Denial of occupant status in maritime-terrestrial zone to a legal entityRechazo de condición de ocupante en zona marítimo-terrestre a persona jurídica

III.- ACTIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY IN RELATION TO THE PROCEEDINGS FILED BY AGROPECUARIA Nombre71791, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEALED DECISIONS.- From a detailed study of the administrative file submitted by the Municipality of Parrita, various proceedings filed by the appellant here are observed, which, in addition to being related, were presented by different legal representatives and are even repetitive; which, in the opinion of this Court, caused confusion, both in the processing of the same, and in the decision adopted. Therefore, to clarify not only the subject matter of the appeal but also its content, it is important to have the following table as a reference.

From the foregoing, it is clear that there are two municipal decisions submitted for the consideration of this Court, acting as improper hierarch, under the terms of constitutional Article 173 and Article 156 of the Municipal Code, admitted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita, the first by Decision 1614-2001, of September 3, two thousand one –regarding the one adopted in Matter 3, subsection 3), Article Four of regular session number 1516-2000, of June 19, two thousand–, and the second in session 1762-2003, of July 7, two thousand three –in relation to Point 8 of Matter 4, Article 4 of regular session 1756-2003, of July 9, two thousand three. It is noted that the two municipal acts appealed are appealed insofar as the Council rejected the request of the legal representatives of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima for recognition of the status of occupant (ocupante) of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre).

IV.- THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE AS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY AND ITS REGIME OF USE.- Insofar as the appeal filed pertains to the regulatory regime of the maritime terrestrial zone, a brief overview thereof is necessary. Throughout the history of humanity, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance –with regard to national defense– that the coast has for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since the colonial era, the littoral has remained destined for public use. The foregoing is reflected in the various normative provisions that have regulated this property in our legal system throughout history, which began to take shape since the colonial era with the Royal Decree of October 15, seventeen fifty-four, and in Costa Rica as an independent country, it began in the century before last, with the promulgation of Decree-Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828, whose allocation to the State's patrimony emerged only as a means of promoting and protecting the country's fishing, maritime, and salt-producing activities; which is no exception in the current law –Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, number 6043–, in force to date, which maintained the public domain status (demanialidad) of the two hundred meters along the country's littoral; which has always been given the classification and treatment of public domain property (bien demanial) (dominical, demanio, or of public domain), which makes it entitled to all the characteristics of public domain status, that is, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, immunity from attachment, as well as subjection to police power regarding its use and exploitation, as indicated by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 7, of fifteen hours and five minutes of January 20, nineteen ninety-three:

"It is then clear, without detriment to the indicated colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the land reserve along both littorals has not been part of the vacant lands (baldíos) –the Crown lands of the Colony– but has always been subject to a different legal regime, that proper to public domain goods and, therefore, not reducible to private property.

In the legislation on the subject enacted throughout the 20th century—culminating in the current Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law No. 6043 of March 2, 1977—the classification of the lands comprised within said zone as public domain assets was obviously maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the ebb and flow, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the margins of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or were affected by the tides. The legislation of this century refined the extension of the zone as well as the elements forming part of it, but at no time denied its character as a demanial asset and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability; [...] From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to conclude that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high-water line along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law has been public domain—and the lands comprised therein, demanial assets—since at least 1828. The variations that the legislation of the past and present centuries have introduced on the matter have never broadly disaffected these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a larger strip—the so-called maritime mile—but never a smaller one." (Considerando II. The highlighting is not from the original.)

By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, the maritime-terrestrial zone acquires the status of a demanial asset of the Nation, a consideration reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law, "Article 3.- The following are likewise national property:

I.- The beaches and maritime zones"; and Article 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, insofar as it textually provides:

"The maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law." In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, acting in the capacity of administrative superior, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight o'clock on February sixteen, two thousand one:

"VI.- Correlatively to what has been said, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. Its protection is the obligation of the State and its institutions—including of course the corresponding Municipalities—and even of all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone." Concordantly, national jurisprudence may be consulted, both from the Constitutional Chamber—judgments number 447-91, 1556-91, 2306-91, 1347-95, 320-96, 1345-96, 0304-98, 2006-0454, and 2007-2408—and from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (judgment number 317-2008), and from the Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal—both in the exercise of its jurisdictional function and its administrative function, the latter acting in its capacity as improper superior of the municipalities; among others, rulings 2319-94, 4322-95, 4472-95, 4353-95, 8432-98, 8864-98, 1076-2000, 128-2001, 962-2002, 35-2007, 277-2008 may be consulted.

V.- Having determined the special affectation of the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is now pertinent to know precisely what assets or areas this special regime of legal protection comprises. And it is Law number 6043 itself, in its Article 9, that tells us:

"[...] the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the line of the ordinary high tide and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide.

For legal purposes, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprises maritime islands, islets, and crags, as well as all land or natural formation that projects above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Excepted is Isla del Coco, which shall be under the direct domain and possession of the State, and those other islands whose domain or administration is determined in this law or special laws." Likewise, pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation to this Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P, of December sixteen, nineteen seventy-seven, it encompasses:

"[...] the mangroves or saltwater forests existing on the continental or insular coastlines and estuaries (esteros) of the maritime-terrestrial territory constitute a Forest Reserve and are affected to the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and to all the provisions of that decree [number 7210-A, of July nineteen, nineteen seventy-seven]. Starting from the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries (esteros) and from the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high-water line, the restricted zone (zona restringida) begins." The maritime-terrestrial zone is divided into two zones: the public zone (zona pública), which comprises the strip fifty meters wide measured from the ordinary high-water line, made up of the shoreline, edge, or seacoast that extends along the rías (rías) and permanent estuaries (esteros), up to where these are sensibly affected by the tides and present defined marine characteristics (Article 2, subsection h) of the Regulation to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P); and the restricted zone (zona restringida), constituted by the remaining one hundred fifty meters. By virtue of the foregoing, the following are part of the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone: the ría (ría), defined as the part of the river near its entrance to the sea, and up to where the tides reach (subsection f) of Article 2 of the cited Executive Decree number 7841-P); such that in relation to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law governing this matter, the two-hundred-meter strip adjacent to the rías (rías) is also maritime-terrestrial zone; "the islets, crags, and other small areas and natural formations that project above the sea" (final paragraph of Article 10 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); the mangroves, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the cited Law "The public zone is also, whatever its extension, that occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and estuaries (esteros) of the national territory"; whose incorporation into the demanial domain dates from nineteen forty-two, with the Water Law, a circumstance that prevents their titling by private parties. It is noted that Article 4 of the Regulation establishes that the restricted zone (zona restringida) in these cases begins from the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries (esteros) and from the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests, when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high-water line; which is of great importance, as it extends the concept of maritime-terrestrial zone to portions of the national territory that may be located kilometers from the coast, such that the lands adjacent to the mangrove cannot be the object of legitimate possession. In view of the ecological importance of the mangroves, Article 44 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), in concordance with Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, require the Ministry of Environment and Energy to conduct the respective environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) prior to the granting of any permit for their exploitation; and, the maritime islands, islets, and crags and the lands and rocks that the sea leaves uncovered at low tide, pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Law number 6043), a condition that had already been granted since the Water Law, number 276, of August twenty-seven, nineteen forty-two in its Article 75, by stating "The islands already formed or that form in the maritime-terrestrial zone or in the navigable part of rivers and in the rías and river mouths are the property of the State"; and which Decree-Law number 11, of July twenty-seven, nineteen forty-eight, amended by number 803, of November second of the following year, maintained in the following terms:

"confirms and proclaims National Sovereignty over the entire submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever the depth at which it is found, reaffirming the inalienable right of the Nation in all the natural riches that exist on, in, or under said shelf or platform"; and subsection c) of Article 7) of the Land and Colonization Law, number 2825, of October fourteen, nineteen sixty-one. It must be clarified that in the case of crags, the concept of public zone applies to the entire natural formation, and in that of islands, to the fifty meters contiguous to the high-water line, with the remaining lands considered restricted zone (Article 10 of Law number 6042), unless there is a mangrove, in which case it is considered public zone, as indicated above.

VI.- It is worth recalling that the public zone has been destined for the free use, access, and transit of all; such that any permit or concession located in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is void, as is the collection of the respective fee (canon) (as resolved in administrative resolution number 6424-97, at nine o'clock on April seventeen, nineteen ninety-seven by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal), except for those that have a public purpose, such as "[...] the construction of industrial plants, sport or artisanal fishing facilities, port works, mariculture programs, or other similar establishments or installations, ..." (Article 18 of Law 6043); whose location near the sea is indispensable for their proper functioning. In any case, they must have the proper authorizations from the MOPT, INVU, ICT, and the respective municipality, attending, in all cases and at all times, "[...] to the public use for which they are destined, or that it concerns the establishment and operation of state tourist facilities of notorious convenience for the country" (first paragraph of Article 22 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law).

Likewise, concerning the natural resource contained within the public zone, it is noted that flora and fauna may not be exploited, nor trees cut, nor products extracted from the coast, except with the proper authorization—permit or concession—in this case, from the Directorate of Wildlife, of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, following an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. Furthermore, it corresponds to the respective municipalities to facilitate access to the beaches for the enjoyment and transit of persons, such that the local government must prevent any limiting action that impedes this free access to the beaches. This oversight function also concerns the eviction of invaders, and even the destruction or demolition of constructions, installations, or works carried out, whether they be simple fences, shantytowns, sales stands, or dwelling houses, without any liability whatsoever (as the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section, considered in resolution number 7900-98). Pursuant to Article 39 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, concessions may only be granted in the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, under the charge of the municipalities (Article 40 of the cited Law); except in cases where there exists a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida)—forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, natural monuments—which, pursuant to Article 32 of the Organic Environmental Law and Article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, are under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the indicated regulations, it is clear that the municipalities lose their competence with respect to the management and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural resources (biodiversity in flora and fauna) found within the limits of the protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas). In this sense, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic has spoken in various pronouncements, in Opinion C-174-87, of September 8, 1987, in which it was considered that the term "equivalent reserves" used in Article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law was inclusive of forest reserves, protective zones, national wildlife refuges, and protective zones, and that they integrate the concept of natural patrimony of the State.

VII.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF OCCUPIER STATUS BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY.- Pursuant to the considerations given, it is clear that with the current situation, the strip of land that the appellant company intends to "occupy" in the maritime-terrestrial zone having been affected as the Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge, based on Executive Decree number 30.344-MINAE, of March thirteen, two thousand two, published in La Gaceta number 92, of May fifteen, two thousand two, it is evident that the Municipality of Parrita lost all competence to administer it, as its oversight corresponds rather to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, and where the granting of any permit or concession over the same is impossible; nor is it possible to allege any acquired right or consolidated legal situation, as the appellant intends, and with it, the infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law and Article 34 of the Political Constitution. It should be recalled that since time immemorial, this is a public domain asset, in respect of which it is not possible to legitimately allege a right of possession, much less of occupation, as its exploitation is reserved to the granting of permits and concessions. Additionally, it is noted that there is no pronouncement from the appealed Municipality or judicial ruling recognizing the condition of occupier of the appellant company, nor does the company find itself in the legal circumstances for making such a declaration. As the Constitutional Chamber reasoned in judgment number 1997-02765, at fifteen hours three minutes on May twenty-seven, nineteen ninety-seven "The concepts of 'acquired right' and 'consolidated legal situation' appear closely related in constitutional doctrine. It is feasible to state that, in general terms, the first denotes that consummated circumstance in which a thing—material or immaterial, be it a previously alien good or a previously nonexistent right—has entered into (or impacted upon) the patrimonial sphere of the person, such that the latter experiences a verifiable advantage or benefit. For its part, the 'consolidated legal situation' represents not so much a patrimonial gain, but a state of affairs defined fully in terms of its legal characteristics and effects, even if these have not yet been extinguished. What is relevant regarding the consolidated legal situation, precisely, is not whether those effects still endure or not, but that—by virtue of a legal mandate or a judgment that has so declared—a rule, clear and defined, has already emerged in legal life that connects a factual premise (conditioning fact) with a given consequence (conditioned effect). From this perspective, the person's situation is given by a logical proposition of the 'if..., then...' type; that is to say: if the conditioning fact has occurred, then the 'consolidated legal situation' implies that, necessarily, the conditioned effect must also occur. In both cases (acquired right or consolidated legal situation), the legal system protects—rendering it intangible—the situation of the person who obtained the right or enjoys the situation, for reasons of equity and legal certainty. In this case, the constitutional guarantee of non-retroactivity of the law translates into the certainty that a change in the legal system cannot have the consequence of removing the good or the already acquired right from the person's patrimony, or of causing that if the factual premise had occurred prior to the legal reform, the consequence (advantageous, it is understood) that the interested party expected from the consolidated legal situation no longer arises. Now, specifically regarding the latter, it has also been understood that no one has a 'right to the immutability of the legal system,' that is, that the rules never change. Therefore, the constitutional precept does not consist in the fact that, once it has emerged in legal life, the rule that connects the fact with the effect cannot be modified or even suppressed by a subsequent norm; what it means is that—as explained—if the conditioning premise has occurred, a legal reform that changes or eliminates the rule cannot have the virtue of preventing the conditioned effect that was expected under the rule of the prior norm from arising. This is so because, it has been said, what is relevant is that the state of affairs the person enjoyed was already defined in terms of its elements and its effects, even though these are still being produced or have not even begun to be produced. In this way, what the person has a right to is the consequence, not the rule." (The underline is not from the original.)

Finally, it must be taken into account that the categories of "settlers" (pobladores) and "occupiers" (ocupantes) are provided in Article 75 and Transitory Provision VII of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law as two exceptions to the parameters of private use in the maritime-terrestrial zone, which confers a right of priority in the process of granting concessions. The first (settlers) (pobladores) includes those persons who already had a lot in the maritime mile before the enactment of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, that is, before nineteen seventy-seven, and who had been occupying it for more than ten years, in a quiet, public, and peaceful manner, in the terms of the cited numeral 75:

"Settlers (Pobladores) of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Rican by birth, with more than ten years of residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant's domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots, provided it is their only property." Thus, persons who qualify as settlers (pobladores) may remain on the lands they occupied at the time the Law on the matter came into effect, and for this reason, they are subject to the payment of rent for the strip of land occupied. It must be considered that the law under discussion itself foresees the possibility that they may be relocated, with due compensation, when the respective regulatory plan is enacted, in the event that their use is not in accordance with that foreseen in said regulation; since "... they must adhere to the planning of the zone, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements in accordance with this law. In any case, the public zone must be respected." (Final paragraph of the cited Article 75.)

For their part, "occupiers" (ocupantes) are those persons who, without meeting the condition of settlers (pobladores), have occupied the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone in an unauthorized manner prior to the effectiveness of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; by virtue thereof, they hold no permit whatsoever, and the law itself authorizes the municipalities to collect a fee (canon) from them. It is interesting that the law itself recognizes a right of priority for the granting of future concessions, once the respective coastal regulatory plan has been approved; hence, under equal conditions, the administration must prefer granting the concession to whoever has possessed in a quiet, public, peaceful, continuous manner—that is, without its being possible to transmit inter vivos or mortis causa—the restricted zone and without implying improvements. On this figure, this Tribunal pronounced in judgment number 277-2008, at fifteen hours ten minutes on August twenty-eight, two thousand eight, by stating that "(T)he legislator did not intend to consolidate such a figure permanently, but merely a temporary tolerance, insofar as its conformity with the legal system is achieved; in other words, the category of occupier (ocupante) is used temporarily while the granting of the concession is legally possible. This figure (occupier) (ocupante) has been the object of multiple interpretations, as it is not adjusted in harmony with the cited Law, which has given rise to flawed practices and illicit dealings. The legal nature of the occupier (ocupante) is that of a precarious right and therefore it can never be confused with, nor can rights be claimed that only a property owner can have, since these by their condition do not require a concession. Neither can they be treated as tenants of the maritime-terrestrial zone, since they are an express subject of regulation pursuant to Transitory Provisions I and II of the supra-cited norm, given that in their case, it is not about a concession contract but the extension of lease contracts prior to its enactment, which must be modified in concordance with the laws in force. Neither can nor should they be confused with those persons who entered the demanial zone clandestinely, since after this Law, such action is prohibited pursuant to its Article 12. We must then conclude that the occupier (ocupante) is that person who was located in the restricted zone of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone and who, at the time Law 6043 of March 2, 1977 came into effect, did not have a lease contract in their favor." Finally, and no less important, is that the two indicated categories—settler (poblador) and occupier (ocupante)—are exclusively provided for in relation to natural persons (personas físicas), thus being excluded with respect to legal persons (personas jurídicas), given that it was foreseen in consideration of those who had no other place to reside; a condition that cannot be attributed to legal fictions; for which reason, it also excludes its transmission, whether inter vivos or mortis causa. Having said the above, it is understood that the condition of occupier (ocupante) cannot generate any right of ownership or possession, since the maritime-terrestrial zone, being part of the public domain, cannot be the object of possession nor be acquired positively by adverse possession (prescribirse) with the passage of time, as provided by Article 7 of Law number 6043. This characteristic of imprescriptibility results in the legal impossibility of exercising possession over the inalienable strip of land; thus this norm, when it grants preeminence for granting a concession, refers clearly and expressly to the occupier (ocupante) of the land who has possessed it in a quiet, public, peaceful, and continuous manner. Requirements which, for the case at hand, are easy to verify. (For further detail, interested parties are referred to the considerations given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 317-F-2008, at nine hours ten minutes on May two, two thousand eight.)

VIII.- Whereby, since the applicant is a legal entity (sociedad jurídica), which, according to its allegations, has exercised possession of the asset since the nineteen-seventies, this rendered impossible, in the year two thousand, any recognition of the condition of occupier (ocupante) that it claims; a circumstance that obliges this Tribunal to confirm the decision made by the Council (Concejo) in the agreement adopted in matter 3, subsection 3), fourth article of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteen, two thousand, for not meeting the legal preconditions for the admissibility of such a declaration.

IX.- ON THE REGULATION OF THE CHALLENGE REGIME FOR MUNICIPAL ACTS.- In relation to the challenge of point 8, matter 4, fourth article of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June nine, two thousand three, it must first be recalled that the challenge regime for municipal decisions has special legislation. Thus, in accordance with the regulations contained in Title VI of the Municipal Code, titled “Recourses Against Municipal Acts,” which comprises Articles 153 to 163, a system was designed that has been described as a "small ladder" (escalerilla), which implies that acts issued by officials who depend on the Mayor have a recourse for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with appeal (apelación) before the Mayor, and from what the Mayor decides, the same recourses, reconsideration (revocatoria) with subsidiary appeal (apelación) before the Council (Concejo), are applicable, a decision which, in turn, has reconsideration (revocatoria) and appeal (apelación) before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, it being convenient to clarify that the latter acts as an improper superior, that is, exercising a materially administrative function and not a jurisdictional one, as derived from the Acts of the National Constituent Assembly and as later confirmed by the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 2005-06866, at fourteen hours and thirty-seven minutes on June one, two thousand five. Likewise, it must be clear that the provisions contained in the General Law of Public Administration are applicable in this case, with respect to principles, and in a subsidiary manner, in the face of silence or gaps in this special normative body.

X.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL FILED.- The appeal filed is openly inadmissible and must be rejected outright, as it is not admissible pursuant to the provisions of subsection b) of Article 154 of the Municipal Code, which literally provides:

“Any municipal agreement shall be subject to the recourses of reconsideration (revocatoria) and appeal (apelación) except:

(…)

b.) Those of mere procedure for execution, confirmation, or ratification of previous ones and those consented to expressly or implicitly.” It is worth recalling that the request to formally recognize the condition of occupier (ocupante) or possessor of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima has been the object of analysis and pronouncement by the Council (Concejo) of the Municipality of Parrita on several occasions. Thus:

a.) For the first time, in response to a petition made by Name71791, in her capacity as general attorney-in-fact of the appellant company, on December ten, nineteen ninety-nine (folio 81 to 83), in an agreement adopted in Matter 2, subsection 2), third article of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June five, two thousand (at folios 100 to 108), in which it rejects the request, based on a detailed study of the applicable regulations – Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043 – and numerous pronouncements from the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; concluding that the petitioner – Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima – does not meet the preconditions to qualify as such, because it is a natural person, because it does not reside on the site, and because the condition is not transmissible. It is worth noting that this decision was challenged by the legal representative of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, by filing recourses of reconsideration (revocatoria) and subsidiary appeal (apelación), as derived from the complaint filed by the interested party before the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes) – official letter 06449-2001-DHR, at folios 127 to 132 – for omission in its resolution; the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Authority, by agreement number 1, subsection 19 of the fourth article of ordinary session number 1614-2001, of September three, two thousand one (at folios 134 and 135). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the administrative file having been submitted to this Tribunal on October first of that same year (folio 140), the Municipality did not comply with the notice (prevención) issued to it – by order at fifteen hours twelve minutes on October twenty-four, two thousand one, at folio 145 – for its receipt; which was again sent to this Office on October first, two thousand seven (at folio 211). Said appeal is resolved in this act.

b.) For the second time, in response to a new petition made on September twenty-six, two thousand two, by the appellant company, on this occasion, through its general attorney-in-fact, Name71798 (folio 81 to 83), in agreement number 2, fourth article of session 1695-2002, of September sixteen, two thousand two, in which it resolved to maintain what was decided on the matter in ordinary session 1516-2000, Matter No. 2, Subsection 2), Third Article of June 5, 2000, in which that same request was rejected (folios 163 and 164). Against this decision, the company filed recourses of reconsideration (revocatoria) and subsidiary appeal (apelación), the first being admitted because there was no record of the date of notification of the act to which the complainant was referred; the procedures were reinstated, so that the immediate notification of the Agreement adopted in session 1516-2000 was ordered.

It is not recorded in the case file that, once the representatives of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima became aware of that decision, they challenged it; thus, notwithstanding the allegation by the attorney-in-fact of the interested company regarding lack of knowledge prior to this new notification, it must be understood that the appeal it filed against the indicated agreement, admitted before this Court, pursuant to the agreement of session 1614-2001, which it is repeated, is resolved in this act, remained pending.

c.) For the third time, in response to a third request, again filed by Mrs. Nombre71791, on May twenty-sixth, two thousand three (at folios 181 and 182), by agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, matter 8 (folios 183 to 187), in which it again denied the application, because the legal prerequisites to make such a declaration were not met, which it is worth noting, are identical reasons to those put forward on the first occasion.

Against this decision, the remedies of revocation and appeal were filed (folios 190 to 192), the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Court, by agreement number 1, article four of ordinary session 1762-03, of July seventh, two thousand three (folios 194 and 195); and it is the act that is sought to be reviewed in this instance.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the agreement contained in point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, brought to the attention of this Court on October first, two thousand seven, it is repeated, in the exercise of its materially administrative function, when acting as improper hierarch of the Municipalities by legal mandate (relation of articles 156 of the Municipal Code and 84 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, applicable to the sub judice in accordance with Transitory Provision IV of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code)-, is inadmissible, by legal mandate –subsection b) of article 154 of the Municipal Code-, as it involves, as already explained, a reiteration of previous acts of the Council. In accordance with which, this Court understands that the Council acted incorrectly in admitting the appeal filed.

THEREFORE:

The agreement adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, is confirmed; with respect to which the administrative route is deemed exhausted. The appeal is declared improperly admitted in relation to the challenge filed against point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three.

Nombre5180 Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Nombre632 2, Subsection 2), Article three of the 5th of June 2000, was not duly notified to it, making it an ineffective act that has produced no legal effects, being of negative content; therefore, it requests that the procedures be corrected (folio 165); **19.)** That by **agreement number 4, article four of the ordinary session 1701-2002, of the fourteenth of October two thousand two**, due to the lack of precision to prove the notification carried out, the Municipal Council admits the revocation, and orders that the interested party be notified of agreement 1516-2000 (folios 167 and 168); **20.)** **That in a written submission dated the ninth of September two thousand two**, Nombre71798, in his capacity as special judicial attorney for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, **reiterates the request for a land-use permit (permiso de uso)** over the entire area timely requested in concession, which he had made since the nineteenth of June two thousand (folio 169); **21.)** That by **decision number 4, article four of the ordinary session number 1708-2002, of the eleventh of November two thousand two**, the Municipal Council **refused to grant the land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo)**, considering it to be a discretionary act, and gives a period of six months to present the preliminary draft of the authorized regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folios 170 and 171); **22.)** That upon the request of the Municipality of Parrita regarding the progress of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) project for the Punta Mala sector; on the **fifteenth of May two thousand three**, Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, **renders a progress report, and requests an extension of six more months to complete the work** (Agreement number 5, article four, of the ordinary session of the Municipal Council number 1723-2003, of the third of February two thousand three, folios 176 and 177, report at folio 180); **23.)** That on the **twenty-sixth of August two thousand eight**, Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, **requests formal recognition of her condition as occupant and possessor of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)**, on the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800 and family; which are lands adjacent to the properties of her represented entity, in attention to her personal occupation since nineteen forty-six, then with her husband Nombre71801 and starting in nineteen seventy, it was transferred to the company that has been owner and administrator of the family's assets (folios 181 and 182); **24.)** That in **agreement number 4, article four of the ordinary session number 1756-2003, of the ninth of June two thousand three**, the Municipal Council hears the opinion of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Commission 007-2003, and decides: in **matter 7**, **to reject the request for a six-month extension for the presentation of the preliminary draft of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) requested by Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima**; and in **matter 8**, **to reject the request by that same company for recognition and granting of the status of occupant and possessor of the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800** (folios 183 to 187); **25.)** That on the **seventeenth of June two thousand three**, Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, **filed petitions for reconsideration, revocation, and subsidiary appeal** against **matter 7 of the previous decision**, insofar as it denied the extension requested to finish the preliminary draft of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) for the Punta Mala zone, arguing that there are reasons that have prevented its completion; since, not having been granted the condition of occupant -according to her petition-, she is prevented from finishing the work, because the deadline does not run, as she necessarily requires knowing the legal status of the land to thus determine the possible zoning, and since her condition as occupant predates the publication of the cited decree of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, it could not affect her to her detriment due to the non-retroactivity of the regulation, as she enjoys a vested right and a consolidated situation; consequently, the Municipality cannot deny her the requested extension (folios 188 and 189); **26.)** That on the **seventeenth of June two thousand three**, Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, **filed petitions for reconsideration, revocation, and subsidiary appeal** against **matter 8 of the previous decision**, insofar as it rejected her condition as occupant and possessor, considering that she is the only person who can hold said condition, having occupied the strip of land since nineteen forty-six; and that if the Municipality recognizes her right, it would predate the publication of the Decree of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and therefore could not affect her to her detriment, in accordance with Article 34 of the Political Constitution, as it involves a vested right and a consolidated legal situation; for which reason she requests: that the right of occupant she claims be recognized over the strip of land she has cared for and in which she has invested time and money (folios 190 to 192); and, **27.)** That by **agreement number 1, article four of the ordinary session 1762-03, of the seventh of July two thousand three**, the Municipal Council **rejected the petition for revocation filed against matter 8 of agreement number 4, article four of the ordinary session number 1756-2003, of the ninth of June two thousand three**, considering that the rejection of the recognition of the condition of occupant is duly justified; therefore, it admitted the appeal before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) (folios 194 and 195).

II.- OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGE.- The company Agropecuaria Nombre71791, Sociedad Anónima challenges two municipal agreements: **Matter 3 subsection 3), article four, of the ordinary session number 1519-2000, of the nineteenth of June two thousand** and; **Point 8 of matter 4, article four of the ordinary session 1756-2003, held on the ninth of June two thousand three**. With this challenge, it seeks the revocation of the same, so that instead the Municipality of Parrita is ordered to recognize that entity and Mrs. Nombre71791 the status of possessor and occupant of the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800 and family, which adjoins the property registered under real folio registration number Placa11652, in the name of its represented entity, in the Partido of Puntarenas, in the restricted zone (zona restringida) of the coastal sector of Punta Mala, sole district -Parrita-, ninth canton -Parrita-, Province of Puntarenas; for having been occupying it in a quiet, continuous, peaceful, and public manner since nineteen forty-six personally, then with her husband Nombre71801 and starting in nineteen seventy, it was transferred to the company that has been owner and administrator of the family's assets, that is, prior to the promulgation and entry into force of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043, of nineteen seventy-seven, which recognizes –in article 44- a right of priority for the granting of concessions, to those who have possessed under the indicated conditions. It warns that the respondent Municipality rejected its request under the sole consideration that it is a legal entity, as it understood that such status is only applicable to natural persons, which is not contained in the referred law, thereby violating the principle of legality to which the actions of public officials are subject, according to Article 11 of the Political Constitution. It warns that with the formal recognition of "**occupant**" that it requests, executive decree number 30.344-MINAE, published in La Gaceta number 92, of the fifteenth of May two thousand two, by which the area of the Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge was expanded to include the fifty meters of public area and one hundred fifty of the restricted area of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the lands over which it requested the concession, which adjoin the property of its represented entity, cannot affect it to its detriment, in application of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, contained in Article 34 of the Political Constitution, as it involves a vested property right and a consolidated legal situation, it repeats, since nineteen forty-six. (Folios 190 to 192 and 229 and 230.)

III.- ACTIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONS FILED BY AGROPECUARIA Nombre71791, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND DETERMINATION OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENTS.- From a detailed study of the administrative file sent by the Municipality of Parrita, various petitions filed by the appellant here are observed, which, besides being related, are presented by different representatives and are even repeated; which, in the opinion of this Tribunal, created confusion, both in the processing of the same and in the decision adopted. Therefore, to clarify, not only the object of the challenge but also its content, it is important to have the following table as a reference.

to the Municipality so that it may summon the parties (f.145) | | | Acuerdo 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Grants permission to carry out a regulatory plan (plan regulador) in the Punta Mala sector, Esterillos; with prior approval of ICT, INVU, for final approval of the Municipality (f. 163 and 164) | Nombre71798 , reiterates request for a use permit (permiso de uso) 09/09/2002 | | Nombre71798 complains that his request for a declaration as “occupant” (ocupante) has not been resolved 09/09/2002 (f. 161) | | Acuerdo 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Grants the company a 6-month deadline to prepare a preliminary draft of a regulatory plan (anteproyecto de plan regulador) (f.170 and 171) | Acuerdo 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Rejects the granting of a use permit, as it is a discretionary act (f.170 and 171) | | Acuerdo 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Refers the petitioner to acuerdo 1516-200 on the point (f. 163 and 164) | | Acuerdo 1727-2003, 03/02/2003 Requests the company to report on the progress of the preliminary draft of a regulatory plan (f.176 and 177) | | | Nombre71798 files a motion for revocation with appeal (revocatoria con apelación) because the indicated decision was not notified to him 26/09/2002 (f. 165) | | Nombre71791 Submits a report and requests a 6-month extension to complete the work 15/05/2003 (f. 180) | | | Acuerdo 1701-2002, 14/09/2002 Because it could not prove notification, it notifies him of the acuerdo again (f. 167 and 168) | | Acuerdo 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rejects request for extension (f. 183 and 184) | | | Nombre71791 Again requests recognition of the condition of “occupant” (ocupante) and “possessor” (poseedora) 26/05/2003 (f. 181 and 182) | | Nombre71791 Files motions for reconsideration (reconsideración), revocation (revocatoria), and subsidiary appeal (apelación subsidiaria) 17/06/2003 (f.188 and 189) | | | Acuerdo 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rejects request for recognition of the condition of occupant and possessor (f. 183 and 184) | | | | | Nombre71791 Files motions for reconsideration, revocation, and subsidiary appeal 17/06/2003 (f.190 to 192) | | | | | 195) Acuerdo 1762-2003, 07/07/2003 Rejects the revocation and admits the appeal before the TCA (f.194 and 195) | | | | | October 1, 2007 Mayor sends administrative file to the TCA (f. 211) | | | | From the foregoing, it is clear that there are *two municipal acuerdos* submitted for the knowledge of this Tribunal, acting as an improper hierarch (jerarca impropio), under the terms of articles 173 of the Constitution and 156 of the Municipal Code, admitted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita, the first by acuerdo 1614-2001, of September third, two thousand one – regarding the one adopted in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand –, and the second in session 1762-2003, of July seventh, two thousand three – in relation to point 8 of matter 4, article 4 of ordinary session 1756-2003, of July ninth, two thousand three. It is noted that the two challenged municipal acts are challenged insofar as the Council rejected the request of the representatives of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima for recognition of the condition of occupant of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre).

**IV.- THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE AS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY AND ITS USE REGIME.-** Since the appeal filed concerns the *regulatory regime of the maritime-terrestrial zone*, a brief overview of the same is necessary. Throughout human history, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance – regarding national defense – of the coast for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since colonial times, the coastline has remained destined for public use. This is reflected in the various normative provisions that have regulated this property in our legal system throughout history, which began to take shape from the colonial era with the Royal Decree (Real Cédula) of October fifteenth, seventeen fifty-four, and in Costa Rica as an independent country, it begins in the century before last, with the enactment of Decree-Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828, whose allocation to the State's patrimony arose only as a means of promotion and protection of the country's fishing, marine, and salt-producing activities; which is no exception in the current one – *Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043*, in force to date –, which maintained the public domain status (demanialidad) of the two hundred meters along the country's coastline; to which *the classification and treatment of public domain property (bien demanial, dominical, demanio, or de dominio público) was always given, which makes it eligible for all the characteristics of public domain status, namely, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, unattachability, as well as subjection to police power regarding its use and exploitation*, as the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice indicated in judgment number 7, at fifteen hours five minutes of January twentieth, nineteen ninety-three:

"*It is clear then, without detriment to the indicated colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both coastlines has not been part of the vacant lands (baldíos) – the royal lands of the Colony – but has always been subject to a different legal regime, that proper to public domain property and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century – culminating in the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977 – the classification of public domain property for the lands included in said zone was obviously maintained. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprised the part of the coasts of both seas bathed by the flow and ebb, extending up to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers up to the point where they were navigable or affected by the tides. The legislation of this century specified the extension of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but* at no time denied its character as public domain property and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability*; [...] *From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the strip of 200 meters from the ordinary high-water mark (pleamar ordinaria) along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, has been of public domain – and the lands included therein, public domain property – since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present has introduced on the matter have never generally declassified these 200 meters, it being rather the case that the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a larger strip in extension – the so-called maritime mile – but never smaller.*" (Considerando II.

(The highlighting is not from the original.)</p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to Article 6 of the Political Constitution, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) acquires the status of public domain property (bien demanial) of the Nation, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas),</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Article 3.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The following are also national property</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">I.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> The beaches and maritime zones</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and Article 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), insofar as it textually provides:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The maritime-terrestrial zone </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), acting as administrative superior, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight o'clock on February sixteenth, two thousand one:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> Correlatively to what has been said, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">. Its protection is the obligation of the State and its institutions –including of course the corresponding Municipalities– and even of all the inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Concordantly, national jurisprudence can be consulted, both from the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> -judgments number 447-91, 1556-91, 2306-91, 1347-95, 320-96, 1345-96, 0304-98, 2006-0454 and 2007-2408-; as well as from the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (judgment number 317-2008), and from the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> -both in the exercise of its jurisdictional function and its administrative function, the latter, acting in its capacity as improper superior of the municipalities, among others, the rulings 2319-94, 4322-95, 4472-95, 4353-95, 8432-98, 8864-98, 1076-2000, 128-2001, 962-2002, 35-2007, 277-2008 can be consulted).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Having determined the special allocation of the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is now relevant to know precisely what goods or areas this special regime of legal protection comprises. And it is Law number 6043 itself, which in its Article 9 tells us:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific littorals of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high tide line and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">For legal purposes, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprises the maritime islands, islets, and crags (peñascos marítimos), as well as any land or natural formation that protrudes from the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Excepting Isla del Coco, which shall be under the direct dominion and possession of the State, and those other islands whose dominion or administration is determined in this law or special laws.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Likewise, according to Article 4 of the Regulation to this Law, Decreto Ejecutivo number 7841-P, of December sixteenth, nineteen hundred seventy-seven, it encompasses:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the mangroves or saltwater forests that exist on the continental or insular littorals and estuaries (esteros) of the maritime-terrestrial territory, constitute a Forest Reserve and are allocated to the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and to all the provisions of that decree</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> [number 7210-A, of July nineteenth, nineteen hundred seventy-seven]. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Starting from the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries and the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide line, the restricted zone (zona restringida) begins</span><span style="font-family:Arial">."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">The maritime-terrestrial zone is divided into two zones: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the public zone (zona pública)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, which comprises the strip fifty meters wide, counted from the ordinary high tide line, composed of the seashore, edge, or coast that extends along the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">rías</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> and </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">permanent estuaries (esteros permanentes)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, up to where these are appreciably affected by the tides and present defined marine characteristics (Article 2, subsection h) of the Regulation to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, Decreto Ejecutivo number 7841-P); and </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the restricted zone (zona restringida)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, constituted by the remaining one hundred fifty meters. By virtue of the foregoing, the following are part of the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the ría</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, defined as the part of the river near its entry into the sea, and up to where the tides reach (subsection f) of Article 2 of the cited Decreto Ejecutivo number 7841-P); so that in relation to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law governing this matter, the strip of two hundred meters adjacent to the rías is also maritime-terrestrial zone; "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">the islets, crags, and other small areas and natural formations that protrude from the sea</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (final paragraph of Article 10 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the mangroves</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the cited Law</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The public zone is also, whatever its extension, that occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular littorals and estuaries of the national territory</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">whose incorporation into the public domain dates back to nineteen hundred forty-two, with the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), a circumstance that prevents their titling by private individuals. It is noted that Article 4 of the Regulation establishes that the restricted zone in these cases starts from the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries and from the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests, when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide line; which is of great importance, as it extends the concept of maritime-terrestrial zone to portions of the national territory that may be located kilometers from the coast, so that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the lands adjacent to the mangrove cannot be the object of legitimate possession</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. Given the ecological importance of the mangroves, Article 44 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), in concordance with Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), require the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) to conduct the respective environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), prior to granting any permit for their exploitation; and, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the maritime islands, islets, and crags and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, according to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Law number 6043), a condition that had already been granted since the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Water Law (Ley de Aguas), number 276</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, of August twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred forty-two, in its Article 75, when it stated</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Islands already formed or that form in the maritime-terrestrial zone or in the navigable part of the rivers and in the rías and their mouths are State property</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and that maintained the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Decreto-Ley number 11</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, of July twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred forty-eight, amended by number 803, of November second of the following year in the following terms:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">confirms and proclaims the National Sovereignty over the entire submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever the depth at which it may be found, reaffirming the inalienable right of the Nation over all the natural wealth that exists on, in, or under said shelf or platform</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and subsection c) of Article 7) of the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, number 2825, of October fourteenth, nineteen hundred sixty-one. It must be clarified that in the case of crags, the concept of public zone applies to the entire natural formation, and in the case of islands, to the fifty meters contiguous to the high tide line, with the remaining lands considered restricted zone (Article 10 of Law number 6042), unless there is a mangrove, in which case, it is considered public zone, as indicated above. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">It is worth remembering that the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">public zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> has been destined for the free use, access, and transit of all; so that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">any permit or concession, as well as the collection of the respective fee (canon), located in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is null and void</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (as resolved in administrative resolution number 6424-97, at nine o'clock on April seventeenth, nineteen hundred ninety-seven of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal), except for those that have a public purpose, such as </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the construction of industrial plants, sport or artisanal fishing installations, port works, mariculture programs, or other similar establishments or installations, ..</span><span style="font-family:Arial">.\"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(Article 18 of Law 6043);</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">whose location near the sea is indispensable for their proper functioning. In any case, they must have the due authorizations from the MOPT, INVU, ICT, and the respective municipality, attending, in any case and at all times, </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">to the public use for which they are intended, or that it involves the establishment and operation of state tourist facilities of notorious convenience for the country</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (first paragraph of Article 22 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Likewise, in the case of the natural resource contained in the public zone, it is noted that the flora and fauna cannot be exploited, nor can trees be cut or products extracted from the coast, except with the due authorization -permit or concession-, in this case, from the Wildlife Directorate (Dirección de Vida Silvestre) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), prior environmental impact assessment, pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment. Furthermore,</span><span style="font-family:Arial">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> it is the responsibility of the respective municipalities to facilitate access to the beaches for the enjoyment and transit of persons, so that the local government must prevent any limiting action that impedes this free access to the beaches. This oversight duty also concerns the eviction of invaders, and even the destruction or demolition of constructions, installations, or works carried out, whether they are simple fences, shanties, sales stands, or dwelling houses, without any liability (as considered by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section in resolution number 7900-98). According to Article 39 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, concessions can only be granted in the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, under the charge of the municipalities (Article 40 of the cited Law); </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">except in cases where there is a protected wild area (área silvestre protegida) -forest reserves, protected zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, natural monuments- that, according to Articles 32 of the Organic Law of the Environment and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, are under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE). </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the indicated regulations, it is clear that the municipalities lose their competence regarding the management and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural resources (biodiversity in flora and fauna) found within the limits of the protected wild areas. In this sense, the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) has ruled in various pronouncements, in Opinion C-174-87, of September 8, 1987, in which it was considered that the term "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">equivalent reserves</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" used in Article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law was inclusive of forest reserves, protected zones, national wildlife refuges, and protective zones, and that they form part of the concept of the State's natural patrimony.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">VII.- OF THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF OCCUPANT STATUS BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Pursuant to the considerations given, it is clear that with the current situation, the strip of land the appellant company intends to "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">occupy</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" in the maritime-terrestrial zone having been allocated as the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">, based on Decreto Ejecutivo number 30.344-MINAE, of March thirteenth, two thousand two, published in La Gaceta number 92, of May fifteenth, two thousand two, it is evident that the Municipality of Parrita </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">lost total competence to administer it, since its oversight rather corresponds to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones), and where the granting of any permit or concession over it is impossible; nor is it possible to allege any acquired right or consolidated legal situation (situación jurídica consolidada), as the appellant intends, and with it, the infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law and Article 34 of the Political Constitution.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> It should be remembered that from time immemorial, this is a public domain good (bien de dominio público), with respect to which it is not possible to legitimately allege the right of possession, and much less of occupation, insofar as its exploitation is reserved for the granting of permits and concessions. Additionally, it is noted that there is no pronouncement from the respondent Municipality or judicial ruling recognizing the condition of occupant of the appellant company, nor is the same found in the legal assumptions to make such a declaration. As reasoned by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment number 1997-02765, at fifteen hours and three minutes on May twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred ninety-seven</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The concepts of «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">acquired right</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» and «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">consolidated legal situation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» appear closely related in constitutional doctrine. It can be stated that, in general terms, the first denotes a consummated circumstance in which a thing –material or immaterial, be it a previously alien good or a previously nonexistent right– has entered into (or impacted upon) the patrimonial sphere of the person, so that the person experiences an advantage or verifiable benefit. For its part, the «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">consolidated legal situation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» represents not so much a patrimonial benefit, but a state of affairs fully defined in terms of its legal characteristics and its effects, even if these have not yet been extinguished. What is relevant regarding the consolidated legal situation, precisely, is not whether those effects still endure or not, but that –by virtue of a legal mandate or a judgment that has so declared– a clear and defined rule has already emerged in legal life, connecting a factual premise (conditioning fact) with a given consequence (conditioned effect). From this perspective, the person's situation is given by a logical proposition of the type «if..., then...»; that is to say: if the conditioning fact has occurred, then the «consolidated legal situation» implies that, necessarily, the conditioned effect must also occur. In both cases (acquired right or consolidated legal situation), the legal system protects –making it intangible– the situation of the person who obtained the right or enjoys the situation, for reasons of equity and legal certainty. In this case, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the constitutional guarantee of the non-retroactivity of the law translates into the certainty that a change in the legal system cannot have the consequence of removing the good or the already acquired right from the person's patrimony, or of causing that if the factual premise had occurred prior to the legal reform, the (beneficial, it is understood) consequence that the interested party expected from the consolidated legal situation no longer arises</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">. Now, specifically regarding the latter, it has also been understood that no one has a «right to the immutability of the legal system», that is, that the rules never change. Therefore, the constitutional precept does not consist in that, once born into legal life, the rule connecting the fact with the effect cannot be modified or even suppressed by a later norm; what it means is that –as explained– if the conditioning assumption has occurred, a legal reform that changes or eliminates the rule cannot have the virtue of preventing the conditioned effect that was expected under the reign of the prior norm from arising. This is so because, as stated, what is relevant is that the state of affairs enjoyed by the person was already defined in terms of its elements and its effects, even if these effects are still being produced or, even, have not yet begun to be produced. In this way, what the person has a right to is the consequence, not the rule.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (The underlining is not from the original.)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Finally, it must be taken into account that the figures of "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">settlers (pobladores)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" and "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">occupants (ocupantes)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" are provided for in Article 75 and Transitory VII of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law as two exceptions to the parameters of private use in the maritime-terrestrial zone, which confer a</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> right of priority in the concession granting process.</span></p> For the first (pobladores (settlers)), it comprises those persons who already had a lot in the maritime milla before the enactment of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, that is, before nineteen seventy-seven, who had been occupying it for more than ten years, in a quiet, public, and peaceful manner, in the terms of the cited numeral 75:

"The settlers of the maritime-terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with more than ten years of residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant's domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots, provided it is their only property." Thus, persons who qualify as settlers may remain on the lands they were occupying at the time the Law on the matter came into force, and for this reason, they are subject to the payment of rent for the strip of land occupied. It must be borne in mind that the law in question itself provides for the possibility of their being relocated, with due compensation, when the respective regulatory plan (plan regulador) is enacted, in the event that their use is not in conformity with that provided for in said regulation; given that "... they must subject themselves to the planning of the zone, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements in accordance with this law. In any case, the public zone must be respected." (Final paragraph of the cited Article 75.)

As for the "occupants (ocupantes)", these are persons who, without meeting the condition of settlers, have occupied the restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, in an unauthorized manner, prior to the validity of the Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, in form; by virtue of which, they hold no permit whatsoever, and the law itself authorizes the municipalities to charge them a fee. It is interesting that the law itself grants them a right of priority for the granting of future concessions, once the respective coastal regulatory plan (plan regulador costero) has been approved; consequently, under equal conditions, the administration must prefer to grant the concession to whoever has possessed in a quiet, public, peaceful, continuous manner—that is, without the possibility of its transmission inter vivos or mortis causa—on the restricted zone and without implying improvements. Regarding this figure, this Court ruled in judgment number 277-2008, at fifteen hours ten minutes on August twenty-eighth, two thousand eight, stating that (T)he legislator did not intend to consolidate said figure permanently, but rather a simple tolerance, while its conformity with the legal system is produced, in other words, the category of occupant is used temporarily while the granting of the concession is legally possible. This figure (occupant) has been the subject of multiple interpretations since it is not harmoniously adjusted to the cited Law, which has given rise to corrupted practices and illicit business. The legal nature of the occupant is that of a right in precarious tenure (derecho en precario), and therefore they could never be confused with nor claim rights that only a property owner can have, since these by their condition do not require a concession. Neither can they be treated as tenants of the maritime-terrestrial zone, as they are an express subject of regulation in accordance with Transitory I and II of the aforementioned rule, since in their case, it is not about the concession contract but about the extension of lease contracts prior to its enactment, which must be modified in accordance with current laws. Nor can or should they be confused with those persons who entered the demanial zone clandestinely, since after this Law, such action is prohibited according to its Article 12. We must then conclude that the occupant is that person who was located in the restricted zone of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre and who, at the time Ley 6043 of March 2, 1977 came into force, did not have a lease contract in their favor.

Finally, and no less important for that, is that the two indicated figures—settler and occupant—are provided for exclusively in relation to natural persons, thus excluding legal persons, in view of the fact that it was provided in consideration of those who had no other place to reside; a condition that cannot be attributed to legal fictions; for which reason, it also excludes their transmission, whether inter vivos or mortis causa. Having said the above, it follows that the status of occupant cannot generate any right of property or possession whatsoever, since, as the maritime-terrestrial zone is part of the public domain, it cannot be the object of possession nor be positively prescribed with the passage of time, as provided by Article 7 of Law number 6043. This characteristic of imprescriptibility results in the legal impossibility of exercising possession over the inalienable strip of land, so that this rule, when it grants preeminence to grant a concession, refers clearly and expressly to the occupant of the land who had possessed it in a quiet, public, peaceful, and continuous manner. Requirements, which, for the case at hand, are easy to verify. (For further detail, interested parties are referred to the considerations given by the Primera Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 317-F-2008, at nine hours ten minutes on May second, two thousand eight.)

VIII.- With which, as the applicant is a legal entity, which, according to its claims, exercises possession of the property since the nineteen-seventies, this made impossible in the year two thousand any recognition of the condition of occupant that it claims; a circumstance that obliges this Court to confirm the decision given by the Council in the agreement adopted in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, for not meeting the legal requirements for the propriety of such a declaration.

IX.- OF THE REGULATION OF THE APPELLATE REGIME FOR MUNICIPAL ACTS.- In relation to the challenge of point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, it must first be recalled that the challenge regime for municipal decisions has special legislation. Thus, in accordance with the regulations contained in Title VI of the Código Municipal, called "Appeals against Municipal Acts", which comprises articles 153 to 163, in which a system was designed that has been described as "a stepladder", which implies that acts issued by officials who depend on the Mayor have an appeal for revocation with appeal before the latter, and from what the latter decides, the same appeals proceed, of revocation with appeal in subsidy before the Council, an action which, in turn, has revocation and appeal before the Administrative Contentious Tribunal, it being convenient to clarify that the latter acts as an improper hierarchical superior, that is, exercising a materially administrative and not jurisdictional function, as is derived from the Acts of the National Constituent Assembly and subsequently confirmed by the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 2005-06866, at fourteen hours thirty-seven minutes on June first, two thousand five. Likewise, it must be clear that the provisions contained in the Ley General de la Administración Pública are applicable in the specific case, with regard to principles, and in a subsidiary manner, in the event of silence or loopholes in this special regulatory body.

X.- OF THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL FILED.- The appeal filed is openly inadmissible and must be rejected outright, for not being admissible in accordance with the provisions of subsection b) of Article 154 of the Código Municipal, which literally provides:

"Any municipal agreement shall be subject to appeals for revocation and appeal except:

(...)

b.) Those of mere procedure for the execution, confirmation, or ratification of previous ones and those consented to expressly or implicitly." It is worth recalling that the request to formally recognize the status of occupant or possessor to Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, has been the subject of analysis and pronouncement by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita on several occasions. Thus:

a.) For the first time, upon a request made by Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney-in-fact of the appellant company, on December tenth, nineteen ninety-nine (folios 81 to 83), in an agreement adopted in Matter 2, subsection 2), article three of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June fifth, two thousand (at folios 100 to 108), in which it rejects the request, based on a detailed study of the applicable regulations –Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, number 6043–, and numerous pronouncements of the Procuraduría General de la República; concluding that the applicant –Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima– does not meet the requirements to qualify as such, for being a legal entity, for not residing on the site, and because the condition is not transmissible. It is worth noting that this decision was challenged by the representative of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, by filing appeals for revocation and appeal in subsidy, as derived from the complaint formulated by the interested party before the Defensoría de los Habitantes -official letter 06449-2001-DHR, at folios 127 to 132-, for omission in its resolution; the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Authority, by agreement number 1 subsection 19 of article four of ordinary session number 1614-2001, of September third, two thousand one (at folios 134 and 135). Notwithstanding the foregoing, although the administrative file was presented before this Court on October first of that same year (folio 140), the Municipality did not act upon the prevention order made to it –by decree at fifteen hours twelve minutes on October twenty-fourth, two thousand one, at folio 145– for its reception; which was again sent to this Office on October first, two thousand seven (at folio 211). Said appeal is resolved in this act.

b.) For the second time, upon a new request made on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, by the appellant company, on this occasion, in the person of its general attorney-in-fact, Nombre71798 (folio 81 to 83), in agreement number 2, article four of session 1695-2002, of September sixteenth, two thousand two, in which it ordered to uphold what had been resolved on the matter in ordinary session 1516-2000, matter No. 2, Subsection 2), Article three of June 5, 2000, in which that same request was rejected (folios 163 and 164). Against this decision, the company filed appeals for revocation and appeal in subsidy, the first being admitted, as there was no record of the date of notification of the act to which the complainant was referred; the procedures being reinstated, such that the immediate notification of the Agreement adopted in session 1516-2000 was ordered. The court record does not show that, once the representatives of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima were aware of that decision, they challenged it; with which, despite the allegation by the attorney-in-fact of the interested company of unawareness prior to this new notification, it must be understood that the appeal that it filed against the indicated agreement subsisted, admitted before this Court, in accordance with the agreement of session 1614-2001, which, it is repeated, is resolved in this act.

c.) For the third time, upon a third request formulated, again by Mrs. Nombre71791, on May twenty-sixth, two thousand three (at folios 181 and 182), by agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, matter 8 (folios 183 to 187), in which it again rejected the request, because the legal requirements for making such a declaration were not met, which, it is worth noting, are identical reasons to those put forward on the first occasion.

Against this decision, appeals for revocation and appeal are filed (folios 190 to 192), the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Court, by agreement number 1, article four of ordinary session 1762-03, of July seventh, two thousand three (folios 194 and 195); and it is the act that is sought to be reviewed in this instance.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the agreement contained in point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, submitted to the knowledge of this Court on October first, two thousand seven, it is repeated, in exercise of the materially administrative function, when acting as improper hierarchical superior of the Municipalities by legal imperative (relationship of Articles 156 of the Código Municipal and 84 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativo, applicable to the sub judice in accordance with Transitory IV of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)—, is inadmissible, by legal mandate –subsection b) of Article 154 of the Código Municipal–, as it concerns, as already explained, a reiteration of prior acts of the Council. In light of which, this Court understands that the Council did wrong in admitting the appeal filed.

THEREFORE:

The agreement adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, is confirmed; with respect to which the administrative route is deemed exhausted.

The appeal is declared improperly admitted with respect to the challenge brought against point 8, matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three.

**Name5180** **Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** **Name632** **IV.- OF THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE AS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROPERTY AND ITS USE REGIME.-** Insofar as the appeal filed concerns the *regulatory regime of the maritime-terrestrial zone*, a brief overview of the same is required. Throughout human history, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance—regarding national defense—that the coast holds for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since colonial times, the shoreline has remained destined for public use. The foregoing is reflected in the various normative provisions that have regulated this property in our legal system throughout history, which began to take shape in the colonial era with the Royal Decree of October fifteenth, seventeen fifty-four, and in Costa Rica as an independent country, begins in the century before last, with the enactment of Decree Law No. 162 of June 28, 1828, whose allocation to the State's patrimony arose only as a means of promoting and protecting the country's fishing, maritime, and salt-producing activities; which is no exception in the current *Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043*—in force to date—which maintained the public domain status (demanialidad) of the two hundred meters along the country's shoreline; to which it has *always been given the designation and treatment of public domain property (dominical, demanio, or of public domain), which makes it subject to all the characteristics of public domain status, namely, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, unattachability, as well as its subjection to police power regarding its use and exploitation*, as noted by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 7, of fifteen hours five minutes of January twentieth, nineteen ninety-three:

"It is clear then, without detriment to the noted colonial-era antecedent, that since the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both coastlines has not been part of the unclaimed lands (baldíos)—the royal lands of the Colony—but rather has always been subject to a distinct legal regime, that proper to public domain property and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century—culminating with the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977—the designation of public domain property was obviously maintained for the lands included in said zone. As a result of the legislative evolution of the 19th century, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the flow and ebb, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the riverbanks to the point where they were navigable or affected by the tides. The legislation of this century refined the extent of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but *at no time denied its character as public domain property and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability*; [...] From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is easy to conclude that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high-water mark along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone by Article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, has been of public domain—and the lands included within it, public domain property—since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present one have introduced on the matter have never broadly declassified these 200 meters; rather, the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943 established a strip greater in extent—the so-called maritime mile—but never smaller." (Considerando II.

(The highlighting is not from the original.)

By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) acquires the status of public domain property (bien demanial) of the Nation, a consideration that is reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), " *Artículo 3.- * ***The following are likewise national property***:

I.- The beaches and maritime zones "; and Article 1 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre), insofar as it textually provides:

" *The maritime-terrestrial zone **constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible.** Its protection, as well as its natural resources, is the obligation of the State, its institutions and all inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law.* " In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso), acting as administrative hierarch, in resolution number 128-2001, of eight o'clock on February sixteenth, two thousand one:

" ***VI.-** Correlatively to what has been said, **the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State and is inalienable and imprescriptible**. Its protection is the obligation of the State and its institutions –including, of course, the corresponding Municipalities– and even of all inhabitants of the country. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.* " Concordantly, national jurisprudence can be consulted, both from the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) - judgments number 447-91, 1556-91, 2306-91, 1347-95, 320-96, 1345-96, 0304-98, 2006-0454 and 2007-2408-; as well as from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) (judgment number 317-2008), and from the Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo) - both in the exercise of its jurisdictional function and its administrative function, the latter, acting in its capacity as improper hierarch of the municipalities, being able to consult, among others, rulings 2319-94, 4322-95, 4472-95, 4353-95, 8432-98, 8864-98, 1076-2000, 128-2001, 962-2002, 35-2007, 277-2008).

**V.-** Having determined the special affectation of the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is now important to know precisely which properties or areas this special legal protection regime comprises. And it is Law number 6043 itself, which in its Article 9 tells us:

"[...] *the strip two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the line of the ordinary high tide (pleamar ordinaria) and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide.* *For legal purposes, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprises the maritime islands, islets and rocks (islotes y peñascos marítimos), as well as any land or natural formation that rises above the level of the ocean within the territorial sea of the Republic. Cocos Island (Isla del Coco), which shall be under the direct dominion and possession of the State, and those other islands whose dominion or administration are determined in this law or special laws are excepted.*" Likewise, according to Article 4 of the Regulation to this Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P, of December sixteenth, nineteen seventy-seven, it encompasses:

"[...] *the mangroves or saltwater forests (manglares o bosques salados) that exist on the continental or insular coastlines and estuaries (esteros) of the maritime-terrestrial territory, constitute a Forest Reserve and are affected by the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and all the provisions of that decree* [number 7210-A, of July nineteenth, nineteen seventy-seven]. *Starting from the line of vegetation at the edge of the estuaries and from the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide, the restricted zone (zona restringida) begins*." The maritime-terrestrial zone is divided into two zones: **the public zone (la pública)**, which comprises the strip fifty meters wide, counted from the ordinary high tide, composed of the littoral, shore or coast of the sea that extends along the **rias (rías)** and **permanent estuaries (esteros permanentes)**, to where these are sensibly affected by the tides, and present defined marine characteristics (Article 2, subsection h) of the Regulation to the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, Executive Decree number 7841-P); and **the restricted zone (la restringida)**, constituted by the remaining one hundred fifty meters. By virtue of the foregoing, the following are part of the **public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone**: **the ria (ría)**, defined as the part of the river near its entrance to the sea, and up to where the tides reach (subsection f) of Article 2 of the cited Executive Decree number 7841-P); so that in relation to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law governing this matter, the following is also maritime-terrestrial zone: the two-hundred-meter strip contiguous to the rias; "**the islets, rocks and other small areas and natural formations that rise up from the sea (islotes, peñascos y demás áreas pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalgan del mar)**" (final paragraph of Article 10 of the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone); **the mangroves (manglares)**, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the cited Law " *The public zone is also, whatever its extension, that occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and estuaries of the national territory* "; whose incorporation into the public domain (demanio) dates back to nineteen forty-two, with the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), a circumstance that prevents their titling by private parties. It is noted that Article 4 of the Regulation establishes that the restricted zone in these cases starts from the line of vegetation at the edge of the estuaries and from the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests, when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide; which is of great importance, as it extends the concept of maritime-terrestrial zone to portions of the national territory that may be located kilometers from the coast, so that **the lands adjacent to the mangrove cannot be the object of legitimate possession**. In attention to the ecological importance of the mangroves, Article 44 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), in concordance with Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), require the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) to carry out the respective environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) prior to the granting of any permit for their exploitation; and, **the maritime islands, islets and rocks and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide**, pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Law number 6043), a condition that had already been granted since the **Water Law, number 276 (Ley de Aguas, número 276)**, of August twenty-seventh, nineteen forty-two in its Article 75, when stating " *The islands already formed or that may form in the maritime-terrestrial zone or in the navigable part of the rivers and in the rias and mouth are property of the State* "; and which was maintained by **Decree-Law number 11 (Decreto-Ley número 11)**, of July twenty-seventh, nineteen forty-eight, reformed by number 803, of November second of the following year in the following terms:

" *confirms and proclaims National Sovereignty over the entire submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever the depth at which it may be found, reaffirming the inalienable right of the Nation to all the natural riches that exist on, in, or under said shelf or platform* "; and subsection c) of Article 7) of the **Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización)**, number 2825, of October fourteenth, nineteen sixty-one. It must be clarified that in the case of rocks, the concept of public zone applies to the entire natural formation, and in the case of islands, to the fifty meters contiguous to the high tide line, the remaining lands being considered restricted zone (Article 10 of Law number 6042), unless there is a mangrove, in which case it is considered a public zone, as indicated above.

**VI.-** It is worth remembering that the **public zone (zona pública)** has been destined for the free use, access, and transit of all; so that **any permit or concession, as well as the collection of the respective fee (canon) that is located in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone, is null** (as resolved in administrative resolution number 6424-97, of nine o'clock on April seventeenth, nineteen ninety-seven of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal), except those that have a public purpose, such as "[...] *the construction of industrial plants, sport or artisanal fishing installations, port works, mariculture programs, or other similar establishments or installations, ...*" (Article 18 of Law 6043); whose location near the sea is indispensable for their proper functioning. In any case, they must have the due authorizations of the MOPT, INVU, ICT and the respective municipality, attending, in any case and at all times, "[...] *to the public use for which they are destined, or to the establishment and operation of state tourist installations of notorious convenience for the country*" (first paragraph of Article 22 of the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone).

Likewise, in the case of the natural resource contained in the public zone, it is warned that the flora and fauna cannot be exploited, nor can trees be cut or products extracted from the coast, except with the due authorization -permit or concession-, in this case, from the Wildlife Directorate (Dirección de Vida Silvestre), of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), following an environmental impact assessment, pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. Furthermore, it corresponds to the respective municipalities to facilitate access to the beaches for the enjoyment and transit of persons, so that the local government must prevent any limiting action that impedes this free access to the beaches. This oversight function also concerns the eviction of invaders, and even the destruction or demolition of constructions, installations or works carried out, whether they involve simple fences, shantytowns (tugurios), sales stalls, or dwelling houses, without any responsibility (as considered by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section in resolution number 7900-98). According to Article 39 of the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, concessions can only be granted in the **restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone**, under the responsibility of the municipalities (Article 40 of the cited Law); **except in cases where a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) exists - forest reserves, protected zones (zonas protectoras), national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, natural monuments - which, pursuant to Articles 32 of the Organic Environmental Law and 73 of the Law of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, are under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE).** Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the indicated regulations, it is clear that the municipalities lose their competence with regard to the management and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural resources (biodiversity in flora and fauna) found within the limits of protected wilderness areas.

In this regard, the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) has pronounced itself in various pronouncements, in Opinion C-174-87, of September 8, 1987, in which it was considered that the term "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">equivalent reserves</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (reservas equivalentes) used in Article 73 of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) was inclusive of forest reserves (reservas forestales), protective zones (zonas protectoras), national wildlife refuges (refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), and protective zones, and that they make up the concept of the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado)."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>" --- **VII.- OF THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF OCCUPANT STATUS TO THE APPELLANT CORPORATION.-** In light of the considerations given, it is clear that with the current situation, the strip of land that the appellant corporation intends to "occupy" in the maritime terrestrial zone having been designated as the **Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa)**, based on Executive Decree number 30.344-MINAE (Decreto Ejecutivo número 30.344-MINAE), of March thirteenth, two thousand two, published in La Gaceta number 92, of May fifteenth, two thousand two, it is evident that the Municipality of Parrita **lost total competence to administer it, since its oversight rather corresponds to the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones), and where the granting of any permit or concession over it is impossible; nor is it possible to allege any acquired right (derecho adquirido) or consolidated legal situation (situación jurídica consolidada), as the appellant intends, and with it, the infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law (principio de irretroactividad de la ley) and Article 34 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política).** It should be remembered that since time immemorial, this is a public domain asset, regarding which it is not possible to legitimately claim a right of possession, much less of occupation, insofar as its use is reserved for the granting of permits and concessions. Additionally, it is noted that there is no pronouncement from the respondent Municipality or judicial ruling in which the occupant status of the appellant corporation is recognized, nor does it meet the legal requirements for such a declaration. As reasoned by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in judgment number 1997-02765, of fifteen hours three minutes of May twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-seven "*The concepts of «**acquired right**» (derecho adquirido) and «**consolidated legal situation**» (situación jurídica consolidada) appear closely related in constitutional doctrine. It is feasible to affirm that, in general terms, the former denotes that consummated circumstance in which a thing –material or immaterial, be it a previously foreign good or a previously non-existent right– has entered into (or impacted upon) the person's patrimonial sphere, such that the person experiences a verifiable advantage or benefit. For its part, the «**consolidated legal situation**» represents not so much a patrimonial surplus, but a state of affairs fully defined in terms of its legal characteristics and its effects, even if these have not yet been extinguished. What is relevant regarding the consolidated legal situation, precisely, is not whether those effects still endure or not, but that –by virtue of a legal mandate or a judgment that has so declared– a clear and defined rule has already emerged in legal life, connecting a factual premise (conditioning fact) with a given consequence (conditioned effect). From this perspective, the person's situation is given by a logical proposition of the type «if..., then...»; that is to say: if the conditioning fact has occurred, then the «consolidated legal situation» implies that the conditioned effect must necessarily also occur. In both cases (acquired right or consolidated legal situation), the legal system protects –rendering it intangible– the situation of whoever obtained the right or enjoys the situation, for reasons of equity and legal certainty. In this case, **the constitutional guarantee of the non-retroactivity of the law is translated into the certainty that a change in the legal system cannot have the consequence of subtracting the good or the already acquired right from the person's patrimony, or of causing that, if the factual premise had occurred prior to the legal reform, the (beneficial, it is understood) consequence that the interested party expected from the consolidated legal situation no longer arises**. Now, specifically regarding the latter, it has also been understood that no one has a «right to the immutability of the legal system», that is, that the rules never change. Therefore, the constitutional precept does not consist in that, once born into legal life, the rule connecting the fact with the effect cannot be modified or even suppressed by a subsequent norm; what it means is that –as explained– if the conditioning premise has occurred, a legal reform that changes or eliminates the rule cannot have the virtue of preventing the conditioned effect that was expected under the rule of the prior norm from arising. This is so because, it has been said, what is relevant is that the state of affairs enjoyed by the person was already defined in terms of its elements and its effects, even if these are still occurring or, even, have not begun to occur. In this way, what the person is entitled to is the consequence, not the rule.*" (The underlining is not from the original.)

Finally, it must be taken into account that the figures of "**settlers (pobladores)**" and "**occupants (ocupantes)**" are set forth in Article 75 and Transitory Provision VII of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law as two exceptions to the parameters of private use in the maritime terrestrial zone, which confer a **right of priority in the process of granting concessions.** The former **(settlers)**, encompasses those **persons** who already had a lot on the maritime mile before the enactment of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, that is, before nineteen seventy-seven, who had been occupying it for more than ten years, in a quiet, public, and peaceful manner, under the terms of the cited numeral 75:

"*The settlers of the maritime terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with more than ten years of residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant's domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots, provided it is their sole property.*" Thus, persons who qualify as settlers can remain on the lands they occupied at the time the Law on the matter came into effect, and for this reason, they are subject to the payment of rent for the occupied strip of land. It must be taken into account that the law under discussion itself provides for the possibility of their being relocated, with due compensation, when the respective regulatory plan (plan regulador) is enacted, should their use not conform to that provided in said regulation; given that "*... they must comply with the zoning plan (planificación de la zona), for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements (mejoras) in accordance with this law. In any case, the public zone must be respected.*" (Final paragraph of the cited Article 75.)

For their part, "**occupants**", are those persons who, without meeting the condition of settlers, have occupied the restricted zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, in an unauthorized manner, prior to the effective date of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, formally; by virtue of which, they do not hold any permit, and the law itself authorizes the municipalities to charge a fee (canon). It is interesting that the law itself recognizes them a right of priority for the granting of future concessions, once the respective coastal regulatory plan has been approved; whereby, under equal conditions, the administration must prefer to grant the concession to whoever has possessed in a **quiet, public, peaceful, continuous manner –that is, without its transfer inter vivos or mortis causa being possible– over the restricted zone and without involving improvements.** This Court pronounced on this figure in judgment number 277-2008, of fifteen hours ten minutes of August twenty-eighth, two thousand eight, when stating that "(*T*) *he legislator did not intend to consolidate such a figure permanently, but rather a simple tolerance, insofar as conformity with the legal system is produced, in other words, **the category of occupant is used temporarily while the granting of the concession is legally possible**. This figure (occupant) has been the object of multiple interpretations, since it is not harmoniously adjusted to the cited Law, which has led to flawed practices and illicit businesses. **The legal nature of the occupant is that of a precarious right (derecho en precario) and therefore they could never be confused with nor claim rights that only a property owner (propietario) can have, since the latter, by their condition, do not require a concession**. Nor can they be treated as tenants (arrendatarios) of the maritime terrestrial zone, since they are an express subject of regulation in accordance with Transitory Provisions I and II of the aforementioned norm, since in their case, it is not about the concession contract but about the extension of lease contracts prior to its enactment, which must be modified in accordance with the laws in force. Nor can they, nor should they, be confused with those persons who entered the public domain zone (zona demanial) clandestinely, since after this Law, such action is prohibited in accordance with its Article 12. Then we must conclude that the **occupant is that person who was located in the restricted zone of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone and who, at the time Law 6043 of March 2, 1977, came into effect, did not have a lease contract in their favor.** *" Finally, and no less important for that reason, is that the two indicated figures -settler and occupant- are provided exclusively in relation to **natural persons (personas físicas)**, thus excluding legal persons (personas jurídicas), given that it was provided in consideration of those who had no other place to reside; a condition that cannot be attributed to legal fictions; for which reason, their transmission is also excluded, whether *inter vivos* or *mortis causa*. Having said the above, it follows that the **status of occupant cannot generate any right of property or possession whatsoever, since the maritime terrestrial zone being part of the public domain, it cannot be the object of possession or prescribed positively with the passage of time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of Law number 6043**. This characteristic of imprescriptibility (imprescriptibilidad) results in the legal impossibility of exercising possession over the inalienable strip of land, whereby this norm, when granting preeminence for granting a concession, clearly and expressly refers to the *occupant* of the land who had possessed it, the latter in a quiet, public, peaceful, and continuous manner. Requirements, which in the case before us, are easily verifiable. (For greater detail, interested parties are referred to the considerations given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 317-F-2008, of nine hours ten minutes of May second, two thousand eight.)

**VIII.-** With which, since the applicant is a legal entity, which, according to its allegations, has been exercising possession of the property since the nineteen-seventies, this made impossible in the year two thousand, any recognition of the occupant status it claims; a circumstance that compels this Court to confirm the decision given by the Council in the agreement adopted in matter 3 subsection 3) fourth article of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, for not meeting the legal prerequisites for the appropriateness of such a declaration." Acts as special administrative and judicial attorney-in-fact for Nombre71792, married, pilot, identification number CED53309, resident of Curridabat, and Nombre71793, single, civil engineer, identification number CED53310, resident of Desamparados, in their capacity as President and Treasurer, respectively, with powers of a generalisimo attorney-in-fact without monetary limit of the appellant company, Nombre71794, married, attorney and notary public, identification number CED48230, resident of Dirección1358. All are of legal age.

Drafted by Judge Fernández Brenes; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- PROVEN FACTS.- The following points of interest are deemed proven as important for the resolution of this matter: 1.) That on the tenth of December, nineteen ninety-nine, Nombre71791, in her capacity as generalisimo attorney-in-fact without monetary limit of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, filed a petition before the Municipality of Parrita, to be accredited the status of occupant of a plot of land located in the restricted zone of the coastal sector of Punta Mala, sole district -Parrita-, ninth canton -Parrita-, Province of Puntarenas, which borders the property registered under real estate folio number Placa11652, in the name of her represented party, in the Registry of Puntarenas, for having been occupying it in a quiet, continuous, peaceful, and public manner since nineteen forty-six (folios 81 to 83); 2.) That on the tenth of December, nineteen ninety-nine, Mrs. Nombre71791, on behalf of her represented party, submitted a concession (concesión) application for sixty-three hectares, two thousand nine hundred fifty-two square meters, twenty-one square decimeters, indicating that the use would be subject to the zoning and regulations of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folio 84); 3.) That on the twelfth of May, two thousand, she requested authorization from the Council to develop a regulatory plan (plan regulador) in the coastal sector of Punta Mala, sole district -Parrita-, ninth canton -Parrita-, Province of Puntarenas, specifically, from boundary marker 581 to 500, and from 94 to 84; to be conducted by the consulting firm Ipsilón, Sociedad Anónima, under contract with her (folio 92); 4.) That in a writ dated the twelfth of May, two thousand, Mrs. Nombre71791 notes the omission of a response to her previous petitions -formal recognition of occupant status (estatus de ocupante) and concession (concesión) application- (folios 93 to 97); 5.) That in an agreement adopted in matter 2, subsection 2), article three of ordinary session number 1515-2000, of the fifth of June, two thousand, the Council of the Municipality of Parrita took cognizance of report 010, of the first of June, two thousand, from the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Commission, and decided: "1. This Municipality agrees to hold the application of Ketama S.A. until the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is prepared, so as not to deny its application outright. It is warned that immediately after the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is prepared, it must submit the respective preliminary design (anteproyecto) appropriate to the use or zoning of the land. 2. Deny the application of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina regarding being accredited the status of occupant (status de ocupante). 3. Hold the Concession (Concesión) application (sic) of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina so as not to deny its Concession (Concesión) application outright (sic). It is warned that immediately after the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) is prepared, it must submit the respective preliminary design (anteproyecto) appropriate to the use or zoning of the land. 4. Both applicants are warned that occupation without authorization according to the law is prohibited (art. 12 Law No. 6043) and sanctioned (art. 13 and 63). 5. Notify Ketama S.A. and Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A. within three days after this agreement is firmly approved. 6. They are warned that the remedies established by law, especially the Código Municipal, are available against the Council's agreements" (folios 100 to 106); 6.) That on the twenty-fourth of June, two thousand, Nombre71791, in her capacity as legal representative of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, formally requested the granting of use permit (permiso de uso) over the entire area for which she had requested the concession (concesión), in light of the declaration of non-touristic suitability by the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo -in session number 4098, article 2, subsection 3, of the twenty-sixth of February, two thousand, published in La Gaceta number 25, of the fourth of February, two thousand-, for the proper conservation of the zone (folios 107 and 108); 7.) That by agreement given in matter 3, subsection 3), article four, of ordinary session number 1519-2000, of the nineteenth of June, two thousand, the Council took cognizance of the report from the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Commission in session 012 of the fifteenth of June of that year, and decides to deny the application filed by Mrs. Nombre71791 to be authorized to develop the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) in the Coastal Sector of Punta Judas, considering it to be a regulatory matter whose development is the exclusive competence of local governments, the exercise of this power being non-delegable, a decision that was notified to the interested party by official letter Placa11653, of the twenty-seventh of June, two thousand, via fax on the third of July, two thousand (folios 110 and 111); 8.) That on the sixth of July, two thousand, Mrs. Nombre71791 filed a motion for revocation (revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against the agreement adopted by the Council of Parrita in session number 1519-2000, matter number 3, subsection 3), article four of the nineteenth of June, two thousand (folios 114 to 118); 9.) That in matter number 3, article two of ordinary session number 1523-2000, of the seventh of July, two thousand, the Council ordered the Mayor to take action so that, within the following five-day period, an inspection is conducted on the lands subject to this lawsuit, to verify if they are being occupied or invaded by anyone, since no permit or concession (concesión) has ever been granted over them (folios 119 and 120); 10.) That on the twelfth of July, two thousand, Nombre71795, in charge of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre, conducted the inspection ordered by the Municipal Council, and verified that the lands were "occupied," as farmhands from the Nombre71792 family resided there, who were responsible for carrying out maintenance work, both on the registered farm and in the zona marítimo terrestre, with a construction existing in the restricted zone (folios 123 to 125); 11.) That before official letter number 06449-2001, which is the final report with a recommendation from the Defensoría de los Habitantes in response to a complaint filed by Nombre71796 on behalf of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, the Council of the Municipality of Parrita, in agreement number 1, subsection 19 of article four of ordinary session number 1614-2001, of the third of September, two thousand one, took cognizance of the report from the Zona Marítimo Terrestre Commission from session 14, of the third of September of that year, and rejects the motions for revocation (revocatoria) that Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima had filed against points 1 and 2 of agreement 1516-2000, of the fifth of June, two thousand, and elevates the appeal (apelación) to the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo; and denies the land-use (uso de suelo) application filed by Nombre71797 (folios 134 and 135); 12.) That on the first of October, two thousand one, the Mayor of the Municipality of Parrita sends the administrative file to the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, to hear the challenge of points 1 and 2 of the Agreement adopted in ordinary session 1516-2000 (folio 140); 13.) That by brief dated the first of October, two thousand one, Nombre54972, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, files motions for revocation (revocatoria) and a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against agreement 1, subsection 9, article four of ordinary session 1614-2001, of the third of September, two thousand one, insofar as it denied the land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo) (folios 141 to 143); 14.) That in a brief dated the twenty-ninth of October, two thousand one, Nombre71795, in charge of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre, informs the Mayor of the resolution issued at fifteen hours twelve minutes on the twenty-fourth of October of that year by the Investigating Judge of the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, by which the file is returned to its source so that, prior to processing the appeal (apelación) filed -against agreement 1516-2000-, the parties are summoned and warned to designate a place to hear notifications (folios 145 and 150); 15.) That in agreement 2, subsection 1), article four of ordinary session 1628-2001, of the fifth of November, two thousand one, the Council admits the revocation (revocatoria) filed, concerning the denial of the use permit (permiso de uso), which was included in the session by error (folios 152 and 153); 15.) That on the fifteenth of May, two thousand two, Executive Decree number 30.344-MINAE, of the thirteenth of March, two thousand two, was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, by which the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa-Punta Mala is expanded, the territorial delimitation of which, regarding matters of interest, is as follows: "a) Continental sector: the zone comprising the 50 meters of the public zone of the zona marítimo terrestre between Lambert Costa Rica Sur coordinates 391 850 050 E, which corresponds to IGN boundary marker 500 at the boundaries of the farm owned by Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A.; b) Continental sector: the zone comprising the restricted area of the zona marítimo terrestre between Lamber coordinates 400 660 E -389 135 N Playa Hermosa Sector, and boundary markers 581, 545, and 500, according to IGN numbering, which correspond, respectively, to 227 N - 404 096 E. 385 945 N - 404 250 E NIE36 - 405 956 E, contiguous to the farm owned by Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A. at Playa Punta Mala." (folio 156); 16.) That on the ninth of September, two thousand two, Nombre71798, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, alleging the lack of response from the Municipality of Parrita, requests that the petition for a formal declaration of occupant (declaratoria de ocupante) that she had filed in December of nineteen ninety-nine be resolved, and requests authorization to develop the respective regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folio 161); 17.) That by agreement number 2, article four of session 1695-2002, of the sixteenth of September, two thousand two, the Council ordered: "1.- Approve the request of Mrs. Nombre71799 in her Capacity (sic) as special attorney-in-fact for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A., for the contracting of a company to carry out the studies and development of a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) for the Punta Mala, Esterillos sector, which must obtain the corresponding approvals before the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo and the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo before being known and approved by this Municipality. 2.- Regarding the granting of the Status (sic) of occupant (ocupante) requested by Nombre71799 in her Capacity (sic) as special attorney-in-fact for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A., this Municipality upholds what was resolved on the matter in ordinary session 1516-2000, Matter No. 2, Subsection 2), Article three of June 05, 2000, in which that same application was rejected." (folios 163 and 164); 18.) That in a writ filed with the Municipality of Parrita on the twenty-sixth of September following, Nombre71798, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact for Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, files motions for revocation (revocatoria) and a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against point 2 of the previous decision, alleging that the agreement of ordinary session 1516-2000, Matter No.

2, Subsection 2), Article Three of June 5, 2000, was not duly notified to her, meaning it is an ineffective act that has produced no legal effects, being of negative content; therefore, she requests that the procedures be corrected (folio 165); 19.) That by agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session 1701-20002, of October fourteenth, two thousand two, due to the lack of precision in accrediting the notification given, the Council admits the revocation and orders that the interested party be notified of agreement 1516-2000 (folios 167 and 168); 20.) That in a brief dated September ninth, two thousand two, Nombre71798, in her capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, reiterates the request for a use permit over the entirety of the area opportunely requested in concession, which she had made since June nineteenth, two thousand (folio 169); 21.) That by decision number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1708-2002, of November eleventh, two thousand two, the Council refused to grant the land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo), deeming it a discretionary act, and grants a period of six months to present the preliminary draft of the authorized regulatory plan (plan regulador) (folios 170 and 171); 22.) That in response to a request from the Municipality of Parrita regarding the progress of the Regulatory Plan project for the Punta Mala sector; on May fifteenth, two thousand three, Nombre71791, in her capacity as generalísima attorney-in-fact of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, submits a progress report and requests a six-month extension to complete the work (Agreement number 5, article four, of the Council's ordinary session number 1723-2003, of February third, two thousand three, folios 176 and 177, report at folio 180); 23.) That on August twenty-sixth, two thousand eight, Nombre71791, in her capacity as generalísima attorney-in-fact of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, requests formal recognition of her status as occupant and possessor of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), on the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala, and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800 and family; which are lands adjacent to the farms of her principal, in consideration of her personal occupation since nineteen forty-six, then with her husband Nombre71801, and as of nineteen seventy, it was transferred to the corporation that has been the owner and administrator of the family's assets (folios 181 and 182); 24.) That by agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, the Council hears the opinion of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Commission 007-2003, and decides: in matter 7, to reject the request for a six-month extension for the presentation of the preliminary draft of the Regulatory Plan requested by Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima; and in matter 8, to reject the request of that same corporation for recognition and granting of the status of occupant and possessor of the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala, and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800 (folios 183 to 187); 25.) That on June seventeenth, two thousand three, Nombre71791, in her capacity as generalísima attorney-in-fact of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, filed motions for reconsideration, revocation, and subsidiary appeal against matter 7 of the previous decision, insofar as it denied the extension requested to complete the preliminary draft of the regulatory plan for the Punta Mala zone, alleging that there are reasons that have prevented its completion; given that, by not having been granted the status of occupant—according to her petition—, she is prevented from finishing the work because the deadline is not running, as she necessarily needs to know the legal status of the land to determine the possible zoning, and her status as occupant predates the publication of the cited decree from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, it could not affect her to her detriment due to the non-retroactivity of the regulation, given that she enjoys an acquired and consolidated right; the Municipality, consequently, cannot deny the requested extension (folios 188 and 189); 26.) That on June seventeenth, two thousand three, Nombre71791, in her capacity as generalísima attorney-in-fact of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, filed motions for reconsideration, revocation, and subsidiary appeal against matter 8 of the previous decision, insofar as it rejected her status as occupant and possessor, deeming that she is the only person who can hold said status, having occupied the strip of land since nineteen forty-six; and if the Municipality recognizes her right, it would predate the publication of the Decree from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and therefore could not affect her to her detriment, in accordance with Article 34 of the Political Constitution, as it is an acquired right and a consolidated legal situation; for which reason she requests: that she be recognized the right of occupant she claims over the strip of land she has cared for and in which she has invested time and money (folios 190 to 192); and, 27.) That by agreement number 1, article four of ordinary session 1762-03, of July seventh, two thousand three, the Council rejected the revocation motion filed against matter 8 of agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, deeming that the denial of recognition of the status of occupant is duly motivated; therefore, it admitted the appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) (folios 194 and 195).

II.- OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE CHALLENGE.- The company Agropecuaria Nombre71791, Sociedad Anónima challenges two municipal agreements: Matter 3, subsection 3), article four, of ordinary session number 1519-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand; and Point 8 of matter 4, article four of ordinary session 1756-2003, held on June ninth, two thousand three. This challenge seeks the revocation of these, so that instead, the Municipality of Parrita is ordered to recognize said entity and Mrs. Nombre71791 the status of possessor and occupant of the lands located between the mouth of the Tulín River, continuing south, passing through Punta Judas, Punta Mala, and the Caletas sector, and bordering the property of Nombre71800 and family, which adjoins the property registered under real estate folio number Placa11652, in the name of the plaintiff, in the Canton of Puntarenas, in the restricted zone of the coastal sector of Punta Mala, single district -Parrita-, ninth canton -Parrita-, Province of Puntarenas; for having been occupying it in a quiet, continuous, peaceful, and public manner since nineteen forty-six personally, then with her husband Nombre71801, and as of nineteen seventy, it was transferred to the corporation that has been the owner and administrator of the family's assets, that is, prior to the enactment and entry into force of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043, of nineteen seventy-seven, which recognizes—in Article 44—a right of priority for the granting of concessions, to those who have possessed under the indicated conditions. She notes that the respondent Municipality rejected her request under the sole consideration that it concerns a legal entity, understanding that such status is only applicable to natural persons, which is not contained in the referenced law, thereby infringing the principle of legality to which the actions of public officials are subject, pursuant to Article 11 of the Political Constitution. She notes that with the formal recognition of "occupant" that she requests, executive decree number 30.344-MINAE, published in La Gaceta number 92, of May fifteenth, two thousand two, by which the area of the Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge was expanded to include the fifty meters of public area and one hundred fifty meters of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the lands for which she requested the concession, which adjoin the property of her principal, cannot affect her to her detriment, in application of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, contained in Article 34 of the Political Constitution, as it concerns an acquired patrimonial right and a consolidated legal situation, she repeats, since nineteen forty-six. (Folios 190 to 192 and 229 and 230.)

III.- ACTIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONS FILED BY AGROPECUARIA Nombre71791, SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND DETERMINATION OF THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENTS.- From a detailed study of the administrative file submitted by the Municipality of Parrita, different petitions filed by the appellant herein are observed, which, besides being related, are presented by different representatives and even turn out to be repeated; which, in the opinion of this Tribunal, caused confusion, both in the processing of these petitions and in the decision adopted. Therefore, to clarify not only the object of the challenge but also its content, it is important to have the following table as a reference.

to the Municipality to summon the parties (f.145) | | | | Name71798 , reiterates request for use permit (permiso de uso) 09/09/2002 | | Name71798 complains that they have not resolved his request for a declaration of "occupant" (ocupante) 09/09/2002 (f. 161) | | Agreement 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Grants permission to undertake a regulatory plan (plan regulador) in the Punta Mala sector, Esterillos; with prior approval of ICT, INVU, for final approval of the Municipality (f. 163 and 164) | Agreement 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Confers upon the corporation a period of 6 months to prepare a preliminary draft of a regulatory plan (anteproyecto de plan regulador) (f.170 y 171) | Agreement 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Rejects the granting of a use permit (permiso de uso), as it is a discretionary act (f.170 y 171) | | Agreement 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Refers the petitioner to agreement 1516-200 on the point (f. 163 and 164) | | Agreement 1727-2003, 03/02/2003 Asks the corporation to report on the progress of the preliminary draft of the regulatory plan (anteproyecto de plan regulador) (f.176 and 177) | | | Name71798 files a motion for revocation (revocatoria) with appeal because the indicated decision was not notified to him 26/09/2002 (f. 165) | | Name71791 Submits a report and requests a 6-month extension (prórroga) to complete the work 15/05/2003 (f. 180) | | | Agreement 1701-2002, 14/09/2002 Being unable to prove notification, it notifies the agreement again (f. 167 and 168) | | Agreement 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rejects the request for an extension (prórroga) (f. 183 and 184) | | | Name71791 Again requests recognition of the status of "occupant" (ocupante) and "possessor" (poseedora) 26/05/2003 (f. 181 and 182) | | Name71791 Files reconsideration (reconsideración), revocation (revocatoria) and subsidiary appeal (apelación subsidiaria) remedies 17/06/2003 (f.188 and 189) | | | Agreement 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rejects request for recognition of the status of occupant (ocupante) and possessor (poseedora) (f. 183 and 184) | | | | | Name71791 Files reconsideration (reconsideración), revocation (revocatoria) and subsidiary appeal (apelación subsidiaria) remedies 17/06/2003 (f.190 a 192) | | | | | 195)Agreement 1762-2003, 07/07/2003 Rejects revocation (revocatoria) and admits the appeal (apelación) before the TCA (f.194 and 195) | | | | | October 1, 2007 Mayor sends the administrative file to the TCA (f. 211) | | | | From the foregoing, it is clear that it is *two municipal agreements* that are submitted to the knowledge of this Court, acting as an improper hierarch (jerarca impropio), under the terms of articles 173 of the Constitution and 156 of the Municipal Code, admitted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita, the first by agreement 1614-2001, of September 3, two thousand one —regarding the one adopted under item 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June 19, two thousand—, and the second in session 1762-2003, of July 7, two thousand three —in relation to point 8 of item 4, article 4 of ordinary session 1756-2003, of July 9, two thousand three. It is noted that the two challenged municipal acts are challenged insofar as the Council rejected the request of the representatives of the corporation Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima for recognition of the status of occupant (ocupante) of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre).

**IV.- ON THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE AS A PUBLIC DOMAIN ASSET (BIEN DEMANIAL) AND ITS USE REGIME.-** Insofar as the appeal filed relates to the *regulatory regime of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre)*, a brief overview of it is necessary. Throughout the history of humanity, the great economic, commercial, and also security importance —as regards national defense— that the coast holds for any country or state organization has been noted. Thus, with respect to our country, since colonial times, the coastline has remained destined for public use. The foregoing is reflected in the various normative provisions that have governed this asset in our legal system throughout history, which began to take shape in the colonial era with the Real Cédula of October 15, seventeen hundred fifty-four, and in Costa Rica as an independent country, began in the century before last, with the enactment of Decreto Ley Nº 162 of June 28, 1828, whose attachment to the State's patrimony arises only as a means of promoting and protecting the country's: fishing, maritime, and salt-harvesting activities; which is no exception in the current one —*Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), number 6043*—, in force to date, which maintained the public domain (demanialidad) status of the two hundred meters along the country's coastline; to which *was always given the designation and treatment of a public domain asset (bien demanial) (dominical, demanio or dominio público), which makes it subject to all the characteristics of public domain (demanialidad), that is, its inalienability, imprescriptibility, non-seizability, as well as subjection to the police power (poder de policía) regarding its use and exploitation*, as indicated by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 7, of fifteen hours five minutes of January 20, nineteen ninety-three:

"It is clear then, without prejudice to the aforementioned colonial-era antecedent, that from the birth of Costa Rica as an independent State, the reserve of land along both coastlines has not been part of the vacant lands (baldíos) —the reverted crown lands (tierras realengas) of the Colony— but has always been subject to a different legal regime, that proper to public domain (dominio público) assets and, therefore, not reducible to private property. In the legislation on the matter enacted throughout the 20th century —until culminating in the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone No. 6043 of March 2, 1977— the designation of public domain (dominio público) assets for the lands comprised within said zone was, obviously, maintained. As a result of 19th-century legislative evolution, the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) comprised the part of the coasts of both seas washed by the ebb and flow, extending to a distance of one mile inland. It also comprised the banks of rivers to the point where they were navigable or affected by the tides. The legislation of this century refined the extent of the zone as well as the elements that formed part of it, but *at no time denied its character as a public domain asset (bien demanial) and, consequently, its imprescriptibility and inalienability*; [...] From this brief study of the legislation concerning the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), it is easy to reach the conclusion that the 200-meter strip from the ordinary high-tide line along both coasts defined as part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) by article 9 of the current Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, has been of public domain (dominio público) —and the lands comprised therein, public domain assets (bienes demaniales)— since 1828, at least. The variations that the legislation of the last century and the present one have introduced on the matter have never disaffected these 200 meters in a generalized manner, as the legislation prior to 1942 and 1943, rather, established a greater strip in extent —the so-called maritime mile— but never smaller." (Considerando II.

(The highlighting is not from the original.)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">By virtue of the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, the maritime-terrestrial zone acquires the status of public domain property of the Nation, a consideration reinforced by Article 3.1 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas),</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Article 3.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">The following are equally national property</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">I.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Beaches and maritime zones</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and Article 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), as it textually provides:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The maritime-terrestrial zone </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> Its protection, as well as that of its natural resources, is an obligation of the State, its institutions, and all the country's inhabitants. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of this Law.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in judgments number 2000-10466 and 2002-3821; as did the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), acting as administrative head, in resolution number 128-2001, at eight o'clock on February sixteenth, two thousand one:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> Correlatively to what has been said, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">. Its protection is an obligation of the State and its institutions –including of course the corresponding Municipalities– and even of all the country's inhabitants. Its use and exploitation are subject to the provisions of Law No. 6043 on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Concordantly, national jurisprudence can be consulted, both from the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Constitutional Chamber</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> -judgments number 447-91, 1556-91, 2306-91, 1347-95, 320-96, 1345-96, 0304-98, 2006-0454 and 2007-2408-; as well as from the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> (judgment number 317-2008), and the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Superior Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo)</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> -both in the exercise of jurisdictional and administrative functions, the latter acting in its capacity as improper head of the municipalities, with reference possible, among others, to rulings 2319-94, 4322-95, 4472-95, 4353-95, 8432-98, 8864-98, 1076-2000, 128-2001, 962-2002, 35-2007, 277-2008).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">V.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Having determined the special allocation of the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is now pertinent to know precisely what goods or areas this special regime of legal protection comprises. And it is Law number 6043 itself which, in its Article 9, tells us:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the strip two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the line of the ordinary high tide (pleamar ordinaria) and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">For legal purposes, the maritime-terrestrial zone comprises maritime islands, islets, and large rocks (peñascos marítimos), as well as all land or natural formation that projects above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Isla del Coco is exempted, which shall be under the direct dominion and possession of the State, and those other islands whose dominion or administration is determined in this law or special laws.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Likewise, pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation to this Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P, of December sixteenth, nineteen seventy-seven, it encompasses:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the mangroves or saltwater forests existing on the continental or insular coastlines and estuaries (esteros) of the maritime-terrestrial territory constitute a Forest Reserve and are subject to the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) and all the provisions of this decree</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> [number 7210-A, of July nineteenth, nineteen seventy-seven]. </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Starting from the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries and the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests, when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide, the restricted zone begins</span><span style="font-family:Arial">."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">The maritime-terrestrial zone is divided into two zones: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the public zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, comprising the fifty-meter-wide strip, counted from the ordinary high tide, composed of the littoral, shore, or sea coast extending through the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">rías</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> and </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">permanent estuaries (esteros permanentes)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, up to where these are sensibly affected by the tides and present defined marine characteristics (Article 2, subsection h) of the Regulation to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, Executive Decree number 7841-P); and </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">the restricted zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, constituted by the remaining one hundred fifty meters. By virtue of the foregoing, the following are part of the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">: </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the ría</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, defined as the part of the river near its entrance into the sea, and up to where the tides reach (subsection f) of Article 2 of the cited Executive Decree number 7841-P); such that in relation to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law governing this matter, the two-hundred-meter strip adjacent to the rías is also a maritime-terrestrial zone; "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">the islets, large rocks, and other small areas and natural formations that project above the sea</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (final paragraph of Article 10 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the mangroves</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, pursuant to the provisions of Article 11 of the cited Law</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">It is also a public zone, whatever its extension, the area occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and estuaries of the national territory</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">whose incorporation into the public domain dates from nineteen forty-two, with the Water Law, a circumstance that prevents their titling by private individuals. It is noted that Article 4 of the Regulation establishes that the restricted zone in these cases begins at the vegetation line at the edge of the estuaries and the limit of the mangroves or saltwater forests, when these extend more than fifty meters from the ordinary high tide; which is of great importance, as it extends the concept of the maritime-terrestrial zone to portions of the national territory that may be located kilometers from the coast, so that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the lands adjacent to the mangrove cannot be the object of legitimate possession</span><span style="font-family:Arial">. In view of the ecological importance of the mangroves, Article 44 of the Forestry Law, in concordance with Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, requires the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to conduct the respective environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) before granting any permit for their exploitation; and, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline">the maritime islands, islets, and large rocks, and the lands and rocks that the sea leaves uncovered at low tide</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 9 of Law number 6043), a condition that had already been granted under the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Water Law, number 276</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, of August twenty-seventh, nineteen forty-two, in its Article 75, when stating</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">Islands already formed or that form in the maritime-terrestrial zone or in the navigable part of the rivers and in the rías and mouth thereof are property of the State</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and which was maintained by </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Decree-Law number 11</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, of July twenty-seventh, nineteen forty-eight, amended by number 803, of November second of the following year, in the following terms:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">confirms and proclaims National Sovereignty over the entire submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever the depth at which it is found, reaffirming the inalienable right of the Nation to all the natural riches that exist on, in, or under said shelf or platform</span><span style="font-family:Arial">";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">and subsection c) of Article 7) of the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Land and Colonization Law (Ley de Tierras y Colonización)</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, number 2825, of October fourteenth, nineteen sixty-one. It must be clarified that in the case of large rocks, the concept of the public zone applies to the entire natural formation, and in the case of islands, to the fifty meters adjacent to the high tide line, with the remaining lands considered a restricted zone (Article 10 of Law number 6043), unless a mangrove is present, in which case it is considered a public zone, as indicated above. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold">VI.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial">It is worth recalling that the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">public zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial"> has been designated for the free use, access, and transit of all; such that </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">any permit or concession, as well as the corresponding fee collection, located in the public zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone is null and void </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(as resolved in administrative resolution number 6424-97, at nine o'clock on April seventeenth, nineteen ninety-seven, by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal), except for those that have a public purpose, such as </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">the construction of industrial plants, sport or artisanal fishing installations, port works, mariculture programs, or other similar establishments or installations, ...</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" </span><span style="font-family:Arial">(Article 18 of Law 6043);</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">whose location near the sea is indispensable for their proper functioning. In any case, they must have the due authorizations from MOPT, INVU, ICT, and the respective municipality, attending, in all cases and at all times, </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"[...] </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">to the public use for which they are intended, or that it involves the establishment and operation of state tourist facilities of clear convenience for the country</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (first paragraph of Article 22 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">Likewise, in the case of the natural resource contained in the public zone, it is warned that flora and fauna cannot be exploited, nor trees cut or products extracted from the coast, except with the due authorization -permit or concession-, in this case, from the Wildlife Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, subject to a prior environmental impact assessment, pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the respective municipalities to facilitate beach access for the enjoyment and transit of people, so that the local government must prevent any limiting action that impedes this free access to the beaches. This oversight function also concerns the eviction of invaders, and even the destruction or demolition of constructions, installations, or works carried out, whether they are simple fences, shanties, sales stands, or dwelling houses, without any liability (as considered by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section, in resolution number 7900-98). In accordance with Article 39 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, concessions can only be granted in the </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">restricted zone of the maritime-terrestrial zone</span><span style="font-family:Arial">, in charge of the municipalities (Article 40 of the cited Law); </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">except in cases where there is a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) -forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, natural monuments- which, in accordance with Article 32 of the Organic Environmental Law and Article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, are under the administration of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. </span><span style="font-family:Arial">Thus, according to the provisions of the indicated regulations, it is clear that municipalities lose their competence regarding the management and administration of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural resources (biodiversity in flora and fauna) found within the limits of protected wilderness areas. In this regard, the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) has pronounced in various opinions, including Opinion C-174-87, of September 8, 1987, in which it was considered that the term "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">equivalent reserves</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" used in Article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law was comprehensive of forest reserves, protective zones, national wildlife refuges, and protective zones, and that they form the concept of the State's natural patrimony.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">VII.- REGARDING THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY'S REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF OCCUPANT STATUS.- </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> </span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Pursuant to the given considerations, it is clear that with the current situation, the area having been declared a </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Playa Hermosa National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">, based on Executive Decree number 30.344-MINAE, of March thirteenth, two thousand two, published in La Gaceta number 92, of May fifteenth, two thousand two, the strip of land the appellant company intends to "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">occupy</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" in the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is evident that the Municipality of Parrita </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">lost all competence to administer it, as its supervision corresponds rather to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, and where the granting of any permit or concession over it is impossible; nor is it possible to claim any acquired right (derecho adquirido) or consolidated legal situation (situación jurídica consolidada), as the appellant intends, and with that, the violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law and Article 34 of the Political Constitution.</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt"> It should be remembered that since time immemorial, this is a public domain property, regarding which it is not legally possible to claim the right of possession, and much less of occupancy, as its exploitation is reserved for the granting of permits and concessions. Additionally, it is noted that there is no pronouncement from the respondent Municipality or judicial ruling recognizing the appellant company's condition as an occupant, nor does it fall under the legal assumptions for making such a declaration. As reasoned by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment number 1997-02765, at fifteen hours three minutes on May twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-seven</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.4pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial">"</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">The concepts of «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">acquired right</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» and «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">consolidated legal situation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» appear closely related in constitutional doctrine. It is feasible to affirm that, in general terms, the former denotes that consummated circumstance in which a thing –material or immaterial, be it a previously alien good or a previously non-existent right– has entered into (or impacted upon) the person's patrimonial sphere, such that the person experiences a verifiable advantage or benefit. For its part, the «</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">consolidated legal situation</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">» represents not so much a patrimonial surplus, but a state of things fully defined in terms of its legal characteristics and its effects, even if these have not yet been extinguished. The relevant aspect regarding the consolidated legal situation, precisely, is not whether those effects still endure or not, but that –by virtue of a legal mandate or a judgment that has so declared– a clear and defined rule has already emerged into the legal life, connecting a factual premise (conditioning fact) with a given consequence (conditioned effect). From this perspective, the person's situation is given by a logical proposition of the type «if..., then...»; that is to say: if the conditioning fact has occurred, then the «consolidated legal situation» implies that the conditioned effect must necessarily also occur. In both cases (acquired right or consolidated legal situation), the legal system protects –rendering it intangible– the situation of the person who obtained the right or enjoys the situation, for reasons of equity and legal certainty. In this case, </span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">the constitutional guarantee of non-retroactivity of the law translates into the certainty that a change in the legal system cannot have the consequence of removing the good or the right already acquired from the person's patrimony, or of causing that if the factual premise had occurred prior to the legal reform, the (advantageous, it is understood) consequence that the interested party expected from the consolidated legal situation no longer arises</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic">. Now, specifically regarding the latter, it has also been understood that no one has a «right to the immutability of the legal system», that is, that the rules never change. Therefore, the constitutional precept does not consist in that, once born into legal life, the rule connecting the fact with the effect cannot be modified or even suppressed by a subsequent norm; what it means is that –as explained– if the conditioning assumption has occurred, a legal reform that changes or eliminates the rule cannot have the virtue of preventing the conditioned effect that was expected under the rule of the previous norm from arising. This is so because, it was said, what is relevant is that the state of things enjoyed by the person was already defined in terms of its elements and its effects, even if these are still being produced or, even, have not begun to be produced. In this way, what the person is entitled to is the consequence, not the rule.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">" (The underlining is not from the original.)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-style:italic"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">Finally, it must be taken into account that the figures of "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">settlers (pobladores)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" and "</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">occupants (ocupantes)</span><span style="font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt">" are provided for in Article 75 and Transitory Provision VII of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law as two exceptions to the parameters of private use in the maritime-terrestrial zone, conferring a</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> priority right in the concession granting process.</span></p> Regarding the first group (*pobladores*), it includes those persons who already had a lot in the maritime mile before the enactment of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, that is, before nineteen seventy-seven, and who had been occupying it for more than ten years, in a quiet, public, and peaceful manner, under the terms of the aforementioned numeral 75:

"*Pobladores* of the maritime terrestrial zone, Costa Ricans by birth, with more than ten years of residence therein, according to information from the local Rural Guard authority or certification from the Electoral Registry regarding the applicant's domicile, may continue in possession of their respective lots, provided it is their only property." Thus, persons who qualify as *pobladores* may remain on the lands they were occupying at the time the Law on the matter came into force, and for this reason, they are subject to the payment of rent for the strip of land occupied. It must be kept in mind that the law under discussion itself provides for the possibility of their relocation, with due compensation, when the respective regulatory plan (*plan regulador*) is enacted, in the event their use is not in conformity with that provided for in said regulation; given that "... they shall be subject to the planning of the zone, for which purpose they may be relocated and compensated for their improvements in accordance with this law. In any case, the public zone must be respected." (Final paragraph of the cited Article 75.)

Regarding "occupants" (*ocupantes*), they are those persons who, without meeting the condition of *pobladores*, have occupied the restricted zone of the maritime terrestrial zone, in an unauthorized manner, prior to the effectiveness of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, by virtue of which; they hold no permit whatsoever, and the law itself authorizes the municipalities to charge them a canon (*canon*). It is interesting that the law itself recognizes a priority right for them in the granting of future concessions, once the respective coastal regulatory plan has been approved; hence, under equal conditions, the administration must prefer to grant the concession to whomever has possessed in a quiet, public, peaceful, and continuous manner—that is, without the possibility of its transmission *inter vivos* or *mortis causa*—over the restricted zone and without involving improvements. This Court pronounced on this figure in judgment number 277-2008, at fifteen hours ten minutes on August twenty-eighth, two thousand eight, stating that "(T)he legislator did not intend to consolidate such figure permanently, but rather a simple tolerance, as long as its conformity with the legal system is produced, in other words, the category of *ocupante* is used temporarily while the granting of the concession is legally possible. This figure (*ocupante*) has been the subject of multiple interpretations, since it is not harmonized with the cited Law, which has given rise to flawed practices and illicit businesses. The legal nature of the *ocupante* is that of a right in precario and therefore they could never be confused with or claim rights that only a property owner can have, since these, by their condition, do not require a concession. Neither can they be treated as lessees of the maritime terrestrial zone, since they are an express subject of regulation pursuant to Transitory Provisions I and II of the supra-cited norm, given that in their case, it is not about the concession contract but about the extension of lease contracts prior to its enactment, which must be modified in accordance with the laws in force. They also cannot and must not be confused with those persons who entered the public domain zone clandestinely, since after this Law, such action is prohibited pursuant to its Article 12. We must, then, conclude that the *ocupante* is that person who was located in the restricted zone of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone and who, at the moment Law 6043 of March 2, 1977 came into force, did not have a lease contract in their favor." Finally, and no less importantly, the two indicated figures—*poblador* and *ocupante*—are provided exclusively in relation to natural persons (*personas físicas*), thus excluding legal persons, in consideration that it was provided for those who had no other place to reside; a condition that cannot be attributed to legal fictions; for which reason, it also excludes its transmission, whether *inter vivos* or *mortis causa*. Having said the foregoing, it follows that the condition of *ocupante* cannot generate any property right or right of possession whatsoever, since the maritime terrestrial zone, being part of the public domain, cannot be the object of possession nor be prescribed positively with the passage of time, as provided in Article 7 of Law number 6043. This characteristic of imprescriptibility results in the legal impossibility of exercising possession over the strip of inalienable land, so this norm, when it grants preeminence for granting a concession, refers clearly and expressly to the *ocupante* of the land who had possessed it in a quiet, public, peaceful, and continuous manner. Requirements which, for the case at hand, are easy to verify. (For further elaboration, interested parties are referred to the considerations given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 317-F-2008, at nine hours ten minutes on May second, two thousand eight.)

**VIII.-** With which, as the applicant is a legal entity (*sociedad jurídica*), which, according to its allegations, has been exercising possession of the property since the nineteen-seventies, this made impossible in the year two thousand any recognition of the condition of *ocupante* it claims; a circumstance that obliges this Court to confirm the decision given by the Council in the agreement adopted in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, for not meeting the legal prerequisites for the grant of such declaration.

**IX.- THE REGULATION OF THE CHALLENGE REGIME OF MUNICIPAL ACTS.-** In relation to the challenge of point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, it must first be recalled that the challenge regime for municipal decisions has special legislation. Thus, pursuant to the regulations contained in Title VI of the Municipal Code, called "Appeals against Municipal Acts", which comprises Articles 153 to 163, a system was designed that has been described "as a stepladder", which implies that, those dictated by officials who depend on the Mayor, are subject to a motion for reconsideration (revocatoria) with appeal before the latter, and against what the latter decides, the same remedies proceed: a motion for reconsideration with subsidiary appeal before the Council, an action which, in turn, has a motion for reconsideration and appeal before the Administrative Litigation Court (*Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo*), it being convenient to clarify that the latter acts as an improper hierarchical superior, that is, exercising materially administrative and not jurisdictional function, as derived from the Minutes of the National Constituent Assembly and subsequently confirmed by the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment number 2005-06866, at fourteen hours thirty-seven minutes on June first, two thousand five. Likewise, it must be kept clearly in mind that the provisions contained in the General Law of Public Administration are applicable in the species, with respect to principles, and in a subsidiary manner, in the face of silence or gaps in this special normative body.

**X.- THE IMPROCEDENCE OF THE FORMULATED APPEAL.-** The formulated appeal is openly unfounded, and must be rejected outright, for not being admissible pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph b) of Article 154 of the Municipal Code, which literally provides:

"Any municipal agreement shall be subject to remedies of motion for reconsideration and appeal except:

(...)

b.) Those of mere procedure for the execution, confirmation, or ratification of previous ones and those expressly or implicitly consented to." It is convenient to recall that the request to formally recognize the condition of *ocupante* or possessor to Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, has been the object of analysis and pronouncement by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita on several occasions. Thus:

**a.)** For the first time, before a proceeding made by Nombre71791, in her capacity as general attorney-in-fact of the appellant company, on December tenth, nineteen ninety-nine (folio 81 to 83), in an agreement adopted in Matter 2, subsection 2), article three of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June fifth, two thousand (at folios 100 to 108), which rejects the request, on the basis of a detailed study of the applicable regulations –Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law, number 6043-, and numerous pronouncements of the Attorney General's Office; concluding that the petitioner –Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima- does not meet the prerequisites to qualify as such, because it concerns natural persons, because it does not reside at the site, and because the condition is not transmissible. It is convenient to note that this decision was challenged by the legal representative of the company Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, by filing a motion for reconsideration and a subsidiary appeal, as derived from the complaint the interested party filed before the Ombudsman's Office -official letter 06449-2001-DHR, at folios 127 to 132-, due to omission in its resolution; the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Authority, by agreement number 1 subsection 19 of article four of ordinary session number 1614-2001, of September third, two thousand one (at folios 134 and 135). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the administrative file having been presented before this Court on October first of that same year (folio 140), the Municipality did not process the prevention notice that was made to it –by order at fifteen hours twelve minutes on October twenty-fourth, two thousand one, at folio 145- for its receipt; which was again remitted to this Office on October first, two thousand seven (at folio 211). Said appeal is resolved in this act.

**b.)** For the second time, before a new proceeding performed on September twenty-sixth, two thousand two, by the appellant company, on this occasion, in the person of its general attorney-in-fact, Nombre71798 (folio 81 to 83), in agreement number 2, article four of session 1695-2002, of September sixteenth, two thousand two, which ordered to maintain what was resolved on the matter in ordinary session 1516-2000, Matter No. 2, Subsection 2), Article three of June 5, 2000, in which this same request was rejected (folios 163 and 164). Against this decision, the company filed a motion for reconsideration and a subsidiary appeal, the first being admitted, since there was no record of the notification date of the act to which the complainant was referred; the proceedings being reinitiated, so that the immediate notification of the Agreement adopted in session 1516-2000 was ordered. There is no record in the case file that, once the legal representatives of Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima became aware of that decision, they challenged it; with which, notwithstanding the allegation by the attorney-in-fact of the interested company, of ignorance prior to this new notification, it must be understood that the appeal it filed against the indicated agreement, admitted before this Court, pursuant to the agreement of session 1614-2001, which, it is reiterated, is resolved in this act, subsisted.

**c.)** For the third time, before a third requirement formulated, again by Mrs. Nombre71791, on May twenty-sixth, two thousand three (at folios 181 and 182), by agreement number 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, matter 8 (folios 183 to 187), which again rejected the request, for failing to meet the legal prerequisites to make such a declaration, which, it should be noted, are identical reasons to those put forward on the first occasion.

Against this decision, the remedies of motion for reconsideration and appeal are formulated (folios 190 to 192), the first being rejected and the second admitted before this Court, by agreement number 1, article four of ordinary session 1762-03, of July seventh, two thousand three (folios 194 and 195); and it is the act intended to be reviewed in this instance.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the agreement contained in point 8 matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three, submitted to the knowledge of this Court on October first, two thousand seven, it is reiterated, in the exercise of the materially administrative function, when acting as improper hierarchical superior of the Municipalities by legal mandate (relationship of Articles 156 of the Municipal Code and 84 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, applicable to the *sub judice* pursuant to Transitory Provision IV of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code)-, is inadmissible, by legal mandate –subparagraph b) of Article 154 of the Municipal Code-, as it concerns, as already explained, a reiteration of previous acts of the Council. In light of which, this Court understands that the Council was wrong to admit the appeal formulated.

**POR TANTO:** The agreement adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Parrita in matter 3 subsection 3) article four of ordinary session number 1516-2000, of June nineteenth, two thousand, is confirmed; with respect to which the administrative channel is considered exhausted.

The appeal is declared wrongly admitted in relation to the challenge brought against point 8, matter 4, article four of ordinary session number 1756-2003, of June ninth, two thousand three.

**Nombre5180** **Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** **Nombre632**

No. 328-2009-II.

SECCIÓN SEGUNDA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Dirección01 , a las once horas cuarenta minutos del diecinueve de agosto del dos mil nueve.

Apelación Municipal que formula Nombre71791 , mayor, viuda, cédula de identidad número CED53308, vecina de San Antonio de Desamparados, San José, en su condición de apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima contra los acuerdos adoptados por el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Parrita en el asunto 3 inciso 3), artículo cuarto, de la sesión ordinadia número 1519-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil y el punto 8 del asunto número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1756-2003, celebrada el nueve de junio del dos mil tres. Actúa como apoderado especial administrativo y judicial de Nombre71792 , casado, piloto aviador, cédula número CED53309, vecino de Curridabat y Nombre71793 , soltero, ingeniero civil, cédula número CED53310, vecino de Desamparados, en su condición de Presidente y Tesorero, respectivamente, con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de la sociedad apelante, Nombre71794 , casado, abogado y notario, cédula CED48230, vecino de Dirección1358 . Todos son mayores.

Redacta la Juez Fernández Brenes; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tienen por demostrados los siguientes extremos de interés: 1.) Que el diez de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada generalísima sin límite de suma de la empresa Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, presentó gestión ante la Municipalidad de Parrita, para que se le acreditara el estatus de ocupante de un terreno ubicado en la zona restringida del sector costero de Punta Mala, distrito único -Parrita-, cantón noveno -Parrita-, Provincia de Puntarenas, que colinda con el inmueble inscrito en matrícula de folio real número Placa11652, a nombre de su representada, en el Partido de Puntarenas, por haber venido ocupándola en forma quieta, continua, pacífica y pública desde mil novecientos cuarenta y seis (folios 81 a 83); 2.) Que el diez de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, la señora Nombre71791 , a nombre de su representada, presesentó solicitud de concesión en sesenta y tres hectáreas dos mil novecientos cincuenta y dos metros cuadrados veintiún decímetros cuadrados, indicando que el uso queda sujeto a la zonificación y reglamentación del plan regulador (folio 84); 3.) Que el doce de mayo del dos mil, solicitó al Concejo autorización para elaborar plan regulador en el sector costero de Punta Mala, distrito único -Parrita-, cantón noveno -Parrita-, Provincia de Puntarenas, concretamente, del mojón 581 al 500, y del 94 al 84; a cargo de la empresa consultora Ipsilón, Sociedad Anónima, contratado por ella (folio 92); 4.) Que en escrito del doce de mayo del dos mil, la señora Nombre71791 advierte la omisión de respuesta a sus gestiones anteriores -reconocimiento formal de estatus de ocupante y solicitud de concesión- (folios 93 a 97); 5.) Que en acuerdo adoptado en el asunto 2 inciso 2), artículo tercero de la sesión ordinaria número 1515-2000, del cinco de junio del dos mil, el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Parrita conoció del informe 010, del primero de junio del dos mil, de la Comisión Zona Marítimo Terrestre, y decidió: "1. Esta Municipalidad acuerda mantener la solicitud de Ketama S.A. hasta que se confeccione el Plan Regulador, a fin de no dar por rechazada de plano su solicitud. Se le advierte que inmediatamente después de confeccionado el Plan Regulador debe presentar el anteproyecto respectivo adecuado al uso o zonificación del terreno. 2. Denegar la solicitud de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina respecto a que se le acredite el status de ocupante. 3. Mantener la solicitud de Concesión (sic) de la sociedad Agropecuaria Hilda Marina a fin de no dar por rechazada de plano su solicitud de Concesión (sic). Se le advierte que inmediatamente después de confeccionado el Plan Regulador debe presentar el anteproyecto respectivo adecuado al uso o zonificación del terreno. 4. Se les advierte a ambos solicitantes que la ocupación no autorizada conforme a la ley es prohibida (art. 12 ley No. 6043) y sancionada (art. 13 y 63). 5. Comuníquese a Ketama S.A. y a Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A. dentro del plazo de tres días después de aprobado firme este acuerdo. 6. Se les advierte que contra los acuerdos del Concejo caben los recursos correspondientes que establecen las leyes, en especial el Código Municipal" (folios 100 al 106); 6.) Que el veinticuatro de junio dos mil, Nombre71791 , en su condición de personera de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, solicitó formal otorgamiento de permiso de uso sobre la totalidad del área en que había solicitado la concesión, en atención a la declaratoria de aptitud no turística del Instituto Costarricense de Turismo -en sesión número 4098, artículo 2, inciso 3, del veintiséis de febrero del dos mil, publicado en La Gaceta número 25, del cuatro de febrero del dos mil-, para la debida conservación de la zona (folios 107 y 108); 7.) Que por acuerdo dado en el asunto 3 inciso 3), artículo cuarto, de la sesión ordinaria número 1519-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil, el Concejo conoce del informe de la Comisión de Zona Marítimo Terrestre en sesión 012 del quince de junio de ese año, y decide denegar la solicitud planteada por la señora Nombre71791 para que se le autorizara la confección del Plan Regulador en el sector Costero de Punta Judas, por considerar que es materia reglamentaria cuya confección compete exclusivamente a los gobiernos locales, siendo el ejercicio de esta potestad, indelegable, decisión que le fue notificada a la interesada por oficio Placa11653, del veintisiete de junio del dos mil, mediante fax el tres de julio del dos mil (folios 110 y 111); 8.) Que el seis de julio del dos mil, la señora Nombre71791 formuló recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra el acuerdo adoptado por el Concejo de Parrita en sesión número 1519-2000, asunto número 3, inciso 3), artículo cuarto del diecinueve de junio del dos mil (folios 114 a 118); 9.) Que en asunto número 3, artículo segundo de la sesión ordinaria número 1523-2000, del siete de julio del dos mil, el Concejo ordenó al Alcalde accionar para que, en el plazo de los cinco días siguientes, realice una inspección en los terrenos objeto de esta litis, para verificar si están siendo ocupados o invadidos por alguien, por no haber mediado permiso ni concesión alguna sobre ellos (folios 119 y 120); 10.) Que el doce de julio del dos mil, Nombre71795 , encargado de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, realizó la inspección ordenada por el Concejo Municipal, y constató que en la las tierras estaban "ocupadas", al residir en ellas peones de la familia Nombre71792, quienes se encargaban de realizar labores de mantenimiento, tanto en la finca inscrita como en la zona marítimo terrestre, existiendo una construcción en la zona restringida (folios 123 a 125); 11.) Que ante oficio número 06449-2001, que es informe final con recomendación de la Defensoría de los Habitantes ante queja presentada por Nombre71796 en representación de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Parrita, en acuerdo número 1 inciso 19 del artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1614-2001, del tres de setiembre del dos mil uno, conoce informe de la Comisión de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre de sesión 14, del tres de setiembre de ese año, y rechaza los recursos de revocatoria que había formulado Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima contra los puntos 1 y 2 del acuerdo 1516-2000, del cinco de junio del dos mil, y eleva la apelación para ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo; y deniega la solicitud de uso de suelo presentada por Nombre71797 (folios 134 y 135); 12.) Que el primero de octubre del dos mil uno, el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Parrita envía el expediente administrativo ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, para conocer de la impugnación de los puntos 1 y 2 del Acuerdo adoptado en sesión ordinaria 1516-2000 (folio 140); 13.) Que por memorial fechado el primero de octubre del dos mil uno, Nombre54972 , en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, presenta recursos de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio contra el acuerdo 1 inciso 9, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1614-2001, del tres de setiembre del dos mil uno, en tanto denegó el permiso de uso de suelo (folios 141 a 143); 14.) Que en memorial del veintinueve de octubre del dos mil uno, Nombre71795 encargado de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, pone en conocimiento del Alcalde, la resolución de las quince horas doce minutos del veinticuatro de octubre de ese año de la Juez Instructora de la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, por el que se devuelve el expediente a su origen para que, previo a la tramitación de la apelación formulada -contra acuerdo 1516-2000-, emplace y prevenga a las partes a señalar lugar oír notificaciones (folios 145 y 150); 15.) Que en acuerdo 2 inciso 1), artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1628-2001, del cinco de noviembre del dos mil uno, el Concejo admite la revocatoria formulada, en relación a la denegatoria del permiso de uso, incluido en la sesión por error (folios 152 y 153); 15.) Que el quince de mayo del dos mil dos se publicó en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, el Decreto Ejecutivo número 30.344-MINAE, del trece de marzo del dos mil dos, por el que se amplía el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa-Punta Mala, cuya delimitación territorial, en lo que interesa es la siguiente: "a) Sector continental: la zona que comprende los 50 metros de la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre entre las coordenadas Lambert Costa Rica Sur 391 850 050 E, que corresponde al mojón IGN 500 en los límites de la fina propiedad de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A.; b) Sector continental: la zona que comprende el área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre entre las coordenadas Lamber 400 660 E -389 135 N Sector Playa Hermosa, y los mojones 581, 545 y 500, según numeración IGN, que corresponden, respectivamente a las 227 N - 404 096 E. 385 945 N - 404 250 E NIE36 - 405 956 E, contíguas a la finca propiedad de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S. A. en Playa Punta Mala." (folio 156); 16.) Que el nueve de setiembre del dos mil dos, Nombre71798 , en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, alegando la falta de respuesta de la Municipalidad de Parrita, pide se resuelva la gestión de formal declaratoria de ocupante que había formulado en diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, y solicita la autorización de realizar el plan regulador respectivo (folio 161); 17.) Que por acuerdo número 2, artículo cuarto de la sesión 1695-2002, del dieciséis de setiembre del dos mil dos, el Concejo dispuso: "1.- Aprobar la solicitud de la señora Nombre71799 en su Condición (sic) de apoderada especial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A, para la contratación de una empresa que realice los estudios y elaboración de un Plan Regulador para el sector de Punta Mala, Esterillos, el cual deberá obtener las aprobaciones correspondientes ante el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo antes de ser conocido y aprobado por esta Municipalidad. 2.- En cuanto al otorgamiento del Status (sic) de ocupante solicitado por Nombre71799 en su Condición (sic) de apoderada especial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, S.A, esta Municipalidad mantiene lo resuelto sobre el particular en sesión ordinaria 1516-2000, asunto No. 2, Inciso 2), Artículo tercero del 05 de junio del 2000, en el cual se rechazó esa misma solicitud." (folios 163 y 164); 18.) Que en escrito presentado a la Municipalidad de Parrita el veintiséis de setiembre siguiente, Nombre71798 , en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, formula recursos de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio contra el punto 2 de la decisión anterior, alegando que el acuerdo de sesión ordinaria 1516-2000, asunto No. 2, Inciso 2), Artículo tercero del 05 de junio del 2000 no le fue debidamente notificado, por lo que se trata de un acto ineficaz que no ha producido efectos jurídicos, al ser de contenido negativo; por lo que requiere se enderecen los procedimientos (folio 165); 19.) Que por acuerdo número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1701-20002, del catorce de octubre del dos mil dos, ante la falta de precisión para acreditar la notificación realizada, el Concejo admite la revocatoria, y ordena notificar a la interesada el acuerdo 1516-2000 (folios 167 y 168); 20.) Que en memorial fechado el nueve de setiembre del dos mil dos, Nombre71798 , en su condición de apoderado especial judicial de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, reitera la solicitud de permiso de uso sobre la totalidad del área oportunamente solicitada en concesión, que hiciera desde el diecinueve de junio del dos mil (folio 169); 21.) Que por decisión número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1708-2002, del once de noviembre del dos mil dos, el Concejo rechazó otorgar el permiso de uso de suelo, por estimar que es un acto discrecional, y da un plazo de seis meses para presentar el anteproyecto del plan regulador autorizado (folios 170 y 171); 22.)Que ante requerimiento de la Municipalidad de Parrita sobre los avances del proyecto de Plan Regulador para el sector de Punta Mala; el quince de mayo del dos mil tres, Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada generalísima de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, rinde de informe de labores, y solicita una prórroga de seis meses más para completar el trabajo (Acuerdo número 5, artículo cuarto, de la sesión ordinaria del Concejo número 1723-2003, del tres de febrero del dos mil tres, folios 176 y 177, informe a folio 180); 23.) Que el veintiséis de agosto del dos mil ocho, Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada generalísima de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima pide reconocimiento formal de su condición de ocupante y poseedora de la zona marítimo terrestre, en los terrenos ubicados entre la desembocadura del río Tulín, siguiendo al sur, pasando por Punta Judas, Punta Mala y el sector de Caletas, y colindando con la propiedad de Nombre71800 y familia; que son terrenos adyacentes a las fincas de su representada, en atención a su ocupación personal desde mil novecientos cuarenta y seis, luego con su esposo Nombre71801 y a partir de mil novecientos setenta, se traspasó a la sociedad que ha sido dueña y administradora de los bienes de la familia (folios 181 y 182); 24.) Que en por acuerdo número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres, el Concejo conoce del dictamen de la Comisión de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre 007-2003, y decide: en el asunto 7 rechazar la solicitud de prórroga de seis meses para la presentación del anteproyecto del Plan Regulador que solicita Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima; y en el asunto 8 rechazar la solicitud de esa misma sociedad para que se le reconozca y otorgue el estatus de ocupante y poseedora de los terrenos ubicados entre la desembocadura del río Tulín, siguiendo al sur, pasando por Punta Judas, Punta Mala y el sector de Caletas, y colindando con la propiedad de Nombre71800 (folios 183 a 187); 25.) Que el diecisiete de junio del dos mil tres, Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada generalísima de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima presentó recursos de reconsideración, revocatoria y apelación subsidiaria contra el asunto 7 de la decisión anterior, en cuanto denegó la prórroga solicitada para terminar el anteproyecto del plan regulador de la zona de Punta Mala, alegando que existen razones que le han impedido su culminación; ya que, que al no habérsele otorgado la condición de ocupante -según su gestión-, se encuentra impedida para terminar la obra, porque no le corre plazo, ya que necesariamente requiere saber el estatus legal del terreno para así determinar la posible zonificación, siendo que su condición de ocupante es anterior a la publicación del citado decreto del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, no podría afectarle en su perjuicio por irretroactividad de la normativa, siendo que goza de un derecho adquirido y consolidado; no pudiendo la Municipalidad, en consecuencia, negarle la prórroga solicitada (folios 188 y 189); 26.) Que el diecisiete de junio del dos mil tres, Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada generalísima de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima presentó recursos de reconsideración, revocatoria y apelación subsidiaria contra el asunto 8 de la decisión anterior, en cuanto le rechazó la condición de ocupante y poseedor, por estimar que es la única persona que puede ostentar dicha condición, al haber ocupado la franja de terreno desde mil novecientos cuarenta y seis; siendo que si la Municipalidad le reconoce su derecho, éste sería anterior a la publicación del Decreto del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, por lo que no podría afectarle en su perjuicio, de acuerdo al artículo 34 de la Constitución Política, ya que se trata de un derecho adquirido y una situación jurídica consolidada; motivo por el que pide: que se le reconozca el derecho de ocupante que reclama sobre la franja de terreno que ha cuidado y en la que ha invertido tiempo y dinero (folios 190 a 192); y, 27.) Que por acuerdo número 1, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1762-03, del siete de julio del dos mil tres, el Concejo rechazó el recurso de revocatoria formulado contra el asunto 8 del acuerdo número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres, al estimar que el rechazo del reconocimiento de la condición de ocupante está debidamente motivada; por lo que admitió la apelación para ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (folios 194 y 195).

II.- DE LOS MOTIVOS DE LA IMPUGNACIÓN.- La socieda Agropecuaria Nombre71791 , Sociendad Anónima impugna dos acuerdos municipales: el Asunto 3 inciso 3), artículo cuarto, de la sesión ordinadia número 1519-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil y; el Punto 8 del asunto 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1756-2003, celebrada el nueve de junio del dos mil tres. Con esta impugnación se pretende la revocatoria de los mismos, para que en lugar se ordene a la Municipalidad de Parrita que reconozca a esa entidad y a la señora Nombre71791 el estatus de poseedor y ocupante de las tierras ubicadas entre la desembocadura del río Tulín, siguiendo al sur, pasando por Punta Judas, Punta Mala y el sector de Caletas, y colindando con la propiedad de Nombre71800 y familia, que colinda con el inmueble inscrito en matrícula de folio real número Placa11652, a nombre de su representada, en el Partido de Puntarenas, en la zona restringida del sector costero de Punta Mala, distrito único -Parrita-, cantón noveno -Parrita-, Provincia de Puntarenas; por haber venido ocupándola en forma quieta, continua, pacífica y pública desde mil novecientos cuarenta y seis en forma personal, luego con su esposo Nombre71801 y a partir de mil novecientos setenta, se traspasó a la sociedad que ha sido dueña y administradora de los bienes de la familia, es decir, con anterioridad a la promulgación y vigencia de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, número 6043, de mil novecientos setenta y siete, que reconoce –en el artículo 44- un derecho de prioridad para el otorgamiento de concesiones, a quienes hubiesen poseído en las condiciones indicadas. Advierte que la Municipalidad recurrida rechazó su solicitud bajo la única estimación de tratarse de una persona jurídica, en tanto entendió que tal estatus sólo es aplicable respecto de personas físicas, lo que no está contenido en la referida ley, infringiéndose con ello, el principio de legalidad al que está sujeto la actuación de los funcionarios públicos, conforme al artículo 11 de la Constitución Política. Advierte que con el reconocimiento formal de “ocupante” que pide, no puede afectarle en su perjuicio el decreto ejecutivo número 30.344-MINAE, publicado en La Gaceta número 92, del quince de mayo del dos mil dos, por el que se amplió el área del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa, para comprender los cincuenta metros de área pública y ciento cincuenta de la restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre de los terrenos sobre los que pidió la concesión, que colindan con la propiedad de su representada, en aplicación del principio de irretroactividad de la ley, contenido en el artículo 34 de la Constitución Política, al tratarse de un derecho patrimonial adquirido y una situación jurídica consolidada, repite, desde mil novecientos cuarenta y seis. (Folios 190 a 192 y 229 y 230.)

III.- ACTUACIONES DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD EN RELACIÓN CON LAS GESTIONES FORMULADAS POR AGROPECUARIA Nombre71791 , SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y DETERMINACIÓN DE LOS ACUERDOS IMPUGNADOS.- De un estudio pormenorizado del expediente administrativo remitido por la Municipalidad de Parrita, se observa diferentes gestiones formuladas por la aquí apelante, que además de estar relacionadas, son presentadas por personeros distintos y resultan hasta repetidas; lo que, a criterio de este Tribunal, confundió, tanto en la tramitación de las mismas, como en la decisión adoptada. Por ello, para clarificar, no sólo el objeto de la impugnación, sino de su contenido, resulta importante tener como referencia el siguiente cuadro.

Solicitud de acreditación de ocupante Solicitud de concesión Solicitud para realizar Plan Regulador Solicitud de permiso de uso Nombre71791 hace gestión 10/12/1999 (f. 81 a 83) Nombre71791 hace gestión 10/12/1999 (f. 84) Nombre71791 hace gestión 12/05/2000 (f. 92) Nombre71791 hace gestión 24/06/2000 (f. 107-108) Acuerdo 1516-2000, 05/06/2000 Rechaza solicitud por no estar en presupuesto de ley (f.100 a 108) Acuerdo 1516-2000, 05/06/2000 Reserva gestión hasta que haya plan regulador en la zona (f.100 a 108) Acuerdo 1519-2000, 19/06/2000 Rechaza solicitud para que contrate a empresa para que realice plan regulador, por ser potestad exclusiva de la Municipalidad, no indelegable (f. 110 y 111) Acuerdo 1614-2001, 03/09/2001 Denegó el permiso de uso de suelo (f. 134 y 135) Formulación de recursos de revocatoria con apelación * no hay copia del escrito en expediente; *referencia por oficio 06449-2001-DHR Defensoría, a f. 127 a 132) Formulación de recursos de revocatoria con apelación * no hay copia del escrito en expediente; *referencia por oficio 06449-2001-DHR Defensoría, a f. 127 a 132) Nombre71791 formula recursos de revocatoria y apelación 06/07/2000 (f. 114 a 118) Nombre54972 formula recursos de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio 01/10/2001 Acuerdo 1614-2001, 03/09/2001 Rechaza revocatoria y admite la apelación ante TCA (f. 134 y 135) Acuerdo 1614-2001, 03/09/2001 Rechaza revocatoria y admite la apelación ante TCA (f. 134 y 135) Nombre71798 repite solicitud para realizar plan regulador 09/09/2002 (f. 161) Acuerdo 1628-2001, 05/11/2001 Admite revocatoria, por error se incluyó lo del permiso (f. 152 y 153) 1º de octubre del 2005: Alcalde envía expediente administrativo ante TCA para conocer de la apelación admitida (folio 140) Por resolución de las 15:12 hrs. del 24 de octubre se devuele exp. a la Municipalidad para que emplace a las partes (f.145) Acuerdo 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Otorga permiso para realizar plan regulador en sector Punta Mala, Esterillos; con aprobación previa de ICT, INVU, para aprobación final de Municipalidad (f. 163 y 164) Nombre71798 , reitera solicitud de permiso de uso 09/09/2002 Nombre71798 reclama que no le han resuelto solicitud de declaración de “ocupante” 09/09/2002 (f. 161) Acuerdo 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Confiere a sociedad plazo de 6 meses para realizar anteproyecto de plan regulador (f.170 y 171) Acuerdo 1708-2002, 11/11/2002 Rechaza otorgamiento de permiso de uso, por ser acto discrecional (f.170 y 171) Acuerdo 1695-2002 16/09/2002 Remite a gestionante a acuerdo 1516-200 sobre el punto (f. 163 y 164) Acuerdo 1727-2003, 03/02/2003 Pide a sociedad informar sobre avance de obra de anteproyecto de plan regulador (f.176 y 177) Nombre71798 formula revocatoria con apelación por no habérsele notificado la decisión indicada 26/09/2002 (f. 165) Nombre71791 Rinde informe y pide prórroga de 6 meses para cumplir obra 15/05/2003 (f. 180) Acuerdo 1701-2002, 14/09/2002 Por no poder probar notificación, vuelve a notificarle acuerdo (f. 167 y 168) Acuerdo 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rechaza solicitud de prórroga (f. 183 y 184) Nombre71791 Nuevamente pide reconocimiento de condición de “ocupante” y “poseedora” 26/05/2003 (f. 181 y 182) Nombre71791 Presenta recursos de reconsideración, revocatoria y apelación subsidiaria 17/06/2003 (f.188 y 189) Acuerdo 1756-2003, 09/06/2003 Rechaza solicitud de reconocimiento de condición de ocupante y poseedora (f. 183 y 184) Nombre71791 Presenta recursos de reconsideración, revocatoria y apelación subsidiaria 17/06/2003 (f.190 a 192) 195)Acuerdo 1762-2003, 07/07/2003 Rechaza revocatoria y admite la apelación ante TCA (f.194 y 195) 1º de octubre del 2007 Alcalde envía exp. adminitrativo ante TCA (f. 211) De lo anterior, se desprende que son dos los acuerdos municipales sometidos a conocimiento de este Tribunal, actuando en calidad de jerarca impropio, en los términos de los artículos 173 constitucional y 156 del Código Municipal-, admitidos por el Concejo de la Municpalidad de Parrita, el primero por acuerdo 1614-2001, del tres de setiembre del dos mil uno -respecto del adoptado el asunto 3 inciso 3) artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1516-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil-, y el segundo en sesión 1762-2003, del siete de julio del dos mil tres -en relación con el punto 8 del asunto 4, artículo 4 de la sesión ordinaria 1756-2003, del nueve de julio del dos mil tres. Se advierte que los dos actos municipales impugnados son impugnados en cuanto el Concejo rechazó la solicitud de los personeros de la sociedad Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima del reconocimiento de la condición de ocupante de la zona marítimo terrestre.

IV.- DE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE COMO BIEN DEMANIAL Y SU RÉGIMEN DE APROVECHAMIENTO.- En tanto la apelación formulada tiene que ver con el régimen de regulación de la zona marítimo terrestre, se hace obligado una breve reseña sobre el mismo. A lo largo de la historia de la humanidad, se ha denotado la gran importancia económica, comercial y también de seguridad -en lo atinente a la defensa nacional- que tiene la costa para cualquier país u organización estatal. Así, en lo que respecta a nuestro país, desde la época colonial, el litoral ha permanecido destinado al uso público. Lo anterior se ve reflejado en las diversas disposiciones normativas que han regulado este bien en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico a lo largo de la historia, que comenzó a gestarse desde la época colonial con la Real Cédula del quince de octubre de mil setecientos cincuenta y cuatro, y en Costa Rica como país independiente, inicia en el siglo antepasado, con la promulgación del Decreto Ley Nº 162 del 28 de junio de 1828, cuya afectación al patrimonio del Estado surge solo como un medio de fomento y protección de las actividades: pesqueras, marineras y salinas del país; lo que no es excepción en la actual -Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, número 6043-, vigente hasta la fecha, que mantuvo la demanialidad de los doscientos metros a lo largo del litoral del país; al que siempre se le dio el calificativo y trato de bien demanial (dominical, demanio o de dominio público), lo cual le hace acreedora de todas las características de la demanialidad, sea, su inalienabilidad, imprescriptibilidad, inembargabilidad, así como la sujeción al poder de policía en lo relativo a su uso y aprovechamiento, como lo señaló la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en sentencia número 7, de las quince horas cinco minutos del veinte de enero de mil novecientos noventa y tres:

"Resulta claro entonces, sin demérito del antecedente de la época colonial señalado, que desde el nacimiento de Costa Rica como Estado independiente, la reserva de terreno a los largo de ambos litorales no ha sido parte de los baldíos -las tierras realengas de la Colonia- sino que siempre ha estado sometido a un régimen jurídico distinto, el propio de los bienes de dominio público y, por lo tanto, no reducibles a propiedad privada. En la legislación sobre la materia promulgada a lo largo del siglo XX -hasta culminar con la actual Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre No.6043 de 2 de marzo de 1977- se mantuvo, obviamente, el calificativo de bienes de dominio público de los terrenos comprendidos en dicha zona. Como resultado de la evolución legislativa del siglo XIX, la zona marítimo terrestre comprendía la parte de las costas de ambos mares bañadas por el flujo y reflujo, extendiéndose hasta la distancia de una milla tierra adentro. Comprendía, además, las márgenes de los ríos hasta el sitio en que fueran navegables o fueran afectados por las mareas. La legislación de este siglo fue precisando la extensión de la zona así como los elementos que formaban parte de ella, pero en ningún momento negó su carácter de bien demanial y, en consecuencia, su imprescriptibilidad e inalienabilidad; [...] De este somero estudio sobre la legislación acerca de la zona marítimo terrestre, es fácil llegar a la conclusión de que la franja de 200 metros a partir de la pleamar ordinaria a lo largo de ambas costas definida como parte de la zona marítimo terrestre por el artículo 9 de la actual Ley sobre la Zona marítimo terrestre, ha sido de dominio público -y los terrenos en ella comprendidos, bienes demaniales- desde 1828, por lo menos. Las variaciones que la legislación del siglo pasado y del presente han introducido sobre la materia nunca han desafectado en forma generalizada estos 200 metros, siendo más bien que la legislación anterior a 1942 y 1943, establecía una franja mayor en extensión -la llamada milla marítima- pero nunca menor." (Considerando II. El resaltado no es del original.)

En virtud de lo anterior, y al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 6 de la Constitución Política, la zona marítimo terrestre adquiere la condición de bien demanial de la Nación, consideración que es reforzada por el artículo 3.1 de la Ley de Aguas, "Artículo 3.- Son igualmente de propiedad nacional:

I.- Las playas y zonas marítimas"; y el artículo 1° de la Ley de la Zona marítimo terrestre, en tanto dispone textualmente:

"La zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección, así como sus recursos naturales, es obligación del Estado, de sus instituciones y de todos los habitantes del país. Su uso y aprovechamiento están sujetos a las disposiciones de esta Ley." En igual sentido, se pronunció la Sala Constitucional en sentencias número 2000-10466 y 2002-3821; así como la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso, en funciones de jerarca administrativo, en resolución número 128-2001, de las ocho horas del dieciséis de febrero del dos mil uno:

"VI.- Correlativamente a lo dicho, la zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Su protección es obligación del Estado y sus instituciones –incluidas por supuesto las Municipalidades correspondientes- e incluso de todos los habitantes del país. Su uso y aprovechamiento están sujetos a las disposiciones de la Ley No. 6043 sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre." En forma concordante puede consultarse la jurisprudencia nacional, tanto de la Sala Constitucional -sentencias número 447-91, 1556-91, 2306-91, 1347-95, 320-96, 1345-96, 0304-98, 2006-0454 y2007-2408-; como de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (sentencia número 317-2008), y del Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo -tranto en el ejercicio de la función jurisdiccional como administrativa, ésto último, actuando en su condición de jerarca impropio de las municipalidades, pudiendo consultarse entre otros, los fallos 2319-94, 4322-95, 4472-95, 4353-95, 8432-98, 8864-98, 1076-2000, 128-2001, 962-2002, 35-2007, 277-2008).

V.- Determinada la especial afectación de la zona marítimo-terrestre, interesa ahora saber con precisión, qué bienes o áreas comprende este régimen especial de tutela jurídica. Y es la misma Ley número 6043, la que en su artículo 9 nos lo indica:

"[...] la franja de los doscientos metros de ancho a todo lo largo de los litorales Atlántico y Pacífico de la República, cualquiera que sea su naturaleza, medidos horizontalmente a partir de la línea de la pleamar ordinaria y los terrenos y rocas que deje el mar al descubierto en la marea baja.

Para los efectos legales, la zona marítimo terrestre comprende las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos, así como toda tierra o formación natural que sobresalga del nivel del océano dentro del mar territorial de la República. Se exceptúa la Isla del Coco que estará bajo dominio y posesión directos del Estado y aquellas otras islas cuyo dominio o administración se determinen en la presente ley o leyes especiales." Asimismo, conforme al artículo 4 del Reglamento de esta Ley, Decreto Ejecutivo número 7841-P, del dieciséis de diciembre de mil novecientos setenta y siete, abarca:

"[...] los manglares o bosques salados que existen en los litorales continentales o insulares y esteros del territorio marítimo terrestre, constituyen Reserva Forestal y están afectados a la Ley Forestal y a todas las disposiciones ese decreto [número 7210-A, del diecinueve de julio de mil novecientos setenta y siete]. Partiendo de la línea de vegetación a la orilla de los esteros y del límite de los manglares o bosques salados cuando éstos se extiendan por más de cincuenta metros de la pleamar ordinaria, comienza la zona restringida." La zona marítimo terrestre está divida en dos zonas: la pública, que comprende la faja de cincuenta metros de ancho, contados de la pleamar ordinaria, compuesta por la litoral, orilla o costa del mar que se extiende por las rías y esteros permanentes , hasta donde éstas sean sensiblemente afectadas por las mareas, y presenten características marinas definidas (artículo 2 inciso h) del Reglamento a la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, Decreto Ejecutivo número 7841-P); y la restringida, constituida por los restantes ciento cincuenta metros. En virtud de lo anterior, son parte de la zona pública de la zona marítimo-terrestre: la ría, definida como la parte del río próxima a su entrada en el mar, y hasta donde llegan las mareas (inciso f) del artículo 2 del citado Decreto Ejecutivo número 7841-P); de manera que en relación con lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la Ley que rige esta materia, también es zona marítimo terrestre, la franja de los doscientos metros contigua a las rías; "los islotes, peñascos y demás áreas pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalgan del mar" (párrafo final del artículo 10 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); los manglares, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 11 de la citada Ley "Zona pública es también, sea cual fuere su extensión, la ocupada por todos los manglares de los litorales continentales e insulares y esteros del territorio nacional"; cuya incorporación al demanio data de mil novecientos cuarenta y dos, con la Ley de Aguas, circunstancia que impide su titulación por particulares. Se advierte que el artículo 4 del Reglamento estatuye que la zona restringida en estos casos, parte de la línea de vegetación a la orilla de los esteros y del límite de los manglares o bosques salados, cuando éstos se extiendan por más de cincuenta metros de pleamar ordinaria; lo cual es de gran importancia, por cuanto extiende el concepto de zona marítimo terrestre a porciones del territorio nacional que puede encontrarse a kilómetros de la costa, de manera que los terrenos aledaños al manglar no pueden ser objeto de posesión legítima. En atención a la importancia ecológica de los manglares, es que el artículo 44 de la Ley Forestal, en concordancia con el 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, exigen al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía la realización del respectivo estudio de impacto ambiental, previo al otorgamiento de cualquier permiso para su aprovechamiento; y, las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos y los terrenos y rocas que el mar deje al descubierto en la marea baja, conforme a lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del artículo 9 de la Ley número 6043), condición que ya había sido otorgada desde en la Ley de Aguas, número 276, de veintisiete de agosto de mil novecientos cuarenta y dos en su articulo 75, al consignar "Son propiedad del Estado las islas ya formadas o que se formen en la zona marítimo terrestre o en la parte navegable de los ríos y en las rías y desembocadura"; y que mantuvo el Decreto-Ley número 11, de veintisiete de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y ocho, reformado por el número 803, de dos de noviembre del siguiente año en los siguientes términos:

"confirma y proclama la Soberanía Nacional sobre toda la plataforma submarina o zócalo continental e insular adyacente a las costas continentales e insulares del territorio nacional, cualquiera que sea la profundidad a que éste se encuentre, reafirmando el derecho inalienable de la Nación en todas las riquezas naturales que existen sobre, en o bajo dicho zócalo o plataforma"; y el inciso c) del artículo 7) de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización, número 2825, de catorce de octubre de mil novecientos sesenta y uno. Debe aclararse que en el caso de los peñascos, se aplica el concepto de zona pública a toda la formación natural, y en el de las islas, a los cincuenta metros contiguos a la línea de pleamar, considerándose zona restringida a los demás terrenos (artículo 10 de la Ley número 6042), salvo que exista manglar, en cuyo caso, se considera como zona pública, según lo indicado anteriormente.

VI.- Conviene recordar que la zona pública ha sido destinada para el libre uso, acceso y tránsito de todos; de manera que es nula todo permiso o concesión, así como el cobro del canon respectivo que se ubique en la zona pública de la zona marítimo terrestre (como lo resolvió en resolución administrativa número 6424-97, de las nueve horas del diecisiete de abril de mil novecientos noventa y siete del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), salvo aquellas que tengan un fin público, tales como "[...] la construcción de plantas industriales, instalaciones de pesca deportiva o artesanales, de obras portuarias, programas de maricultura, u otros establecimientos o instalaciones similares, ..." (artículo 18 de la Ley 6043); cuya ubicación cerca del mar es indispensable para su debido funcionamiento. En todo caso, deben contar con las debidas autorizaciones del MOPT, INVU, ICT y la respectiva municipalidad, atendiendo, en todo caso y en todo momento, "[...] al uso público a que se destinen, o que se trate del establecimiento y operación de instalaciones turísticas estatales de notoria conveniencia para el país" (párrafo primero del artículo 22 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre).

Asimismo, tratándose del recurso natural contenido en la zona pública, se advierte que tampoco se puede explotar la flora y la fauna, cortar árboles o extraer productos de la costa, si no es con la debida autorización -permiso o concesión-, en este caso, de la Dirección de Vida Silvestre, del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, previo estudio de impacto ambiental, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Además, corresponde a las respectivas municipalidades el facilitamiento del acceso de las playas para el disfrute y tránsito de las personas, de manera que el gobierno local debe impedir cualquier acción limitativa que impida este libre acceso a las playas. Esta labor de fiscalización también concierne al desalojo de los invasores, e incluso, de destruir o demoler las construcciones, instalaciones u obras realizadas, ya sea que se trate de simples cercas, tugurios, puestos de venta, o casas de habitación, sin responsabilidad alguna (como lo consideró el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera en resolución número 7900-98). Conforme al artículo 39 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, sólo es posible otorgarse concesiones en la zona restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre, a cargo de las municipalidades (artículo 40 de la citada Ley); salvo en los supuestos en que exista un área silvestre protegida -reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, parques nacionales reservas biológicas, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, humedales, monumentos naturales- que conforme a los artículo 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y 73 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, están bajo la administración del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. Así, al tenor de lo dispuesto en las normativa indicada, queda claro que las municipalidades pierden su competencia en lo que respecta al manejo y administración de la zona marítimo terrestre y de los recursos naturales (biodiversidad en la flora y fauna) que se encuentre dentro de los límites de las áreas silvestres protegidas. En este sentido, se ha pronunciado la Procuraduría General de la República en variados pronunciamientos, en el Dictamen C-174-87, de 8 de setiembre de 1987, en que se estimó que el término "reservas equivalentes" utilizado en el artículo 73 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre era comprensivo de reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre y zonas protectoras, y que integran el concepto de patrimonio natural del Estado.

VII.- DE LA IMPROCEDENCIA DE LA SOLICITUD DE RECONOCIMIENTO DEL STATUS DE OCUPANTE A LA SOCIEDAD APELANTE.- Al tenor de las consideraciones dadas, es claro que con la situación actual, al haberse afectado como Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa, con base en el Decreto Ejecutivo número 30.344-MINAE, del trece de marzo del dos mil dos, publicado en La Gaceta número 92, del quince de mayo del dos mil dos, la franja de terreno que pretende "ocupar" en la zona marítimo terrestre la sociedad apelante, es evidente que la Municipalidad de Parrita perdió total competencia para administrarla, ya que le correspondéndo más bien al Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones su fiscalización, y donde es imposible el otorgamiento de cualquier permiso o concesión sobre la misma; sin que sea posible tampoco, alegarse ningún derecho adquirido o situación jurídica consolidada, como lo pretende la apelante, y con ello, la infracción del principio de irretroactividad de la ley y el artículo 34 de la Constitución Política. Recuérdese que desde tiempos inmemoriables, se trata de un bien de dominio público, respecto del cual, no resulta posible alegarse legítimamente el derecho de posesión, y mucho menos de ocupación, en tanto su aprovechamiento se reserva al otorgamiento de permisos y concesiones. Adicionalmente, se advierte que no existe ningún pronunciamiento de parte de la Municipalidad recurrida o fallo judicial en el que se reconozca la condición de ocupante de la sociedad apelante, ni tampoco la misma se encuentra en los supuestos de ley para realizar tal declaratoria. Conforme se razonó la Sala Constitucional en la sentencia número 1997-02765, de las quince horas tres minutos del veintisiete de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y siete "Los conceptos de «derecho adquirido" y «situación jurídica consolidada» aparecen estrechamente relacionados en la doctrina constitucionalista. Es dable afirmar que, en términos generales, el primero denota a aquella circunstancia consumada en la que una cosa –material o inmaterial, trátese de un bien previamente ajeno o de un derecho antes inexistente– ha ingresado en (o incidido sobre) la esfera patrimonial de la persona, de manera que ésta experimenta una ventaja o beneficio constatable. Por su parte, la «situación jurídica consolidada» representa no tanto un plus patrimonial, sino un estado de cosas definido plenamente en cuanto a sus características jurídicas y a sus efectos, aun cuando éstos no se hayan extinguido aún. Lo relevante en cuanto a la situación jurídica consolidada, precisamente, no es que esos efectos todavía perduren o no, sino que –por virtud de mandato legal o de una sentencia que así lo haya declarado– haya surgido ya a la vida jurídica una regla, clara y definida, que conecta a un presupuesto fáctico (hecho condicionante) con una consecuencia dada (efecto condicionado). Desde esta óptica, la situación de la persona viene dada por una proposición lógica del tipo «si..., entonces...»; vale decir: si se ha dado el hecho condicionante, entonces la «situación jurídica consolidada» implica que, necesariamente, deberá darse también el efecto condicionado. En ambos casos (derecho adquirido o situación jurídica consolidada), el ordenamiento protege –tornándola intangible– la situación de quien obtuvo el derecho o disfruta de la situación, por razones de equidad y de certeza jurídica. En este caso, la garantía constitucional de la irretroactividad de la ley se traduce en la certidumbre de que un cambio en el ordenamiento no puede tener la consecuencia de sustraer el bien o el derecho ya adquirido del patrimonio de la persona, o de provocar que si se había dado el presupuesto fáctico con anterioridad a la reforma legal, ya no surja la consecuencia (provechosa, se entiende) que el interesado esperaba de la situación jurídica consolidada. Ahora bien, específicamente en punto a ésta última, se ha entendido también que nadie tiene un «derecho a la inmutabilidad del ordenamiento», es decir, a que las reglas nunca cambien. Por eso, el precepto constitucional no consiste en que, una vez nacida a la vida jurídica, la regla que conecta el hecho con el efecto no pueda ser modificada o incluso suprimida por una norma posterior; lo que significa es que –como se explicó– si se ha producido el supuesto condicionante, una reforma legal que cambie o elimine la regla no podrá tener la virtud de impedir que surja el efecto condicionado que se esperaba bajo el imperio de la norma anterior. Esto es así porque, se dijo, lo relevante es que el estado de cosas de que gozaba la persona ya estaba definido en cuanto a sus elementos y a sus efectos, aunque éstos todavía se estén produciendo o, incluso, no hayan comenzado a producirse. De este modo, a lo que la persona tiene derecho es a la consecuencia, no a la regla." (El subrayado no es del original.)

Finalmente, debe tenerse en cuenta que las figuras del "pobladores" y "ocupantes" están dispuestos en el artículo 75 y Transitorio VII de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre como dos excepciones a los parámetros de utilización privada en la zona marítimo terrestre, que confiere un derecho de prioridad en el trámite de otorgamiento de concesiones. Por los primeros (pobladores), comprende a aquellas personas que ya tenían un lote en la milla marítima antes de la promulgación de la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, sea, antes de mil novecientos setenta y siete, que venían ocupando por más de diez años, en forma quieta, pública y tranquila, en los téminos del citado numeral 75:

"Los pobladores de la zona marítimo terrestre, costarricenses por nacimiento, con más de diez años de residencia en ella, según información de la autoridad de la Guardia Rural local o certificación del Registro Electoral sobre el domicilio del solicitante, podrán continuar en posesión de sus respectivos lotes, siempre que fuere su única propiedad." Así, las personas que califican como pobladores pueden seguir en los terrenos que ocupaban al momento de entrada en vigencia de la Ley de la materia, y por tal motivo, están sujetos al pago de arriendo la faja de terreno ocupada. Debe tenerse en cuenta que la propia ley en comentario prevé la posibilidad de que sean reubicados, con la debida indemnización, cuando el respectivo plan regulador se promulgue, en caso de no ser conforme su uso con el previsto en esa normativa; toda vez que "... deberán sujetarse a la planificación de la zona, a cuyo efecto podrán ser reubicados e indemnizadas sus mejoras de acuerdo con esta ley. En todo caso deberá respetarse la zona pública." (Párrafo final del citado artículo 75.)

Por su parte, los "ocupantes", son aquellas personas que, sin reunir la condición de pobladores, hayan ocupado la zona restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre, en forma no autorizada, con antelación a la vigencia de la Ley de la zona marítimo terrestre, en forma; en virtud de lo cual, no ostentan permiso alguno, y la misma ley les autoriza a las municipalidades para el cobro de un canon. Resulta interesante que la propia ley les reconoce un derecho de prioridad para el otorgamiento de futuras concesiones, una vez que haya sido aprobado el respectivo plan regulador costero; de donde, en igualdad de condiciones, la administración debe preferir otorgar la concesión a quien haya poseído en forma quieta, pública, pacífica, contínua -esto es, sin ser posible su transmisión intervivos o mortis causa- sobre la zona restringida y sin implicar mejoras. Sobre esta figura, se pronunció este Tribunal en sentencia número 277-2008, de las quince horas diez minutos del veintiocho de agosto del dos mil ocho, al señalar que "(E)l legislador no pretendióconsolidar tal figura de forma permanente, sino una simple tolerancia, en el tanto se produce su conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico, en otras palabras, la categoría de ocupante se utiliza de forma temporal mientras sea jurídicamente posible el otorgamiento de la concesión. Esta figura (ocupante) ha sido objeto de múltiples interpretaciones, ya que no se encuentra ajustada en armonía con la Ley de cita, lo que ha dado lugar a prácticas viciadas y negocios ilícitos. La naturaleza jurídica del ocupante, es de un derecho en precario y por tanto jamás podrían confundirse ni pretenderse derechos que solo puede tener quién es propietario, ya que estos por su condición no requieren de una concesión. Tampoco pueden tratarse como arrendatarios de la zona marítimo terrestre, ya son sujeto expreso de regulación conforme al transitorio I y II de la norma supra citada, ya que en su caso, no se habla del contrato de concesión sino de la prorroga, de contratos de arrendamiento anteriores a su promulgación, los cuales deben ser modificados en concordancia con las leyes vigentes. Tampoco puede ni deben confundirse con aquellas personas que se introdujerón en la zona demanial de manera clandestina, ya que con posterioridad a esta Ley, dicha actuación se encuentra prohibida conforme a su artículo 12. Entonces debemos, concluir que el ocupante, es aquella persona que se encontraba ubicada en la zona restringida de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre y que al momento de entrar en vigencia la Ley 6043 del 2 de marzo de 1977, no contaba con un contrato de arrendamiento a su favor. " Finalmente, y no por ello menos importante es que las dos figuras indicadas -poblador y ocupante- está prevista en exclusiva en relación a personas físicas, excluyéndose así respecto de las personas físicas, en atención a que se previó en consideración de quienes no tenían otro lugar donde residir; condición que no puede reputarse respecto de las ficciones jurídicas; motivo por el cual, también excluye su transmisión, ya sea, intervivos o mortis causa. Dicho lo anterior se tiene que la condición de ocupante no puede generar derecho de propiedad ni de posesión alguno, ya que al ser la zona marítimo terrestre parte del dominio publico, no puede ser objeto de posesión ni prescribirse positivamente con el transcurso del tiempo, conforme lo dispone el articulo 7 de la Ley número 6043. Esta característica de imprescriptibilidad redunda en la imposibilidad jurídica de ejercer posesión sobre la franja de terreno inalienable, por lo que esta norma, cuando otorga la preeminencia, para otorgar una concesión, se refiere en forma clara y expresa al ocupante del terreno que hubiera poseído, éste en forma quieta, pública, pacífica y continúa. Requisitos, que para el caso que nos ocupa, son de fácil constatación. (Para mayor abundamiento, se remite a los interesados a las consideraciones dadas por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en sentencia número 317-F-2008, de las nueve horas diez minutos del dos de mayo del dos mil ocho.)

VIII.- Con lo cual, al ser la solicitante una sociedad jurídica, que conforme a sus alegatos, ejerce posesión del bien desde los años setenta, ello imposibilitó en el año dos mil, cualquier reconocimiento de la condición de ocupante que reclama; circunstancia que oblgia a este Tribunal a confirmar la decisión dada por el Concejo en el acuerdo adoptado en el asunto 3 inciso 3) artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1516-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil, por no reunir los presupuestos de la ley para la procedencia de tal declaratoria.

IX.- DE LA REGULACIÓN DEL RÉGIMEN IMPUGNATIVO DE LOS ACTOS MUNICIPALES.- En relación con la impugnación del punto 8 asunto 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres, debe primero recordarse que el régimen impugnatorio de las decisiones municipales tiene una legislación especial. Así, conforme a las regulaciones contenidas en el Título VI del Código Municipal, denominado “Recursos contra los actos Municipales”, que comprende los artículos 153 a 163, en el que se diseñó un sistema que ha sido calificado "de escalerilla", lo que implica que, los dictados por funcionarios que dependen del Alcalde, tienen recurso de revocatoria con apelación ante éste, y de lo que éste decide, proceden los mismos recursos, de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio ante el Concejo, actuación que, a su vez, tiene revocatoria y apelación ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, conviniendo aclarar que éste último, actúa como jerarca impropio, esto es, ejerciendo función materialmente administrativa y no jurisdiccional, como se deriva de las Actas de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente y confirmó posteriormente la Sala Constitucional, en sentencia número 2005-06866, de las catorce horas con treinta y siete minutos del primero de junio del dos mil cinco. Asimismo, debe tenerse en claro que las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley General de la Administración Pública resulta de aplicación en la especie, en lo que respecta a los principios, y de manera subsidiaria, ante silencio o laguna de este cuerpo normativo especial.

X.- DE LA IMPROCEDENCIA DE LA APELACIÓN FORMULADA.- La apelación formulada es abiertamente improcedente, debiendo rechazarse de plano, por no ser admisible conforme a lo dispuesto en el inciso b) del artículo 154 del Código Municipal, que dispone literalmente:

“Cualquier acuerdo municipal estará sujeto a los recursos de revocatoria y de apelación excepto:

(…)

b.) Los de mero trámite de ejecución, confirmación o ratificación de otros anteriores y los consentidos expresa o implícitamente.” Conviene recordar que la solicitud de reconocer formalmente la condición de ocupante o poseedora a Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, ha sido objeto de análisis y pronunciamiento de parte del Concejo de la Municipalidad de Parrita en varias ocasiones. Así:

a.) Por primera vez, ante gestión realizada por Nombre71791 , en su condición de apoderada general de la sociedad apelante, el diez de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y nueve (folio 81 a 83), en acuerdo adoptado en el Asunto 2, inciso 2), artículo tercero de la sesión ordinaria número 1516-2000, del cinco de junio del dos mil (a folios 100 a 108), en que rechaza la solicitud, sobre la base de un estudio detallado de la normativa aplicable –Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, número 6043-, y cuantiosos pronunciamientos de la Procuraduría General de la República; concluyendo que la gestionante –Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima- no se encuentra en los presupuestos para calificar como tal, por tratarse de persona física, por no residir en el sitio y por no ser transmisible la condición. Conviene advertir que esta decisión fue impugnada por la personera de la sociedad Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima, al presentar recursos de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio, según se deriva de la queja que formuló la interesada ante la Defensoría de los Habitantes -oficio 06449-2001-DHR, a folios 127 a 132-, por omisión en su resolución; siendo rechazado el primero y el segundo admitido ante esta Autoridad, por acuerdo número 1 inciso 19 del artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1614-2001, del tres de setiembre del dos mil uno (a folios 134 y 135). No obstante, lo anterior, habiéndose presentado el expediente administrativo ante este Tribunal el primero del octubre de ese mismo año (folio 140), no diligenció la Municipalidad la prevención que se le hizo –por auto de las quince horas doce minutos del veinticuatro de octubre del dos mil uno, a folio 145- para su recepción; el cual volvió a ser remitido a este Despacho el primero de octubre del dos mil siete (a folio 211). Dicha apelación es resuelta en este acto.

b.) Por segunda vez, ante una nueva gestión realizada el veintiséis de setiembre del dos dos mil dos, por la sociedad apelante, en esta ocasión, en la persona de su apoderada general, Nombre71798 (folio 81 a 83), en acuerdo número 2, artículo cuarto de la sesión 1695-2002, del dieciséis de setiembre del dos mil dos, en que dispuso mantener lo resuelto sobre el particular en sesión ordinaria 1516-2000, asunto No. 2, Inciso 2), Artículo tercero del 05 de junio del 2000, en el cual se rechazó esa misma solicitud (folios 163 y 164). Contra esta decisión, la sociedad presentó recursos de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio, admitiéndose el primero, por no existir constancia de la fecha de notificación del acto al que se remitió a la quejosa; reponiéndose los procedimientos, de manera que se ordenó la inmediata notificación del Acuerdo adoptado en sesión 1516-2000. No consta en los autos, que una vez que los personeros de Agropecuaria Hilda Marina, Sociedad Anónima conociesen de esa decisión, la hubiesen impugnado; con lo cual, no obstante la alegación de la apoderada de la sociedad interesada, del desconocimiento con antelación a esta nueva notificación, debe entenderse que subsistía la apelación que formuló contra el indicado acuerdo, admitido para ante este Tribunal, conforme al acuerdo de la sesión 1614-2001, que se repite, se resuelve en este acto.

c.) Por tercera vez, ante tercer requerimiento formulado, nuevamente por la señora Nombre71791 , el veintiséis de mayo del dos mil tres (a folios 181 y 182), por acuerdo número 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres, asunto 8 (folios 183 a 187), en que nuevamente rechazó la solicitud, por no darse los presupuestos de ley para hacer tal declaratoria, que valga indicar, son idénticas razones a las esgrimidas en la primera ocasión.

Contra esta decisión se formulan los recursos de revocatoria y apelación (folios 190 a 192), rechazándose el primero y admitiéndose para ante este Tribunal el segundo, por acuerdo número 1, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria 1762-03, del siete de julio del dos mil tres (folios 194 y 195); y es el acto que se pretende revisar en esta instancia.

Al tenor de lo anterior, es claro que el acuerdo contenido en el punto 8 asunto 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres, sometido a conocimiento de este Tribunal el primero de octubre del dos mil siete, se repite, en ejercicio de la función materialmente administrativa, al actuar como jerarca impropio de las Municipalidades por imperio legal (relación de los artículos 156 del Código Municipal y 84 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativo, de aplicación al subjudice al tenor del Transitorio IV del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)-, es inadmisible, por mandato legal –inciso b) del artículo 154 del Código Municipal-, al tratarse, según ya se explicó, de una reiteración de actos previos del Concejo. Al tenor de lo cual, entiende este Tribunal que mal hizo el Concejo en admitir la apelación formulada.

POR TANTO:

Se confirma el acuerdo adoptado por el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Parrita en el asunto 3 inciso 3) artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1516-2000, del diecinueve de junio del dos mil; respecto del cual se tiene por agotada la vía administrativa. Se declara mal admitida la apelación en relación con la impugnación formulada contra el punto 8 asunto 4, artículo cuarto de la sesión ordinaria número 1756-2003, del nueve de junio del dos mil tres.

Nombre5180 Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Nombre632