land, located at [Address1], of the second canton San Ramón of the Province of Alajuela. With an area of one hundred seventy-seven hectares, one thousand seven hundred square meters, seventy square decimeters; bordering on the north with the Palmital River; on the south with the Jamaical River; on the east with [Name3] and an easement (servidumbre) of Passage; and on the west with [Name4], described in cadastral plan number A- Five hundred ninety-two thousand one hundred fifty-eight - ninety-nine, (folios 11, 89, and 104).

**2.** For its part, the Agrarian Development Institute (INDER) appeared in the process, and indicated that the lands that make up the property to be titled are located within the Alberto Manuel Brenes Biological Reserve, (folio 40). The Procuraduría General de la República appeared in the process, and stated that the proceedings still have to fulfill a series of requirements, as can be inferred from folios 43 to 45.

**3.** Attorney Ronald Alberto Rodríguez Cubillo, judge of first instance, in a judgment delivered at fifteen hours thirty minutes on the thirtieth of July of the year two thousand four, resolved: "**THEREFORE** In accordance with the foregoing, cited articles, the present POSSESSORY INFORMATION promoted by **[Name1]** is **DISMISSED**. The archiving of the case file is ordered once this resolution becomes final", (folios 350 to 363).

**4.** The judicial representative of the petitioner filed an appeal before this Tribunal with an express indication of the reasons relied upon to refute the thesis of the trial court, (folios 367 to 370).

**5.** In the procedures and time limits, the formalities of the law have been observed. No defects or omissions capable of causing any defenselessness to the parties are noted.

Drafted by Judge PICADO VARGAS; and;

CONSIDERING:

I.- The petitioner offers as evidence for better resolution that the statements given by the witnesses who have testified in these proceedings be expanded. This Court rejects said request, considering it unnecessary as the evidence taken at first instance is sufficient.

II.- The list of proven facts is adopted as it corresponds to the merit of the evidence taken in the process.

III.- The single fact held as unproven is shared, and it is supplemented with the following: 2.- The petitioner did not demonstrate the cause and mode of acquisition of the possession over the excess area of five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters with twenty square decimeters that the filed survey No. A-59158-99 presents with respect to the total area subject to transfer in the purchase and sale documents.

IV.- The petitioner files an appeal against the judgment issued at two o'clock in the afternoon on April twenty-fifth, two thousand seven, which rejected these possessory information proceedings. He indicates the following grievances: 1).- He alleges inconsistency in the ruling in that it recognizes that the petitioner has possessed the property to be titled and subsequently concludes that said possession has not been demonstrated due to the imprecision of the deponents. He argues it must be considered that the witnesses testifying in the proceedings, though they are older adults and by general rule have diminished capacities due to their very age, all of them attested to having known the property under the uninterrupted possession of third-party Private Law subjects who have transmitted the possession to the appellant and, therefore, it has never been under the domain of the State. 2).- He accuses an error in the appreciation of the documentary evidence in that he estimates that the Ministry of Environment and Energy expressly recognizes him as the titleholder and possessor of the property in the document issued by said entity regarding the benefits of environmental services, coupled with the fact that he has cared for the natural resource, for which reason the titling in his name must be ordered. 3).- He adduces that it was demonstrated that there are no water sources (fuentes hídricas) on the property necessary for nearby communities, so there is no legal reason for the State to oppose the titling, (pages 267 to 270).- V.- Regarding this type of process, this Court has determined repeatedly that "Possessory Information is a non-contentious judicial activity proceeding for the formalization of a registrable title over a property right that has been acquired by usucapion (usucapión), fulfilling the corresponding legal requirements for it. It is required to demonstrate possession as owner, in a quiet, public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner (articles 1 of the Law of Possessory Information and 856 of the Civil Code). The titling party, apart from lacking an inscribed or inscribable title in the Public Registry, must expressly declare that the property has not been previously inscribed in the Public Registry. For reasons of public interest, and to avoid a double registry inscription on the same good, or to protect third parties with a better right than the titling party, the Law requires notifying certain subjects. It also established an opposition proceeding within the Possessory Information, in case any of the interested parties feels harmed by the titling (article 8). The Law of Possessory Information orders the Judge to consider as parties and therefore to personally notify them from the beginning of the proceedings, the adjoining landowners, because the titling could encompass part of the lands belonging to them. The co-owners or condominium owners are also ordered to be notified. Likewise, in safeguarding the interests of the State, it is ordered that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Institute of Agrarian Development be considered as parties, for the protection of property subject to public domain, and of state Agrarian Property (article 5). Finally, the Law mandates summoning all interested parties, who may have a legitimate interest in the process, through the publication of an Edict in the Judicial Bulletin. (See numeral 5 of the Law of Possessory Information) (see Voto Nº 755 of 9:45 hours on November 13, 2003). The existence of well-marked boundaries is also required (fences, lanes, etc.). The following documents must be provided: livestock brand if the property is dedicated to livestock farming; identity card or respective identification document of the titling party; the cadastral survey (plano catastrado); updated certification from the Public Registry clarifying if other properties have been titled by the petitioner and what their measurement is; updated certification from the Ministry of Environment and Energy on whether or not the terrain is included within any protected area. The current legislation on land use (suelos) requires demonstrating the use of the terrain according to its aptitude (certified land-use compliance study). The judge is also obligated, to ensure the protection of water resources for public utility purposes, if there are springs (nacientes) or water sources, to request the respective report from the competent entity for this (articles 50 of the Organic Law of the Environment, subsection 14 of numeral 121 of the Political Constitution, 1, 3 and 17 of the Water Law No. 276 of August 27, 1942, 33 of the current Forestry Law No. 7575 of February 5, 1996 and Executive Decree No. 26237-MINAE of June 19, 1997). Agrarian Court, Voto N° 943 of 15:40 hours on December 6, 2004.- VI.- On the other hand, regarding the alleged inconsistency of the ad quo concerning the demonstration of the petitioner's possession, this Court does not find such a defect in the challenged ruling. From a reading of the same, in its correct contextualization, it is clear that the ad quo concluded that although the petitioner demonstrated having exercised possession over the property from the moment he acquired said de facto power, he failed to demonstrate, given the imprecisions and contradictions of the witnesses with the documentary evidence, that said possession prior to that exercised by the petitioner was held at least ten years before the declaration of creation of the Alberto Manuel Brenes Biological Reserve, aspects that are developed below.

VII.- Regarding the first substantive grievance, the appellant is not correct. While it is true, within what procedural law has developed as the "psychology of testimony," memory is among the factors for evaluating testimonial evidence, which impacts the declaration of a person, in the present case this Court does not find any indication that the fact that the deponents are older adults has affected their statements. Presuming that the condition of older adult causes, in all cases, ambiguity in the content of a testimonial declaration, would be a prejudice that the Law of the Older Adult itself seeks to eradicate; since there is no evidence that the deponents have, as the appellant alleges, diminished mental capacities due to their age. To uphold such a position would imply that said persons should be subject to a declaration of interdiction, which would rather invalidate the evidence. On the contrary, the object of said means of proof being a possession held for so many years in this case, the suitability of the witness in cases such as the one before us lies precisely in being a resident of the canton where the property is located, which implies knowing the same throughout the entire possessory state, and therefore, being of sufficient age to accredit such facts.

VIII.- The chain of possessory transmissions was not reliably accredited by the witnesses, nor were the periods of time during which each of the transferors held possession. The witness [Nombre5], refers, in the following order, to the possessory chain: [Nombre6] and [Nombre7] for twelve or fifteen years, [Nombre8] for eight years, [Nombre9] for twenty to twenty-five years and then the petitioner, for twenty-two to twenty-five years to date (pages 55 to 56).- If we add all the possessory periods declared by the previous witness, we total sixty-two years, which detracts credibility from his testimony, since said gentleman claimed to have known the property for forty years. For his part, the witness [Nombre10] on page 57 describes the possessory history of the property as follows: [Nombre11] and [Nombre12], then [Nombre13] and later the petitioner for twenty-five years; which does not agree with what was said by the previous witness. The last witness, [Nombre14], on pages 167 to 169, described said possessory succession thus: [Nombre11], [Nombre15], [Nombre16] and [Nombre17], without being precise about how long or since when the possessory relationship began, just as with the previous witnesses. It must be kept in mind that the requirements to be able to acquire a property through common agrarian usucapion are, in addition to the sustainable agrarian possession developed in a public, peaceful, continuous manner and in the capacity of owner; just title (justo título) and good faith.- Therefore, given the imprecisions of the witnesses, it cannot be considered demonstrated that the appellant, together with his previous transferors, held decennial possession prior to June twentieth, 1975. Therefore, the first grievance is rejected.

IX.- Regarding the second and third grievances, the appellant is also not correct. Having requested the benefit of environmental services before MINAE, by itself, does not demonstrate possession or just title, just as the fact that there are no water sources of importance for community consumption on the property is not sufficient. Just title is understood as the cause of acquisition of possession, which, according to Voto 4587-97 of the Constitutional Chamber, can be original or derivative. In either case, the petitioner has the burden of proof to demonstrate how he effectively acquired possession. While in original form, possession presumes title, the cause of the unilateral taking of possession must be evidenced with suitable proof. But it could not be presumed that possession is acquired in derivative form in cases where the same petitioner maintains that it is derivative, that is, that he acquired it through an inter vivos or mortis causa legal transaction. In the case before us, the petitioner, in his initial brief and in the form of a sworn statement, adduces that he has acquired in derivative form the possession over the property subject to these proceedings (page 11).- To prove the cause of acquisition (just title) he provides documentary evidence consisting of two deeds, the first granted before Notary Orlando Arguedas Molina, in which [Nombre11] transfers to the appellant a property whose measurement is fifty-four hectares, seven thousand thirty meters (page 8). The second, granted before notary Rafael Ángel Montero Mayorga, where the persons [Nombre18] and [Nombre16], sell to the appellant a right of possession over an unregistered property whose measurement is one hundred sixteen hectares, nine thousand two hundred thirty-five square meters with fifty square decimeters (page 9). Secondly, the petitioner also provides a survey in which said properties are joined with a total measurement of one hundred seventy-seven hectares, one thousand seven hundred square meters with seventy square decimeters (page 18), which in correct arithmetic corresponds to an excess of five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters with twenty square decimeters between what was transferred and what is expressed in the survey. The problem lies in that the cause or just title of acquisition by the petitioner of the remaining five hectares, five thousand four hundred thirty-five square meters with twenty square decimeters has not been demonstrated, since there is no coherence between the area acquired through said deeds, this in contrast to the area described in the cadastral survey number A-592158-99 which describes practically five hectares and the rest thereof. In this sense the ad quo is correct. The witnesses brought forth in the process make reference to the area possessed, but not to the way in which the petitioner acquired said surplus. There is no evidence in this sense as it is not possible to determine how he acquired possession over said areas (just title). The petitioner alleges that he acquired it in derivative form but could not demonstrate his claim, which excludes that it was in original form. If the petitioning party seeks to assert a possession derived from its transferors, because by himself he does not sum a decennial possession prior to the creation of said protected area, in this type of case it is important to assess the documentary evidence presented, especially if the witnesses are remiss in referring to the mode or cause of acquisition of the derivative possession alleged by the petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. In the case before us, the documents presented as proof of the possessory transfers indicate a measurement of the acquired terrain much smaller than what is intended to be registered based on the new survey presented. The reasons on which the appellant bases his grievance are not receivable, nor credible, since the margin of error between what was acquired and what is alleged is too large.

A difference of five hectares and four hundred thirty-five thousand square meters is so vast that it cannot be considered an error, given that it involves an unregistered property; therefore, it could not be taken as proven that both the applicant and the prior possessors held such de facto power over the property across the entire area in which possession is alleged to have been exercised. In this regard, reference may be made to a similar case resolved by VOTO Nº 472-F-04 of fourteen hours twenty minutes on June thirtieth, two thousand four, as well as the more recent Voto 495-F-07, of ten hours zero minutes on June twenty-first, two thousand seven. Therefore, with respect to the appealed matter, the challenged judgment shall be affirmed.

POR TANTO:

The request to order measures for better provision is denied. With respect to the appealed matter, the resolution subject to appeal is affirmed.

[Nombre19] [Nombre20] MAGDA DÍAZ BOLAÑOS INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVIDA POR [Nombre1] [Nombre21] / +

VOTO Nº 0654-F-07 VOTO Nº 0654-F-07 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las diez horas dos minutos del catorce de agosto del dos mil siete.- DILIGENCIAS DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovida por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado, agricultor, vecino de Alajuela, con cédula de identidad número CED1 - . Intervienen como partes el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED2 - , representado por [Nombre2] , mayor, casado, ingeniero agrónomo, vecino de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED3 - , en su condición de asesor gerencial con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin limite de suma, y la PROCURADURÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por Susana Fallas Cubero, mayor, abogada, vecina de San José, cédula de identidad número: CED4 - . Tramitado ante el Juzgado Agrario del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela. Actúa como abogado director del promovente el licenciado Róger Barboza Lépiz, de calidades ignoradas en autos.-

RESULTANDO

1. El titulante plantea diligencias de Información Posesoria, estimadas en la suma de cien mil colones, con el fin de inscribir en el Registro Público de la Propiedad el Inmueble sin inscribir: que es terreno de montaña y cultivos, situado en [Dirección1] , del cantón segundo San Ramón de la Provincia de Alajuela. Con una medida de ciento setenta y siete hectáreas mil setecientos metros, setenta decímetros cuadrados; colinda al norte con el Río Palmital; al sur el Río Jamaical; al este con [Nombre3] y servidumbre de Paso; y al oeste con [Nombre4] , descrito en el plano catastrado número A- Quinientos noventa y dos mil ciento cincuenta y ocho - noventa y nueve, (folios 11,89, y104).

2. Por su parte el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario se apersonó al proceso, e indicó que los terrenos que conforman el inmueble a titular se encuentran dentro de la Reserva Biológica Alberto Manuel Brenes, (folio 40. La Procuraduría General de la República se apersonó al proceso, y manifestó que todavía las diligencias tienen que cumplir una serie de requisitos, según se puede desprender en los 43 al 45.

3. El licenciado Ronald Alberto Rodríguez Cubillo, juez de primera instancia, en sentencia de las quince horas treinta minutos del treinta de julio del año dos mil cuatro, resolvió: “POR TANTO De conformidad con lo expuesto, artículos citados, se RECHAZA la presente INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA promovida por [Nombre1] . Se ordena el archivo del expediente una vez que adquiera firmeza esta resolución”, (folios 350 al 363).

4. La apoderada judicial de la promovente, interpuso recurso de apelación ante este Tribunal con indicación expresa de las razones en que se apoyaron para refutar la tesis del juzgado de instancia, (folios 367 a 370).

5. En los procedimientos y plazos se han observados las formalidades de ley. No se notan defectos u omisiones capaces de causar indefensión alguna a las partes.

Redacta el juez PICADO VARGAS; y;

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- El promovente ofrece como prueba para mejor resolver se amplíen las declaraciones rendidas por los testigos que han depuesto en estas diligencias. Este Tribunal rechaza dicha solicitud por considerar que resulta innecesaria al ser suficiente la prueba evacuada en primera instancia.

II.- Se prohíja el elenco de hechos probados por corresponder al mérito de las probanzas practicadas en el proceso.

III.- Se comparte el único hecho tenido por indemostrado, el cual se adiciona con el siguiente: 2.- No demostró el promovente la causa y modo de adquisición de la posesión sobre el exceso de área de cinco hectáreas cinco mil cuatrocientos treinta y cinco metros con veinte decímetros cuadrados que presenta el plano aportado No. A-59158-99 con respecto al área total objeto de traspaso en los documentos de compraventa.

IV.- El promovente presenta recurso de apelación contra la sentencia dictada a las catorce horas del veinticinco de abril del dos mil siete, la cual rechazó las presentes diligencias de información posesoria. Señala como agravios: 1).- Alega incongruencia del fallo por cuanto éste reconoce que el promovente ha poseído el inmueble a titular y posteriormente concluye que dicha posesión no ha sido demostrada por la imprecisión de los deponentes. Argumenta debe considerarse que los testigos declarantes en las diligencias si bien son adultos mayores y por regla general tienen disminuidas sus capacidades por su misma edad, todos ellos dieron fe de haber conocido al inmueble bajo posesión ininterrumpida de terceros sujetos de Derecho Privado que le han transmitido la posesión al recurrente y por ende nunca ha estado bajo dominio del Estado. 2).- Acusa error en la apreciación de la prueba documental en cuanto estima que el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía lo reconoce expresamente como titular y poseedor del inmueble en el documento expedido por dicho ente sobre los beneficios de servicios ambientales, aunado al hecho que ha cuidado del recurso natural, por lo que debe ordenarse la titulación a su nombre. 3).-Aduce que se demostró que sobre el inmueble no yacen fuentes hídricas necesarias para comunidades cercanas, por lo que no existe razón legal para que el Estado se oponga a la titulación, (folios 267 a 270).- V.- Sobre este tipo de procesos, este Tribunal ha determinado en forma reiterada, que la “Información Posesoria es un trámite de actividad judicial no contenciosa para la formalización de un título registrable sobre un derecho de propiedad que se ha llegado a adquirir por la usucapión, cumpliendo para ello con los requisitos legales correspondientes. Se exige demostrar la posesión a título de dueño, en forma quieta, pública, pacífica e ininterrumpida (artículos 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 856 del Código Civil). El titulante, aparte de carecer de título inscrito o inscribible en el Registro Público, debe manifestar expresamente que la finca no ha sido inscrita en el Registro Público anteriormente. Por razones de interés público, y para evitar una doble inscripción registral sobre un mismo bien, o bien, para tutelar a terceros de mejor derecho que el titulante, la Ley exige notificar a ciertos sujetos. También estableció un trámite de oposición dentro de la Información Posesoria, en caso de que alguno de los interesados se sienta perjudicado por la titulación (artículo 8). La Ley de Informaciones Posesorias ordena al Juez tener como partes y por tanto notificarles personalmente desde el inicio de las diligencias, a los colindantes, ello por cuanto la titulación podría abarcar parte de las tierras que les pertenecen. También se ordena notificar a los condueños o condóminos. Igualmente, en resguardo de los intereses del Estado, se ordena tener como parte a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para el resguardo de la propiedad sujeta al dominio público, y de la Propiedad Agraria estatal (artículo 5). Finalmente, la Ley manda a citar a todos los interesados, mediante la publicación de un Edicto en el Boletín Judicial, que puedan tener un interés legítimo en el proceso. (Ver numeral 5 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) (ver Voto Nº 755 de las 9:45 horas del 13 de noviembre del 2003). Se exige también la existencia de linderos bien señalados (cercas, carriles, etc.). Deben aportarse los siguientes documentos: marca de ganado si la finca se dedica a ganadería; cédula de identidad o documento de identificación respectivo del titulante; el plano catastrado; certificación actualizada del Registro Público que aclare si se han titulado otras fincas por el promovente y cual es su medida; certificación actualizada del Ministerio del Ambiente de Energía sobre si está o no comprendido el terreno dentro de alguna área protegida. La legislación vigente sobre suelos exige se demuestre el uso del terreno conforme a su aptitud (estudio conforme de uso del suelo). También está obligado el juez, para velar por la protección del recurso hídrico con fines de utilidad pública, de existir nacientes o fuentes de agua, a solicitar el informe respectivo del ente competente para ello (artículos 50 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, inciso 14 del numeral 121 de la Constitución Política, 1, 3 y 17 de la Ley de Aguas N°276 de 27 de agosto de 1942, 33 de la Ley Forestal vigente Nº 7575 de 5 de febrero de 1996 y Decreto Ejecutivo N° 26237-MINAE de 19 de junio de 1997). Tribunal Agrario, Voto N° 943 de las 15:40 horas del 6 de diciembre del 2004.- VI.- Por otra parte, en cuanto a la alegada incongruencia de la ad quo en cuanto a la demostración de la posesión del promovente, no encuentra tal vicio este Tribunal en el fallo impugnado. De la lectura del mismo, en su correcta contextualización, se desprende que la ad quo concluyó que si bien el promovente demostró haber ejercido posesión sobre el inmueble desde el momento en que éste adquirió dicho poder de hecho, no logró demostrar, dadas las imprecisIones y contradicciones de los testigos con la prueba documental, que dicha posesión anterior a la ejercida por el promovente haya sido detentada al menos diez años antes de la declaratoria de creación de la Reserva Biológica Alberto Manuel Brenes, aspectos que son desarrollados de seguido.

VII.- En cuanto al primer agravio de fondo, no lleva razón el recurrente. Si bien es cierto, dentro de lo que ha desarrollado el derecho procesal como la "psicología del testimonio", se encuentra la memoria dentro los factores para valoración de la prueba testimonial, la cual incide en la declaración de una persona, en el presente caso este Tribunal no encuentra indicio alguno que el hecho de que los deponentes sean adultos mayores haya afectado sus declaraciones. Presumir que la condición de adulto mayor provoca, en todos los casos, ambigüedad en el contenido de una declaración testimonial, sería un prejuicio que la misma Ley del Adulto Mayor procura erradicar; ya que no hay prueba alguna que los deponentes tengan, como alega el recurrente, disminuidas sus capacidades mentales en razón de su edad. Sostener tal tesitura, implicaría que dichas personas sean objeto de una declaratoria de interdicción, lo cual más bien le restaría validez a la prueba. Por el contrario, siendo el objeto de dicho medio de prueba, una posesión ostentada por tantos años en este caso, la idoneidad del testigo en casos como el que nos ocupa radica precisamente en ser vecino del cantón donde se halla el inmueble, lo cual implica conocer el mismo durante todo el estado posesorio, y por ende, tener una edad suficiente para acreditar tales hechos.

VIII.- La cadena de transmisiones posesorias no fueron fehacientemente acreditadas por los testigos, ni tampoco los periódos de tiempo en que cada uno de los transmitentes detentaron la posesión. El testigo [Nombre5] , refiere, en el siguiente orden, la cadena posesoria: [Nombre6] y [Nombre7] por doce o quince años, [Nombre8] por ocho años, [Nombre9] por veinte a veinticinco años y luego el promovente, desde hace veintidós a veinticinco años a la fecha (folios 55 a 56).- Si sumamos todos los periodos posesorios declarados por el anterior testigo, sumamos en total sesenta y dos años, lo cual hace que se le reste credibilidad a su testimonio, ya que dicho señor alegó conocer el inmueble desde hace cuarenta años. Por su parte, el testigo [Nombre10] a folio 57 describe la historia posesoria de la finca de la siguiente manera: [Nombre11] y [Nombre12] , luego [Nombre13] y posteriormente el promovente desde hace veinticinco años; lo cual no concuerda con lo dicho por el anterior testigo. El último testigo, [Nombre14] , a folio 167 a 169, describió dicha sucesión posesoria así: [Nombre11] , [Nombre15] , [Nombre16] y [Nombre17] , sin ser preciso en cuánto tiempo o desde cuándo empezó la relación posesoria, tal y como sucede con los anteriores testigos. Debe tenerse en cuenta que los requisitos para poder adquirir un inmueble a través de una usucapión agraria común, son, además de la posesión agraria sostenible desarrollada en forma pública, pacífica, continua y en calidad de dueño; el justo título y la buena fe.- Por ende, dadas las imprecisiones de los testigos, no puede tenerse por demostrado que el recurrente junto con sus anteriores transmitentes hayan detentado posesión decenal anterior al veinte de junio del año 1975. Por ende, se rechaza el primer agravio.

IX.- En lo referente al segundo y tercer agravio, tampoco goza de razón el recurrente. El haber solicitado el beneficio de servicios ambientales ante el MINAE, por sí solo, no demuestra la posesión ni el justo título, como tampoco basta el hecho de que en el terreno no existan fuentes hídricas de importancia para el consumo comunal. Con justo título se entiende la causa de adquisición de la posesión, la cual, de acuerdo con el Voto 4587-97 de la Sala Constitucional, puede ser originaria o derivada. En uno u otro caso, el promovente tiene la carga de la prueba de demostrar cómo efectivamente adquirió la posesión. Si bien en forma originaria, la posesión hace presumir el título, la causa de toma unilateral de posesión debe ser evidenciada con prueba idónea. Pero no podría presumirse que la posesión se adquiere en forma derivada en los casos que el mismo promovente sostiene que es derivada, es decir, que la adquirió mediante un negocio jurídico intervivos o mortis causa. En el caso que nos ocupa, el promovente, en su escrito inicial y en carácter de declaración jurada, aduce que ha adquirido en forma derivada la posesión sobre el terreno objeto de estas diligencias (folio 11).- Para probar la causa de adquisición (justo título) aporta prueba documental consistente en dos escrituras, la primera otorgada ante el Notario Orlando Arguedas Molina, en la cual [Nombre11] le traspasa al recurrente una finca cuya medida son cincuenta y cuatro hectáreas siete mil treinta metros (folio 8). La segunda, otorgada ante el notario Rafael Ángel Montero Mayorga, los señores [Nombre18] y [Nombre16] , le venden al apelante un derecho de posesión sobre una finca sin inscribir cuya medida son ciento dieciséis hectáreas nueve mil doscientos treinta y cinco metros con cincuenta decímetros cuadrados (folio 9). En segundo término, aporta también el promovente un plano en que se reúnen dichas fincas con una medida total de ciento setenta y siete hectáreas mil setecientos metros con setenta decímetros cuadrados (folio 18), lo cual en correcta aritmética corresponde a un exceso de cinco hectáreas cinco mil cuatrocientos treinta y cinco metros con veinte decímetros cuadrados entre lo traspasado y lo expresado en el plano. El problema radica en que no se ha demostrado la causa o justo título de adquisición del promovente de las cinco hectáreas cinco mil cuatrocientos treinta y cinco metros con veinte decímetros cuadrados sobrantes, ya que no existe coherencia entre el área adquirida mediante dichas escrituras, ello en contraposición del área descrita en el plano catastrado número A-592158-99 que describe prácticamente cinco hectáreas y resto demás. En este sentido lleva razón el ad quo. Los testigos evacuados en el proceso hacen referencia sobre el área poseída, pero no a la forma en que adquirió el promovente dicho sobrante. No hay prueba en este sentido pues no se logra determinar cómo adquirió la posesión sobre dichas áreas (justo título). El promovente alega que la adquirió en forma derivada pero no pudo demostrar su dicho, lo cual excluye que haya sido en forma originaria. Si la parte promovente pretende hacer valer una posesión derivada de sus transmitentes, porque por sí mismo no suma una posesión decenal anterior a la creación de dicha zona protegida, en este tipo de casos es importante valorar la prueba documental presentada, máxime si los testigos son omisos en referirse al modo o causa de adquisición de la posesión derivada alegada por el promovente, a quien corresponde la carga de la prueba. En el caso que nos ocupa los documentos presentados como prueba de los traspasos posesorios indica una medida del terreno adquirido mucho menor de lo que se pretende inscribir con base en el nuevo plano presentado. Las razones en las cuales fundamenta su agravio el recurrente no es de recibo, ni creíbles, ya que el margen de error entre lo adquirido y lo alegado es demasiado grande. La diferencia de cinco hectáreas cuatrocientos treinta y cinco mil metros cuadrados es abismal como para considerarlo un error por tratarse de un terreno sin inscribir, por lo que no se podría tener por demostrado que tanto el promovente como los anteriores poseedores ostentaron tal poder de hecho sobre el bien en toda la cabida en que se alega se ejerció. Al respecto, se puede consultar un caso similar resuelto mediante el VOTO Nº 472-F-04 de las catorce horas veinte minutos del treinta de junio del dos mil cuatro, así como el más reciente Voto 495- F-07, de las diez horas cero minutos del veintiuno de junio de dos mil siete .- Por ello, en lo apelado, deberá confirmarse la sentencia recurrida.

POR TANTO:

Se rechaza la solicitud de prueba para mejor resolver. En lo apelado, se confirma la resolución venida en alzada.

[Nombre19] [Nombre20] MAGDA DÍAZ BOLAÑOS INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA PROMOVIDA POR [Nombre1] [Nombre21] / +