Res. 00442-2010 Tribunal Agrario — Land titling does not respect public road right-of-way width

OutcomeResultado

Annulled and remandedAnulación y reenvío

The ruling approving the possessory information proceeding is annulled, and the lower court is ordered to demand a new cadastral map respecting the 14-meter right-of-way.Se anula la sentencia que aprobó la información posesoria y se ordena al juzgado exigir un nuevo plano catastrado que respete el derecho de vía de 14 metros.

SummaryResumen

The Agrarian Tribunal annulled a first-instance ruling that had approved a possessory information proceeding to title a property in San Ramón, Alajuela. The Attorney General's Office appealed, arguing that the cadastral map did not respect the 14-meter right-of-way required by Article 4 of the General Public Roads Law for neighborhood roads, as it only showed an 8-meter width. Although the municipal Road Technical Unit certified that the access was not a public road — citing lack of social impact, location discrepancies, and blocked passage — the Tribunal held that these were insufficient to rebut the public character of the road, which was cited as such in multiple cadastral maps. It emphasized that public roads are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable public-domain assets under constitutional case law. Consequently, it nullified the ruling, ordered the lower court to demand a new map fully respecting the 14-meter right-of-way, and warned that failure to comply would result in a decision based on the existing evidence.El Tribunal Agrario anula una sentencia que aprobaba una información posesoria para titular un inmueble en San Ramón, Alajuela. La Procuraduría General de la República apeló alegando que el plano catastrado no respetaba el derecho de vía de 14 metros exigido por el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos para caminos vecinales, pues consignaba un ancho de apenas 8 metros. Aunque la Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial municipal certificó que el acceso no era calle pública —por no tener impacto social, ubicación discordante y estar bloqueado con portillos—, el Tribunal consideró que esos argumentos no eran suficientes para descartar la naturaleza pública del camino, que aparecía citado como tal en múltiples planos catastrales. Recalcó que las vías públicas son bienes demaniales inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables, conforme a la jurisprudencia constitucional. Por tanto, declaró la nulidad de la sentencia, ordenó al juzgado de instancia exigir un nuevo plano que respete íntegramente el derecho de vía de 14 metros y dispuso que, de no cumplirse, se resuelva con la prueba existente.

Key excerptExtracto clave

The factors considered by the engineers cited do not, in this Tribunal's view, constitute sufficient objective elements to dismiss the public nature of a road that is cited as such in the map serving as the basis for this possessory information proceeding and upon which this property is being titled, just as the natural or legal persons who submitted the 9 maps to which those officials allude in their report did. Relying on the fact that there are currently no houses in the area adjacent to that road to conclude it is not public means disregarding the future urban growth projections in that zone, and the obstruction of passage on that road is an aspect that should have been highlighted as a concern by that local government, rather than serving as a basis for concluding, at least for those municipal servants, that its nature is private. (...) the Constitutional Chamber, in Voto 2306 of 2:45 p.m. on November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: '... public roads, which are public domain lands... Characteristic features of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged or subject to encumbrances...' Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the issued ruling is flawed due to being premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral map... that respects the right-of-way width of fourteen meters, thereby proportionally reducing the current area of the property sought to be titled, with the warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be decided based on the evidence on file.Los elementos tomados en consideración por los ingenieros citados, no constituyen en criterio de este Tribunal, elementos objetivos suficientes para descartar la naturaleza pública de un camino que se cita como tal en el plano que sirvió de base a esta información posesoria y con base en el cual se está titulando este inmueble, de la misma forma que lo hicieron las personas físicas o jurídicas que presentaron ante dicha Municipalidad los 9 planos a los que tales funcionarios hacen alusión en su informe. Basarse en el hecho de que no existen casas en este momento en el sector aledaño a esa calle para concluir no es pública, implica dejar de lado las proyecciones de crecimiento urbano a futuro en esa zona, constituyendo la obstrucción de paso por esa calle un aspecto que debió destacarse como preocupante por ese gobierno local, en lugar de servir de base para concluir, al menos a esos servidores municipales que la naturaleza es privada. (...) la Sala Constitucional en voto 2306 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 6 de noviembre de 1991, refiriéndose a las características de las calles públicas, señaló: '... las vías públicas, que son terrenos de dominio público... Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen...' En consecuencia, estima el Tribunal que la sentencia emitida está viciada de nulidad por anticipada, debido a que en forma previa a su emisión, debe verificarse el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales establecidos, concretamente, el levantamiento de un nuevo plano catastrado... que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros, disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área actual del inmueble pretendido titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá con la prueba constante en autos.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"Basarse en el hecho de que no existen casas en este momento en el sector aledaño a esa calle para concluir no es pública, implica dejar de lado las proyecciones de crecimiento urbano a futuro en esa zona."

"Relying on the fact that there are currently no houses in the area adjacent to that road to conclude it is not public means disregarding the future urban growth projections in that zone."

Considerando IV

"Basarse en el hecho de que no existen casas en este momento en el sector aledaño a esa calle para concluir no es pública, implica dejar de lado las proyecciones de crecimiento urbano a futuro en esa zona."

Considerando IV

"Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio."

"Characteristic features of these assets are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged or subject to encumbrances under Civil Law, and administrative action replaces interdicts to recover possession."

Considerando IV, citando voto 2306-91 de la Sala Constitucional

"Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio."

Considerando IV, citando voto 2306-91 de la Sala Constitucional

Full documentDocumento completo

VOTO Nº 442 -F-10 VOTO Nº 442 -F-10 AGRARIAN TRIBUNAL OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at nine hours and two minutes on the twentieth of May of two thousand ten.- POSSESSORY INFORMATION, promoted by [Nombre1], of legal age, married, farmer, resident of San Ramón, identity card CED1 - - . Appearing in the proceedings are the PROCURADURIA GENERAL DE LA REPUBLICA, represented by Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, whose qualifications are unknown in the case file, in her capacity as assistant procurator, and the INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, legal identification number CED2 - - - , represented by Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, of legal age, divorced, attorney, resident of Guachipelín, Escazú, identity card CED3 - - , in her capacity as general judicial representative. Processed before the Civil, Labor, and Agrarian Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, San Ramón. Acting as special judicial representative of the title applicant is attorney Sergio Vargas López, of legal age, attorney, resident of San Ramón, identity card number CED4 - - .-

WHEREAS:

1.- The petitioner initiates possessory information proceedings for the purpose of registering in his name in the Public Property Registry the property described as follows: “... located in Los Criques, [Dirección1], San Ramón of the Province of Alajuela; measuring FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE METERS AND THREE SQUARE DECIMETERS. Said property is of scrubland (tacotal) nature, and borders to the NORTH with a public road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred six meters and eighty-five linear decimeters; SOUTH: [Nombre2]; EAST: [Nombre2] and WEST: [Dirección2] with a linear measurement along it of one hundred fifty-six meters and twenty-one linear decimeters", (folios 10 to 13, and 161 to 163).- 2.- The Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, and the Procuraduría General de la República, appeared in the proceedings in the terms visible on folio 45 for the former and folios 47 to 52 for the latter.- 3.- Attorney Tatiana Rodríguez [Nombre2], judge of the court of first instance, by judgment delivered at thirteen hours and twenty-one minutes on the ninth of February of two thousand ten, resolved: “THEREFORE: In accordance with the foregoing and legal citations, the present possessory information proceedings promoted by [Nombre1], of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Ramón de Bajo Zúñiga, ID CED5, ARE APPROVED; a proceeding that was carried out in compliance with the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias number one hundred thirty-nine of July fourteenth, nineteen hundred forty-one, its amendments and additions, and the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria number six thousand seven hundred thirty-four of March twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred eighty-two and its amendments.- Consequently: a) Free from liens and encumbrances, without co-owners and without prejudice to third parties with better rights, the Public Registry, Real Property Section, shall proceed to register in the name of the petitioner, the following unregistered property, described in cadastral map number A-722787-87, located in [Dirección3], San Ramón of the Province of Alajuela; measuring FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE METERS AND THREE SQUARE DECIMETERS. Said property is of scrubland (tacotal) nature, and borders to the NORTH with a public road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred six meters and eighty-five linear decimeters; SOUTH: [Nombre2]; EAST: [Nombre2] and WEST: Public Road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred fifty-six meters and twenty-one linear decimeters. c) The petitioner has estimated the proceedings at the sum of one million colones and the property at the sum of one million five hundred thousand colones. d) The Public Registry is ordered to record that the property is subject to the reservations of Article 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the area adjacent to the stream constitutes a protection area pursuant to Article 33, subsection b) of the Ley Forestal No. 7575 and the cutting or elimination of trees is prohibited; the streambed and the waters of that watercourse are public domain (Ley de Aguas, Articles 1, subsection IV, and 3 subsection III). Once this resolution becomes final, upon request of the petitioner, the corresponding certification shall be issued", (folios 161 to 163).- 4.- Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, in her condition as Assistant Procurator, filed an appeal with express indication of the reasons for which she refutes the thesis of the Court of First Instance, (folios 167 to 174).- 5. In the substantiation of the proceedings, the legal prescriptions have not been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the judgment capable of producing its nullity is noted.

Judge Vargas Vásquez drafts; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.Due to the manner in which this instance will be resolved, a ruling on the facts held as proven in the appealed judgment is omitted.-

II.Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, Assistant Procurator of the Procuraduría General de la República, filed an appeal with concomitant nullity against the judgment, in a brief sent by fax on February 18, 2010 (folio 167), the original of which was filed with the court on the 22nd of said month and year (folio 171). First, she claims the nullity of the judgment, as it was issued prematurely because copies of the evidentiary hearing were not sent to her, despite her insistence on their remission, which leaves her in a state of defenselessness because she requires that information to verify compliance with the legal requirements to be able to title the property. She also alleged that the judgment held as accredited that the property to be titled borders along the directions [Dirección4] and [Dirección5] with "[Dirección6]", but the presentation of a new map respecting the 14-meter right-of-way was not required, despite the request she made to the Court in that regard. The appellant considers that, being a public domain (demanial) encumbrance established by Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, the courts cannot render it void.-

III.The Tribunal does not share the ground for nullity alleged by the State's representative, because in a resolution issued at 15 hours 44 minutes on February 10, 2009 (folio 79), it was ordered to send to the Procuraduría, among other documents, a copy of the record of receipt of testimonial evidence on folios 66 to 68. Said remission of copies was recorded in the notice record where the communication to the State of said ruling at its corporate domicile is stated (folio 96), therefore it is considered that the appellant's allegations lack foundation.-

IV.In her sole grievance, the State's representative alleges that the map representing the property to be titled does not respect the width of the public road established by Article 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos. Indeed, said norm provides that local roads (caminos vecinales) must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, the aforementioned map indicates said width is barely 8 meters on the road that serves as the boundary along the directions [Dirección7]. The foregoing means that the public right-of-way is being disrespected and that part of the area of the aforementioned road is being incorporated into the area representing the property to be titled. In the proceedings, Official Communication MSR-DGV-01-03-2009 was received, issued by architect Leandro Quesada Castillo, Director of the Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial, and topographical engineer Luis Marcelo Chavarría Ch. of said Unit, both from the Municipality of San Ramón, dated March 3, 2009, in which it was recorded that there are 9 maps in the cadastral base of said Municipality for possessory information citing that road as public, for which a field visit was conducted on March 2, 2009, determining that at the site was Mr. [Nombre3], who confirmed the names of the adjoining owners and commented that the lots correspond to a family inheritance, adding that said access connects to the main road at coordinates [Dirección8], [Dirección9] (+-) Lambert System, a location that does not match the one offered in the cadastral map. On the other hand, they indicated, the access has a width between 7 and 8 meters, has no electrical poles, does not provide access to dwelling houses, its running surface is quarter-stone due to maintenance by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad for tower control. It is worth noting that the access is seen blocked by gates preventing free transit. To conclude: "Considering that the cadastral maps of the adjoining owners have not produced registry effect, that the access does not fulfill a social impact and that its location does not correspond to reality; this Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial certifies that the access shown in map A-722787-1987 is not a public road." (folios 112 and 113). The elements taken into consideration by the cited engineers do not constitute, in the criterion of this Tribunal, sufficient objective elements to discard the public nature of a road cited as such in the map that served as the basis for this possessory information and on the basis of which this property is being titled, in the same way as the natural or legal persons who filed before said Municipality the 9 maps to which those officials allude in their report did. Basing the conclusion that it is not public on the fact that there are currently no houses in the sector adjacent to that road implies disregarding the future urban growth projections in that area, the obstruction of passage along that road being an aspect that should have been highlighted as concerning by that local government, instead of serving as a basis for concluding, at least for those municipal servants, that the nature is private. It is important to point out that the Sala Constitucional, in vote 2306 of 14 hours 45 minutes of November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: "... public roads, which are lands of public domain, as expressly defined by the Ley de Construcciones in its Articles 4, 5 and 6; Article 28 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, Articles 44 and following of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, in relation to Articles 261 and 262 of the Código Civil and subsection 14 of Article 121 and 174 of the Constitución Política.- The public domain is composed of goods that manifest, by express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called dominical goods, public goods or things or public goods, which do not belong individually to private parties and are destined for public use and subjected to a special regime, outside of commerce among men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these goods belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected to the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of express norm.- Characteristic notes of these goods are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to liens in the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action substitutes for interdicts to recover ownership.- As they are outside commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a property right. ... In cases where occupation is intended to be exercised by de facto means, whether peacefully or through force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without needing to resort to any proceeding, nor to rules of due process, including the power to remove goods from occupied public sites, subject to being returned to their owners, except for perishable goods, which for reasons of public health protection, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be considered violated, if it is a matter of preserving the nature and use of public goods; work, free commerce, property, and the objective patrimony of persons and all other rights, cannot be illegitimately imposed over and against the general interest, encumbering the State's goods that form the public domain (demanio)." In accordance with what was stated by the Chamber, based on the regulations governing public roads, including the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, this Tribunal considers that the arguments put forward by the municipal officials who issued the report in reference are not sufficient to conclude that the public road referenced in cadastral map A-722787-87 is not such. So much so that the Municipal Engineering Department of that same Municipality of San Ramón placed a stamp on the referenced map in which it included as a warning: "Any violation of the official alignment renders this authorization void. The owner will be obliged to demolish the part outside the line, Art 24 of the Ley de Construcciones and Art. 19 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos." (folio 1). Likewise, the topographical engineer who prepared that map indicated therein: "I attest that the road I cite as access exists in reality. This map is registered without prejudice to the rights of the State for all purposes regarding the limitations established by the laws on water and roads and the maritime-terrestrial zone." (folio 1). Consequently, the Tribunal considers the judgment issued is vitiated by nullity as premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral map within the prudential period of two months counted from the finality of this resolution, by the petitioner, respecting the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved based on the existing evidence in the case file.

V.Based on the foregoing, grounded in Articles 4 of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 24 of the Ley de Construcciones, 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and 26 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, the nullity request made by the appellant must be granted and the nullity of the judgment ordered as it was issued prematurely. Prior to its issuance, the Court must verify compliance with the corresponding legal requirements, specifically, respect for the fourteen-meter right-of-way on the public road serving as the [Dirección10] boundary, thus proportionally reducing the area of the property to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, this matter will be resolved based on the existing evidence in the case file.-

THEREFORE:

The nullity request regarding the judgment filed by the State's representative is granted. The judgment is annulled. Prior to its issuance, the Court must verify compliance with all legal requirements by the petitioner, specifically, the presentation by the latter within the prudential period of two months counted from the finality of this resolution, of a cadastral map respecting the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, on the [Dirección6] road serving as the [Dirección4] and [Dirección5] boundary, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved based on the existing evidence in the case file.- DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ ALEXANDRA ALVARADO PANIAGUA MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA INFORMACION POSESORIA TIT: [Nombre1] [Nombre4] / + The property is scrubland (tacotal) in nature, and borders to the NORTH with a public road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred six meters and eighty-five linear decimeters; SOUTH: [Name2] ; EAST : [Name2] and WEST : Public Road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred fifty-six meters and twenty-one linear decimeters. c) The applicant has estimated the proceedings at the sum of one million colones and the property at the sum of one million five hundred thousand colones. d) The Public Registry is ordered to record that the property is subject to the reservations of articles 19 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias and the area adjacent to the stream constitutes a protection area pursuant to article 33, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575, and the cutting or removal of trees is prohibited; the channel and waters of that stream are public domain (Water Law (Ley de Aguas), articles 1, subsection IV, and 3, subsection III). Once this ruling is final, at the applicant's request, the corresponding certification shall be issued," (folios 161 to 163).-4.- Ms. Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, in her capacity as Deputy Procurator, filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) with an express indication of the reasons why she refutes the thesis of the trial court, (folios 1 67 to 174).-5. In the processing of the case, the legal requirements have not been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the judgment capable of causing its nullity is noted.Drafted by Judge Vargas Vásquez; and,WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO):I. Due to the manner in which it will be resolved in this instance, a ruling on the facts held as proven in the appealed judgment is omitted.-II. Ms. Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, Deputy Procurator of the Procuraduría General de la República, filed an appeal with concomitant nullity against the judgment, in a brief sent by fax on February 18, 2010 (folio 167), the original of which was filed with the court on the 22nd of said month and year (folio 171). In the first place, she claims the nullity of the judgment, as it was issued prematurely because she was not sent copies of the evidentiary hearing, despite her insistence on their remittance, which leaves her in a state of defenselessness because she requires that information to verify compliance with the legal requirements to be able to title the property. She further alleged that the judgment held it as proven that the property to be titled borders on the [Direction4] and [Direction5] sides with "[Direction6] road," but the presentation of a new survey plan (plano) respecting the 14-meter right-of-way was not required, despite the request she made to the Court in that regard. The appellant considers that, being a public domain encumbrance established by article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), the courts cannot render it without effect.-III. This Court does not share the grounds for nullity alleged by the State's representative, because in a ruling issued at 15:44 on February 10, 2009 (folio 79), it was ordered to send to the Procuraduría, among other documents, a copy of the record of receipt of testimonial evidence from folios 66 to 68. This remittance of copies was recorded in the notification record where the communication to the State of said pronouncement at its corporate address is noted (folio 96), for which reason it is considered that the appellant's allegations lack merit.-IV. In her sole grievance, the State's representative alleges that the survey plan (plano) representing the property to be titled does not respect the width of the public road established by article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos). Indeed, said regulation stipulates that local roads must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, the aforementioned plan indicates said width is barely 8 meters on the road that serves as a boundary on the [Direction7] side. The foregoing means that the public right-of-way is being disrespected and that part of the area of the aforementioned road is being incorporated into the area representing the property to be titled. In the proceedings, Official Communication MSR-DGV-01-03-2009 was received, issued by architect Leandro Quesada Castillo, Director of the Technical Road Management Unit, and topographical engineer Luis Marcelo Chavarría Ch. of said Unit, both from the Municipality of San Ramón, dated March 3, 2009, in which it was recorded that there are 9 survey plans in the cadastral base of said Municipality for possessory information in which that road is cited as public, for which reason a field visit was conducted on March 2, 2009, determining that Mr. [Name3] was at the site, who confirmed the names of the adjoining landowners and commented that the lots correspond to a family inheritance, adding that this access connects to the main road at coordinates [Direction8], [Direction9] (+-) Lambert System, a location that does not match that offered in the registered survey plan. On the other hand, they indicated that the access has a width between 7 and 8 meters, has no electrical posts, does not provide access to dwelling houses, and has a running surface of coarse gravel thanks to maintenance by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad for tower control. It is worth noting that the access appears blocked by gates, preventing free transit. To conclude: "Considering that the registered survey plans of the adjoining landowners have not taken registry effect, that the access does not have a social impact, and that its location does not correspond to reality; this Technical Road Management Unit certifies that the access shown in plan A-722787-1987 is not a public road." (folios 112 and 113). The elements taken into consideration by the cited engineers do not constitute, in the opinion of this Court, sufficient objective elements to rule out the public nature of a road that is cited as such in the survey plan that served as the basis for this possessory information and based on which this property is being titled, in the same manner as the natural or legal persons who presented to said Municipality the 9 plans to which such officials allude in their report did. Basing the conclusion that it is not public on the fact that there are no houses at this time in the sector adjacent to that road implies setting aside the projections of future urban growth in that area, with the obstruction of passage along that road being an aspect that should have been highlighted as a concern by that local government, instead of serving as a basis for concluding, at least by those municipal servants, that the nature is private. It is important to note that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in ruling 2306 at 14:45 on November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: "... public roads, which are public domain lands, as expressly defined by the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) in its articles 4, 5 and 6; article 28 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), articles 44 and following of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), in relation to articles 261 and 262 of the Civil Code and subsection 14 of article 121 and 174 of the Political Constitution.- The public domain is composed of goods that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special purpose of serving the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called dominical goods, public goods or things, or public goods, which do not belong individually to private parties and are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these goods belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected by the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of express regulation.- Characteristic features of these goods are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unattachable, cannot be mortgaged nor be subject to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action replaces injunctions to recover ownership.- As they are outside commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right of use can be acquired, though not a right of ownership. ... In cases where occupation is attempted through de facto means, whether peacefully or through acts of force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without the need to resort to any proceeding or rules of due process, including the power to remove goods from occupied public sites, subject to being returned to their owners, except for perishable items, which, for reasons of protecting public health, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be understood to be violated, if it is a matter of conserving the nature and use of public goods; work, free trade, property, and the objective patrimony of persons and all other rights, cannot be illegitimately imposed over and against the general interest, encumbering the goods of the State that make up the public domain." In accordance with what was stated by the Chamber, based on the regulations governing public roads, among them the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), this Court considers that the arguments put forward by the municipal officials who issued the referenced report are not sufficient to conclude that the public road to which the registered survey plan A-722787-87 refers is not such. So much so that the Municipal Engineering Department of that same Municipality of San Ramón placed a stamp on the aforementioned plan in which it included as a warning: "Any violation of the official alignment renders this authorization null and void. The owner will be obligated to demolish the part outside the line, art 24 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and art. 19 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos)." (folio 1). Likewise, the topographical engineer who prepared that plan indicated on it: "I attest that the road I cite as access exists in reality. This plan is registered without prejudice to the rights of the State for all effects of the limitations that water and road and maritime-terrestrial zone laws establish." (folio 1). Consequently, the Court considers that the issued judgment is vitiated by nullity due to being premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the preparation of a new registered survey plan within the reasonable period of two months counted from the finality of this resolution, by the applicant, that respects the right-of-way with a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved based on the evidence contained in the case file. V. For the foregoing reasons, based on articles 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), 24 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and 26 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria), the nullity request made by the appellant shall be granted, and the nullity of the judgment shall be ordered, as it was issued prematurely. Prior to its issuance, the Court must verify compliance with the corresponding legal requirements, specifically, respect for the fourteen-meter right-of-way on the public road that serves as the [Direction10] boundary, thus proportionally reducing the area of the property to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, this matter will be resolved based on the evidence contained in the case file.- THEREFORE (POR TANTO):The nullity request of the judgment filed by the State's representative is granted. The judgment is annulled. Prior to its issuance, the Court must verify compliance with all legal requirements by the applicant, specifically, the presentation by the latter within the prudential period of two months counted from the finality of this ruling, of a cadastral plan (plano catastrado) that respects the right-of-way (derecho de vía) of a width of fourteen meters, on the street [Dirección6] that serves as the boundary [Dirección4] and [Dirección5], thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property sought to be titled, under warning that in case of non-compliance, the matter will be resolved with the evidence on file.-    DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ   ALEXANDRA ALVARADO PANIAGUA    MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA  EXP EXPN1INFORMACION POSESORIATIT: [Nombre1]  [Nombre4]  /  +  </div></body></html>" Acting as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the titleholder, attorney **Sergio Vargas López**, of legal age, lawyer, resident of San Ramón, identity card number CED4 - -- .- **WHEREAS:** **1.-** The petitioner brings a possessory information proceeding (proceso de información posesoria) in order to have the following property registered in his name in the Public Property Registry (Registro Público de la Propiedad), which is described as follows: “... located in Los Criques, [Dirección1] , San Ramón, Province of Alajuela; with an area of **FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE METERS AND THREE SQUARE DECIMETERS**. Said property is brushland in nature (naturaleza tacotal), and borders to the **NORTH** with a public road, with a linear measurement along it of one hundred six meters and eighty-five linear decimeters; **SOUTH**: [Nombre2] ; **EAST**: [Nombre2] and **WEST**: [Dirección2] with a linear measurement along it of one hundred fifty-six meters and twenty-one linear decimeters", (folios 10 to 13, and 161 to 163).- **2.-** The Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, INDER), and the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República), appeared in the proceeding in the terms visible on folio 45 for the former and folios 47 to 52 for the latter.- **3.-** Attorney Tatiana Rodríguez [Nombre2], judge of the trial court, through a judgment issued at 1:21 p.m. on February 9, two thousand ten, resolved: "**THEREFORE**: In accordance with the foregoing and cited law, the present possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) promoted by **[Nombre1]** , of legal age, married once, farmer, resident of San Ramón de Bajo Zúñiga, ID card CED5, are **APPROVED**; a procedure that was completed in compliance with the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) number one hundred thirty-nine of July fourteenth, nineteen forty-one, its reforms and additions, and the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law (Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria) number six thousand seven hundred thirty-four of March twenty-fifth, nineteen eighty-two, and its reforms.- Consequently: **a)** Free from liens and real encumbrances (gravámenes y cargas reales), without co-owners (condueños) and without prejudice to third parties with better rights, the Public Registry (Registro Público), Real Property Section (Sección Propiedad Inmueble), shall register in the name of the petitioner, the following unregistered property, described in the cadastral plan (plano catastrado) number **A-722787-87**, located in [Dirección3], , San Ramón, Province of Alajuela; with an area of **FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE METERS AND THREE SQUARE DECIMETERS**. Said property is brushland in nature, and borders to the **NORTH** with a public road, with a linear measurement along it of one hundred six meters and eighty-five linear decimeters; **SOUTH**: [Nombre2] ; **EAST**: [Nombre2] and **WEST**: Public Road with a linear measurement along it of one hundred fifty-six meters and twenty-one linear decimeters. **c)** The petitioner has estimated the proceedings at the sum of one million colones and the property at the sum of one million five hundred thousand colones. **d)** The Public Registry is ordered to state that the property is subject to the reservations of articles 19 of the Possessory Information Law and the continuous area to the creek (quebrada) constitutes a protection area according to article 33, subsection b) of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 and the cutting or elimination of trees is prohibited, the channel and the waters of that watercourse are of public domain (Ley de Aguas, articles 1, subsection IV, and 3 subsection III). Once this resolution is final, at the request of the petitioner, issue the corresponding certification", (folios 161 to 163).- **4.-** Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General (Procuradora Adjunta), filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) with an express statement of the reasons why she refutes the thesis of the trial court, (folios 167 to 174).- **5.** In the substantiation of the proceeding, the legal requirements have been observed, and the existence of errors or omissions in the judgment capable of causing its nullity is noted.

Drafted by Judge **Vargas Vásquez**; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.** Due to the manner in which it will be resolved in this instance, a ruling on the facts taken as proven in the appealed judgment is omitted.- **II.** Attorney Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, Deputy Attorney General of the Attorney General's Office, filed an appeal with concomitant nullity against the judgment, in a brief sent by fax on February 18, 2010 (folio 167), the original of which was filed with the court on the 22nd of the same month and year (folio 171). In the first place, she claims the nullity of the judgment, as it was issued prematurely because she was not sent copies of the evidentiary hearing, despite her insistence on their referral, which leaves her in a state of defenselessness because she requires that information to verify compliance with the legal requirements to be able to title the property. She also claimed that the judgment took it as proven that the property to be titled borders along the boundaries [Dirección4] and [Dirección5] with "calle [Dirección6]", but the presentation of a new plan respecting the 14-meter right-of-way was not required, despite the request she made to the court in that regard. The appellant considers that, as it is a public domain encumbrance (afectación demanial) established by Article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), the courts cannot render it ineffective.- **III.** The Court does not share the ground for nullity alleged by the State's representative, because in a resolution issued at 3:44 p.m. on February 10, 2009 (folio 79), it was ordered to send to the Attorney General's Office, among other documents, a copy of the record of the receipt of testimonial evidence on folios 66 to 68. Such referral of copies was recorded in the notification record, which records the communication of said ruling to the State at its social domicile (folio 96); therefore, it is considered that the appellant's claims lack merit.- **IV.** In her sole grievance, the State's representative claims that the plan representing the property to be titled does not respect the public road width established by Article 4 of the General Law of Public Roads. Indeed, said norm provides that local roads must have a width of 14 meters; however, in this case, the aforementioned plan indicates that said width is barely 8 meters on the road serving as a boundary along the [Dirección7] boundaries. This means that the public right-of-way is being violated and that part of the area of the aforementioned road is being incorporated into the area representing the property to be titled. During the proceeding, Official Note MSR-DGV-01-03-2009 was received, issued by architect Leandro Quesada Castillo, Director of the Road Management Technical Unit (Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial), and topographical engineer Luis Marcelo Chavarría Ch. of said Unit, both from the Municipality of San Ramón, dated March 3, 2009, in which it was recorded that there exist 9 plans in the cadastral base of said Municipality for possessory information in which that road is cited as public. Therefore, a field visit was conducted on March 2, 2009, determining that Mr. [Nombre3] was at the site, who confirmed the names of the adjoining landowners and commented that the lots correspond to a family inheritance, adding that this access connects with the main road at coordinates [Dirección8], [Dirección9] (+-) Lambert System, a location that does not match that offered in the cadastral plan. On the other hand, they indicated that the access is between 7 and 8 meters wide, has no electrical poles, does not provide access to residential homes, and has a running surface of fourth stone thanks to maintenance by the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, ICE) for tower control. It should be noted that the access appears blocked by gates, preventing free transit. To conclude: "Considering that the cadastral plans of the adjoining landowners have not had registry effect, that the access does not fulfill a social impact, and that its location does not correspond to reality; this Road Management Technical Unit certifies that the access shown in plan A-722787-1987 is not a public road." (folios 112 and 113). The elements taken into consideration by the cited engineers do not constitute, in this Court's opinion, sufficient objective elements to dismiss the public nature of a road cited as such in the plan that served as the basis for this possessory information and on which basis this property is being titled, in the same way as the natural or legal persons who presented the 9 plans to which those officials allude in their report before said Municipality did. Basing the conclusion that it is not public on the fact that there are no houses at this moment in the sector adjacent to that road implies disregarding the projections of future urban growth in that area, the obstruction of passage along that road being an aspect that should have been highlighted as concerning by that local government, instead of serving as a basis for concluding, at least for those municipal servants, that its nature is private. It is important to point out that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in vote 2306 at 2:45 p.m. on November 6, 1991, referring to the characteristics of public roads, stated: "... public roads, which are lands of public domain (dominio público), as expressly defined by the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) in its articles 4, 5, and 6; article 28 of the General Law of Public Roads, articles 44 and following of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), in relation to articles 261 and 262 of the Civil Code and subsection 14 of article 121 and 174 of the Political Constitution.- Public domain is comprised of goods that manifest, by the express will of the legislator, a special destiny of serving the community, the public interest.- They are the so-called domanial goods (bienes dominicales), public goods or things, or public goods, which do not belong individually to private parties and which are intended for public use and subject to a special regime, outside the commerce of men.- That is, affected by their own nature and vocation.- Consequently, these goods belong to the State in the broadest sense of the concept, they are affected by the service they provide and which is invariably essential by virtue of an express norm.- Characteristic notes of these goods are that they are inalienable, imprescriptible, unseizable, cannot be mortgaged nor be susceptible to encumbrance under the terms of Civil Law, and administrative action replaces interdicts to recover possession.- Since they are outside commerce, these goods cannot be the object of possession, although a right to use can be acquired, though not a property right. ... In cases where occupation is intended to be exercised by de facto means, whether peacefully or through acts of force, the Administration may well evict them by the same means, without needing to resort to any administrative procedure, nor to rules of due process, including the power to remove goods from occupied public places, subject to being returned to their owners, except for perishable items, which for reasons of public health protection, may be destroyed if they come to constitute a danger to that superior good.- In general, no fundamental right can be understood as violated, if it concerns preserving the nature and use of public goods; work, free commerce, property, and the objective patrimony of persons, and all other rights, cannot be illegitimately imposed over and against the general interest, encumbering State goods that make up the public domain (demanio)." In accordance with what was stated by the Chamber, based on the regulations governing public roads, including the General Law of Public Roads, this Court considers that the arguments put forth by the municipal officials who issued the referenced report are not sufficient to conclude that the public road to which cadastral plan A-722787-87 refers is not such. So much so that the Municipal Engineering Department of that same Municipality of San Ramón placed a seal on the referenced plan in which it included the warning: "Any violation of the official alignment renders this authorization void. The owner shall be obligated to demolish the part outside the line, Art. 24 of the Construction Law and Art. 19 of the General Law of Public Roads." (folio 1). Likewise, the topographical engineer who prepared that plan indicated on it: "I attest that the road I cite as access exists in reality. This plan is registered without prejudice to the rights of the State for all purposes of the limitations that water and road laws and the maritime-terrestrial zone establish." (folio 1). Consequently, the Court considers that the issued judgment is vitiated by nullity because it is premature, because prior to its issuance, compliance with all established legal requirements must be verified, specifically, the preparation of a new cadastral plan within the reasonable period of two months counted from the finality of this resolution, by the petitioner, that respects the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in the event of non-compliance, it will be resolved based on the evidence in the record.

**V.** For the foregoing reasons, based on articles 4 of the General Law of Public Roads, 24 of the Construction Law, 11 of the Possessory Information Law, and 26 of the Agrarian Jurisdiction Law, the request for nullity made by the appellant must be granted, and the nullity of the judgment must be ordered because it was issued prematurely. Prior to its issuance, the trial court must verify compliance with the corresponding legal requirements, specifically, the respect for the fourteen-meter right-of-way on the public road serving as the [Dirección10] boundary, thus proportionally reducing the area of the property to be titled, under warning that in the event of non-compliance, this matter will be resolved based on the evidence in the record.- **THEREFORE:** The request for nullity of the judgment raised by the State's representative is granted. The judgment is annulled. Prior to its issuance, the trial court must verify compliance with all legal requirements by the petitioner, specifically, the presentation by the latter, within the reasonable period of two months counted from the finality of this resolution, of a cadastral plan respecting the right-of-way of a width of fourteen meters, on the road called [Dirección6] serving as the [Dirección4] and [Dirección5] boundary, thus proportionally reducing the current area of the property intended to be titled, under warning that in the event of non-compliance, it will be resolved based on the evidence in the record.- **DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ** **ALEXANDRA ALVARADO PANIAGUA** **MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA** INFORMACION POSESORIA TIT: [Nombre1] [Nombre4] / +

VOTO Nº 0 442 -F-10 VOTO Nº 0 442 -F-10 TRIBUNAL AGRARIO DEL SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las nueve horas dos minuto s del veinte de mayo de l dos mil diez.- INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA, promovida por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado, agricultor, vecino de San Ramón, cédula de identidad CED1 - - . Intervienen en el proceso la PROCURADURIA GENERAL DE LA REPUBLICA, representada por Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, de calidades desconocidas en autos, en su condición de procuradora adjunta, y el INSTITUTO DE DESARROLLO AGRARIO, cédula jurídica CED2 - - - , representado por Carmelina Vargas Hidalgo, mayor, divorciada, abogada, vecina de Guachipelín, Escazú, cédula de identidad CED3 - - , en su condición de apoderada general judicial. Tramitada ante el Juzgado Civil, Trabajo y Agrario del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela , San Ramón. Actúa como a poderado especial judicial del titulante, el licenciado Sergio Vargas López , mayor, abogado, vecino de San Ramón, cédula de identidad número CED4 - - .-

RESULTANDO:

1.- El promovente plantea proceso de información posesoria con el fin de que se inscriba a su nombre en el Registro Público de la Propiedad la finca que describe así: “ ... sito en Los Criques, [Dirección1] , San Ramón de la Provincia de Alajuela; cuya medida es de CATORCE MIL CIENTO SESENTA METROS TRES DECIMETROS CUADRADOS . Dicho inmueble es de naturaleza tacotal, y colinda al NORTE con calle pública con una medida lineal a ella de ciento seis metros ochenta y cinco decímetros lineales; SUR: [Nombre2] ; ESTE : [Nombre2] y OESTE : [Dirección2] con una medida lineal a ella de ciento cincuenta y seis metros veintiún decímetros lineales", (folios 10 a 13, y 161 a 163).- 2.- El Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario , y la Procuraduría General de la República, se apersonaron al proceso en los términos visibles de folios 45 el primero y a folios 47 a 52 el segundo.- 3.- La licenciad a Tatiana Rodríguez [Nombre2] , juez a del juzgado de instancia , mediante sentencia de las trece horas y veintiún minutos del nueve de febrero de l dos mil diez , resolvió: “ POR TANTO: De acuerdo a lo expuesto y citas de ley SE APRUEBAN las presentes diligencias de información posesoria promovidas por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado una vez, agricultor, vecino de San Ramón de Bajo Zúñiga, cédula CED5; trámite que cumplió apegado a la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias número ciento treinta y nueve del catorce de julio de mil novecientos cuarenta y uno, sus reformas y adiciones, y la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria número seis mil setecientos treinta y cuatro del veinticinco de marzo de mil novecientos ochenta y dos y sus reforma.- En consecuencia: a) Libre de gravámenes y cargas reales, sin condueños y sin perjuicio de terceros de mejor derechos, proceda el Registro Público, Sección Propiedad Inmueble, a inscribir a nombre del promovente, el siguiente fundo sin inscribir, descrito en el plano catastrado número A-722787-87, sito en [Dirección3] , , San Ramón de la Provincia de Alajuela; cuya medida es de CATORCE MIL CIENTO SESENTA METROS TRES DECIMETROS CUADRADOS . Dicho inmueble es de naturaleza tacotal, y colinda al NORTE con calle pública con una medida lineal a ella de ciento seis metros ochenta y cinco decímetros lineales; SUR: [Nombre2] ; ESTE : [Nombre2] y OESTE : Calle Pública con una medida lineal a ella de ciento cincuenta y seis metros veintiún decímetros lineales. c) El promovente ha estimado las diligencias en la suma de un millón de colones y el inmueble en la suma de un millón quinientos mil colones. d) Se ordena al Registro Público, se consigne que el inmueble se encuentra afecto a las reservas de los artículos 19 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y el área continua a la quebrada constituye área de protección según el artículo 33, inciso b) de la Ley Forestal No.7575 y queda prohibida la corta o eliminación de árboles, el cauce y las aguas de esa corriente son de dominio público (Ley de Aguas, artículos 1, inciso IV, y 3 inciso III). Una vez firme esta resolución, a solicitud de la promovente, expídase la certificación correspondiente", (folios 161 a 163).- 4.- La licenciada Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, en su condición de Procuradora Adjunta, formuló recurso de apelación con indicación expresa de las razones por las cuales refuta la tesis del Juzgado de instancia, (folios 1 67 a 174 ).- 5. En la substanciación del proceso no se han observado las prescripciones legales, y se notan la existencia de errores u omisiones en el fallo capaces de producir su nulidad.

Redacta la jueza Vargas Vásquez; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.Por la forma en que se resolverá en esta instancia, se omite pronunciamiento sobre los hechos tenidos por probados en la sentencia apelada.-

II.La licenciada Lydiana Rodríguez Paniagua, Procuradora Adjunta de la Procuraduría General de la República, interpuso recurso de apelación con nulidad concomitante contra la sentencia, en memorial remitido por fax el 18 de febrero de 2010 (folio 167), cuyo original fue presentado a estrados el día 22 del citado mes y año (folio 171). En primer orden, reclama la nulidad de la sentencia, al ser emitida en forma anticipada debido a que no se le enviaron copias de la audiencia de prueba, pese a la insistencia en la remisión de las mismas, lo cual le deja en estado de indefensión debido a que requiere de esa información para verificar el cumplimiento de los requisitos legales para poder titular el inmueble. Alegó además, la sentencia tuvo por acreditado que el bien a titular colinda por los rumbos [Dirección4] y [Dirección5] con "calle [Dirección6]", pero no se exigió la presentación de un nuevo plano en el que se respetara el derecho a vía de 14 metros, pese a la solicitud que hizo al Juzgado en tal sentido. Estima la recurrente que tratándose de una afectación demanial establecida por el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, los tribunales no pueden dejarla sin efecto.-

III.El Tribunal no comparte la causal de nulidad alegada por la representante del Estado, debido a que en resolución de las 15 horas 44 minutos del 10 de febrero de 2009 (folio 79) se ordenó enviar a la Procuraduría, entre otros documentos, copia del acta de recepción de prueba testimonial de folios 66 a 68. De tal remisión de copias se dejó consta en el acta de notificación donde consta la comunicación al Estado de dicho pronunciamiento en su domicilio social (folio 96), por lo que se estima, los alegatos de la recurrente carecen de fundamento.-

IV.En su único agravio, la representante del Estado alega que en el plano que representa el inmueble a titular no se respeta el ancho de vía pública establecido por el artículo 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos. En efecto, dicha norma dispone que los caminos vecinales deben tener un ancho de 14 metros; no obstante, en este caso, en el aludido plano se señala dicho ancho es de apenas 8 metros en el camino que sirve de colindancia por los rumbos [Dirección7] . Lo anterior significa que se está irrespetando el derecho de vía pública y que parte del área del aludido camino se está incorporando al área que representa el inmueble a titular. En el proceso se recibió Oficio MSR-DGV-01-03-2009 emitido por el arquitecto Leandro Quesada Castillo, Director de la Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial y el ingeniero topógrafo Luis Marcelo Chavarría Ch. de dicha Unidad, ambos de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, del 3 de marzo de 2009, en el que se hizo constar existen 9 planos en la base catastral de dicha Municipalidad para información posesoria en los que se cita ese camino como público, por lo que se realizó una visita de campo el 2 de marzo de 2009, determinándose que en el sitio se encontraba el señor [Nombre3] el cual confirmó el nombre de los colindantes y comentó que los lotes corresponden a una herencia familiar, adicionando que ese acceso entronca con la vía principal en coordenadas [Dirección8], [Dirección9] (+-) Sistema Lambert, ubicación que no concuerda con la ofrecida en el plano catastrado. Por otra parte, indicaron, el acceso tiene un ancho entre 7 y 8 metros, no tiene posteado eléctrico, no da salida a casas de habitación, superficie de ruedo en piedra cuarta gracias al mantenimiento que el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad para el control de torres. Cabe destacar que el acceso se ve bloqueado por portillos evitando el libre tránsito. Para concluir: "Considerando que los planos catastrados de los colindantes no han surtido efecto registral, que el acceso no viene a cumplir un impacto social y que la ubicación del mismo no corresponde a la realidad; esta Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial certifica que el acceso que se muestra en el plano A-722787-1987 no es calle pública." (folios 112 y 113). Los elementos tomados en consideración por los ingenieros citados, no constituyen en criterio de este Tribunal, elementos objetivos suficientes para descartar la naturaleza pública de un camino que se cita como tal en el plano que sirvió de base a esta información posesoria y con base en el cual se está titulando este inmueble, de la misma forma que lo hicieron las personas físicas o jurídicas que presentaron ante dicha Municipalidad los 9 planos a los que tales funcionarios hacen alusión en su informe. Basarse en el hecho de que no existen casas en este momento en el sector aledaño a esa calle para concluir no es pública, implica dejar de lado las proyecciones de crecimiento urbano a futuro en esa zona, constituyendo la obstrucción de paso por esa calle un aspecto que debió destacarse como preocupante por ese gobierno local, en lugar de servir de base para concluir, al menos a esos servidores municipales que la naturaleza es privada. Es importante señalar que la Sala Constitucional en voto 2306 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 6 de noviembre de 1991, refiriéndose a las características de las calles públicas, señaló: "... las vías públicas, que son terrenos de dominio público, por definirlo así expresamente, la Ley de Construcciones en sus artículos 4, 5 y 6; el artículo 28 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, artículos 44 y siguientes de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, en relación con los artículos 261 y 262 del Código Civil y el inciso 14 del artículo 121 y 174 de la Constitución Política.- El dominio público se encuentra integrado por bienes que manifiestan, por voluntad expresa del legislador, un destino especial de servir a la comunidad, al interés público.- Son los llamados bienes dominicales, bienes dominicales, bienes o cosas públicas o bienes públicos, que no pertenecen individualmente a los particulares y que están destinados a un uso público y sometidos a un régimen especial, fuera del comercio de los hombres.- Es decir, afectados por su propia naturaleza y vocación.- En consecuencia, esos bienes pertenecen al Estado en el sentido más amplio del concepto, están afectados al servicio que prestan y que invariablemente es esencial en virtud de norma expresa.- Notas características de estos bienes, es que son inalienables, imprescriptibles, inembargables, no pueden hipotecarse ni ser susceptibles de gravamen en los términos del Derecho Civil y la acción administrativa sustituye a los interdictos para recuperar el dominio.- Como están fuera del comercio, estos bienes no pueden ser objeto de posesión, aunque se puede adquirir un derecho al aprovechamiento, aunque no un derecho a la propiedad. ... En los casos en que se pretenda ejercer la ocupación por las vías de hecho, ya sea en forma pacífica o mediante hechos de fuerza, bien puede la Administración desalojarlos por la misma vía, sin que sea necesario acudir a expediente alguno, ni a reglas del debido proceso, incluyendo la facultad de retirar los bienes de los sitios públicos ocupados, a reserva de ser devueltos a sus propietarios, salvo los artículos perecederos, los que por razones de protección de la salud pública, pueden ser destruidos si llegan a constituir un peligro para ese bien superior.- En general, ningún derecho fundamental se puede entender vulnerado, si se trata de conservar la naturaleza y el uso de los bienes públicos; el trabajo, el libre comercio, la propiedad y el patrimonio objetivo de las personas y todos los demás derechos, no pueden imponerse ilegítimamente por sobre y contra el interés general, gravando los bienes del Estado que conforman el demanio." Conforme a lo expuesto por la Sala, basado en la normativa que regula los caminos públicos, entre ella la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, estima este Tribunal que los argumentos esgrimidos por los funcionarios municipales que emitieron el informe en referencia no son suficientes para concluir, el camino público al que hace referencia el plano catastrado A-722787-87 no lo es tal. Tan es así que el Departamento de Ingeniería Municipal de esa misma Municipalidad de San Ramón colocó un sello en el referido plano en el que incluyó como advertencia: "Toda violación al alineamiento oficial deja sin efecto esta autorización. El dueño estará obligado a demoler la parte fuera de la línea, art 24 de la Ley de Construcciones y art. 19 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos." (folio 1º). Así mismo, el ingeniero topógrafo que levantó ese plano indicó en éste: "Doy fe de que la calle que cito como acceso existe en la realidad. Se inscribe este plano sin perjuicio de los derechos del Estado para todos los efectos de las limitaciones que las leyes de aguas y caminos y zona marítimo-terrestre establecen." (folio 1º). En consecuencia, estima el Tribunal que la sentencia emitida está viciada de nulidad por anticipada, debido a que en forma previa a su emisión, debe verificarse el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales establecidos, concretamente, el levantamiento de un nuevo plano catastrado dentro del plazo prudencial de dos meses contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, por parte de la promovente, que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros, disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área actual del inmueble pretendido titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá con la prueba constante en autos.

V.Por lo expuesto, con fundamento en los artículos 4 de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, 24 de la Ley de Construcciones, 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias y 26 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Agraria, deberá acogerse la solicitud de nulidad hecha por la recurrente y disponerse la nulidad de la sentencia al haber sido emitida en forma anticipada. En forma previa a su emisión, deberá el Juzgado verificar el cumplimiento de los requisitos legales correspondientes, concretamente, el respeto al derecho de vía de catorce metros en el camino público que sirve de colindancia [Dirección10] , disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área del inmueble a titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá este asunto con la prueba constante en autos.-

POR TANTO:

Se acoge la solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia planteada por la representante del Estado. Se anula la sentencia. En forma previa a su emisión, deberá el Juzgado verificar el cumplimiento de todos los requisitos legales por parte del promovente, concretamente, la presentación por parte de éste en el plazo prudencial de dos meses contados a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución, de un plano catastrado que respete el derecho de vía de un ancho de catorce metros, en la calle [Dirección6] que sirve de colindancia [Dirección4] y [Dirección5], disminuyendo así en forma proporcional el área actual del inmueble pretendido titular, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de incumplimiento se resolverá con la prueba constante en autos.- DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ ALEXANDRA ALVARADO PANIAGUA MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA INFORMACION POSESORIA TIT: [Nombre1] [Nombre4] / +

Land titling does not respect public road right-of-way widthTitulación de inmueble no respeta ancho de vía pública

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp