Nullity of Registry Inscription and Cadastral Plan for Belonging to the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone and the Ostional National Wildlife RefugeNulidad de inscripción registral y plano catastrado por pertenecer a la zona marítimo terrestre y al Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional

COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Directorate 04 Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Email ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ CASE FILE: 09-001790-1027-CA PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARED A MATTER OF PURE LAW PLAINTIFF: EL ESTADO DEFENDANTS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A.

No. 2642 -2010 TRIAL COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. SIXTH SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144. Goicoechea, at ten o'clock on the twenty-first of July, two thousand ten.- Proceedings for a declaratory judgment declared a matter of pure law, filed by EL ESTADO, represented by the Deputy Procuradora GLORIA SOLANO MARTÍNEZ, of legal age, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED571, against the company GANADERA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597, represented by Nombre141932, in his capacity as President with powers of Unlimited General Agent without limit of amount of said company; and as interested third parties Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598; Nombre122580, identity card CED111599; Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600; Nombre141935, identity card CED111601; Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602.

WHEREAS:

1.- The claims of the plaintiff—which were maintained during the preliminary hearing held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June, two thousand ten—are so that the judgment “...1) Declares that the property of the Guanacaste registry number 155180, which corresponds to the real property described in cadastral map G-256640-1995, is located entirely within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of Playa Ostional. A public domain asset that also forms part of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional). 2) Declares that deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez is absolutely null and void for lacking any legal basis and for recording false facts and non-existent resolutions from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz. 3) Establishes that said deed being null, the registration entry of property number 155180 of the Guanacaste registry is likewise null, and therefore, orders the National Registry (Registro Nacional) to cancel it. 4) Because it incorporates lands belonging to the public domain, cadastral map G-256640-1995 is also null, for which reason I request that the National Cadastre Directorate (Dirección de Catastro Nacional) be ordered to cancel it. 5) Orders that the mortgage guarantees constituted on it during the legal validation period are also null, and therefore, orders the National Registry to cancel the registration entries of the following mortgages: a. Citation 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933. b. Citation 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934, c. Citation 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580. d. Citation 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934. e. Citation 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935. f. Citation 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936. 6) Additionally, condemns the defendant to pay both costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest generated until their effective payment.” 2.- That by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally at ten hours fifty-seven minutes on the third of November, two thousand nine, the Processing Judge resolved: "The provisional measures ordered by this office in Resolution No. 1468-2009 are maintained, which consist of the following: 1. The annotation of the present proceeding with the National Registry in the margin of the registration entry of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry. 2. The registration freeze (inmovilización registral) of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry. 3. The company owning the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies altering the current conditions of the real property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to conduct an inspection of the asset in question every fifteen days, for the concrete verification of point three of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following said inspection, to the executing judge of the Trial Court of Administrative Proceedings. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently, MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure aimed at granting any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry, likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the real property registration number Placa27729 until the main proceeding is resolved." 3.- That by resolution at fourteen hours forty minutes on the nineteenth of November, two thousand nine (folios 99 and 100 of the court file), the Processing Judge ordered the transfer of service of the complaint. Said order was notified to Nombre122580, at eight o'clock on the eleventh of December, two thousand nine; to Nombre141933, Nombre141935 and Nombre141934, at eleven o'clock on the tenth of December, two thousand nine; to Ganadería Campo Bonito, at eleven o'clock on the fifteenth of December, two thousand nine, and to Nombre141936, at ten hours thirty minutes on the seventh of January, two thousand ten (folios 102 to 107 of the court file).

4.- That by resolution at eleven hours twenty-five minutes on the eighth of February, two thousand ten (folio 108 of the court file), the Processing Judge resolved: a) To consider the complaint as not answered within the period granted for that purpose by the order at fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on the nineteenth of November, two thousand nine; b) In accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), declared the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936, and Nombre141933 in default, and considered the complaint answered affirmatively regarding the facts, without prejudice to their ability to appear at any stage of the proceeding, taking it in the state in which it finds itself; c) The conciliation hearing was dispensed with, given that the State's representative previously expressed her waiver to conciliate in this matter, for which reason the parties were summoned to a preliminary hearing, scheduled for thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June, two thousand ten.

5.- That the preliminary hearing was held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June, two thousand ten, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special annex. That during this hearing, the Processing Judge recorded the non-attendance of the defendant company's representative and the interested third parties; maintained the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first purpose of this judgment; considered all the facts as true by reason of the declaration of default of the defendant; admitted the pertinent documentary evidence. Consequently, since there was no testimonial or expert evidence to be received and in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.2 of the same Code, declared this matter one of pure law, and the plaintiff presented its conclusions orally (see folio 111 of the court file and the audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing).

6.- That this matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of the Sixth Section of the Trial Court of Administrative Proceedings, on the twenty-third of June, two thousand ten (folio 111 back of the court file). In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that cause defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the period established in Article 98, subsection 2) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, in relation to subsection 4) of Article 82 of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction (Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción).- Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judges Garita Navarro and González Vílchez; and,

WHEREAS:

I.- REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF THE COURT TO ANALYZE THE LAW AND THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS, DESPITE THE DECLARATION OF DEFAULT OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY. It is important, prior to the substantive analysis of this resolution, to establish that this Court, as the jurisdictional body it is, has the obligation to review, analyze, and determine whether the law and the claims alleged by the plaintiff have legal support, as well as to resolve the substantive requirements, even if there exists, as in the present case, a declaration of default due to the non-contestation of the complaint by the representatives of the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936, and Nombre141933 (folio 108 of the court file), even more so in this case, in which the representatives of the defendant company and the interested third parties also failed to appear at the preliminary hearing held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June, two thousand ten (see folio 111 of the court file and the audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing). The foregoing is supported by the following grounds: 1) The jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated, despite that jurisprudential line having been presented in the context of the former Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa) and the Civil Procedure Code, but which remains applicable to the current administrative procedure legislation, that the declaration of default does not negate the jurisdictional body's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture, among other relevant aspects, as clearly follows from the following resolution of that Chamber:

"IX.- Regarding the non-contestation of the complaint: Certainly, non-contestation of the complaint leads to default and to having the facts considered answered affirmatively, but it does not negate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture. Furthermore, the defaulting party may appear at any time in the proceeding and offer new evidence (arts. 293 and 310 C.P.C.), which, if pertinent for clarifying the facts, the judge may admit for better provision. Consequently, default alone is not sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only reaches this value if other evidence of equal character does not contradict the constructive admission. Therefore, default must be evaluated along with the rest of the evidentiary elements contained in the proceeding." (Ruling 801-F-02 at 11 hours 10 minutes on October 18, 2002). Thus, the answer in default would not suffice to grant the counterclaim's petitions, if other evidentiary elements lead, under the application of the rules of sound criticism, to verify that the necessary legal prerequisites for granting the claims do not exist." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 991-F-2004 at fifteen hours twenty minutes on the seventeenth of November, two thousand four).

From what is stated in this resolution, it can be extracted that the jurisdictional body can and must make its decision based on the evidentiary elements contained in the file and not consider a factual picture and the plaintiff's claims proven merely due to the declaration of default. 2) The plaintiff, in accordance with Articles 58, 82, 85, and 120 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable supplementarily in this matter as permitted by Article 220 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, has the burden of proving its right and claims, regardless of whether the defendant has answered the complaint or not; the mere existence of a declaration of default does not negate the obligation of the petitioner to prove its right. 3) In the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, there is an obligation on judges, established in Article 49 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and every other public law entity, which demonstrates that in this matter, more than in others, judges are obliged to review the conduct of the Public Administration to determine whether it has conformed to the legal system. 4) In accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a defendant who does not answer within the summons period will be declared in default ex officio and the complaint will be considered answered affirmatively regarding the facts, without prejudice to being able to appear at any time, taking the proceeding in the state in which it finds itself. Now, although in accordance with Article 93, subsection 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, evidence will not be admitted when there is conformity regarding the facts, the norm provides for an exception, which occurs precisely when said conformity with the facts has resulted from the declaration of the defendant's default. Consequently, the judge cannot assume there is no controversy and dispense with evidence, as he must seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and due to the legality review that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution and 1 of the procedural Code); therefore, default is not assimilated to the figure of acquiescence. For all the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that, for the reasons stated previously in this case, this collegiate body must proceed to analyze the substantive requirements, the facts, and the claims of the complaint, in order to determine whether they have legal support or not, despite the fact that in this matter the representative of the defendant company and the interested third parties did not answer the complaint and were declared in a state of default, which, as indicated above, does not negate the possibility of this court to review, analyze, and determine whether the complaint filed by the State's Representative is in accordance with the law.

II.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts relevant to this proceeding are deemed duly accredited: 1) That in January of nineteen ninety-five, Associated Surveyor number 2694 issued a cadastral map in the name of Nombre141937, identity card number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit (permiso de uso) over the real property located in Ostional, district Cuajiniquil, canton Santa Cruz, province Guanacaste (see folio 15 front of the court file for precautionary measures); 2) That on the twenty-fourth of May, nineteen ninety-five, the Department of Forest Reserves, Protected Zones, and Hydrographic Basins of the General Forestry Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, certified on the back of said cadastral map that, based on "...the location appearing on this map in the name of Nombre141938, the real property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 19-10-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 08-10-93. It is also reported that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information proceedings and it will be up to Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this map is authorized for cadastral purposes…" (see folio 15 back of the court file for precautionary measures and 17 of the court file); 3) That on the thirtieth of May, nineteen ninety-five, the cadastral map in the name of Nombre141937, identity card number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit over the real property located in Ostional, Dirección17194, province Guanacaste, was registered with the National Cadastre under number G-256640-95 (see folio 15 front of the court file for precautionary measures); 4) That at nine o'clock on the twenty-seventh of July, two thousand six, notary public Henry Miguel Vega Cruz granted deed number 86, volume four of the protocol, whereby Nombre141940, identity card CED111604, sold to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597, a possession right (derecho de posesión) over a piece of land not registered in the Registry, located in Ostional, district Cuajiniquil, canton Santa Cruz, province Guanacaste, bounded on the north by Nombre141937, on the south by the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, on the east and west by MIRENEM, with cadastral map number G-256640-95 (see folios 36 and 37 of the court file); 5) That on the third of November, two thousand six, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., filed before the Civil and Labor Court of Santa Cruz, possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) over the real property located in Ostional, Dirección17195, province Guanacaste, bounded on the north by Nombre141937, on the south by the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, on the east and west by MIRENEM, with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, so that the judgment would declare the right of possession and issue the respective order for its registration in the Real Property Registry (Registro de Bienes Inmuebles), in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. That said possessory information proceedings were processed under case file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz (see folios 30, 31, 38 to 40 of the court file); 6) That by order at nine hours fifty-two minutes on the twenty-first of November, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz warned the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that—among other requirements—it had to provide without any exception "... the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the responsible entity, which will attest to whether the real property sought to be titled is located inside or outside of protected wildlife areas...", all under warning that until it fulfilled everything ordered, its future actions would not be attended to. That said resolution was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at nine hours forty-four minutes on the twenty-third of November, two thousand six, via the fax system (see folios 41 to 43 of the court file); 7) That on the fifteenth of February, two thousand seven, notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, presented to the Daily Entry Department of the Real Property Registry, deed number 108, folio 70 back, volume 4 of his protocol, granted at nine hours fifteen minutes on the nineteenth of January, two thousand seven, whereby the resolution allegedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz was formalized, at nine o'clock on the ninth of October, two thousand six, in which the Possessory Information Proceedings promoted by the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. were supposedly approved. That in said deed it was also recorded that the respective edict had been published in the "...Judicial Bulletin, file number 42, of the third of November, two thousand six..." (see folios 22 to 31 of the court file); 8) That the document formalizing what was allegedly resolved by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which occupies volume 570, entry 45185 of the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, originated on the twenty-sixth of February, two thousand seven, the registration of the real property under registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number Placa27730, described as land dedicated to cultivation, located in Dirección17196, province Guanacaste, bounded on the north by Nombre141937, on the south by a public road with 50 meters of frontage, on the east and west by MIRENEM. That the validation period (plazo de convalidación) provided in the Law of Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) began on the twenty-sixth of February, two thousand six and concluded on the twenty-sixth of February, two thousand ten (see folios 22 to 28, 60 to 64 of the court file; 10 of the court file for precautionary measures); 9) That on the first of March, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on the twenty-eighth of February, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, a first-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered on the nineteenth of April, two thousand seven, at volume 570, entry 60946, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the twenty-eighth of February, two thousand eight (see folios 70 to 74 of the court file and 11 of the court file for precautionary measures); 10) That on the twentieth of September, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock on the fourth of September, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, a second-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered at volume 570, entry 85988, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the fourth of September, two thousand eight (see folios 76 to 79 of the court file and 11 of the court file for precautionary measures); 11) That on the second of November, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on the second of November, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, a third-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered at volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the second of November, two thousand eight (see folios 81 to 83 of the court file and 12 of the court file for precautionary measures); 12) That on the fifteenth of January, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on the tenth of January, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, a fourth-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number Placa27731, which was registered on the thirteenth of March, two thousand eight, at volume 574, entry 36041, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the tenth of January, two thousand nine (see folios 85 to 88 of the court file and 12 of the court file for precautionary measures); 13) That on the twenty-fourth of January, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on the twenty-first of January, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, a fifth-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number Placa27731, which was registered at volume 574, entry 49696, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the twenty-first of January, two thousand nine (see folios 90 to 93 of the court file and 12 to 13 of the court file for precautionary measures); 14) That on the twenty-fourth of March, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Entry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on the thirteenth of March, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, a sixth-degree mortgage on the real property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered at volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose term expired on the fifteenth of March, two thousand nine (see folios 95 to 98 of the court file and 13 of the court file for precautionary measures); 15) That by resolution at fourteen hours eleven minutes on the thirteenth of January, two thousand nine, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz resolved "...according to the detailed study of the records, in the present matter, one can note that there is a warning which is set forth at folio 9, the same having been ordered by this office at nine hours and fifty-two minutes on the twenty-first of November, two thousand six, and to date the same has not been able to be dispelled. Thus, the request made in the supra-cited brief is rendered without effect and it is ordered to add it to its precedents without further ruling..." (see folio 45 of the court file); 16) That by official letter number PUB-225-09 of the twenty-ninth of July, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Press (Imprenta Nacional) indicates that: "...1) In the Judicial Bulletin dated November 3, 2006, there is no publication emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system registers only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005..." (see folios 66 to 68 of the court file); 17) That by official letter number DRIM-CT-401-2009 of the sixth of August, two thousand nine, the Acting Deputy Director of the Immovable Registry, Cadastral Division (Registro Inmobiliario División Catastral), indicated that map G-256640-1995 is located - based on the geographic location -, "...within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge and within the maritime-terrestrial zone, in the 150 m of the restricted zone..." (see folios 53 to 55 of the court file for precautionary measures); 18) That by official letter number ACT-OR-DR-983 of the eleventh of August, two thousand nine, the Acting Regional Director of the Tempisque Conservation Area of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), indicated that: "...the real property cadastre number Placa27731 in the name of Nombre141937, is located within the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) (...) This property is located in the northern sector of the Refuge, which is used by leatherback and black turtles for nesting, possibly because there are few constructions and therefore less incidence of lights and noise (...) According to the review of the file, the Conservation Area has no application or permit in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141932, or Nombre141937...". On said real property there is a dwelling house built with concrete block, fiber cement sheets (láminas de fibrolit) and a zinc roof, and the house lot is enclosed with wooden planks; there are pasture areas delimited with barbed wire fences, wooden posts, and bordering the public zone with piñuela cactus fences, in which there are cattle and equine livestock (see folios 57 to 62 of the court file for precautionary measures); 19) That by order issued at fourteen hours two minutes on the twenty-fifth of August, two thousand nine, the Civil Court of Major Amount of Santa Cruz resolved: "...The state representative is informed that the undersigned verified the Judicial Management Computer System that this office maintains for that purpose in order to verify if there are case files of possessory information in the name of Ganadería Campos Bonito ORM SA; however, it follows from the same that only the present matter exists. Consequently, said body is informed that the resolution of eight o'clock on the twenty-seventh of June, two thousand six, and of nine o'clock on the ninth of October, two thousand six, does not exist. By means of certification, proceed to send a certified copy of the present matter...". That said resolution was notified to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M.

S.A., at twelve hours fifty-one minutes on August thirty-first, two thousand nine, by fax system (see folios 30 to 31, 49 to 50 of the judicial file); 20) That at eight hours forty-two minutes on September eleventh, two thousand nine, the Head of the Notarial Archive issued certification number DAN-3223, whereby it is certified that from folio 70 verso to 73 front of volume 4 of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deeds number 106, 101, and 108 —respectively— are recorded (see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file); 21) That by brief of January seventh, two thousand ten, addressed to Deputy Attorney Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., stated: “…It is only with the ordinary proceeding filed by your represented party that I become aware of all the illegal acts and falsehoods with which the real property registered in favor of my represented party was inscribed, because although I purchased the possession of the property, the seller and her husband were the ones who handled the pertinent procedures to complete the possessory information (…) and therefore, even if this results in serious economic harm to this representation, I am in full agreement, whether to transfer, return, or request the cancellation of the registry entry that gave rise to the property subject to this proceeding (…) That for the above, I only need and therefore request, a prudential period of time, of at least 6 months, in order to properly cancel the mortgage liens that appear in the Registry, and which are known to your institution, since all the creditors appearing therein were in good faith…” (see folios 112 and 113 of the judicial file).

III.— OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING. The plaintiff considers that the following acts should be annulled: cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste district, real folio registration number Placa27729 and the mortgage guarantees constituted over said real property during the legal validation period, for the following reasons: 1) Although it is true, the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, concerning the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, processed under case file number 06-000595-0388-CI, it is also true that those proceedings were not even admitted for processing, given that the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. never complied with the prevention order issued by the jurisdictional body by ruling of nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six; 2) That for the foregoing reason, there could not have been a protocolized judgment, nor a publication in the Judicial Bulletin, nor the resolutions of eight hours on June twenty-seventh and of nine hours on October ninth, both of two thousand six, given that these are prior not only to the date of filing of the possessory information proceedings —namely: November third, two thousand six—, but also to the ruling of nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first of the same year, by which the respective prevention order was made to the defendant company; 3) Consequently, since the prior possessory information proceedings before the competent jurisdictional body did not exist, the information contained in deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez is not only false, but also could not serve as the basis for the act of inscription of the property with cadastral map number Placa27732, under real folio registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, so that said inscription must also be annulled; 4) It must be taken into consideration that the property is public domain. Not only because it is located in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), but also because it forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional), which is why, given the characteristics of unattachability (inembargabilidad), imprescriptibility (imprescriptibilidad), and inalienability (inalienabilidad), it was impossible for said property to be registered in the name of a third party and for mortgage guarantees to be constituted over it; 5) Although it is true that there was a period in which a property located in the maritime-terrestrial zone could be titled, it is also true that this is not applicable to the specific case, given that the possessory information proceedings were filed only on November third, two thousand six; 6) In that sense, even if the plaintiff company had continued with the processing of the possessory information proceedings, it was impossible for the Civil Court of Santa Cruz to proceed with the titling of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, not only because it is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone, but also because said land forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), having been incorporated into the Ostional Wildlife Refuge.

IV.— THE NATURAL HERITAGE OF THE STATE AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT, RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. This collegiate body considers that, prior to the legality examination of the administrative conducts whose nullity is claimed, it is necessary to refer, in a general manner, to the Natural Heritage of the State, as a public domain asset (bien demanial). In that sense, it must be noted that by resolution No. 0063-2009, issued by this Section, at 16:00 hours on January 19, 2009, it was indicated, insofar as relevant for the issuance of this judgment, the following: “....Constitutional recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In Costa Rica, the recognition and protection in Constitutional Law of the aforementioned fundamental right does not have its point of departure in the amendment to Article 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), provided for by Law number 7412 of June third, nineteen ninety-four. This is so given that, since the promulgation of the constitutional text in the year 1949, the will of the Constituent Assembly was clear in establishing in Article 89, that: ‘Among the cultural purposes of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, to conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and to support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress’; which is complemented by the categorical declaration contained in Article 21, to the effect that in our country, ‘Human life is inviolable.’ The integration of the provisions of both articles implies that the need to preserve the environment —even though at that time the Constituent Assembly used the term natural beauties— transcends a purpose of a merely cultural nature, to become a vital need of every human being, as it constitutes an essential prerequisite for making effective other fundamental rights such as: life, health, and development. (see in that sense, judgments number 1993-03705 at fifteen hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three; 1993-06240 at fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three; 1993-04423 at twelve hours on December seventh, nineteen ninety-three; 1994-02485 at nine hours eighteen minutes on May twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-four, all from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia)). In that sense, it bears recalling that Constitutional Law is composed not only of the constitutional text, but also of the values and principles that inform and permeate its content, as well as by Public Treaties, International Conventions, and Concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, and also by the International Instruments on Human Rights applicable in the Republic (see Articles 1, 7, 21, 50 of the Political Constitution; 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional)). Added to this, the written and unwritten norms that make up Constitutional Law are characterized by being of direct and immediate application, such that their beneficiaries not only have the right to make them effective through administrative and jurisdictional channels, if they believe that by action or omission they have been impaired, but also, this implies that legal operators have the duty to apply them directly and immediately in their decision-making process, in order to comply with constitutional requirements (see what was considered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 1999-00644 at eleven hours twenty-four minutes on January twenty-ninth, nineteen ninety-nine). If we take as a basis the provisions of Articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, we can affirm that even if the constitutional text had not contained norms relating to the recognition and protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that right and correlative duty not only already existed in Costa Rican domestic law, but also their effective protection was demandable both at the domestic and international level. This by virtue of the fact that the Costa Rican State had subscribed to a series of International Conventions, Treaties, and Instruments related to this matter, before Law number 7412 of June third, nineteen ninety-four amended Article 50 of the Political Constitution, instruments among which stand out: the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (Articles 2.1, 12.1, and 12.2.c); the ‘Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (Article 11); the ‘Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,’ signed in Paris on November 23, nineteen seventy-two, and approved by Law number 5980 of October twenty-third, nineteen seventy-six; the ‘Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere,’ adopted in Washington on March third, nineteen seventy-three and approved by Law number 3763 of October nineteenth, nineteen seventy-six; the ‘Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat,’ signed in Ramsar on February second, nineteen seventy-one, and approved by Law number 7224 of nineteen ninety-one; the ‘Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,’ adopted in Vienna on March twenty-second, nineteen eighty-five, and approved by Law number 7228 of April twenty-second, nineteen ninety-one, and its ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,’ signed in Montreal on September sixteenth, nineteen eighty-seven, and approved by Law number 7223 of April second, nineteen ninety-one; the ‘UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,’ signed in Montego Bay on December tenth, nineteen eighty-two, and approved by Law number 7291 published on July fifteenth, nineteen ninety-two, among others. All these international norms were integrated into Costa Rican domestic law in accordance with the provisions of Articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and Articles 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, so that ‘...all these international instruments are of mandatory observance and enjoy full enforceability insofar as their norms do not require further legislative development and therefore must be respected (...) insofar as their normative rank is superior...’ (Judgment number 1993-06240 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three). Infra-constitutional Development of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Without a doubt, the recognition and protection of the aforementioned fundamental right provoked its infra-constitutional development, through the issuance of legal or regulatory norms regulating diverse manifestations thereof, which were issued long before the amendment to Article 50 of the Political Constitution. As an example of this we have: the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) (No. 276 of August 27, 1942); the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) (No. 4240 of November 15, 1978); the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) (No. 4465 of November 25, 1979, now repealed); the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) (No. 6043 of March 2, 1977); the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) (No. 5395 of October 30, 1973); the National Parks Service Creation Law (Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales) (No. 6084 of August 24, 1977); the Animal Health Law (Ley de Salud Animal) (No. 6243 of May 2, 1978); the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) (No. Placa27733 of October 21, 1992), among others. This implies that, before the amendment to Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to which we have referred was not only recognized and protected in Constitutional Law, but had also been developed —although in a sectoral manner and not with a comprehensive vision— at the legal and regulatory level. By virtue of what has been explained so far, this Court considers that the amendment to Article 50 of the Political Constitution only expressly and clearly individualized a fundamental right that was already enshrined and guaranteed by Constitutional Law; expressly declared the scope of the already pre-existing obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and granted individuals full standing to defend it, through a popular action (acción popular) (see judgments number 1994-01394 at fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and 1994-05527 at ten hours forty-five minutes on September twenty-third, nineteen ninety-four, both from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). Consequences of the recognition of the guarantee of Article 50 of the Constitution in the terms explained. Said recognition entails two aspects relevant to the resolution of this proceeding. First. The imposition of a duty, both for the State —understood as the Centralized and Decentralized Administration— and for private legal subjects themselves, to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Second. The establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, at both the administrative and jurisdictional levels. Regarding the first of these aspects, it is worth indicating that ‘The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bear in mind Article 169 of the Constitution), finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor of the same and, in the second place, because the activity of the State is directed toward the satisfaction of the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to veto, prohibit, and impede all activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of dictating the measures that allow compliance with the constitutional requirements...’ (judgment No. 1999-00644 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 11:24 hours on January 29, 1999). In that sense, ‘...The action that the Political Constitution imposes on the State against sources of environmental contamination is multidirectional and definitively active, absolutely intolerant of situations that threaten or affect the optimal environmental conditions that are guaranteed by it to the inhabitants. From this perspective, it is not permitted for public authorities to make concessions or grant extensions so that the environment continues to be affected, even when this is done with a view to bringing economic benefits to a determined geographic zone...’ (judgment No. 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at 16:15 hours on July 28, 1999). That constitutional duty of the State to ensure the protection, defense, and preservation of the environment is developed and manifested, among others, in the following norms: Articles 1, 2.a, 2.c, 2 last paragraph, 3, 12, 28, 32, 34, 37, 56, 59, 78, 83, 103 to 112 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); Articles 1, 2, 9.4, 12, 22 to 30, 45, 49, 54, 86, 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 34, 122 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 37, 54 of the Forestry Law; 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 29 to 33, 37 of the Law on Soil Use, Management, and Conservation (Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos); 13.a, 13.o of the Municipal Code; 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 1, 2 of the General Health Law; 1, 2, 17, 175, 176 of the Water Law; 15, 18, 19, 51, 56, 58.5, Transitory II of the Urban Planning Law. Now, this duty is not only circumscribed to the State as a whole, but also to private legal subjects, who have the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also to guarantee, preserve, and defend it, as is evident, among others, from Articles 1 first paragraph, 2.a, 6, 22, 23, 99, of the Organic Law of the Environment; 10.2, 10.13, 11.4, 88, 95, 101, 105 of the Biodiversity Law; 15, 28 to 30, 36 to 38, 51, 53, 62 to 64, 83, 88 to 121 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 57 to 66 of the Forestry Law; 37, 40, 41 to 45, 51 to 53 of the Law on Soil Use, Management, and Conservation; 14 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; as well as from judgments number 1999-02219 at fifteen hours eighteen minutes on March twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-nine; 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on July twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-nine, among others. Regarding the second aspect, related to the establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, at both the administrative and jurisdictional levels, this Court considers that such means of protection can be classified into two large groups: procedural and material. It is necessary to clarify that, while reference will be made to concrete examples related to each of the classification criteria indicated above, the intention of this Court is not to establish a numerus clausus list, but only to highlight through said examples aspects that have an impact on the object of this proceeding. In that sense, within the group of procedural protection mechanisms, three examples stand out: 1) The broad standing that the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution and Article 105 of the Biodiversity Law grant to any person to report, both through administrative and jurisdictional channels, conducts that violate the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and to claim the damage caused. It should be noted that in principle, standing in environmental matters would originate from a simple normative authorization without there being an intervening individual, collective, or diffuse right or interest; however, this Court considers that, in essence, what each person will seek to protect is a right that forms part of their vital sphere and on whose effective guarantee, defense, and preservation depends their ability to develop and live according to the principle of human dignity (see Article 2.a of the Organic Law of the Environment, to the effect that the environment is the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation). 2) An innominate system of interim measures (medidas cautelares) and, if necessary, of an anticipatory nature (articles 108 of the Biodiversity Law, 42 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, and 19 to 30 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)). 3) The application of the guiding principles in environmental matters, namely: in dubio pro natura, preventive, and precautionary, as means to guarantee the effective protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and therefore, to prevent its existence from being restricted to the semantic plane of legal reality (see Articles 4.c, 17 and 34 of the Organic Law of the Environment, 11 subsections 1 and 2, 92 of the Biodiversity Law, Principle 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration, and among others, judgment number 1999-01250 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at eleven hours twenty-four minutes on February nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine). In that sense, the legal operator must always take into consideration that ‘...where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation...’. On the other hand, in the group of material protection mechanisms, the two following manifestations are very representative: 1) The environmental impact assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), as a sine qua non requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that may alter or destroy elements of the environment or biodiversity, or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials. This requirement has been in force since November 13, 1995, the date on which the Organic Law of the Environment was published. It is also regulated in Articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law; Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Annexes I and II; Principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration; Article 18 of the Forestry Law; General Regulation on Environmental Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluación Ambiental, Decreto Ejecutivo 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC), among others. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has held that ‘...the fact that both the right to health and the right to enjoy an ecologically balanced environment are recognized as fundamental rights obliges this Chamber to specify that the solution to the problem cannot be based on quick solutions; that, to adopt a decision in this field, there must be technical studies to ensure that the solution proposed, in each specific case, will not be the origin of a public health problem or undue alteration to the environment...’ (Among others, judgment No. 1995-02671 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 16:45 hours on May 24, 1995). In that sense, ‘...it is not possible for the State to execute or authorize the execution of projects regarding which there is doubt as to the negative impact they may generate on the environment. Consequently, the omission to carry out a prior environmental impact study translates into a violation of Article 50 of the Constitution...’ (judgment No. 1999-02219 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 15:18 hours on March twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-nine). 2) The existence of assets belonging to the Nation (bienes propios de la Nación) —as the constitutional text calls them—, which, forming part of the public domain, are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable, so that their release from public domain status (desafectación) or application to public uses is reserved to the Law, pursuant to the provisions of Article 121 subsection 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution. Among those assets whose conservation constitutes a matter of public environmental interest (Article 11 of the Biodiversity Law) are: the environment defined in Article 2.a) of the Organic Law of the Environment, as the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation; the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Articles 1 and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); the Natural Heritage of the State (articles 13 to 18 of the Forestry Law); Wild Fauna and Flora (articles 3 and 4 of the Wildlife Conservation Law); the Waters according to the breakdown contained in Article 1 of the Water Law. Regarding the Natural Heritage of the State. Pursuant to the object of the proceeding before us, this Court will focus its analysis on the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE). Given the terms of the recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as already explained, it is necessary to highlight that Forestry Law No. 4465, already cited (and which was repealed by Forestry Law number 7575 of February 5, 1996), not only contained ‘...as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources...’ (Article 1), but also the concepts of Forest (Article 6) and Forest Heritage of the State (Article 32 first paragraph). Regarding the Forest Heritage of the State, Law No. 4465 established its characteristics (Article 33); the competent bodies to administer and supervise the Forest Heritage of the State, which pursuant to that regulation were the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) (Article 32 second paragraph), as well as the powers granted to these bodies for the purpose of protecting and conserving the Forest Heritage of the State. Among the latter, the following should be highlighted: 1) Legal actions to recover possession of those properties (Article 33); 2) The constitution within the Natural Heritage of the State of forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and biological reserves (Articles 35 to 37); 3) The demarcation (deslinde) on the lands of the areas that make up the Forest Heritage of the State (Article 38). On the other hand, in currently effective Forestry Law No. 7575, that concept is taken up again but with a variation in name, as it is now called Natural Heritage of the State. This term is broader as it encompasses the protection and preservation of the forest ecosystem (Article 3 subsection c of the Forestry Law). The Natural Heritage of the State is of public domain, which is why the lands and forests comprised therein are unattachable, imprescriptible, and inalienable. Likewise, their conservation and administration are entrusted by law to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET), through the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), as provided for in Articles 6.a, 13 second paragraph, and 14 of the cited Forestry Law, and numeral 32 second paragraph of the Organic Law of the Environment. The PNE is composed of two important components: 1) Protected Wild Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas), whatever their management category and whether declared by Law or by Executive Decree, namely: forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Law No. 7575, Article 1, paragraph 2, 3 subsection i; Organic Law of the Environment, Article 32; Biodiversity Law, Article 22 et seq. and 58; National Parks Service Law, Article 3 subsections d and f, in relation with the Organic Law of MINAE and its Regulation; Wildlife Conservation Law, Article 82, subsection a); 2) The remaining forests and forest lands of the inalienable areas, of the properties registered in its name, and of those belonging to Municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other Public Administration bodies, which have an immediate legal affectation, except those properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets (Article 13 first paragraph of the Forestry Law). It should be emphasized that both Protected Wild Areas and the rest of the forested areas and lands with forest aptitude comprised within the maritime-terrestrial zone are excluded from the scope of regulation of Law No. 6043 and, therefore, from the competence of the Municipalities, as will be further elaborated later.

These zones are subject to their own legislation (Ley Forestal), which means that their administration falls to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, through the National System of Conservation Areas (see in this regard judgment number 2008-16975 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at fourteen hours fifty-three minutes on November twelve, two thousand eight). That said, as part of the duties incumbent upon MINAET and SINAC for the conservation and protection of the National Natural Heritage, they include: 1) the exercise of the action to recover State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), which is not subject to any statute of limitations (article 14); 2) demarcating on the ground the boundaries that make up the State Natural Heritage (article 16); 3) coordinating with the National Registry the establishment of a forest cadastre (catastro forestal), the objective of which shall be to regulate the areas comprised within the State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) and those voluntarily submitted to the forest regime (article 17); 4) the Public Administration may not barter, assign, alienate in any way, deliver, or lease rural lands it owns or administers, without their first having been classified by MINAET, such that, if they were covered with forest, they would automatically become incorporated into the State Natural Heritage (article 15). Based on all the foregoing, this Tribunal reaches the following relevant conclusions in the specific case. First: Since the environment is constituted as the Common Heritage of all the Nation's inhabitants, the State Natural Heritage constitutes a species of that genus (articles 50 second paragraph, 89, 121 subsection 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution, 2 subsection a) of the Organic Environmental Law, 1 of the Biodiversity Law, and 13 of the Ley Forestal). Second: There is an immediate legal affectation (afectación legal inmediata) to the State Natural Heritage of all those lands comprised within protected wild areas, in areas declared inalienable—such as the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (article 73 of Law 6043)—, on lands of forest aptitude (aptitud forestal), and on properties registered in the name of the State, Municipalities, Autonomous Institutions, and other entities of the Decentralized Public Administration. Third: The State Natural Heritage does not require an express declaration, given that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal, as well as what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in judgments 1992-03789 and 1997-04587, forested zones, lands with forest aptitude, mangroves, and wetlands comprised within inalienable areas, such as the maritime-terrestrial zone, are immediately affected to this Heritage, without the concurrence of the Administration. Fourth: Consequently, the delimitation of the boundaries of the areas that make up the State Natural Heritage, in accordance with the provisions of article 16 of the Ley Forestal, constitutes a power that MINAET, through SINAC, must exercise ex officio and not only at the request of a party. This is not only in application of the duty imposed by articles 21, 50 second and third paragraphs, and 89 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee, preserve, and conserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also because the law does not indicate that delimitation must be carried out only at the request of a party. It is not justified, in the judgment of this body, that the State can validly allege a lack of resources for this purpose, as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held (see, among others, judgments 1995-00915 at sixteen hours six minutes on February fifteen, nineteen ninety-five; 1996-000695 at fifteen hours forty-two minutes on February seven, nineteen ninety-six). Fifth: Consequently, the classification carried out by the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) regarding the type of ecosystem existing on the properties comprised within the State Natural Heritage constitutes a mere categorization of those properties, according to the classification criteria set forth in article 13 first paragraph of the Ley Forestal and Decreto Ejecutivo number 34295-MINAE, namely: forests, lands of forest aptitude, wetlands, mangroves, among others. Sixth: It is evident that the State has the duty—at both the constitutional and legal level—to guarantee, defend, and protect forested zones, lands of forest aptitude, mangroves, wetlands, among others, comprised within inalienable areas—as in this case, the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—which, by the mere fact of having that character, were directly and automatically affected to the State Natural Heritage. Therefore, the result of the classification of the type of ecosystem existing in said areas—which must be carried out ex officio and not only at the request of a party, in order to take the necessary measures to achieve their effective protection and conservation—is not what determines their incorporation into or exclusion from the State Natural Heritage, since by law they had already been affected to it, by virtue of being inalienable zones." (See in the same vein, Resolution No. 1842-2009, issued by the Sixth Section of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal at 7 hours 30 minutes on August 31, 2009). From the cited judgments, it is necessary to highlight some aspects that are of vital importance in resolving the specific case. Without a doubt, the State has a constitutional and legal obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to provide all persons with the instruments to defend this fundamental right. In that regard, the use of technical and scientific mechanisms in decision-making involving environmental matters is indispensable. That said, the State Natural Heritage is part of the public domain, by virtue not only of the constitutional affectation (afectación constitucional) as has been explained, but also by express provision of the legislator in various laws, currently in the Ley Forestal. Thus, the State Natural Heritage is protected by the special regime applicable to public domain assets (bienes demaniales), according to which, by their vocation and purpose, they are outside human commerce, are inalienable, not subject to any statute of limitations, and unattachable (article 262 of the Civil Code). As a consequence of this, their ownership or possession is not possible, neither gratuitously nor for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription, nor can they be gained by adverse possession (usucapión). From this perspective, their possession by private parties shall not create any right in their favor. They are assets subject to police power, regarding their utilization and use, since they are conditioned upon the granting of the respective licenses and permits and upon control and oversight by the Administration. Finally, the State has a series of procedural instruments for the recovery of this type of asset, when they have illegitimately left the public domain. On the other hand, the State Natural Heritage is constituted, among others, by properties located in areas declared inalienable, as is the case of the maritime-terrestrial zone (see articles 13 of the Ley Forestal; 1 and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). In these cases, lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias), and private parties may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means (see articles 7 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias).

V.- BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE. Also relevant for the resolution of this matter are some considerations regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, related to the following aspects. Definition. Article 9 of the Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre defines this zone as the strip two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high tide lines and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It comprises maritime islands, islets, and rocky outcrops, as well as all land with a natural formation that protrudes above ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Excepted is 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 said law or in special laws. Zones that make up the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. According to section 10 of the same Law, it can be stated that the maritime-terrestrial zone is composed of two sections: 1) The public zone (zona pública), which is the strip fifty meters wide from the ordinary high tide line and the areas left uncovered during low tide, as well as islets, rocky outcrops, and other small areas and natural formations that protrude from the sea. Likewise, as canon 11 of the cited Law indicates, the public zone is constituted, whatever its extension, by the zone occupied by all mangroves of the continental and insular coasts and estuaries of the national territory. 2) The restricted zone (zona restringida), constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters or by the other lands in the case of islands, and over which, as shall be seen, concessions may be granted. As article 1 of the aforementioned Law states, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the National Heritage (Patrimonio Nacional), belongs to the State, and is inalienable and not subject to any statute of limitations. This has allowed for the precise affirmation of the public domain (demanial) and public character of said zone, and as a consequence thereof, its imprescriptibility, inalienability, non-waivability, as well as that it is outside the commerce of persons. It is because of this character as a public domain asset (bien demanial) that lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings and private parties may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means (see articles 7 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). That said, the fact that it is a public domain asset does not mean that private parties, in a special relationship of subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the contrary: as will be elaborated later, through a concession (in the restricted zone), private parties can utilize the maritime-terrestrial zone. It is important to highlight that, according to article 12 of the Law in question, in the maritime-terrestrial zone, it is prohibited without due legal authorization to exploit existing flora and fauna, to demarcate with fences, tracks, or in any other way, to erect buildings or installations, to cut trees, extract products, or carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. Administration and guardianship of the maritime-terrestrial zone: As already stated, the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. However, it is clear that, according to the already cited Law 6043, over this zone, competencies of different bodies and entities converge. In that sense, it is possible to distinguish jurisdictional spheres that involve, as far as this process concerns, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), Municipalities, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República). At this point, it is worth emphasizing that, in accordance with the provisions of article 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, the maritime-terrestrial zones included, as in this case, in national parks and equivalent reserves, shall be governed by the respective legislation, and therefore, shall be administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Telecommunications, in accordance with the provisions of articles 32 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and 13 second paragraph of the Ley Forestal.

VI.- SOME GENERALITIES ON POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (USUCAPIÓN). In judgment number 1997-04587 at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on August five, nineteen ninety-seven, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered the following regarding the general regime of adverse possession, regulated in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias:

"…GENERAL REGIME OF ADVERSE POSSESSION (USUCAPIÓN): In principle, it must be stated that possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) regulated in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, are a non-contentious judicial procedure through which a property title for real estate that can be registered in the Public Registry is formalized. In general, this procedure is intended for possessors lacking a registrable title in the Public Registry to obtain one. Article 1 of that Law provides that for the possessor of real estate to request the granting of title based on the possessory information procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years under the conditions set forth in article 856 of the Civil Code, namely, in the capacity of owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing requirements of time and condition characterize the possession necessary to acquire by adverse possession (usucapir). To obtain ownership of real estate by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, article 853 of the Civil Code establishes the following requirements: a translative title of ownership (título traslativo de dominio) and good faith. From the foregoing and from the provisions of article 8 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, which characterizes the possessory information procedure as a non-contentious judicial process—in which the emergence of a claim or opposition from any person or the State causes the matter to be suspended and referred to the declaratory route for its discussion and resolution, or the case file to be archived and the administrative route deemed exhausted, respectively—, it follows that the titling of the real estate has as a requirement the acquisition of ownership. That is, a distinction is drawn between the moment of acquiring ownership by adverse possession and the moment that situation is asserted in the possessory information procedure to obtain a title registrable in the Public Registry. Hence, adverse possession is considered a mode of acquiring ownership and other possessable real rights (derechos reales poseíbles), and titling as the procedure through which, once the requirements of adverse possession are proven, the registrable property title is conferred.

Adverse possession (usucapión) is an original mode of acquiring a possessable real right through the passage of time with the legal requirements. The acquisitive legal effect of adverse possession occurs automatically with the passage of time combined with a qualified possession (posesión hábil) meeting the conditions set for possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem), and the other requirements established by law. In general terms, the Civil Code establishes as requirements for positive prescription: the translative title of ownership, good faith, and possession under specific conditions.

Regarding the valid title for adverse possession (título hábil para usucapir), doctrine has stated that what is required is a legal transaction for the acquisition of the right possessed. The title is the fact that serves as the cause of possession and, consequently, of the acquisition of ownership. It is the legal foundation, the determining reason for the acquisition. Adverse possession supposes, at its origin, an act or a series of acts by which a person acquires possession over a thing that normally should be accompanied by a right to the asset, but this does not happen, such that the title for adverse possession coincides with the act of possessory acquisition. The title must be just (justo), which requires its validity and conformity with the legal system (lawfulness). The jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (see resolutions numbers 92 at 10:00 hours on June 21, 1991, and 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994) points out in this regard that for adverse possession, article 853 of the Civil Code requires a translative title of ownership, possession, and good faith, but section 854 clarifies that a just title is required, which characterizes it not as a document but as a cause of acquisition; that article 854 excludes proof of just title in three hypotheses: movable property, easements, and the right of possession; that in these cases, the fact of possession presumes title; that in the case of the right of possession, title is not necessary because possession stands as title; that title should not be required from someone who acquires originally as a product of taking possession in which there is no transferor and whose cause of acquisition finds protection in the legal system; that for the previous case, title is conflated with possession, the title is possession; that the just character of the title lies in the fact that it is lawful, and for the adverse possession case (ad usucapionem), it means that possession must meet the requirements of public, peaceful, continuous, and in the capacity of true holder; that when the Civil Code requires a translative title of ownership or the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias requires its presentation along with other documents necessary for processing the case file, they refer exclusively to the case where the adverse possessor has not been the original possessor but has acquired from another possessor; that in that case, documentary proof of title is required; that article 101 of the Ley de Tierras y Colonización No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and its amendments, states that when adverse possession is involved, the translative title of ownership required by the Civil Code is not necessary.

Regarding the requirement of good faith, jurisprudence (see resolutions of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice numbers 230 at 16:00 hours on July 20, 1990, and 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994) has stated that according to article 853 of the Civil Code, good faith is a requirement of adverse possession that must be present for it to exist; that if the presuppositions of good and bad faith are found in article 285 of the Civil Code, the rule for declaring bad faith is its full demonstration by whoever alleges its existence, since article 286 of the same Code takes on a prevailing character over 285, establishing the principle of the presumption of good faith; that good faith pertains to the personal conviction of the subject regarding their legitimacy; that one must speak of belief generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith in possession serves the objective of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor—acquisition of fruits, payment for improvements, right of retention, and non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing—; that for general good faith—a requirement of possession—ignorance or error regarding the existence of a defect that invalidates the title or mode of acquisition is necessary; that as for the good faith necessary for adverse possession, which encompasses the general one, the belief that the transferor of the title is the owner of the transferred thing or has the power to carry out that transfer is required.

Now, as the last requirement contemplated in article 853 for positive prescription, there is possession. The essence of the institution of adverse possession is linked to the discipline of possession. To the exercise of possession for a determined period and under special conditions—public, peaceful, continuous, and in the capacity of holder of the right claimed—are added the requirements that the legal system establishes for adverse possession, just title and good faith. Possession as a real right (derecho real) implies the relationship between a person and the thing. It constitutes one of the separate elements that form ownership (article 264 Civil Code). The right of possession may be acquired independently of full ownership under certain circumstances that the Civil Code regulates in article 279—by consent of the owner, by the fact of maintaining possession for more than one year, and because the law authorizes the creditor to retain the thing of their debtor or orders that all or some of their assets pass to a depositary—. The right of possession in general is composed of two elements: the corpus and the animus. The first refers specifically to the material fact of having the thing subjected to the power—action—and will of a person, and the second is related to an internal aspect that guides the possessor. To these elements must be added other special circumstances that the law requires for possession to be useful for adverse possession. In that sense, possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem) is a more rigorous or qualified form of possession that differs from the generic one. The requirements that the law requires for possession to be suitable for positive prescription are regulated in article 856 of the Civil Code. Jurisprudence, integrating doctrinal concepts, has developed the content of those requirements. In that sense, in relation to possession in the capacity of owner, it has been pointed out that what the Civil Code means is possession in the capacity of holder of the right claimed, since ownership is not the only right that can be acquired by positive prescription, such that this requirement attends to the title or determining cause of possession and its subsequent mode of exercise; that what matters is the behavior of the possessor as holder—the materialization of conduct as holder—, which excludes any possessor with a non-adverse-possession cause, such as the lessee, administrator, depositary, or servant of the possession; that, based on that requirement, acts performed by virtue of a license and those merely tolerated are also excluded, because they cannot lead to the constitution or acquisition of possession, much less adverse possession, given that they occur through the liberality of the true holder and not of the one presenting themselves as such; that the quality of exercising possession as holder of the right being acquired by adverse possession is understood as it qualifies the suitable subject and discards the unsuitable one; that this qualification, in line with maxims, coincides with the title, so that condition can be taken to identify the legal cause itself with possession. Regarding the requirement of continuity of possession, it is understood that possessory acts must be uninterrupted, that is, they must not be performed in an isolated or accidental manner; that this situation must be maintained throughout the entire time necessary for adverse possession; that the defect occurs when any of the causes for interruption of possession arise, because in those cases, all the elapsed time becomes unusable; that since interruption is a defect, continuity is presumed—article 283 of the Civil Code—, and the party alleging the existence of the defect must prove it. In relation to peaceful possession, it is said to imply not acquiring or maintaining it by force (means of physical or moral coercion); that possession obtained with violence becomes peaceful when the cause that generated the new holding ceases, and it becomes useful for adverse possession—article 857 of the Civil Code—; that one is not in the presence of violent possession when the possessor defends the possession—prevents it from being taken away—, but that does not protect the violent action of the dispossessed person resorting to de facto means to recover their possession, even if legally entitled to it, because as long as another opposes, they must resort to judicial authority—articles 305 and 317 of the Civil Code—. As for the last requirement of possession for adverse possession (ad usucapionem), namely, publicity, doctrine indicates that public possession is the normal use of the thing according to its nature and purpose. Jurisprudence, for its part, has stated that possession must be exercised before all, without hiding or concealing the acts performed on the thing; that moreover, it is important not to hide the condition of holder of the right with which one possesses; that the defect opposed to publicity is clandestinity; that possession that was initially hidden may become suitable for adverse possession if it becomes public. (…)

Regarding the concept of the object of possession, what is important for the purposes of resolving this action of unconstitutionality is to specify that things that are in commerce are susceptible to possession—and to the special possession for adverse possession—. It is said that commerce is equivalent to what is known as legal traffic (tráfico jurídico), such that things are in commerce when they are legally capable of being the object of a patrimonial legal transaction. Article 262 of the Civil Code establishes that public things are outside patrimonial traffic. For its part, article 261 ibidem defines public things as those that by law are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can take advantage of by being delivered for public use. The public domain is currently understood as an intense intervention of public power justified by the need to ensure the effective fulfillment, on the part of things, of a public purpose desired by law. In that understanding, the public thing is conceived as a legal relationship constituted by the legal system consisting of a duty of the Administration to establish and maintain a public function whose realization requires a thing (in the private legal sense), which, due to its connection to the public purpose, is withdrawn from private law and becomes subject to the regime that regulates the specific public function. In that sense, public domain assets are governed by a special regime, not because of their nature, but because of their affectation to the public statute. The designation of an asset for a public use or service occurs by law. Since the subjection occurs with respect to assets that are in private legal traffic, it supposes an impact that harms private ownership and implies—in most cases—the need to modify the ownership of the assets so that the private party is not forced to bear a radical change of statute. Currently, doctrine indicates that the serviceability of assets to a public purpose can occur without sacrificing their situation in private legal traffic, because a public-law delimitation of the content of real rights (derechos reales) and their limitation is sufficient.

After setting forth the general panorama of the regime of adverse possession, it is necessary to point out that due to the incorporation of doctrinal criteria into jurisprudence (judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994), the requirements that characterize this legal institution have been affected when related to the concepts of agrarian, forest, and ecological property. In that sense, it is important to synthesize the basic elements that, at the level of doctrine and jurisprudence, are handled in relation to these topics, and that oblige the judge—in relation to the challenged rule—to determine in each specific case the specific type of possessory act that has been exercised on the land—that becomes part of the protected wild area—that is sought to be titled. The foregoing with the objective that the judge has a broader criterion—not limited to the date of entry into force of the law or the executive decree defining the boundaries of a given wild area—to establish with greater precision the moment when said assets became inalienable and not subject to any statute of limitations, for the purpose of determining whether possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem) was exercised over them for ten years prior to their acquiring that condition. This broader perspective favoring the protection of the Nation's environmental heritage determines that when it is sought to title—through the possessory information procedure—a land located within a protected wild area, the discussion shall not be reduced to the simple calculation of the time a person has occupied a property in relation to the date on which the declaration of the protected wild area was made, since—on the one hand—the elements that each specific type of possession contemplates must be considered for the purpose of accrediting the possession for adverse possession during the period established in article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, and—on the other hand—the possible existence of norms that long ago declared those lands inalienable, even before their specific affectation to the public domain…" Now, the procedure contained in the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias requires publicity, through the publication of an edict in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), and provides that the adjoining landowners of the person seeking to title the land, the Procuraduría General de la República, and the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, if it is a rural property, be cited as parties, whereby they may oppose and defend their rights (article 5). For this purpose, they shall have one month from the notification to oppose the proceedings, and their failure to appear or act shall not obstruct the procedure in any case. Once the period for appearance indicated in article 5 has expired, ex officio or at the request of a party, the Judge shall convene a hearing to be held on the property sought to be registered, if it is rural and its size exceeds thirty hectares, and may commission another judicial authority for this purpose. This proceeding shall not be necessary when the property is rural and does not exceed thirty hectares, or when it is urban (article 9).

Once the investigation is concluded, the Judge shall grant a hearing on the results thereof, for a term of eight days, to the Procuraduría General de la República, through its representative, in the respective judicial circuit. Once that term has elapsed without a response, or after a response is filed and it is satisfactory, and there is no timely opposition, or in the event such opposition is declared unfounded by a final decision, the judge shall approve the investigation by an order containing the description of the property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Property Registry, without prejudice to any third party with a better right, by means of the corresponding certification of the decision, once it is final (article 10). The property acquired under this law is definitively consolidated against third parties after three years, which shall be counted from the date of registration of the respective title in the Public Registry, as the negative prescription of the action by affected third parties is limited to that period (article 16). At any time, and before the three-year consolidation period has elapsed, if it is demonstrated that the possessory title was obtained contrary to the laws in force, the Judge may decree, in the original case file, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding judgment so that said Office cancels the entry. Once the three-year term from the title's registration has elapsed, any action must be decided in an ordinary declaratory proceeding (article 17). Consequently, through compliance with a series of requirements (article 1), among which the demonstration of ten-year possession as owner in a quiet, public, uninterrupted, and good-faith manner over unregistered land stands out, the possessor may acquire the title required so that the ownership of the property thus possessed produces all legal effects, provided it is not verified that there is an attempt to improperly title national vacant lands (terrenos baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, nor forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves (article 11). Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the property to which the investigation refers is located within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they hold the legal rights over ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created said wilderness area (articles 7 and 11). Based on all the foregoing, the analysis of the challenged acts will now be carried out.

VII.ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED ACTIONS. This Tribunal considers that the acts challenged by the State's representation —namely: the cadastral map number Placa27732; public deed number 108 from volume four of the protocol of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste district, real folio registration number Placa27729; and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal validation period— are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons: 1) The property subject to the proceeding is a public domain asset (bien demanial) that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). In accordance with the technical studies issued by the Programa de Regularización de Catastro y Registro, the Cadastral Division of the Subdirectorate of the Real Estate Registry, and the Regional Directorate of the Área de Conservación Tempisque of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, this Tribunal has deemed it accredited that the land registered in the name of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. under registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral map number Placa27732, is not only located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, but also forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) (see folios 17, 53 to 55, 57 to 62 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure). It should be noted that this circumstance was evident since January nineteen ninety-five, the date on which Associated Surveyor number 2694 prepared, in the name of Nombre141937 for the purposes of a use permit, the cadastral map of that land, not only because the diagram shows that the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (see folio 15 front of the judicial file for the precautionary measure), but also because the approval issued by the Dirección General Forestal, which appears on the back of said cadastral map, clearly indicates that “…Based on the location shown on this map in the name of Nombre141938, the property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 10-08-93. It is also informed that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias), and it shall be the responsibility of Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this map is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see folio 15 back of the judicial file for the precautionary measure). Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; and 58 of the Biodiversity Law, this Tribunal deems that the property registered under registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral map number Placa27732, constitutes a public domain asset and therefore, unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable, forming part not only of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, province of Guanacaste, but also of the Natural Heritage of the State. 2) Regarding the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge and the provisions of articles 7 of the Law on Possessory Information and 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone. While it is true that article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information establishes that when the property referred to in the information proceedings is located within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they hold the legal rights over ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created said wilderness area; it is also true that this provision is not applicable to this specific case, for the reasons set forth below. Through Transitional Provision I of the Wildlife Conservation Law (number 6919 of November 7, 1973), the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created, which originally comprised the area of the two hundred meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone extending from the right bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta India. Subsequently, through article 1 of Executive Decree number 16531 of July 18, 1985, the area of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was expanded as follows: “The Ostional National Wildlife Refuge is expanded with the area of 200 meters, measured from the ordinary high tide line (pleamar ordinaria), comprised from its left bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta Guiones”, a decree published in La Gaceta number 183 of September twenty-six, nineteen eighty-five, and which took effect upon its publication. Finally, by Executive Decree number 22551 of September 14, 1993, the area comprising the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was again expanded, "...so that henceforth it will comprise the area delimited by the following boundaries, according to the cartographic sheets Cerro Brujo; 3046-11 and Garza- 3045-1, scale 1:50,000: Starting from Punta India, at coordinates 222550 N NIE121 (Sheet Cerro Brujo) heading southwest along the line of boundary markers that demarcate the public zone, in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, to Punta Guiones at coordinates 210400 N NIE122 (Sheet Garza); continuing due West, 3 nautical miles to the point of coordinates 210400 N and 347594.45 E; then continuing in a northwesterly direction along a line parallel to the coast and 3 nautical miles distant from it, to the point of coordinates 218621.63 N and 342821.63 E; and from this point continuing on a course of N 45° E to Punta India, the origin of this delimitation (...) For the purpose of organizing the protection and use of natural resources, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge shall be constituted by the following sectors: a) The Marine Sector comprising the territorial waters according to the previous delimitation, b) The Ostional Sector, comprising the main nesting site of the olive ridley turtle on Ostional Beach, c) The Estuarine Wetland Sector formed by the mangrove areas, and d) The Guiones Sector, comprising Playa Pelada and Playa Guiones..."; said decree was published in La Gaceta number 193 of Dirección8322, and took effect upon its publication. Now, from the certified copy of judicial file number 06-00595-0388-CI, it is clear that the defendant company acquired from Nombre141940 the right of possession over the unregistered property with cadastral map number Placa27732, by public deed granted on July twenty-seven, two thousand six (folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file) and that it filed the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz on November three, two thousand six (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file). Due to the foregoing, and taking into consideration that the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created by Law number 6919 of November 7, 1973, and its two expansions took effect on September twenty-six, nineteen eighty-five, and October eight, nineteen ninety-three, it was necessary, for purposes of applying the provisions of article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information, that the defendant company demonstrate that it was the holder of the legal rights over ten-year possession of the property in dispute, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area; a requirement that cannot be met in this case, since the possession rights were transferred to Nombre141941 S.A., on July twenty-seven, two thousand six. In addition to the foregoing, it should be emphasized that through Law number 6043 —which took effect on March sixteen, nineteen ninety-seven— it was declared that the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national heritage, belonging to the State; that it is inalienable and imprescriptible; and that the lands located there cannot be subject to possessory information proceedings, and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by this or any other means (articles 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone). That, for the foregoing reason, the competent jurisdictional body shall reject the possessory information proceedings if it verifies that an attempt is being made to improperly title national vacant lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, nor forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves (article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information). In this case, it has been accredited that the property with cadastral map number Placa27731, registered under registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz (see folios 15, 17, 53 to 55 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure), which is why, in accordance with the aforementioned rules, it was also not possible for the defendant company to title said land through possessory information proceedings, as was stated in the approval of cadastral map number G-256640-1995. For all the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal deems that the property with cadastral map G-256640-1995 could not be titled through possessory information proceedings, not only because it does not meet the exceptional requirements set forth in article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information, but also because it forms part of both the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the Natural Heritage of the State, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 261, 262, 277, 284 of the Civil Code. 3) On the nonexistence of a final decision in the possessory information proceedings processed in file 06-00595-0388-CI and the impossibility of registering the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 in the Public Registry. From the certification issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, it is clear that while it is true that the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings on November three, two thousand six, regarding the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file), it is also true that, by a decision issued at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-one, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz warned the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that —among other requirements— it had to provide without any exception “… the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, through the entity in charge, which will attest whether the property intended to be titled is located within or outside protected wilderness areas…”, all under warning that until all that was ordered was fulfilled, its future actions would not be addressed. That notwithstanding, said decision was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at nine hours forty-four minutes on November twenty-three, two thousand six, by fax (see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file), the defendant did not proceed to comply with said warning, as is clear from the order issued at fourteen hours eleven minutes on January thirteen, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz decided: “…according to the detailed study of the case file, in the present matter, it can be noted that there is a warning which appears on folio 9, the same was issued by this office at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-one, two thousand six, and to date, it has not been possible to resolve it. Therefore, what was requested in the aforementioned brief is left without effect and it is ordered to be added to its background without further pronouncement…” (see folio 45 of the judicial file). Consequently, the procedure set forth in articles 5, 9, and 10 of the Law on Possessory Information was not carried out in this case —so much so that neither was the edict published in the Judicial Bulletin, nor were interested parties, the Procuraduría General de la República, or the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, notified of the existence of these possessory information proceedings— since the defendant company did not even comply with the warning issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which was a sine qua non requirement to continue with the possessory information proceedings for the property subject to the process. For the reasons above, it is improper that the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 was registered in the Real Estate Registry in the name of the defendant company, not only because it is a public domain asset forming part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural heritage of the State, but also because said registration was based on public deed number 108 issued by Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, on January nineteen, two thousand seven (see folios 23 to 25 of the judicial file), by which two decisions allegedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz were protocolized, namely: i) At nine hours on October nine, two thousand ten, in which said jurisdictional body supposedly approved the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., regarding the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995; ii) At eight hours on July twenty-seven, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz allegedly informs the Director of the Registry that they must proceed with the registration in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., of the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, by virtue of the possessory information proceedings having been approved. In that regard, it should be noted that, in accordance with the provisions of article 10 of the Law on Possessory Information, if the judge approves the possessory information, they shall issue a decision containing the description of the property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Property Registry, without prejudice to any third party with a better right, by means of the corresponding certification of the decision, once it is final. Consequently, the registration of a property through the possessory information procedure is carried out by means of the enforcement order (ejecutoria) of the judgment approving those proceedings, and not through notarial protocolization of said decision, as happened in this case, which is contrary to the provisions of articles 10 of the Law on Possessory Information and 450 and 456 of the Civil Code. In addition to the foregoing, the data contained in public deed 108 of protocol volume four of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez do not correspond to what was decided by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in file number 06-00595-0388-CI —which, according to the certification issued by that Office, is the only possessory information file processed there in favor of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. (see folios 30, 31, and 49 of the judicial file)— not only because the dates of the decisions allegedly issued by that jurisdictional body that were protocolized in said deed are prior to November three, two thousand six —the date on which the proceedings were filed by the defendant (see folio 38 of the judicial file)— and to November twenty-one of that same year —the date on which the warning that the defendant company did not comply with was issued (see folios 41 to 42 of the judicial file)—; but also, because there is an inconsistency in the dates of the two protocolized decisions, since the order in which the Registry is allegedly ordered to register the property —at eight hours on July twenty-seven, 2006 (folio 23 of the judicial file)— is prior to the decision in which the Court approves the possessory information proceedings, which —according to the notary's statement— was issued at nine hours on October nine, 2006 (see folio 23 of the judicial file). It is necessary to highlight that public deed 108, which served as the basis for the registration in the registry, also states another fact that does not correspond to reality, since said document indicates that “…the edict was published in the Judicial Bulletin, file number forty-two, of November three, two thousand six…” (see folio 25 of the judicial file); however, this Tribunal has deemed it accredited that this did not happen, not only because the possessory information proceedings processed before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz did not reach that phase of the procedure (see folios 30 to 50 of the judicial file), but also because, through official letter number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-nine, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office indicates that: “…1) In the Judicial Bulletin of November 3, 2006, there is no publication whatsoever emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz regarding possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system records only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a public deed published on December 15, 2005…” (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file). Finally, it should be highlighted that from certification number DAN-3223, issued by the Head of the Notarial Archive at eight hours forty-two minutes on September eleven, two thousand nine, it is clear that from folio 70 back to 73 front of volume 4 of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, public deeds number 106, 101, and 108 are recorded —respectively— and that the content of the latter does not correspond to what was presented to the Registry's Daily entry book, at thirteen hours forty minutes on February fifteen, two thousand seven, and which appears in volume 570, entry 45185 (see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file). Consequently, this Tribunal considers that there is a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private individual, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also because the possessory information proceedings that supported it —processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz— were never approved, due to the fact that the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the warning notified to them since November twenty-three, two thousand six. For the reasons stated above, this Tribunal deems that the cadastral map number Placa27732; public deed 108 of volume four of the protocol of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; and the act of registration of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 under real folio registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, for being substantially incompatible with the provisions of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. 4) Regarding the constitution of mortgages on the property subject to the proceeding during the validation period. It is worth recalling that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 261 of the Civil Code and 170 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, publicly owned assets destined for common use and enjoyment, as well as those directly linked to the provision of essential public services, or those that are indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of public purposes or services, may not be seized. For the reasons above, and given that the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, registered under real folio registration number Placa27729 of the District of Guanacaste, constitutes a public domain asset forming part of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the Natural Heritage of the State, it is contrary to law that, in the period between April nineteen, two thousand seven, and March twenty-four, two thousand eight, six mortgages from first to sixth degree were registered, having as collateral the property described above, which are already expired, considering the following citations: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; Placa27734 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 (see folios 70 to 98 of the judicial file; 11 to 13 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure). It should also be noted that said mortgages were registered during the three-year validation period (plazo de convalidación) of the supposed possessory information for that asset, which began on February twenty-six, two thousand seven, and expired on February twenty-six, two thousand ten (see folio 11 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure), as established by article 16 of the Law on Possessory Information. In that sense, and given that this Tribunal declared the nullity of the titles that originated the registration of the property on which said mortgage guarantees were constituted, the absolute nullity is consequently also declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under real folio registration number Placa27729 of the District of San José, with cadastral map number Placa27735, granted by public deeds number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on February twenty-eight, two thousand seven, by Notary Public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, by which a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September four, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours on September four, two thousand seven, by Notary Public David González Saborío, by which a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on September four, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on November two, two thousand seven, by Notary Public María González Campos, by which a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November two, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on January ten, two thousand eight, by Notary Public María González Campos, by which a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number Placa27736, and whose term of validity expired on January ten, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on January twenty-one, two thousand eight, by Notary Public María González Campos, by which a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-one, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on March thirteen, two thousand eight, by Notary Public María González Campos, by which a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteen, two thousand nine. This is because they are substantially contrary to the provisions of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. For the reasons above, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 456 and 472 subsection 2) of the Civil Code, the cancellation of the following mortgage lien citations is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936, without prejudice to the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages and losses that may be caused to them, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1034, 1035, 1037, and 1038 of the Civil Code. 5) Testimony of excerpts to the Public Ministry. This Tribunal has deemed it accredited that there is a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private individual, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also because the possessory information proceedings that supported it —processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz— were never approved, due to the fact that the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the warning notified to them since November twenty-three, two thousand six. While it is true, that by a document of January seven, two thousand ten, addressed to Deputy Procuradora Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M.

S.A., stated: “…It was not until the claim for declaratory relief filed by your client that I became aware of all (sic) the illegalities and falsehoods through which the real property registered in my client’s favor was inscribed, because although I purchased the possession of the property; it was the seller and her husband who handled the pertinent procedures to bring about the possessory information proceeding (…) , it is also true that, these statements do not prevent this Court from certifying records for referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, given the seriousness of the facts at issue in this lawsuit, and the possible criminal liability they may generate against the different subjects who participated in the granting of deed 108 of notary public Brenes Álvarez’s protocol four and in the registration, both of the property with cadastral map number Placa27732 under Folio Real registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, and of the six mortgages constituted on said land, under entries Placa27737 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 . By reason of the foregoing, the certification of records for referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office is ordered, for its corresponding duties. 6) On the nullity of the challenged acts. For all the reasons stated, this Court finds that the challenged acts —namely: cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 of volume four of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez’s protocol; the registry inscription of the property in the Guanacaste district, Folio Real registration number Placa27729, and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal validation period— suffer from a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), as they are substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Act (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forestry Act (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Act (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 58 of the Biodiversity Act (Ley de Biodiversidad); 5, 7, 9, 10 and 1 1 of the Possessory Information Act (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias); 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Act on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público) and 34, 43 and 55 of the Public Registry Regulations (Reglamento del Registro Público). Consequently: a) It is declared that the property with cadastral map number G-254460-1995, registered under Folio Real registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste District, constitutes a public domain asset (bien de dominio público) that is unattachable (inembargable), imprescriptible (imprescriptible), inalienable (inalienable) and outside commerce (fuera del comercio de los hombres), which is comprised within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) and forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). b) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral map number G.256640-1995, surveyed in January nineteen ninety-five, by Associated Surveyor number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937 , identity card number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit (permiso de uso) over the property situated in Ostional, Dirección17194 , , Guanacaste province; c) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol four granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, insofar as it incorporated into the protocol the purported decisions issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, at eight hours on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, and at nine hours on October ninth, two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., in order to title the property with cadastral map number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197 , , . The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations in the master copy of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. d) It is declared that the property registered under the Folio Real System registration number Placa27728 was technically and legally improperly registered in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597. e) The registry entries for the registration of the property registered under the Folio Real System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. f) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under Folio Real registration number Placa27729 of the San José District, with cadastral map number Placa27735, granted by deed number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, through which a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, through which a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600 and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, through which a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations in the master copy of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. g) The cancellation of the following mortgage encumbrance entries is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 s, preserving the rights of the good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages and losses they may suffer, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code; h) The certification of records for referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for its corresponding duties is ordered.

VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS. This Court reaches the conclusion that the State possesses sufficient standing to sue (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding pursuant to Article 10, subsection a) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), since it is the owner of the public domain asset that is the object of this proceeding, and is the party responsible for bringing actions intended to reclaim, oversee and protect the assets that form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the Natural Heritage of the State, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 of the Political Constitution, 1 and 4 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Act, 14 of the Forestry Act, 32 and 38 of the Organic Environmental Act, 5 and 10 of the Possessory Information Act; 3.i of the Organic Act of the Attorney General's Office (Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República). Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., as provided by Article 12, subsection 3) of the cited Code, given that the property subject to the proceeding was illegitimately titled in favor of said legal entity, which, in turn, constituted six mortgages over said land in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598 , Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600 , Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599 ; Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601 , Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602 . Moreover, the interest remains current, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to produce effects in the plaintiff's legal sphere and requires a jurisdictional decision to resolve it, given that, in the case of recovery and protection of public domain assets, no limitation periods or expiry periods run, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of asset. This is expressly established by Articles 1 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Act, 14 of the Forestry Act, and Article 34, subsection 2 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right and, consequently, the lawsuit filed by the State against Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., and the interested third parties Nombre141933 , Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 , is declared with merit in all its aspects, since, in accordance with all that has been stated in recitals IV, V, VI and VII of this judgment, this Court concludes that the challenged acts —namely: cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 of volume four of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez’s protocol; the registry inscription of the property in the Guanacaste district, Folio Real registration number Placa27729, and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal validation period— suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Act; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Act; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Act; 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Act; 58 of the Biodiversity Act; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 1 1 of the Possessory Information Act; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Act on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43 and 55 of the Public Registry Regulations.

IX.- ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE ORDERED IN ORAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2433 -2010 OF 03 - 11 -2009. While it is true, by resolution number 2433 -20 09 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, the Case Management Judge resolved to maintain the provisional measures ordered by this court in resolution number 1468-2009 and additionally, “... the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days of the property in question, for the specific verification of point three of the precautionary measure (medida cautelar), with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the enforcement judge of the Contentious-Administrative Court. Likewise, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative proceeding tending to grant any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, furthermore, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration Placa27729 until the main proceeding is resolved.” (see folios 75 and 76 of the judicial file on provisional remedies); it is also true, that in application of the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 23 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, and for the purpose of protecting the object of this proceeding while this favorable decision becomes final (adquiere firmeza), it is ordered that the precautionary measures ordered by the Case Management Judge of this Court, by resolution number 2433 -200 9 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, be maintained, which consist of: “... 1. The annotation of the present proceeding with the National Registry in the margin of the registration entry for property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 2. The registry immobilization (inmovilización registral) of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 3. The company owning the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days of the property in question, for the specific verification of point three of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the enforcement judge of the Contentious-Administrative Court. Likewise, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative proceeding tending to grant any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, furthermore, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration Placa27729 ..”, modifying them solely with regard to their period of validity, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final.

X.- ON COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue thereof. Exemption from this award is only viable when, in the Court’s judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the principle of awarding costs against the losing party. Therefore, both costs are imposed on the losing defendant, as well as their respective interest, calculated from the moment this judgment becomes final and until its effective payment, amounts which shall be settled in the execution of sentence.

THEREFORE.

The lawsuit filed by the State against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. is declared with merit, in the following terms, any claim not expressly granted hereby being deemed denied. Consequently: 1) It is declared that the property with cadastral map number G-254460-1995, registered under Folio Real registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste District, constitutes a public domain asset that is unattachable, imprescriptible, inalienable and outside commerce, which is comprised within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge and forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the Natural Heritage of the State. 2) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral map number G.256640-1995, surveyed in January nineteen ninety-five, by Associated Surveyor number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937 , identity card number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit over the property situated in Ostional, Dirección17194 , , Guanacaste province; 3) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol four granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, insofar as it incorporated into the protocol the purported decisions issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, at eight hours on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, and at nine hours on October ninth, two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., in order to title the property with cadastral map number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197 , , . The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations in the master copy of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. 4) It is declared that the property registered under the Folio Real System registration number Placa27728 was technically and legally improperly registered in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597. 5) The registry entries for the registration of the property registered under the Folio Real System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. 6) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under Folio Real registration number Placa27729 of the San José District, with cadastral map number G-266640-1995, granted by deed number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, through which a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, through which a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600 and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, through which a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, through which a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations in the master copy of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. 7) The cancellation of the following mortgage encumbrance entries is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 s, preserving the rights of the good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages and losses they may suffer, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code; 8) The certification of records for referral to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for its corresponding duties is ordered; 9) It is ordered that the precautionary measures ordered by the Case Management Judge of this Court, by resolution number 2433 -200 9 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, be maintained, which consist of: “... 1. The annotation of the present proceeding with the National Registry in the margin of the registration entry for property number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district. 2. The registry immobilization of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 3. The company owning the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days of the property in question, for the specific verification of point three of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the enforcement judge of the Contentious-Administrative Court. Likewise, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative proceeding tending to grant any right over property 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district, furthermore, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration Placa27729 ..”, modifying them solely with regard to their period of validity, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final; 10) The defendant company is ordered to pay both costs, as well as their respective interest, calculated from the moment this judgment becomes final and until their effective payment, amounts which shall be settled in the execution of sentence.

Nombre102152 José Roberto Garita Navarro Otto González Vílchez FILE: 09-001790-1027-CA PROCEEDING FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF DECLARED PURELY OF LAW PLAINTIFF: THE STATE DEFENDANTS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M.

TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Email ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: EL ESTADO DEMANDADOS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A.

Nº 2642-2010 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEXTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144. Goicoechea, at ten o'clock on the twenty-first of July of two thousand ten.- Proceso de conocimiento declared of pure law, filed by the ESTADO, represented by the Deputy Procuradora GLORIA SOLANO MARTÍNEZ, of legal age, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED571, against the company GANADERA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597, represented by Nombre141932, in his capacity as President with powers of Apoderado Generalísimo without limit of sum of that company; and as interested third parties Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598; Nombre122580, identity card CED111599; Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600; Nombre141935, identity card CED111601; Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602.

RESULTANDO:

1.- The claims of the plaintiff –which were maintained during the preliminary hearing held at one thirty in the afternoon on the eighth of June of two thousand ten–, are for the judgment to state *“…1) That it be declared that the farm of the Guanacaste district number 155180, which corresponds to the property described in the cadastral map G-256640-1995, is located entirely within the maritime-terrestrial zone of Playa Ostional. A public domain asset that is also part of the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional. 2) That it be declared that deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez is absolutely null for lacking all legal basis and for recording false facts and non-existent resolutions of the Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz. 3) That it be established that, this deed being null, so too is the registry inscription of the farm of the Guanacaste district number 155180, and therefore, that the Registro Nacional be ordered to cancel it. 4) For incorporating lands belonging to public domain, the cadastral map G-256640-1995 is also null, for which reason I request that the Dirección de Catastro Nacional be ordered to cancel it. 5) That it be ordered that the mortgage guarantees constituted over it during the legal validation period are also null, and therefore, that the Registro Nacional be ordered to cancel the inscription entries of the following mortgages: a. Cita 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933. b. Cita 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934, c. Cita 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580. d. Cita 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934. e. Cita 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935. f. Cita 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936. 6) Furthermore, that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this process, as well as the interest accrued until its effective payment”.* 2.- That by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally at ten fifty-seven in the morning on the third of November of two thousand nine, the Juez Tramitador resolved: *“The provisional measures issued by this office in resolution No. 1468-2009 are maintained, consisting of the following: 1. The annotation in the Registro Nacional of the present process in the margin of the inscription entry of the farm number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 2. The registry immobilization of the farm number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 3. The company owner of the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days of the asset in question, for the concrete verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to present a report within the three days following the carrying out of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Furthermore, the requests made by the Estado are accepted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over the farm Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district; likewise, the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration Placa27729 until the main process is resolved.”* 3.- That by resolution at two forty in the afternoon on the nineteenth of November of two thousand nine (folios 99 and 100 of the judicial file), the Juez Tramitador transferred the complaint. Said ruling was notified to Nombre122580, at eight in the morning on the eleventh of December of two thousand nine; to Nombre141933, Nombre141935 and Nombre141934, at eleven in the morning on the tenth of December of two thousand nine; to Ganadería Campo Bonito, at eleven in the morning on the fifteenth of December of two thousand nine and, to Nombre141936, at ten thirty in the morning on the seventh of January of two thousand ten (folios 102 to 107 of the judicial file).

4.- That by resolution at eleven twenty-five in the morning on the eighth of February of two thousand ten (folio 108 of the judicial file), the Juez Tramitador resolved: a) To not accept the complaint as answered within the period granted for that purpose by the ruling at two forty-eight in the afternoon on the nineteenth of November of two thousand nine; b) In accordance with the provisions of article 65 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, declared the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936 and Nombre141933 in default, and accepted the complaint as answered affirmatively regarding the facts, without prejudice that they could appear at any stage of the process, taking it up in the state in which it is found; c) The conciliation hearing was dispensed with, given that the representative of the Estado expressed in advance her waiver to conciliate in this matter, therefore, the parties were convened to a preliminary hearing, scheduled for one thirty in the afternoon on the eighth of June of two thousand ten.

5.- That the preliminary hearing was held at one thirty in the afternoon on the eighth of June of two thousand ten, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is added to the file in a special docket. That during this hearing the Juez Tramitador recorded the non-attendance of the representative of the defendant company and of the interested third parties; maintained the claims set forth by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first result of this judgment; accepted all the facts as true by reason of the declaration of default of the defendant; admitted the pertinent documentary evidence.

Consequently, as there was no testimonial or expert evidence to be taken and in accordance with the provisions of article 98.2 of the same Code, it declared this matter to be purely of law, and the plaintiff presented its closing arguments orally (see folio 111 of the judicial file and the audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar)).

6.- This matter was referred to the Reporting Judge (Jueza Ponente) of the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) on June twenty-third, two thousand ten (folio 111 verso of the judicial file). In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be corrected or that cause defenselessness, and this judgment is issued within the period established in articles 98 subsection 2) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), in relation to subsection 4) of article 82 of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction (Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción).- Written by Judge (jueza) Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judges (jueces) Garita Navarro and González Vílchez; and, C O N S I D E R I N G:

Io.- ON THE COURT'S OBLIGATION TO ANALYZE THE LAW AND THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS, DESPITE THE DECLARATION OF DEFAULT (REBELDÍA) OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY. It is important, prior to the substantive analysis of this resolution, to establish that this Court, as the jurisdictional body it is, has the obligation to review, analyze, and determine whether the law and the claims alleged by the plaintiff have legal support, as well as to resolve the substantive requirements, even though there exists, as in this case, a declaration of default due to the failure to answer the complaint by the representatives of the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 and Nombre141933 (folio 108 of the judicial file), even more so in this case, where the representatives of the defendant company and the interested third parties also did not appear at the preliminary hearing (audiencia preliminar) held at one thirty in the afternoon on June eighth, two thousand ten (see folio 111 of the judicial file and the audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing). The foregoing is supported by the following grounds: 1) The case law of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, has indicated, despite that case law line having been presented in the context of the validity of the former Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa) and the Civil Procedural Code (Código Procesal Civil), but which continues to apply to the current contentious-administrative procedural legislation, that the declaration of default does not negate the power of the jurisdictional body to gather evidence and verify the factual picture, among other relevant aspects, as clearly emerged from the following resolution of that Chamber:

"IX.- Regarding the failure to answer the complaint: Certainly, the failure to answer the complaint leads to default and to having the facts deemed admitted affirmatively, but it does not negate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture. Furthermore, the defaulting party may appear at any time in the process and offer new evidence (arts. 293 and 310 C.P.C.), which, if pertinent for the clarification of the facts, the judge may admit to better provide for a resolution. Consequently, default by itself is not sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only attains this value if other evidence of the same character does not contradict the ficta contestación. Therefore, default must be assessed together with the other evidentiary elements existing in the process." (Voto 801-F-02 of 11 hours 10 minutes, October 18, 2002). Thus, the answer in default would not be enough to grant the petitions of the counterclaim, if other elements of judgment entail, under the application of the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica), a finding that the necessary legal requirements to grant the requested claims do not exist." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 991-F-2004 of fifteen hours twenty minutes, November seventeenth, two thousand four).

From what was stated in this resolution, it can be extracted that the jurisdictional body can and must make its decision based on the evidentiary elements contained in the file and not take the factual picture and the plaintiff's claims as proven solely due to the declaration of default. 2) The plaintiff, in accordance with articles 58, 82, 85, and 120 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code and article 317 of the Civil Procedural Code, applicable supplementarily in this matter as permitted by article 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, has the burden of proving its right and claims, regardless of whether the defendant has or has not answered the complaint; the mere fact of a declaration of default does not negate the plaintiff's obligation to prove its right. 3) In the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, there is an obligation of judges, established in article 49 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and any other public law entity, which demonstrates that in this matter, more than in others, judges are obligated to review the conduct of the Public Administration to determine whether or not it has conformed to the legal system. 4) In accordance with the provisions of article 65 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, a defendant who does not answer within the summons period shall be declared in default ex officio, and the complaint shall be deemed answered affirmatively as to the facts, without prejudice to its ability to appear at any time, taking up the process in the state in which it finds itself. However, although pursuant to article 93 subsection 1 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, evidence shall not be admitted when there is conformity regarding the facts, the rule provides an exception when precisely such conformity with the facts arose from the declaration of default of the defendant. Consequently, the judge cannot assume there is no controversy and dispense with evidence, as they must seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of article 82 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code and due to the legality control that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (article 49 of the Political Constitution and article 1 of the Procedural Code). Therefore, default is not assimilated to the figure of acquiescence (allanamiento). For all the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that, for the reasons previously stated in this case, this collegiate body must proceed to analyze the substantive requirements, the facts, and the claims of the complaint, in order to determine whether or not they have legal support, despite the fact that in this matter the representative of the defendant company and the interested third parties did not answer the complaint and were declared in a state of default, which, as indicated above, does not negate the ability of this court to review, analyze, and determine whether the complaint filed by the Representative of the State is or is not in accordance with the law.

IIo.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts relevant to this process are deemed duly accredited: 1) That in January nineteen ninety-five, Associated Topographer (Topógrafo Asociado) number 2694 issued a cadastral plan (plano catastrado) in the name of Nombre141937 , identity card (cédula de identidad) number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit (permiso de uso) over the property located in Ostional, Cuajiniquil district, Santa Cruz canton, Guanacaste province (see folio 15 front of the judicial file of the precautionary measure (medida cautelar)); 2) That on May twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-five, the Department of Forest Reserves, Protective Zones, and Hydrographic Basins (Departamento de Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas) of the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), certified on the back of said cadastral plan that “…based on the location appearing on this plan in the name of Nombre141938 the property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 10-08-93. It is also reported that this approval (visado) does not grant any authorization for possessory information (informaciones posesorias) proceedings and it will be up to the Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this plan is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see folios 15 verso of the judicial file of the precautionary measure and 17 of the judicial file); 3) That on May thirtieth, nineteen ninety-five, the cadastral plan in the name of Nombre141937 , identity card number CED111603, was registered in the National Cadastre (Catastro Nacional) under number G-256640-95, for purposes of a use permit over the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194 , , Guanacaste province (see folio 15 front of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 4) That at nine o'clock on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, notary public Henry Miguel Vega Cruz granted deed (escritura) number 86, volume (tomo) four of the protocol, through which Nombre141940 , identity card CED111604, sold to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal ID (cédula jurídica) number CED111597, a possessory right (derecho de posesión) over an unregistered plot of land located in Ostional, Cuajiniquil district, Santa Cruz canton, Guanacaste province, bordering to the north with Nombre141937 , to the south with the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, to the east and west with MIRENEM, with cadastral plan number G-256640-95 (see folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file); 5) That on November third, two thousand six, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. filed before the Civil and Labor Court of Santa Cruz (Juzgado Civil y de Trabajo de Santa Cruz), possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) regarding the property located in Ostional, Dirección17195 , , Guanacaste province, bordering to the north with Nombre141937 , to the south with the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, to the east and west with MIRENEM, with cadastral plan number G-256640-1995, so that in a judgment the possessory right would be declared and the respective order issued for its registration in the Real Property Registry (Registro de Bienes Inmuebles), in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. That said possessory information proceedings were processed under case file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz (see folios 30, 31, 38 to 40 of the judicial file); 6) That by order (auto) issued at nine fifty-two on November twenty-first, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz notified the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that –among other requirements– it had to provide without any exception “… the cadastral plan CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the entity in charge, which will attest whether or not the property sought to be titled is within protected wilderness areas (áreas silvestres protegidas)…”, all under warning that its future actions would not be processed until it complied with everything ordered. That said resolution was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. at nine forty-four on November twenty-third, two thousand six, via the fax system (see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file); 7) That on February fifteenth, two thousand seven, notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez presented to the Journal Department (Departamento del Diario) of the Real Property Registry, deed number 108, folio 70 verso, volume 4 of his protocol, granted at nine fifteen on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, through which the resolution allegedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz was protocolized, at nine o'clock on October ninth, two thousand six, in which the Possessory Information Proceedings promoted by the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. were supposedly approved. That said deed also recorded that the respective edict had been published in the “…Judicial Bulletin, case file number 42, of November third, two thousand six…” (see folios 22 to 31 of the judicial file); 8) That the document of protocolization of what was allegedly resolved by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which occupies volume 570, entry (asiento) 45185 of the Journal of the Real Property Registry, originated on February twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, the registration of the property under registration number (matrícula) Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registration section (partido), cadastral plan number Placa27730, described as land dedicated to cultivation, located in the Dirección17196 , , Guanacaste province, bordering to the north with Nombre141937 , to the south with a public street with a 50-meter frontage, to the east and west with MIRENEM. That the convalidation period established in the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) began on February twenty-sixth, two thousand six and concluded on February twenty-sixth, two thousand ten (see folios 22 to 28, 60 to 64 of the judicial file; 10 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 9) That on March first, two thousand seven, deed number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen o'clock on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, was presented to the Journal of the Real Property Registry, through which the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. constituted in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, a first-degree mortgage (hipoteca de primer grado) on the property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registration section, cadastral plan number G-256640-95, which was registered on April nineteenth, two thousand seven, in volume 570, entry 60946, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on February twenty-eighth, two thousand eight (see folios 70 to 74 of the judicial file and 11 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 10) That on September twentieth, two thousand seven, deed number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, was presented to the Journal of the Real Property Registry, through which the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, a second-degree mortgage on the property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registration section, cadastral plan number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 570, entry 85988, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight (see folios 76 to 79 of the judicial file and 11 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 11) That on November second, two thousand seven, deed number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve thirty on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, was presented to the Journal of the Real Property Registry, through which the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. constituted in favor of Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599, a third-degree mortgage on the property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registration section, cadastral plan number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight (see folios 81 to 83 of the judicial file and 12 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 12) That on January fifteenth, two thousand eight, deed number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven thirty on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, was presented to the Journal of the Real Property Registry, through which the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, a fourth-degree mortgage on the property registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registration section, cadastral plan number Placa27731, which was registered on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, in volume 574, entry 36041, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine (see folios 85 to 88 of the judicial file and 12 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure); 13) That on January twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, deed number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen o'clock on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, was presented to the Journal of the Real Property Registry, through which S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, a fifth-degree mortgage on the property registered under folio number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste district, cadastral map number Placa27731, which was registered in volume 574, entry 49696, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine *(see folios 90 to 93 of the judicial file and 12 to 13 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure)*; **14)** That on March twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, deed number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, executed at fifteen hours forty minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, was presented to the Daily Register of the Real Property Registry, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, a sixth-degree mortgage on the property registered under folio number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste district, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine *(see folios 95 to 98 of the judicial file and 13 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure)*; **15)** That by a ruling issued at fourteen hours eleven minutes on January thirteenth, two thousand nine, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz resolved *“…according to the detailed study of the case file, the present matter, it can be noted that it has a prevention which is set forth at folio 9, the same was ordered by this office at nine hours and fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six and to date the same has not been able to be dispelled. Given the circumstances, the request made in the aforementioned brief is left (sic) without effect and it is ordered to be added to its background without further pronouncement…” (see folio 45 of the judicial file);* **16)** That by official communication number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office, indicated that: *“…1) In the Judicial Bulletin of November 3, 2006, there is no publication emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system records only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005…” (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file)*; **17)** That by official communication number DRIM-CT-401-2009 of August sixth, two thousand nine, the Acting Deputy Director of the Real Property Registry Cadastral Division, indicated that map G-256640-1995 is located -based on geographic location-, *“…within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional) and within the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), in the 150 m restricted zone…” (see folios 53 to 55 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure);* **18)** That by official communication number ACT-OR-DR-983 of August eleventh, two thousand nine, the Acting Regional Director of the Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Tempisque) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), indicated that: *“…cadastral property number Placa27731 in the name of Nombre141937, is located in the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (…) This property is located in the northern sector of the Refuge, which is used by leatherback and black turtles for nesting, possibly due to the fact that there are few constructions and therefore less incidence of lights and noise (…) According to the review of the file, the Conservation Area has no application or permit in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141932 or Nombre141937…”.* On said property there is a dwelling house built with concrete block, fibrolite sheets and a zinc roof and the lot of the house is enclosed with wooden planks; there are pasture areas delimited with barbed wire fences, wooden posts and bordering the public zone with piñuela fences, in which there are cattle and horses *(see folios 57 to 62 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure)*; **19)** That by an order issued at fourteen hours two minutes on August twenty-fifth, two thousand nine, the Civil Court of Higher Amount of Santa Cruz, resolved: *“…The State representative is informed that the undersigned verified the Judicial Management Information System that this office accordingly (sic) maintains in order to verify if there are possessory information files in the name of Ganadería Campos Bonito ORM SA, however, it is evident from the same that only the present matter exists. Consequently, the said body is informed that the rulings of eight hours on June twenty-seventh, two thousand six and of nine hours on October ninth, two thousand six do not exist. By means of certification, proceed to forward a certified copy of the present matter…”*. That said ruling was notified to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at twelve hours fifty-one minutes on August thirty-first, two thousand nine, via the fax system *(see folios 30 to 31, 49 to 50 of the judicial file)*; **20)** That at eight hours forty-two minutes on September eleventh, two thousand nine, the Head of the Notarial Archive issued certification number DAN-3223, whereby it is certified that from folio 70 verso to folio 73 recto of volume 4 of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deed numbers 106, 101 and 108 –respectively- are recorded *(see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file)*; **21)** That by written submission of January seventh, two thousand ten, addressed to Deputy Solicitor General Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., indicated: *“…It is only, with the plenary proceeding filed by your represented party, that I became aware of all (sic) the illegalities and falsehoods with which the real property registered in favor of my represented party was registered, for although I bought the possession of the property; the seller and her husband, were the ones who handled the pertinent procedures in order to successfully complete the possessory information (…) and therefore, even if this results in serious economic harm to this representation, I am fully in agreement, whether to transfer, return or request the cancellation of the registry entry that gave rise to the property object of this proceeding (…) That for the foregoing, I only require and therefore request, a reasonable period of time, of at least 6 months, in order to duly cancel the mortgage credits recorded in the Registry, and which are known to your institution, since all the creditors recorded therein, acted in good faith…” (see folios 112 and 113 of the judicial file)*.

**III.-** **OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING.** The **plaintiff** considers that the following acts must be annulled: cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste district, real folio registration number Placa27729 and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal validation period, for the following reasons: **1)** Although it is true, the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, regarding the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI, it is also true, that they were not even admitted for processing, since the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., never complied with the prevention made by the jurisdictional body through the order of nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six; **2)** That by reason of the foregoing, there could not exist a protocolized judgment, nor a publication in the Judicial Bulletin, nor the rulings of eight hours on June twenty-seventh and nine hours on October ninth, both of two thousand six, since these are prior not only to the date of filing of the possessory information proceedings –namely: November third, two thousand six-, but also, to the order of nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first of the same year, by which, the respective prevention was made to the defendant company; **3)** Consequently, in the absence of the prior possessory information proceeding before the competent jurisdictional body, the information contained in deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, is not only false, but also, could not serve as a basis for the act of registration of the property with cadastral map number Placa27732, under real folio registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, for which reason said registration must also be annulled; **4)** It must be taken into consideration that the property is of public domain. Not only because it is located in the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), but also, because it forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge, which is why, given the characteristics of unseizability, imprescriptibility and inalienability, it was impossible for said property to be registered in the name of a third party and for mortgage guarantees to be constituted on the same; **5)** Although it is true, there was a period in which a property located in the maritime terrestrial zone could be titled, it is also true, that it is not applicable to the specific case, since the possessory information proceedings were not filed until November third, two thousand six; **6)** In that sense, even if the plaintiff company had continued with the processing of the possessory information proceedings, it was impossible for the Civil Court of Santa Cruz to proceed with the titling of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, not only because it is located in the restricted area of the maritime terrestrial zone, but also, because said land forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), as it was incorporated into the Ostional Wildlife Refuge.

**IV.- THE NATURAL HERITAGE OF THE STATE AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT, RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.** This collegiate body considers that, prior to the examination of the legality of the administrative conducts whose annulment is claimed, it is necessary to refer, in a general manner, to the Natural Heritage of the State, as a demanial good. In that sense, it must be noted that through resolution No. 0063-2009, issued by this Section, at 16 hours on January 19, 2009, the following was indicated in what is relevant for the issuance of this judgment: ***"....Constitutional recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.*** *In Costa Rica, the recognition and protection in Constitutional Law of the cited fundamental right does not have as its starting point the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution, provided by Law number 7412 of June third, nineteen ninety-four. The foregoing since from the enactment of the constitutional text in 1949, the will of the Constituent was clear in establishing in article 89, that: “Among the cultural purposes of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, to conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and to support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress”; which is complemented by the categorical declaration contained in article 21, in the sense that in our country, “Human life is inviolable”. The integration of what is provided in both articles implies that the need to preserve the environment –although at that time the Constituent used the term natural beauties- transcends a merely cultural purpose, to become a vital necessity for every human being, as it constitutes an essential precondition to make effective other fundamental rights such as: life, health and development. (see in that sense, judgments number 1993-03705 of fifteen hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three; 1993-06240 of fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three; 1993-04423 of twelve hours on December seventh, nineteen ninety-three, 1994-02485 of nine hours eighteen minutes on May twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-four, all from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). In that sense, it is worth remembering that **Constitutional Law** is composed not only of the constitutional text, but also of the values and principles that inform and permeate its content, as well as of Public Treaties, International Conventions and Concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, as well as, of International Human Rights Instruments applicable in the Republic (see articles 1, 7, 21, 50 of the Political Constitution; 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). Added to this, the written and unwritten norms that make up Constitutional Law are characterized by being of direct and immediate application, and therefore, their addressees not only have the right to enforce them through administrative and jurisdictional channels, if they consider that by action or omission they have been impaired, but also, this implies that legal operators have the duty to apply them directly and immediately in their decision-making process, in order to comply with constitutional requirements (see what was considered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 1999-00644 of eleven hours twenty-four minutes on January twenty-ninth, nineteen ninety-nine). If we take as a basis the provisions of articles 7, 48 of the Political Constitution and, 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, we can affirm that even if the constitutional text had not contained norms related to the recognition and protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that right and correlative duty not only already existed in Costa Rican domestic law, but also their effective protection was enforceable both at the domestic and international levels. This by virtue of the fact that the Costa Rican State had signed a series of Conventions, Treaties and International Instruments related to this matter, before article 50 of the Political Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412 of June third, nineteen ninety-four, instruments among which the following stand out: the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (articles 2.1, 12.1 and 12.2.c); the “Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (article 11); the “Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, signed in Paris on November 23, nineteen seventy-two and, approved by Law number 5980 of October twenty-third, nineteen seventy-six; the “Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna and Natural Scenic Beauties of the American Countries”, adopted in Washington on March three, nineteen seventy-three and approved by Law number 3763 of October nineteenth, nineteen seventy-six; the “Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat”, signed in Ramsar on February second, nineteen seventy-one, and approved by Law number 7224 of nineteen ninety-one; the “Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer”, adopted in Vienna on March twenty-second, nineteen eighty-five, and approved by Law number 7228 of April twenty-second, nineteen ninety-one, and its “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”, signed in Montreal on September sixteenth, nineteen eighty-seven, and approved by Law number 7223 of April second, nineteen ninety-one; the “UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, signed in Montego Bay on December tenth, nineteen eighty-two, and approved by Law number 7291 published on July fifteenth, nineteen ninety-two, among others. All these international norms were integrated into Costa Rican domestic law in accordance with the provisions of articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and, 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, for which reason, “...all these international instruments are of obligatory observance and enjoy full enforceability insofar as their norms do not require further legislative development and therefore must be observed (...) insofar as the normative rank of those is superior...” (Judgment number 1993-06240 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).* ***Infraconstitutional Development of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.*** *Without a doubt, the recognition and protection of the cited fundamental right, provoked its infraconstitutional development, through the issuance of legal or regulatory norms regulating various manifestations of the same, which were issued long before the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution. As an example of this we have: the Water Law (No. 276 of August 27, 1942; Urban Planning Law (No. 4240 of November 15, 1978), the Forestry Law (No. 4465 of November 25, 1979, now repealed); the Maritime Terrestrial Zone Law (No. 6043 of March 2, 1977); the General Health Law (No. 5395 of October 30, 1973); the Law Creating the National Parks Service (No. 6084 of August 24, 1977); the Animal Health Law (No. 6243 of May 2, 1978); the Wildlife Conservation Law (No. Placa27733 of October 21, 1992), among others. This implies, that before the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to which we have referred was not only recognized and protected in Constitutional Law, but also, had been developed –although in a sectoral manner and not with a comprehensive vision- at the legal and regulatory level. By virtue of what has been stated so far, this Tribunal considers that the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution, did nothing more than expressly and clearly individually recognize a fundamental right that was already enshrined and guaranteed by Constitutional Law; declare expressly, the scope of the pre-existing obligation of the State, to guarantee, defend and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and grant individuals full standing to defend it, through a popular action (see judgments number 1994-01394 of fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four, and 1994-05527 of ten hours forty-five minutes on September twenty-third, nineteen ninety-four, both from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice).* ***Consequences of the recognition of the guarantee of article 50 of the Constitution in the terms explained.*** *Said recognition entails two relevant aspects for the resolution of the present proceeding.* ***First.*** *The imposition of a duty, both for the State –understood as Central and Decentralized Administration- and for the subjects of private law themselves, to guarantee, defend and preserve that right.* ***Second.*** *The establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels. Regarding* ***the first of these aspects,*** *it is worth indicating that “The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and consistently of the municipalities (keep in mind article 169 of the Constitution), finds its first reason for being in that by definition rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor of the same and, secondly, because the activity of the State is directed towards the satisfaction of the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to secure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to forbid, prohibit and prevent all activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action aimed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations.* ***The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand it must refrain from itself attacking the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with the constitutional requirements...”*** *(judgment No. 1999-00644 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 11:24 hours on January 29, 1999).* In that regard, "...</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">The action that the Political Constitution imposes on the State</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> regarding sources of environmental contamination is multidirectional and definitively active, absolutely intolerant of situations that threaten or affect the optimal environmental conditions that are guaranteed by it to the inhabitants.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> From this perspective, public authorities are not permitted to make concessions or grant extensions so that the environment continues to be affected, even when this is done with a view to bringing economic benefits to a specific geographical area..." (judgment No. 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at 16:15 on July 28, 1999). That constitutional duty of the State to ensure the protection, defense, and preservation of the environment is developed and manifested, among others,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> in the following norms: articles 1, 2.a, 2.c, 2 last paragraph, 3, 12, 28, 32, 34, 37, 56, 59, 78, 83, 103 to 112 of the Organic Environmental Law; articles 1, 2, 9.4, 12, 22 to 30, 45, 49, 54, 86, 88 of the Biodiversity Law; 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 34, 122 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 37, 54 of the Forest Law; 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 29 to 33, 37 of the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils; 13.a, 13.o of the Municipal Code; 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 1, 2 of the General Health Law; 1, 2, 17, 175, 176 of the Water Law; 15, 18, 19, 51, 56, 58.5, Transitory II of the Urban Planning Law. Now, that duty is not only circumscribed to the State as a whole, but also to private legal subjects, who have the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also, to guarantee, preserve, and defend it</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> as is evident, among others, from articles 1 first paragraph, 2.a, 6, 22, 23, 99, of the Organic Environmental Law; 10.2, 10.13, 11.4, 88, 95, 101, 105 of the Biodiversity Law; 15, 28 to 30, 36 to 38, 51, 53, 62 to 64, 83, 88 to 121 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 57 to 66 of the Forest Law; 37, 40, 41 to 45, 51 to 53 of the Law on the Use, Management, and Conservation of Soils; 14 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; as well as, from judgments number 1999-02219 of fifteen hours eighteen minutes of March twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-nine; 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at sixteen hours fifteen minutes of July twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-nine, among others. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Regarding the second aspect,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> related to the establishment of a series of mechanisms of a technical-legal nature to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">this Tribunal considers that said means of protection can be classified into two large groups:</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> procedural and</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> material.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> It is necessary to clarify that, although it is true that reference will be made to specific examples related to each of the classification criteria indicated above, the intention of this Tribunal is not to establish a numerus clausus list, but only to highlight through said examples, aspects that have an impact on the object of this proceeding. In that regard, within the</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> group of procedural protection mechanisms,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> three examples can be highlighted: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">1)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Broad standing (legitimación amplia)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> granted to every person by the second paragraph of article 50 of the Political Constitution and article 105 of the Biodiversity Law, to denounce, both through administrative and jurisdictional channels, conduct that infringes the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and to claim the damage caused. It should be noted that, in principle, standing in environmental matters originates from a simple normative authorization without the existence of a right or interest of an individual, collective, or diffuse nature,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> however, this Tribunal considers that, in essence, what each person will seek to protect is a right that forms part of their vital sphere and on whose effective guarantee, defense, and preservation depends whether they can develop and live in accordance with the principle of human dignity (see article 2.a of the Organic Environmental Law, in the sense that the environment is the common heritage of all inhabitants of the Nation). </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">2)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> A system of </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">innominate, and if necessary, anticipatory nature, precautionary measures (medidas cautelares innominado y de ser necesario, de naturaleza anticipada)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (articles 108 of the Biodiversity Law, 42 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, and 19 to 30 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">3)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The application of the </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">guiding principles in environmental matters, namely: in dubio pro natura, preventive, and precautionary,</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">as means to guarantee the effective protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and therefore, to prevent its existence from being restricted to the semantic plane of legal reality (see articles 4.c, 17, and 34 of the Organic Environmental Law, 11 sections 1 and 2, 92 of the Biodiversity Law, principle 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration, and among others, judgment number 1999-01250 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at eleven hours twenty-four minutes of February nineteenth, nineteen ninety-nine). In that sense, the legal operator must always take into consideration that "...when there is danger of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone the adoption of cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation..." On the other hand, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">in the group of material protection mechanisms, </span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the following two manifestations are very representative: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">1)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), as a sine qua non requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that may alter or destroy elements of the environment or biodiversity, or generate waste, toxic, or hazardous materials. Said requirement has been in force since November 13</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, 1995, the date on which the Organic Environmental Law was published. It is also regulated in articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law; article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Annexes I and II; principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration; article 18 of the Forest Law;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> General Regulation on Environmental Assessment Procedures (Decreto Ejecutivo number 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC), among others. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has established that</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> "...the fact that both the right to health and the right to enjoy an ecologically balanced environment are recognized as fundamental rights, obliges the Chamber to specify that the solution to the problem cannot be based on quick solutions; that, to adopt a decision in this field, one must have the technical studies ensuring that the proposed solution, in each specific case, will not be the origin of a public health problem or undue alteration to the environment..." (Among others, judgment No. 1995-02671 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 16:45 on May 24, 1995). In that sense, "...it is not possible for the State to execute or authorize the execution of projects about which there is doubt regarding the negative impact they may generate on the environment. Consequently, the omission to carry out a prior environmental impact study translates into a violation of article 50 of the Constitution..." (judgment No. 1999-02219 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 15:18 on March twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-nine). </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">2)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The existence of </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">property of the Nation (bienes propios de la Nación)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> –as the constitutional text calls them-</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> which, forming part of the public domain, are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable, so their disaffection or application to public uses is reserved to the Law, in accordance with the provisions of article 121 section 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution. Among those assets whose conservation constitutes a matter of environmental public interest (article 11 of the Biodiversity Law), are: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the environment</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> defined in article 2.a) of the Organic Environmental Law, as the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (articles 1 and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (articles 13 to 18 of the Forest Law); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Wild Fauna and Flora (Fauna y Flora Silvestre)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (articles 3 and 4 of the Wildlife Conservation Law); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Waters (Aguas)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> in accordance with the breakdown contained in article 1 of the Water Law. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Regarding the Natural Heritage of the State. </span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">In accordance with the object of the proceeding before us, this Tribunal will focus its analysis on the Natural Heritage of the State (PNE).</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Given the terms of the recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as already explained, it is necessary to highlight that Forest Law No. 4465 already cited (and which was repealed by Forest Law number 7575 of February 5, 1996), not only contained "...as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, exploitation, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources..." (article 1), but also, the concepts of Forest (article 6) and </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (article 32 first paragraph). Regarding the Forest Heritage of the State, Law No. 4465 established its characteristics (article 33); the competent bodies to administer and supervise the Forest Heritage of the State, which according to that regulation were the General Forestry Directorate and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (article 32 second paragraph), as well</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> as the powers conferred to these bodies for the purposes of protecting and conserving the Forest Heritage of the State. Among the latter, it is worth highlighting the following: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">1)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Replevin actions for those properties (article 33), </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">2)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The constitution within the Natural Heritage of the State of forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and biological reserves (articles 35 to 37); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">3)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The demarcation of the lands in the areas that make up the Forest Heritage of the State (article 38). On the other hand, in Forest Law No. 7575 currently in force, that concept is taken up again but with a variation in the name, as it is now called </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Natural Heritage of the State</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. This term is broader since it encompasses the protection and preservation of the forest ecosystem (article 3 section c of the Forest Law). The Natural Heritage of the State is of public domain, for which reason, the lands and forests comprised within it are unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable. Likewise, their conservation and administration are entrusted by law to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET), through the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), as provided in articles 6.a, 13 second paragraph, and 14 of the cited Forest Law and numeral 32 second paragraph of the Organic Environmental Law. The PNE is composed of two important components: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">1)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Protected Wild Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas),</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> whatever their management category and that have been declared by Law or Executive Decree, namely: forest reserves, protective zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Law No. 7575, article 1°, paragraph 2°, 3° section i; Organic Environmental Law, article 32; Biodiversity Law, article 22 and following and 58; National Parks Service Law, article 3° sections d and f, in relation to the Organic Law of MINAE</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> and its Regulation; Wildlife Conservation Law, article 82, section a); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">2)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">The other forests and forest lands of the inalienable areas, of the farms registered in its name, and of those belonging to Municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other bodies of the Public Administration,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> which have an immediate legal encumbrance, except those properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets (article 13 first paragraph of the Forest Law). It should be noted that,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> both the Protected Wild Areas and the rest of the forested areas and lands of forest aptitude comprised in the maritime-terrestrial zone, are excluded from the scope</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> of regulation of Law No. 6043 and therefore, from the competence of the Municipalities, as will be expanded upon later.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> These zones are subject to their own legislation (Forest Law), which implies that their administration falls to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, through the National System of Conservation Areas (see in this regard judgment number 2008-16975 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at fourteen hours fifty-three minutes of November twelfth, two thousand eight). Now, as part of the duties incumbent upon MINAET and SINAC for the conservation and protection of the Natural Heritage of the State, are: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">1)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the exercise of the replevin action for the PNE, which is imprescriptible (article 14); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">2)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> demarcating on the ground, the boundaries that make up the Natural Heritage of the State (article 16); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">3)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> coordinating with the National Registry, the establishment of a forest cadastre, whose objective will be to regulate the areas comprised within the PNE and those that voluntarily submit to the forest regime (article 17); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">4)</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The Public Administration cannot exchange, cede, dispose of in any way, deliver, or lease rural lands owned or under its administration, without them having been previously classified by MINAET, so that, if they were covered with forest, they would automatically become incorporated into the Natural Heritage of the State (article 15). Based on all the foregoing, this Tribunal reaches the following relevant conclusions in the specific case. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">First</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. Since the environment is constituted as the Common Heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation, the</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Natural Heritage of the State constitutes a species of that genus (articles 50 second paragraph, 89, 121 section 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution, 2 section a) of the Organic Environmental Law, 1 of the Biodiversity Law, and 13 of the Forest Law). </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Second</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. There is an immediate legal encumbrance to the Natural Heritage of the State, of all those lands comprised in the protected wild areas, in the areas declared inalienable –such as the maritime-terrestrial zone (article 73 of Law 6043)-, in lands of forest aptitude, and in the farms registered in the name of the State, Municipalities, Autonomous Institutions, and other entities of the Decentralized Public Administration. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Third.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The Natural Heritage of the State does not require an express declaration given that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 13 and 14 of the Forest Law, as well as what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in judgments 1992-03789 and 1997-04587, the forested zones, lands with forest aptitude, mangroves, and wetlands comprised within the inalienable areas, such as the maritime-terrestrial zone, are immediately encumbered to this Heritage, without the concurrence of the Administration. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Fourth.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Consequently,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the demarcation of the boundaries of the areas that make up the Natural Heritage of the State, in accordance with the provisions of article 16 of the Forest Law, constitutes a power that MINAET, through SINAC,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> must exercise ex officio and not only at the request of a party. This is not only in application of the duty imposed by articles 21, 50 second and third paragraphs, and 89 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee, preserve, and conserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also, because the law does not indicate that the demarcation must be carried out only at the request of a party.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> It is not justified, in the opinion of this body, for the State to validly allege the lack of resources for such purpose, as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held (see among others, judgments 1995-00915 of sixteen hours six minutes of February fifteenth, nineteen ninety-five; 1996-000695 of fifteen hours forty-two minutes of February seventh, nineteen ninety-six). </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Fifth.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Consequently,</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the classification carried out by the National System of Conservation Areas, regarding the type of ecosystem existing on the properties comprised within the Natural Heritage of the State, constitutes a mere categorization of those, in accordance with the classification criteria set forth in article 13 first paragraph of the Forest Law and the Decreto Ejecutivo number 34295-MINAE, namely: forests, lands of forest aptitude, wetlands, mangroves, among others. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Sixth.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> It is evident that the State has the duty -both at the constitutional and legal level- to guarantee, defend, and protect the forested zones, lands of forest aptitude, mangroves, wetlands, among others, comprised in the inalienable areas -as in this case, the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone- which by the simple fact of having that character, were encumbered directly and automatically to the Natural Heritage of the State. Therefore, the result of the classification of the type of ecosystem existing in said areas -which must be carried out ex officio and not only at the request of a party, in order to take the necessary measures to achieve their effective protection and conservation-, is not what determines their incorporation or not into the Natural Heritage of the State, because by law they had already been encumbered to it, by virtue of being inalienable zones." (See to the same effect, resolution No. 1842-2009, issued by the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal at 7:30 a.m. on August 31, 2009).</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">From the cited judgments, it is necessary to highlight some aspects that are of vital importance in the resolution of the specific case. Undoubtedly, the State has a constitutional and legal obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to give all persons the instruments to defend this fundamental right. To that extent, the use of technical and scientific mechanisms is indispensable in decision-making involving environmental matters. Now,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> the Natural Heritage of the State is part of the public domain, by virtue not only of the constitutional encumbrance as has been explained,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> but also by express provision of the legislator in different laws, currently in the Forest Law. As such, the Natural Heritage of the State is protected by the special regime applicable to public domain assets (bienes demaniales)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> according to which, by their vocation and purpose,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> they are outside the commerce of human beings, are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable (article 262 of the Civil Code). As a consequence of this, their ownership or possession is not possible, neither by gratuitous nor onerous title; they cannot be lost by prescription, nor can they be gained by adverse possession (usucapión). From this perspective, their possession by private individuals does not create any right in their favor. They are goods that are subject to police power, regarding their exploitation and use, as they are conditioned upon the granting of the respective licenses and permits and the control and supervision by the Administration. Finally, the State has a series of procedural instruments for the recovery of this type of assets, when they have illegitimately left the public domain.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> On the other hand, the Natural Heritage of the State is constituted, among others, by properties located in areas declared inalienable, as is the case of the maritime-terrestrial zone (see articles 13 of the Forest Law; 1 and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone).</span> In such cases, lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be subject to possessory information proceedings, and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means (see articles 7 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 7 and 11 of the Possessory Information Law).

**Vo.- BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE.** Some considerations regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone, related to the following aspects, are also relevant to the resolution of this matter. **Concept.** Article 9 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law defines this zone as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the ordinary high-water lines and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It includes islands, islets, and maritime rocks as well as all land with natural formations that protrude above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Exception is made for 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 said law or in special laws. **Zones that Comprise the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.** Pursuant to section 10 of the same Law, it can be indicated that the maritime-terrestrial zone is composed of two sections: **1) The public zone**, which is the strip of fifty meters wide from the ordinary high-water line and the areas that are uncovered during low tide, as well as the islets, rocks, and other small areas and natural formations protruding from the sea. Likewise, as indicated by principle 11 of the cited Law, the zone occupied by all mangroves of the continental and insular coastlines and estuaries of the national territory constitutes a public zone, whatever its extension. **2) The restricted zone**, constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters or by the other lands in the case of islands, and over which, as will be seen, concessions may be granted. As stated in article 1 of the aforementioned Law, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the National Patrimony, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. This has allowed for the precise affirmation of the public-domain (demanial) and public character of said zone and, as a consequence thereof, its imprescriptibility, unwaivability, inalienability, as well as it being outside the commerce of persons. It is by this public-domain character that lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be subject to possessory information proceedings, and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means *(see articles 7 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 7 and 11 of the Possessory Information Law)*. Now, the fact that it concerns a public-domain asset does not mean that private individuals, in a situation of special subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the opposite: as will be elaborated later, by means of a concession (in the restricted zone) private individuals can take advantage of the maritime-terrestrial zone. It is important to highlight that, pursuant to article 12 of the Law in question, in the maritime-terrestrial zone it is prohibited, without the due legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna; to demarcate with fences, tracks, or in any other form; to erect buildings or installations; to cut trees; to extract products; or to carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. **Administration and guardianship of the maritime-terrestrial zone:** As already indicated, the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. However, it is clear that pursuant to the already cited Law 6043, competencies of different bodies and entities converge over this zone. In this sense, it is possible to distinguish areas of competence that involve, as far as this proceeding is concerned, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), the National Housing and Urbanism Institute (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), Municipalities, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República). At this point, it is worth emphasizing that in accordance with the provisions of article 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law, maritime-terrestrial zones, included, as in this case, in national parks and equivalent reserves, shall be governed by the respective legislation, and therefore, shall be administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Telecommunications (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y Telecomunicaciones), in accordance with the provisions of articles 32 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and 13, second paragraph, of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal).

**VIo.- SOME GENERALITIES ON POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.** In judgment number 1997-04587 at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on the fifth of August of nineteen ninety-seven, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered the following regarding the general regime of adverse possession (usucapión), regulated in the Possessory Information Law:

*“…GENERAL REGIME OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: In principle, it must be indicated that possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) regulated in the Possessory Information Law No. 139 of July 14, 1941 and its reforms, are a non-contentious judicial procedure by means of which a title of ownership of real property recordable in the Public Registry is formalized.* ***In general, this procedure aims for possessors who lack a title recordable in the Public Registry to obtain one. Article 1 of that Law provides that for the possessor of real property to request the granting of title based on the possessory information procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years with the conditions indicated in article 856 of the Civil Code, namely, as owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing time and condition requirements characterize the possession necessary for adverse possession.*** *To obtain ownership of real property by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, article 853 of the Civil Code indicates as requirements: a translative title of domain and good faith. From the foregoing and from the provisions of article 8 of the Possessory Information Law, which characterizes the possessory information procedure as a non-contentious judicial process—in which the emergence of a claim or opposition from any person or the State causes the matter to be suspended and referred to the declaratory proceeding for discussion and resolution, or causes the record to be archived and the administrative avenue deemed exhausted, respectively—it follows that the titling of real property has the acquisition of ownership as a requirement.* ***That is, a distinction is made between the moment of acquisition of ownership by adverse possession and the moment when that situation is asserted in the possessory information procedure to obtain a title recordable in the Public Registry. Hence, adverse possession is considered a mode of acquisition of ownership and other possessable real rights, and titling is considered the procedure by means of which, once the requirements of adverse possession are proven, the recordable title of ownership is conferred.*** *Adverse possession is an original mode of acquiring a possessable real right by the passage of time under the legal requirements.* ***The acquisitive legal effect of adverse possession occurs automatically with the passage of time coupled with a valid possession that meets the conditions set for possession ad usucapionem, and the other requirements established by law. In general terms, the Civil Code establishes as requirements for positive prescription: a translative title of domain, good faith, and possession under specific conditions.*** ***Regarding the valid title for adverse possession,** *the doctrine has stated that what is required is a legal transaction for the acquisition of the possessed right. The title is the fact that serves as the cause for possession and, consequently, for the acquisition of ownership. It is the legal foundation, the determining reason for the acquisition. Adverse possession supposes, at its origin, an act or a series of acts by which a person acquires possession of a thing that normally should be accompanied by a right over the asset, but this does not happen, such that the title of adverse possession coincides with the act of possessory acquisition. The title must be just, which requires its validity and conformity with the legal system (licit). The jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (see resolutions numbers 92 at 10:00 hours on June 21, 1991, and 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994)* ***indicates in this regard that for adverse possession, article 853 of the Civil Code requires a translative title of domain, possession, and good faith, but in numeral 854 it clarifies that a just title is required, which characterizes it not as a document but as a cause of acquisition;*** *that article 854 excludes proof of just title in three hypotheses: movable assets, easements (servidumbres), and right of possession; that in these cases the fact of possession presumes the title; that when dealing with the right of possession, title is not necessary because possession counts as title; that a title should not be requested from someone who acquires originally as a product of taking possession where they have no transferor and where their cause of acquisition finds protection in the legal system; that for the previous case, the title is confused with possession, the title is possession; that* ***the just character of the title lies in the fact that it is licit, and for the case ad usucapionem, it means that possession must meet the requirements of being public, peaceful, continuous, and as the true holder; that when the Civil Code requires a translative title of domain or the Possessory Information Law requires its presentation together with other necessary documents for the processing of the expediente, they refer exclusively to the case in which the adverse possessor was not the original possessor, but rather acquired from another possessor;*** *that in that case, it is indeed required to documentarily prove the title; that article 101 of the Lands and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961 and its reforms indicates that when adverse possession intervenes, the translative title of domain required by the Civil Code is not necessary.* ***Regarding the requirement of good faith,** *jurisprudence (see resolutions of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice numbers 230 at 16:00 hours on July 20, 1990, and 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994) has indicated that according to article 853 of the Civil Code, good faith is a requirement for adverse possession that must be present for it to exist; that if the assumptions of good and bad faith are found in article 285 of the Civil Code, the rule for declaring bad faith is its full demonstration by the party alleging its existence, since article 286 of the same Code acquires a prevailing character over 285, by establishing the principle of presumption of good faith; that good faith concerns the personal conviction of the subject regarding their legitimacy; that one must speak of a belief generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith in possession fulfills the objective of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor—acquisition of fruits, payment for improvements, right of retention, and non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing—; that* ***for general good faith—a requirement of possession—ignorance or error regarding the existence of a defect that invalidates the title or mode of acquisition is necessary; that regarding the good faith necessary for adverse possession, which encompasses the general, the belief is required that the transferor of the title is the owner of the thing transferred or that they have the power to carry out that transfer.*** *Now, as the* ***last requirement contemplated in article 853 for positive prescription is possession. The essence of the institution of adverse possession is linked to the discipline of possession.*** *To the exercise of possession for a determined period and under special conditions—public, peaceful, continuous, and as the holder of the right held—are added the requirements that the legal system establishes for adverse possession: just title and good faith. Possession as a real right implies the relationship between a person and a thing. It constitutes one of the separate elements that form ownership (article 264 Civil Code). The right of possession can be acquired independently of full ownership under certain circumstances that the Civil Code regulates in article 279—by the owner's consent, by the fact of maintaining possession for more than one year, and because the law authorizes the creditor to retain the thing of their debtor or orders that all or some of their assets pass to a depositary—.* ***The right of possession in general is composed of two elements: corpus and animus. The first, specifically referring to the material fact of having the thing submitted to the power—action—and will of a person, and the second, related to an internal aspect that guides the possessor. To these elements must be added other special circumstances that the law requires for possession to be useful for adverse possession. In that sense, possession ad usucapionem is a more rigorous or qualified form of possession that differs from generic possession.*** *The requirements that the law requires for possession to be suitable for positive prescription are regulated in article 856 of the Civil Code. Jurisprudence, integrating doctrinal concepts, has developed the content of those requirements. In that sense,* ***in relation to possession as owner, it has been indicated that what the Civil Code means is possession as the holder of the right held, since ownership is not the only right that can be acquired by positive prescription, and thus this requirement attends to the title or determining cause of the possession and its subsequent mode of exercise; that what matters is the behavior of the possessor as holder—the materialization of conduct as a holder—which excludes any possessor with a non-possessory cause, such as a lessee, administrator, depositary, or servant of possession;*** *that, based on this requirement, acts performed by virtue of license and merely tolerated acts are also excluded, because they cannot lead to the constitution or acquisition of possession, and even less of adverse possession, since they occur by the liberality of the true holder and not of one who presents themselves as such; that the quality of exercising possession as the holder of the right being acquired by adverse possession is understood insofar as it qualifies the suitable subject and discards the unsuitable one; that this qualification, in broad principle, coincides with the title, so that this condition can be taken to identify the legal cause itself with possession. Regarding the requirement of continuity of possession, it is understood that the possessory acts must be uninterrupted, that is, they must not be performed in an isolated or accidental manner; that this situation must be maintained during the entire time necessary for adverse possession; that the defect occurs when any of the causes of interruption of possession arises, because in those cases, all the time elapsed is rendered useless; that interruption being a defect, continuity is presumed—article 283 of the Civil Code—and the party alleging the existence of the defect must prove it. In relation to peaceful possession, it is said that it implies not acquiring or maintaining it by force (means of physical or moral coercion); that possession obtained with violence becomes peaceful when the cause generating the new holding ceases, and it becomes useful for adverse possession—article 857 of the Civil Code—; that one is not in the presence of violent possession when the possessor defends the possession—prevents it from being taken away—but this does not protect the violent action of the dispossessed person resorting to de facto means to recover their possession, even if it legally corresponds to them, because while another opposes, they must resort to the judicial authority—articles 305 and 317 of the Civil Code—. As to the last requirement of possession ad usucapionem, namely, publicity, the doctrine indicates that public possession is the normal use of the thing according to its nature and purpose. Jurisprudence, for its part, has indicated that possession must be exercised in front of everyone, without hiding or concealing the acts performed on the thing; that it is also important not to hide the condition as holder of the right with which one possesses; that the defect that opposes publicity is clandestinity; that possession that was initially hidden may become suitable for adverse possession if it becomes public. (…)* ***Regarding the concept of the object of possession, what is important for the purposes of resolving this action of unconstitutionality is to specify that things within commerce are susceptible to possession—and to the special possession ad usucapionem. It is said that commerce is equivalent to what is known as legal traffic, so that things are within commerce when they are in a legal possibility of being the object of a patrimonial legal transaction.*** *Article 262 of the Civil Code establishes that public things are outside patrimonial traffic. For its part, article 261 ibidem defines public things as those that by law are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can take advantage of because they are delivered for public use. Public domain is currently understood as an intense intervention by public authority justified by the need to ensure the effective fulfillment, by the things, of a public purpose desired by law. In that understanding, the public thing is conceived as a legal relationship constituted by the legal system that consists of a duty of the Administration to establish and maintain a public function whose realization requires a thing (in the private legal sense), which, due to its connection with the public purpose, is removed from the private legal system and becomes subject to the regime that regulates the specific public function. In that sense, public-domain assets have a special regime, not by their nature, but by their affectation to the public statute. The destination of an asset to a public use or service occurs by law. Since subjection occurs with respect to assets that are in private legal traffic, it supposes an impact that harms private domain and implies—in most cases—the need to modify the ownership of the assets so that the individual is not obliged to bear a radical change of statute. Currently, the doctrine indicates that the serviciality of assets to a public purpose can occur without sacrificing their situation in private legal traffic, because a public-law delimitation of the content of real rights and their limitation is sufficient.*** * *After presenting the general overview of the regime of adverse possession, it is necessary to point out that due to the incorporation of doctrinal criteria into the jurisprudence (judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994) the requirements that characterize that legal institution have been affected when related to the concepts of agrarian, forest, and ecological property. In that sense, it is important to synthesize the basic elements that are handled at the doctrinal and jurisprudential level in relation to those topics, and that oblige the judge—in relation to the challenged norm—to determine in each case the specific type of possessory act that has been exercised on the rural property (fundo)—that becomes part of the protected wilderness area—that is sought to be titled. The foregoing is intended so that the judge has a broader criterion—not limited to the effective date of the law or executive decree defining the limits of a specific wilderness area—to establish with greater precision the moment when said assets became inalienable and imprescriptible, for the purposes of determining if possession ad usucapionem was exercised over them for ten years prior to their acquiring that condition. This broader perspective that favors the protection of the Nation's environmental patrimony determines that when one seeks to title—through the possessory information proceeding—land located within a protected wilderness area, the discussion is not reduced to the simple calculation of the time a person has had since entering a real property in relation to the date when the declaration of the protected wilderness area was made, since—on one hand—the elements that each specific type of possession contemplates must be considered for the purposes of accrediting possession ad usucapionem during the term established in article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, and—on the other hand—the possible existence of norms that of old declared those lands inalienable, even before their specific affectation to the public domain…”* Now, the procedure contained in the Possessory Information Law requires publicity, **by means of the publication of an edict in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial),** and provides that the adjoining landowners of the person seeking to title the land, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, and the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), if it is a rural property, be cited as parties, with which they can oppose and defend their rights *(article 5).* For such effect, they shall have one month from notification to oppose the proceedings, and their failure to appear or act shall in no case hinder the procedure. Once the time limit indicated in article 5 has expired, ex officio or at the request of a party, the Judge shall convene a hearing to be held on the property (finca) to be registered, if it is rural and its size exceeds thirty hectares, being able to commission another judicial authority for this purpose. This proceeding shall not be necessary when the property is rural and does not exceed thirty hectares, or is urban *(article 9).* **Once the information is concluded, the Judge shall grant a hearing on the result thereof, for a term of eight days, to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic,** through its representative, in the respective judicial circuit. Once that term has elapsed without a response or it has been presented and is satisfactory, and there is no timely opposition or it is declared unfounded by final resolution, **the judge shall approve the information by an order (auto) containing the description of the real property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Registry of Property,** without prejudice to a third party with a better right, by means of the corresponding certification of the resolution, once it is final *(article 10).* **The ownership acquired under the present law is definitively consolidated for third parties after three years,** which shall be counted from the day of the registration of the respective title in the Public Registry, since the negative prescription of the action of third parties who may be affected is limited to that term *(article 16).* At any time and before the three years of the consolidation period elapse, if it is demonstrated that the possessory title was raised against the laws in force, the Judge may decree, in the original expediente, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding execution order so that that Office cancels the entry. Once the term of three years from the registration of the title has elapsed, all action must be decided in a declaratory judgment *(article 17).* Consequently, through the fulfillment of a series of requirements *(article 1),* among which the demonstration of decennial possession as owner in a peaceful, public, uninterrupted, and good faith manner over unregistered land stands out, the possessor can acquire the required title so that ownership over the real property they have possessed under those conditions produces all legal effects, provided that it is not verified that it is intended to unduly title national vacant lands (terrenos baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves *(article 11).* Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case that the real property to which the information refers is comprised within a protected wilderness area, whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the decennial possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree in which that wilderness area was created *(articles 7 and 11).* Based on all of the foregoing, an analysis of the challenged acts will now be conducted.

**VIIo.- REGARDING THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CONDUCTS.** This Tribunal considers that the acts challenged by the State's representation – namely: the cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registration entry of the property in the Guanacaste district, real folio registration number Placa27729, and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal convalidation period – are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons: **1) The property subject to the process is a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado).** In accordance with the technical studies issued by the Program for the Regularization of Cadastre and Registry (Programa de Regularización de Catastro y Registro), the Cadastral Division of the Subdirectorate of the Property Registry, and the Regional Directorate of the Tempisque Conservation Area of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), this Tribunal has deemed it proven that the land registered in the name of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. under registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral map number Placa27732, is not only located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, but also forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) *(see folios 17, 53 to 55, 57 to 62 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure).* It should be noted that this circumstance was evident since January nineteen ninety-five, the date on which Associated Topographer number 2694 drew up, in the name of Nombre141937, for the purposes of a use permit, the cadastral map of that land, not only because the diagram shows that the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone *(see front of folio 15 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure),* but also because the approval issued by the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) that appears on the reverse of said cadastral map clearly indicates that *“…Based on the location appearing on this map in the name of Nombre141938, the property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 10-08-93. Likewise, it is reported that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias) and it shall be the responsibility of Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this map is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see reverse of folio 15 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure).* Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), this Tribunal considers that the property registered under registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral map number Placa27732, constitutes a public domain asset and, therefore, is unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable, forming part not only of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, province of Guanacaste, but also of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). **2) Regarding the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge and the provisions of articles 7 of the Law on Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias); 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.** While it is true that article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information establishes that when the property referred to in the information proceedings is included within a protected wilderness area, whatever its management category, the applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating that wilderness area; it is also true that this provision is not applicable to the specific case, for the reasons set forth below. Through Transitory Provision I of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) **(number 6919 of November 7, 1973)**, the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created, which originally comprised the two-hundred-meter area of the maritime-terrestrial zone, extending from the right bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta India. Subsequently, through article 1 of **Executive Decree number 16531** of July 18, 1985, the area of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was expanded as follows: *“The Ostional National Wildlife Refuge is expanded by the 200-meter area, measured from the ordinary high tide line, comprised from its left bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta Guiones,”* a decree that **was published in La Gaceta number 183 of September twenty-sixth, nineteen eighty-five, and came into effect upon its publication.** Finally, by Executive Decree number 22551 of September 14, 1993, the area comprising the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was expanded again, *"...so that henceforth it shall comprise the area delimited by the following boundaries, according to cartographic sheets Cerro Brujo; 3046-11 and Garza- 3045-1, scale 1:50,000: Starting from Punta India, at coordinate 222550 N NIE121 (Sheet Cerro Brujo), proceed southwest along the line of landmarks demarcating the public zone in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, to Punta Guiones, coordinates 210400 N NIE122 (Sheet Garza); continue due west 3 nautical miles to the point with coordinates 210400 N and 347594.45 E; then proceed northwest along a line parallel to the coast and distant from it by 3 nautical miles, to the point with coordinates 218621.63 N and 342821.63 E; and from this point continue on a bearing of N 45° E to Punta India, the origin of this delimitation (...) In order to organize the protection and use of natural resources, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge shall be constituted by the following sectors: a) The Marine Sector comprising the territorial waters according to the preceding delimitation, b) The Ostional Sector, comprising the main nesting site of the olive ridley turtle on Ostional Beach, c) The Estuarine Wetland Sector comprising the mangrove areas, and d) The Guiones Sector, comprising Playa Pelada and Playa Guiones...";* **said decree was published in La Gaceta number 193 of Dirección8322, and came into effect upon its publication.** Now, from the certified copy of judicial file number 06-00595-0388-CI, it is evident that the defendant company acquired from Nombre141940 the right of possession over the unregistered property with cadastral map number Placa27732, by deed granted on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six *(folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file)* and that it filed the possessory information proceedings before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz on November third, two thousand six *(folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file).* By reason of the foregoing, and taking into consideration that the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created by Law number 6919 of November 7, 1973, and its two expansions came into effect on September twenty-sixth, nineteen eighty-five, and October eighth, nineteen ninety-three, it was necessary, for the purposes of applying the provisions of article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information, for the defendant company to demonstrate that it was the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession of the property in conflict, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree creating that wilderness area; **a requirement that is not possible to fulfill in this case, since the possession rights were transferred to Nombre141941 S.A. on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six.** In addition to the above, it should be noted that through Law number 6043 – which came into effect on March sixteenth, nineteen seventy-seven – it was declared that the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national heritage, belonging to the State; that it is inalienable and imprescriptible, and that the lands located there may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings, and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name by this or any other means (articles 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone). That, by reason of the foregoing, the competent jurisdictional body shall reject the possessory information proceedings if it verifies that there is an attempt to improperly title national vacant lands or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves *(article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information).* **In this case, it has been proven that the property with cadastral map number Placa27731, registered under registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz** *(see folios 15, 17, 53 to 55 of the judicial file for the cautionary measure),* **for which reason, and in accordance with the aforementioned norms, it was also not possible for the defendant company to title said land through possessory information proceedings**, as was stated in the approval of cadastral map number G-256640-1995. Based on all the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the property with cadastral map G-256640-1995 could not be the subject of titling through possessory information proceedings, not only because it does not meet the exception requirements provided in article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information, but also because it forms part of both the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the Natural Heritage of the State, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 261, 262, 277, 284 of the Civil Code.

**3) Regarding the inexistence of a final resolution in the possessory information proceedings processed in file 06-00595-0388-CI and the impossibility of registering the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 in the Public Registry.** From the certification issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, it is evident that although it is true that the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings on November third, two thousand six, for the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file), it is also true that, by resolution at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz warned the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that – among other requirements – it had to provide without exception *“… the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), through the entity in charge, which shall attest to whether the property to be titled is located within or outside protected wilderness areas…”,* all under the warning that until it complied with everything ordered, its future petitions would not be addressed. That notwithstanding, said resolution was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. at nine hours forty-four minutes on November twenty-third, two thousand six, by fax system *(see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file),* the defendant did not proceed to comply with said warning, as is evident from the order at fourteen hours eleven minutes on January thirteenth, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz resolved: *“…according to the detailed study of the case file in this matter, it can be noted that there is a warning which is set forth at folio 9, the same having been issued by this office at nine hours and fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six, and to date the same has not been able to be cleared. Therefore, the request made in the above-cited brief is rendered without effect and it is ordered to be added to the case file without further pronouncement…” (see folio 45 of the judicial file).* Consequently, the procedure provided for in articles 5, 9, and 10 of the Law on Possessory Information was not complied with in this case – so much so, that neither was the edict published in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), nor were the interested parties, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), or the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, INDER) notified of the existence of these possessory information proceedings – since the defendant company did not even comply with the warning issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which constituted a sine qua non requirement to continue with the possessory information proceedings for the property subject to the process. By reason of the foregoing, it is improper that the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 was registered in the Property Registry in the name of the defendant company, **not only because it is a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural heritage of the State, but also because said registration was based on deed number 108 issued by notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez on January nineteenth, two thousand seven** *(see folios 23 to 25 of the judicial file),* **through which two resolutions presumably issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz were protocolized,** namely: **i)** At nine hours on October ninth, two thousand ten, in which said jurisdictional body supposedly approved the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. over the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995; **ii)** At eight hours on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz presumably informs the Director of the Registry that it must proceed with the registration in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. of the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, by virtue of having approved the possessory information proceedings. In this sense, it should be noted that in accordance with the provisions of article 10 of the Law on Possessory Information, if the judge approves the possessory information, they shall issue a resolution containing the description of the property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Property Registry, without prejudice to any third party with better right, **by means of the corresponding certification of the resolution, once it is final**. Consequently, the registration of a property through the possessory information procedure is carried out by means of the enforceability of the judgment approving those proceedings and not by means of notarial protocolization of said resolution, as happened in this case, which is contrary to the provisions of articles 10 of the Law on Possessory Information, 450 and 456 of the Civil Code. In addition to the above, **the data contained in deed 108 of protocol volume four of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez do not correspond to what was resolved by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in file number 06-00595-0388-CI** – which, according to the certification issued by that Office, is the only possessory information file processed there in favor of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. (see folios 30, 31, and 49 of the judicial file) – not only because the dates of the resolutions presumably issued by that jurisdictional body that were protocolized in said deed are prior to November third, two thousand six *– date on which the proceedings were filed by the defendant (see folio 38 of the judicial file) –* and to November twenty-first of that same year *– date on which the warning that the defendant company did not comply with was issued (see folios 41 to 42 of the judicial file) –* ; but also, because there is an incongruity in the dates of the two protocolized resolutions, since the order in which the Registry is presumably ordered to register the property *– at eight hours on July twenty-seventh, 2006 (folio 23 of the judicial file) –* is prior to the resolution in which the Court approves the possessory information proceedings, which – according to the notary's statement – was issued at nine hours on October ninth, 2006 *(see folio 23 of the judicial file).* It is essential to highlight that deed 108, which served as the basis for the registration in the registry, also records another piece of data that does not correspond to reality, since said document indicates that *“…the edict was published in the Judicial Bulletin, file number forty-two, of November third, two thousand six…” (see folio 25 of the judicial file),* however, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that this did not happen, not only because the possessory information proceedings processed before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz did not reach that phase of the procedure *(see folios 30 to 50 of the judicial file),* but also because by means of official letter number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office (Imprenta Nacional) indicates that: *“…1) In the Judicial Bulletin of November 3, 2006, there is no publication whatsoever emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system records only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005…” (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file).* Finally, it should be noted that from certification number DAN-3223, issued by the Head of the Notarial Archive at eight hours forty-two minutes on September eleventh, two thousand nine, it is evident that from folio 70 reverse to 73 front of volume 4 of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deeds number 106, 101, and 108 appear – respectively – and that the content of the latter does not correspond to the one presented to the Registry's Daily Entry Book (Diario del Registro) at thirteen hours forty minutes on February fifteenth, two thousand seven, and which appears in volume 570, entry 45185 *(see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file).* Consequently, **this Tribunal considers that there exists a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private individual, which is substantially contrary to the legal system,** not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also because the possessory information proceedings that served as its basis – processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz – were never approved, since the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the warning that was notified to them on November twenty-third, two thousand six. By reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the cadastral map number Placa27732; deed 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; and the act of registration of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 under real folio registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, for being substantially inconsistent with the provisions of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry.

**4) Regarding the constitution of mortgages on the property subject to the process during the convalidation period.** It must be remembered that in accordance with the provisions of articles 261 of the Civil Code and 170 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, assets of public ownership destined for common use and enjoyment shall not be seizable, nor shall those directly linked to the provision of public services of an essential nature, or those that are indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of public purposes or services.

In light of the foregoing and given that the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, registered under real folio system registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste District, constitutes a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the canton of Santa Cruz and of the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), it is contrary to law that, during the period between April nineteenth, two thousand seven, and March twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, six first- through sixth-degree mortgages were registered, having as collateral the aforementioned property, which are already due, as evidenced by the following citations: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; Placa27734 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 (see folios 70 to 98 of the judicial file; 11 to 13 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure). It should also be noted that said mortgages were registered during the three-year validation (convalidación) period of the alleged possessory information (información posesoria) regarding that asset, which began on February twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, and expired on February twenty-sixth, two thousand ten (see folio 11 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure), as established by Article 16 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. In that regard, and given that this Court declared the nullity of the titles that originated the registration of the property upon which said mortgage guarantees were constituted, consequently, the absolute nullity is also declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under real folio system registration number Placa27729 of the San José District, with cadastral map number Placa27735, granted by deeds number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hundred hours on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600 and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hundred thirty hours on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hundred thirty hours on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number Placa27736, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred hours on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred forty hours on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. This is because they are substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público and 34, 43 and 55 of the Reglamento del Registro Público. In light of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 456 and 472 subsection 2) of the Civil Code, the cancellation of the following mortgage lien citations is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 , preserving the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of said guarantees the damages and losses that may be caused to them, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code. 5) Testimony of excerpts to the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público). This Court has deemed it proven that there exists a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private individual, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information, but also because the possessory information proceedings that served as its support —processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz— were never approved, given that the Court did not admit them for proceedings until the promoting company fulfilled the prevention order that was notified to them on November twenty-third, two thousand six. While it is true that, in a brief dated January seventh, two thousand ten, addressed to Deputy Procurator Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., stated: “…It is only through the declaratory proceeding filed by your represented party that I became aware of all (sic) the illegalities and falsehoods with which the real property was registered in favor of my represented party, since although I bought the possession of the property; the seller and her husband were the ones who handled the pertinent procedures in order to carry out the possessory information (…), it is also true that said statements do not preclude this Court from certifying excerpts to the Public Ministry, given the seriousness of the facts that are the subject of this claim, and the possible criminal liability they may generate against the different subjects who participated in the granting of deed 108 of protocol four of notary public Brenes Álvarez and in the registration of both the property with cadastral map number Placa27732 under real folio system registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, and the six mortgages constituted on said land, under citations Placa27737 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 . In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered to certify excerpts to the Public Ministry, for its corresponding actions. 6) On the nullity of the challenged acts. For all the foregoing, this Court considers that the challenged acts —namely: cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the farm of the Guanacaste district, real folio system registration number Placa27729 and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the legal validation period— suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público and 34, 43 and 55 of the Reglamento del Registro Público. Consequently: a) It is declared that the property with cadastral map number G-254460-1995, registered under real folio system registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste District, constitutes a public domain asset that is unseizable, imprescriptible, inalienable and outside the commerce of men, which is encompassed within the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional and forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the State's Natural Heritage. b) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral map number G.256640-1995, drawn up in January nineteen ninety-five, by Associated Topographer number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937 , identity card number CED111603, for the purposes of a use permit on the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194 , province Guanacaste; c) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol four granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine hundred fifteen hours on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, insofar as it formalized the alleged resolutions issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, at eight hundred hours on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, and at nine hundred hours on October ninth, two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., in order to title the property with cadastral map number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197 , , . The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the Archivo Nacional and the Registro Nacional, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the original matrix of the respective protocols and the testimonios that may have been submitted to the Registro Nacional. d) It is declared that the farm registered under the Real Folio System registration number Placa27728 was technically and legally improperly registered in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597. e) The registry entries of inscription of the farm registered under the Real Folio System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the Registro Nacional, are annulled. f) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under real folio system registration number Placa27729 of the San José District, with cadastral map number Placa27735, granted by deeds number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hundred hours on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600 and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hundred thirty hours on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hundred thirty hours on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred hours on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hundred forty hours on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments must be communicated to the Archivo Nacional and the Registro Nacional, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the original matrix of the respective protocols and the testimonios that may have been submitted to the Registro Nacional. g) The cancellation of the following mortgage lien citations is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 , preserving the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of said guarantees the damages and losses that may be caused to them, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code; h) It is hereby ordered to certify excerpts to the Public Ministry for its corresponding actions.

**VII. ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS.** This Court concludes that the State has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since it is the owner of the public domain asset that is the subject of this proceeding, and it is responsible for bringing the actions aimed at reivindicating, inspecting, and protecting the assets that form part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the State's Natural Heritage, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 of the Political Constitution, 1 and 4 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 of the Ley Forestal, 32 and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 5 and 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 3.i of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., as provided in Article 12, subsection 3) of the aforementioned Code, given that the property subject to the proceeding was illegitimately titled in favor of said legal entity, which in turn constituted six mortgages on said land in favor of Nombre141933 , identity card number CED111598, Nombre141934 , identity card number CED111600, Nombre122580 , identity card number CED111599; Nombre141935 , identity card number CED111601, Nombre141936 , identity card number CED111602. Moreover, the interest remains current, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional ruling to resolve it, given that, in the case of recovery and protection of public domain assets, statutes of limitations and expiration do not run, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of assets. This is expressly established by Articles 1 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 of the Ley Forestal, and Article 34, subsection 2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right (falta de derecho) and consequently, the claim filed by the State against Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., and as interested third parties Nombre141933 , Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 , is declared with merit in all its aspects, since in accordance with all the foregoing set forth in recitals IV. V.

VI and VII of this judgment, this Court concludes that the challenged acts—namely: the cadastral map number Placa27732; public deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste district, real folio registration number Placa27729; and the mortgage guarantees constituted over said property during the statutory validation period—suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, for being substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias); 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on the Inscription of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público); and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry (Reglamento del Registro Público).

**IX.- REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE ORDERED IN ORAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2433-2010 OF 03-11-2009.** While it is true that, by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, the Processing Judge resolved to maintain the provisional measures ordered by this office in resolution number 1468-2009 and, additionally, "*...ordered the Municipality of Santa Cruz to carry out an inspection every fifteen days to the property in question, for the concrete verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Administrative Litigation Court. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district; likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration number Placa27729 **until the main proceeding is resolved.**"* (see folios 75 and 76 of the judicial precautionary measure file); it is also true that, in application of the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), **and with the purpose of protecting the object of this proceeding while this favorable resolution becomes final**, it is ordered to maintain the precautionary measures ordered by the Processing Judge of this Court, by means of resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, which consist of: "*...1. The annotation of the present proceeding in the National Registry on the margin of the registration entry of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 2. The registry immobilization of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 3. The company that owns the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days to the property in question, for the concrete verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Administrative Litigation Court. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district; likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration number Placa27729...*", **modifying them only regarding their effective term, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final.** **X.- REGARDING COSTS.** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Administrative Litigation Procedural Code, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Exemption from this award is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the principle of awarding costs against the losing party. Therefore, both costs are imposed on the defeated defendant, as well as their respective interest, calculated from the moment this judgment becomes final until its effective payment, details which shall be settled in the execution of the judgment.

**POR TANTO.** The claim filed by the State against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. is granted, on the following terms, it being understood as denied in any part not expressly granted. Consequently: **1)** It is declared that the property with cadastral map number G-254460-1995, inscribed under real folio registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste District, constitutes a public domain asset which is unseizable, imprescriptible, inalienable, and outside the commerce of men, that is encompassed within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) and forms part of the maritime terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). **2)** The absolute nullity is declared of the cadastral map number G.256640-1995, drawn up in January nineteen ninety-five, by Associate Surveyor number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937, identity card number CED111603, for purposes of a use permit over the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194, Guanacaste province; **3)** The absolute nullity is declared of Public Deed No. 108 of the fourth protocol, granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez at nine hours fifteen minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, insofar as it incorporated into public record the alleged resolutions issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz at eight hours on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, and at nine hours on October ninth, two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., in order to title the property with cadastral map number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments shall be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations on the original of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. **4)** It is declared that the property inscribed under the Real Folio System registration number Placa27728 was technically and legally inscribed improperly in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identity number CED111597. **5)** The registry entries of inscription of the property inscribed under the Real Folio System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. **6)** The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted over the property inscribed under real folio registration number Placa27729 of the San José District, with cadastral map number G-266640-1995, granted by public deeds **number 205-74,** volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, and whose effective term expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; **number 208,** volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours on September fourth, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose effective term expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; **number 49,** volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on November second, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, and whose effective term expired on November second, two thousand eight; **number 80,** volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on January tenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose effective term expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; **number 92,** volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, whose effective term expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; **number 133,** volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, and whose effective term expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments shall be communicated to the National Archive and the National Registry, for purposes of marginal annotations on the original of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been submitted to the National Registry. **7)** The cancellation of the following mortgage encumbrance entries is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936, safeguarding the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of these guarantees the damages that may be caused to them, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037, and 1038 of the Civil Code; **8)** It is ordered to certify copies to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) for its corresponding duties; **9)** It is ordered to maintain the precautionary measures ordered by the Processing Judge of this Court, by means of resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on November third, two thousand nine, which consist of: "*...1. The annotation of the present proceeding in the National Registry on the margin of the registration entry of property number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district. 2. The registry immobilization of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district. 3. The company that owns the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days to the property in question, for the concrete verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within three days following the completion of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Administrative Litigation Court. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over property 155180-000 of the Guanacaste district; likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property registration number Placa27729...*", **modifying them only regarding their effective term, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final**; **10)** The defendant company is ordered to pay both costs, as well as their respective interest, calculated from the moment this judgment becomes final until its effective payment, details which shall be settled in the execution of the judgment.

**Nombre102152** **José Roberto Garita Navarro** **Otto González Vílchez** **EXPEDIENTE: 09-001790-1027-CA** **PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO** **ACTOR: EL ESTADO** **DEMANDADOS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M.

I.- ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE COURT TO ANALYZE THE LAW AND THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS, DESPITE THE DECLARATION OF DEFAULT (REBELDÍA) OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY. It is important, prior to the substantive analysis of this resolution, to establish that this Court, as the jurisdictional body it is, has the obligation to review, analyze, and determine whether the law and the claims asserted by the plaintiff have legal support, as well as to resolve the substantive requirements, even though there exists, as in the present case, a declaration of default (rebeldía) due to the failure to answer the complaint by the representatives of the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, Marta Chinchilla Arias, Carlos Chinchilla Arias, José Rodolfo Chinchilla, and Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez (folio 108 of the judicial file), even more so in this case, in which the representatives of the defendant company and the interested third parties also failed to appear at the preliminary hearing held at one thirty in the afternoon on June eighth, two thousand ten (see folio 111 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing). The foregoing is based on the following grounds: 1) The case law of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) has indicated, despite the fact that this jurisprudential line was presented in the context of the former Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction and the Code of Civil Procedure (Código Procesal Civil), but which continues to apply to the current contentious-administrative procedural legislation, that the declaration of default (rebeldía) does not nullify the jurisdictional body's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture, among other relevant aspects, as clearly emerges from the following resolution of that Chamber:

“IX.- On the failure to answer the complaint: Certainly, the failure to answer the complaint leads to default (rebeldía) and to the facts being deemed affirmatively admitted, but it does not nullify the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual picture. Moreover, the defaulting party may appear at any time during the proceeding and offer new evidence (arts. 293 and 310 C.P.C.), which, if pertinent to the clarification of the facts, the judge may admit for better resolution. Consequently, default (rebeldía) is not by itself sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only reaches this value if other evidence of the same lineage does not contradict the ficta confessio. Therefore, default (rebeldía) must be evaluated together with the rest of the evidentiary elements present in the proceeding.” (Vote 801-F-02 of 11 hours 10 minutes on October 18, 2002). That being the case, the default admission of facts (contestación en rebeldía) would not suffice to grant the counterclaim's petitions if other elements of judgment lead, under the application of sound criticism rules, to the finding that the necessary legal requirements to grant the requested claims do not exist." (First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia), resolution number 991-F-2004 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on November seventeenth, two thousand four).

From what is stated in this resolution, it can be inferred that the jurisdictional body may and must base its resolution on the evidentiary elements present in the file and not deem a factual picture and the plaintiff's claims as proven solely by the declaration of default (rebeldía). 2) The plaintiff, in accordance with articles 58, 82, 85, and 120 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo) and 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Código Procesal Civil), applicable on a supplementary basis in this matter as permitted by article 220 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo), has the burden of proving its right and claims, regardless of whether the defendant has answered the complaint or not; the mere fact of a declaration of default (rebeldía) does not nullify the plaintiff's obligation to prove its right. 3) In the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction, there is an obligation on judges, established in article 49 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), to guarantee the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and any other public law entity, which demonstrates that in this matter, more than in others, judges are obliged to review the conduct of the Public Administration (Administración Pública) to determine whether it has conformed to the legal system. 4) In accordance with the provisions of article 65 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo), a defendant who fails to answer within the summons period shall be declared in default (rebelde) ex officio, and the complaint shall be deemed affirmatively answered as to the facts, without prejudice to the right to appear at any time, taking up the proceeding in the state in which it finds itself. Now, although according to article 93 subsection 1 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo), evidence will not be admitted when there is agreement about the facts, the rule provides for an exception that applies precisely when such agreement on the facts arises from the declaration of default (rebeldía) of the defendant. Consequently, the judge cannot assume there is no controversy and dispense with evidence, as the judge must seek the real truth pursuant to article 82 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo) and due to the legality control that is the object of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (article 49 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and 1 of the procedural Code); therefore, default (rebeldía) is not assimilated to the figure of acquiescence (allanamiento).

By reason of all the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that, for the reasons set forth previously in this case, this collegiate body must proceed to analyze the substantive requirements, the facts, and the claims of the complaint, for the purpose of determining whether or not they have legal basis, even though in this matter the representative of the defendant company and the interested third parties did not answer the complaint and were declared in default (rebeldía), which, as indicated above, does not negate the possibility of this court to review, analyze, and determine whether or not the complaint filed by the Representative of the State is in accordance with law.”</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> { "titles": [ { "id": 88915, "name": "Ordenamiento Territorial", "weight": 0 } ], "citations": [ { "norm_nom": "Constitution", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Constitución", "art_id": "134072", "norm_anno": "1949", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "81268", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_id": "1669", "art_num": "21" }, { "norm_nom": "Constitution", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Constitución", "art_id": "134096", "norm_anno": "1949", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "81268", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_id": "1669", "art_num": "45" }, { "norm_nom": "Constitution", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Constitución", "art_id": "134097", "norm_anno": "1949", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "81268", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_id": "1669", "art_num": "46" }, { "norm_nom": "Constitution", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Constitución", "art_id": "134101", "norm_anno": "1949", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "81268", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_id": "1669", "art_num": "50" }, { "norm_nom": "Constitution", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Constitución", "art_id": "134140", "norm_anno": "1949", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "81268", "norm_fecha": "07 Nov 1949", "norm_id": "1669", "art_num": "89" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77079", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "11" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77199", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "131" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77200", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "132" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77201", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "133" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77226", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "158" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "77234", "norm_anno": "1978", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "80205", "norm_fecha": "02 May 1978", "norm_id": "13231", "art_num": "166" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Fauna Silvestre (1983)", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "79063", "norm_anno": "1983", "norm_num": "6919", "norm_ver": "14353", "norm_fecha": "17 Nov 1983", "norm_id": "13364", "art_num": "1" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "171365", "norm_anno": "1989", "norm_num": "7135", "norm_ver": "81360", "norm_fecha": "11 Oct 1989", "norm_id": "38533", "art_num": "1" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "171367", "norm_anno": "1989", "norm_num": "7135", "norm_ver": "81360", "norm_fecha": "11 Oct 1989", "norm_id": "38533", "art_num": "3" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "171406", "norm_anno": "1989", "norm_num": "7135", "norm_ver": "81360", "norm_fecha": "11 Oct 1989", "norm_id": "38533", "art_num": "42" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73876", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "3" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73877", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "4" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73880", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "7" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73888", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "15" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73907", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "34" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "73995", "norm_anno": "1992", "norm_num": "7317", "norm_ver": "77592", "norm_fecha": "30 Oct 1992", "norm_id": "12648", "art_num": "122" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132377", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "1" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132378", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "2" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132379", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "3" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132388", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "12" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132404", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "28" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132408", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "32" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132410", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "34" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132413", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "37" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132416", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "40" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132432", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "56" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132435", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "59" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132454", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "78" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132459", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "83" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132479", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "103" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181923", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "1" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181924", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "2" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181925", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "3" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181927", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "5" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181928", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "6" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181935", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "13" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181936", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "14" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181959", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "37" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175159", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "1" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175160", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "2" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175167", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "9" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175180", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "22" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175188", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "30" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175203", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "45" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175207", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "49" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175212", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "54" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175216", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "58" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175246", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "88" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89157", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "262" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "132488", "norm_anno": "1995", "norm_num": "7554", "norm_ver": "81387", "norm_fecha": "04 Oct 1995", "norm_id": "27738", "art_num": "112" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89345", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "450" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "171", "norm_anno": "2006", "norm_num": "8508", "norm_ver": "81340", "norm_fecha": "28 Abr 2006", "norm_id": "57436", "art_num": "170" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "145790", "norm_anno": "1977", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_ver": "33757", "norm_fecha": "02 Mar 1977", "norm_id": "32006", "art_num": "31" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "145791", "norm_anno": "1977", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_ver": "33757", "norm_fecha": "02 Mar 1977", "norm_id": "32006", "art_num": "32" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "145792", "norm_anno": "1977", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_ver": "33757", "norm_fecha": "02 Mar 1977", "norm_id": "32006", "art_num": "33" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "145796", "norm_anno": "1977", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_ver": "33757", "norm_fecha": "02 Mar 1977", "norm_id": "32006", "art_num": "37" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "145832", "norm_anno": "1977", "norm_num": "6043", "norm_ver": "33757", "norm_fecha": "02 Mar 1977", "norm_id": "32006", "art_num": "73" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89156", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "261" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89172", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "277" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89178", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "283" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89179", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "284" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89200", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "305" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89212", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "317" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89351", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "456" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89748", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "853" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89749", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "854" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89751", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "856" }, { "norm_nom": "Código Civil", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "89755", "norm_anno": "1887", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "72408", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_id": "15437", "art_num": "860" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley de Biodiversidad", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "175244", "norm_anno": "1998", "norm_num": "7788", "norm_ver": "74714", "norm_fecha": "30 Abr 1998", "norm_id": "39796", "art_num": "86" }, { "norm_nom": "Ley Forestal", "bdt": "1", "art_subnum": "0", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "art_id": "181976", "norm_anno": "1996", "norm_num": "7575", "norm_ver": "80563", "norm_fecha": "13 Feb 1996", "norm_id": "41661", "art_num": "54" } ] } **IV.- THE NATURAL HERITAGE OF THE STATE AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT, RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.** This collegiate body considers that, prior to the examination of the legality of the administrative conducts whose annulment is being claimed, it is necessary to refer, in a general manner, to the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), as a demanial asset. In that sense, it must be noted that through resolution No.

0063-2009, handed down by this Section at 16:00 hours on January 19, 2009, indicated, in what is relevant for the issuance of this judgment, the following: <b><i>"....Constitutional recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.</i></b><i> In Costa Rica, the recognition and protection in Constitutional Law of the cited fundamental right does not have as its starting point the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, enacted by Law number 7412 of June 3, 1994. The foregoing is because, since the promulgation of the constitutional text in 1949, the will of the Constituent Power was clear in establishing in Article 89 that: “Among the cultural ends of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress”; which is complemented by the emphatic declaration contained in Article 21, to the effect that in our country, “Human life is inviolable”. The integration of the provisions of both articles implies that the need to preserve the environment –although at that time the Constituent Power used the term natural beauties– transcends a merely cultural purpose, to become a vital need for every human being, as it constitutes an essential prerequisite for making effective other fundamental rights such as: life, health, and development. (see in that sense, judgments number 1993-03705 of fifteen hundred hours on July 30, 1993; 1993-06240 of fourteen hundred hours on November 26, 1993; 1993-04423 of twelve hundred hours on December 7, 1993; 1994-02485 of nine hours eighteen minutes on May 27, 1994, all from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). In that sense, it is worth recalling that <b>Constitutional Law</b> is composed not only of the constitutional text, but also of the values and principles that inform and permeate its content, as well as by Public Treaties, International Conventions, and Concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, and also by International Human Rights Instruments applicable in the Republic (see articles 1, 7, 21, 50 of the Political Constitution; 1 and 3 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law). In addition to this, the written and unwritten norms that make up Constitutional Law are characterized by being of direct and immediate application; therefore, their beneficiaries not only have the right to enforce them through administrative and jurisdictional channels, if they consider that they have been impaired by action or omission, but also, this implies that legal operators have the duty to apply them directly and immediately in their decision-making process, in order to fulfill constitutional requirements (see what was considered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 1999-00644 of eleven hours twenty-four minutes on January 29, 1999). If we take as a basis the provisions of articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and 1 and 3 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, we can affirm that even if the constitutional text had not contained norms relating to the recognition and protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that correlative right and duty not only already existed in Costa Rican domestic law, but also their effective protection was enforceable both domestically and internationally. This is by virtue of the fact that the Costa Rican State had signed a series of International Conventions, Treaties, and Instruments related to this matter, before Article 50 of the Political Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412 of June 3, 1994, instruments among which the following stand out: the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (articles 2.1, 12.1, and 12.2.c); the “Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (article 11); the “Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, signed in Paris on November 23, 1972, and approved by Law number 5980 of October 23, 1976; the “Convention for the Protection of the Flora, Fauna, and Natural Scenic Beauties of the American Countries”, adopted in Washington on March 3, 1973, and approved by Law number 3763 of October 19, 1976; the “Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat”, signed in Ramsar on February 2, 1971, and approved by Law number 7224 of 1991; the “Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer”, adopted in Vienna on March 22, 1985, and approved by Law number 7228 of April 22, 1991, and its “Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer”, signed in Montreal on September 16, 1987, and approved by Law number 7223 of April 2, 1991; the “UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, signed in Montego Bay on December 10, 1982, and approved by Law number 7291 published on July 15, 1992, among others. All these international norms were integrated into Costa Rican domestic law in accordance with the provisions of articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and 1 and 3 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law; therefore, “...all these international instruments are of mandatory observance and enjoy full enforceability insofar as their norms do not require further legislative development and, therefore, must be respected (...) as their normative rank is superior...” (Judgment number 1993-06240 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at fourteen hundred hours on November 26, 1993). <b>Infra-constitutional Development of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment</b>. Undoubtedly, the recognition and protection of the cited fundamental right provoked its infra-constitutional development, through the issuance of legal or regulatory norms regulating various manifestations thereof, which were issued long before the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution. As an example of this we have: the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) (No. 276 of August 27, 1942); the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) (No. 4240 of November 15, 1978); the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) (No. 4465 of November 25, 1979, now repealed); the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) (No. 6043 of March 2, 1977); the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) (No. 5395 of October 30, 1973); the Law Creating the National Parks Service (Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales) (No. 6084 of August 24, 1977); the Animal Health Law (Ley de Salud Animal) (No. 6243 of May 2, 1978); the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) (No. 7317 of October 21, 1992), among others. The foregoing implies that, before the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right we have referred to was not only recognized and protected in Constitutional Law, but had also been developed –albeit sectorally and not with a comprehensive vision– at the legal and regulatory level. By virtue of what has been set forth so far, this Court considers that the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution did no more than expressly and clearly individually recognize a fundamental right that was already enshrined and guaranteed by Constitutional Law; expressly declare the scope of the pre-existing obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; and<b> </b>grant individuals full standing to defend it, through a popular action (see judgments number 1994-01394 of fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March 16, 1994, and 1994-05527 of ten hours forty-five minutes on September 23, 1994, both from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). <b>Consequences of the recognition of the guarantee of Article 50 of the Constitution in the terms explained</b>. Said recognition entails two relevant aspects for the resolution of this proceeding. <b>First. </b>The imposition of a duty, both for the State –understood as the Central and Decentralized Administration– and for private legal entities themselves, to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. <b>Second</b>. The establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels. Regarding <b>the first of these aspects, </b>it should be noted that “The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has on the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bearing in mind Article 169 of the Constitution), finds its primary rationale in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor thereof, and, secondly, because the State’s activity is directed towards satisfying the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, guaranteeing means securing and protecting the right against some risk or need; defending means prohibiting, banning, and impeding any activity that threatens the right; and preserving is an action aimed at protectively covering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. <b>The State must assume a dual behavior of acting and refraining; on one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of issuing measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements...” </b>(judgment No. 1999-00644 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 11:24 hours on January 29, 1999). In that sense, “...<b>The action that the Political Constitution imposes on the State regarding sources of environmental contamination is multidirectional and definitively active, absolutely intolerant of situations that threaten or affect the optimal environmental conditions that are guaranteed by the Constitution itself to the inhabitants.</b> From this perspective, public authorities are not permitted to make concessions or grant extensions for the environment to continue being affected, even when this is done with a view to bringing economic benefits to a specific geographical area...” (judgment No. 1999-05906 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at 16:15 hours on July 28, 1999). That constitutional duty of the State to ensure the protection, defense, and preservation of the environment is developed and manifested, among others, in the following norms: articles 1, 2.a, 2.c, 2 last paragraph, 3, 12, 28, 32, 34, 37, 56, 59, 78, 83, 103 to 112 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); articles 1, 2, 9.4, 12, 22 to 30, 45, 49, 54, 86, 88 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 34, 122 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 37, 54 of the Forestry Law; 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 29 to 33, 37 of the Law on Use, Management and Conservation of Soils (Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos); 13.a, 13.o of the Municipal Code; 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 1, 2 of the General Health Law; 1, 2, 17, 175, 176 of the Water Law; 15, 18, 19, 51, 56, 58.5, Transitory Provision II of the Urban Planning Law. Now, this duty is not only limited to the State as a whole, but also applies to private legal entities, who have the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also the duty to guarantee, preserve, and defend it<b>,</b> as is evident, among others, from articles 1 first paragraph, 2.a, 6, 22, 23, 99 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 10.2, 10.13, 11.4, 88, 95, 101, 105 of the Biodiversity Law; 15, 28 to 30, 36 to 38, 51, 53, 62 to 64, 83, 88 to 121 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 57 to 66 of the Forestry Law; 37, 40, 41 to 45, 51 to 53 of the Law on Use, Management and Conservation of Soils; 14 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; as well as from judgments number 1999-02219 of fifteen hours eighteen minutes on March 24, 1999; 1999-05906 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on July 28, 1999, among others. <b>Regarding the second aspect,</b> related to the establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels, <b>this Court considers that said means of protection can be classified into two large groups: procedural and material.</b> It is necessary to clarify that, although reference will be made to specific examples related to each of the aforementioned classification criteria, this Court's intention is not to establish a numerus clausus list, but only to highlight, through said examples, aspects that have an impact on the subject matter of this proceeding. In that sense, within the <b>group of procedural protection mechanisms,</b> three examples stand out: <b>1)</b> <b>The broad standing</b> granted to every person by the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution and Article 105 of the Biodiversity Law, to report, through both administrative and jurisdictional channels, conduct that violates the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and to claim the damage caused. It should be noted that, in principle, standing in environmental matters would originate from a simple normative authorization without there being an individual, collective, or diffuse right or interest involved; however, this Court considers that, in essence, what each person will seek to protect is a right that forms part of their vital sphere and upon whose effective guarantee, defense, and preservation their ability to develop and live according to the principle of human dignity depends (see article 2.a of the Organic Law of the Environment, to the effect that the environment is the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation). <b>2)</b> A system of <b>unnamed precautionary measures, and if necessary, of an anticipatory nature</b> (articles 108 of the Biodiversity Law, 42 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, and 19 to 30 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). <b>3)</b> The application of the <b>guiding principles in environmental matters, namely: in dubio pro natura (when in doubt, in favor of nature), preventive, and precautionary, </b>as means to guarantee the effective protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and therefore, to prevent its existence from being restricted to the semantic plane of legal reality (see articles 4.c, 17, and 34 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 11 subsections 1 and 2, 92 of the Biodiversity Law; principle 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration; and among others, judgment number 1999-01250 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at eleven hours twenty-four minutes on February 19, 1999). In that sense, the legal operator must always take into consideration that “...where there is danger of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation...”. On the other hand, <b>within the group of material protection mechanisms, </b>the following two manifestations are highly representative: <b>1)</b><b>The environmental impact assessment (evaluación del Impacto Ambiental)</b> by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), as a sine qua non requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that may alter or destroy elements of the environment or biodiversity, or generate toxic or hazardous waste or materials. This requirement has been in force since November 13, 1995, the date on which the Organic Law of the Environment was published. It is also regulated in articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law; article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Annexes I and II; principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration; article 18 of the Forestry Law; the General Regulation on Environmental Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluación Ambiental) (Decreto Ejecutivo number 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC), among others. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has determined that “...the fact that both the right to health and the right to enjoy an ecologically balanced environment are recognized as fundamental rights obliges this Chamber to specify that the solution to the problem cannot be based on quick fixes; that, in order to adopt a decision in this field, one must have the technical studies [demonstrating] that the proposed solution, in each specific case, will not be the source of a public health problem or an undue alteration to the environment...” (Among others, judgment No. 1995-02671 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 16:45 on May 24, 1995). In that sense, “...it is not possible for the State to execute or authorize the execution of projects about which there is doubt regarding the negative impact they may generate on the environment. Consequently, the omission of carrying out a prior environmental impact study constitutes a violation of Article 50 of the Constitution...” (judgment No. 1999-02219 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 15:18 hours on March 24, 1999). <b>2)</b> The existence of <b>property belonging to the Nation </b>–as termed by the constitutional text–<b>,</b> which, forming part of the public domain, are characterized as being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable; therefore, their removal from the public domain or their allocation to public uses is reserved to the Law, in accordance with the provisions of Article 121 subsection 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution. Among these properties, whose conservation constitutes a matter of environmental public interest (article 11 of the Biodiversity Law), are: <b>the environment</b> defined in article 2.a) of the Organic Law of the Environment, as the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation; <b>the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre)</b> (articles 1 and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); <b>the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado)</b> (articles 13 to 18 of the Forestry Law); <b>Wild Fauna and Flora</b> (articles 3 and 4 of the Wildlife Conservation Law); <b>Waters</b> according to the breakdown contained in article 1 of the Water Law. <b>On the Natural Heritage of the State. </b>In accordance with the subject matter of the proceeding before us, this Court will focus its analysis on the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE).<b> </b>Given the terms of recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as already explained, it is necessary to highlight that Forestry Law No. 4465 already cited (and which was repealed by Forestry Law number 7575 of February 5, 1996), not only contained “...as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, utilization, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources...” (article 1), but also the concepts of Forest (article 6) and <b>Forest Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado)</b> (article 32 first paragraph). Regarding the Forest Heritage of the State, Law No. 4465 established its characteristics (article 33); the competent bodies to manage and oversee the Forest Heritage of the State, which according to that regulation were the General Forestry Directorate and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (article 32 second paragraph), as well as the powers conferred on these bodies for the purpose of protecting and conserving the Forest Heritage of the State. Among the latter, the following are worth highlighting: <b>1)</b> Actions for recovery (acciones reinvindicatorias) of these properties (article 33); <b>2)</b> The constitution within the Natural Heritage of the State of forest reserves, protected zones (zonas protectoras), national parks, national wildlife refuges, and biological reserves (articles 35 to 37); <b>3)</b> The demarcation (deslinde) of the lands within the areas that make up the Forest Heritage of the State (article 38). On the other hand, in Forestry Law No. 7575 currently in force, that concept is taken up again but with a variation in the name, as it is now called <b>Natural Heritage of the State</b>. This term is broader as it encompasses the protection and preservation of the forest ecosystem (article 3 subsection c of the Forestry Law). The Natural Heritage of the State is of the public domain, which is why the lands and forests comprised therein are unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable. Likewise, their conservation and administration are entrusted by law to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET), through the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), as provided for in articles 6.a, 13 second paragraph, and 14 of the cited Forestry Law and numeral 32 second paragraph of the Organic Law of the Environment. The PNE is composed of two important components: <b>1)</b> <b>Wild Protected Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas),</b> regardless of their management category, which have been declared by Law or by Executive Decree, namely: forest reserves, protected zones, national parks, biological reserves, national wildlife refuges, wetlands, and natural monuments (Law No. 7575, article 1, paragraph 2, article 3 subsection i; Organic Law of the Environment, article 32; Biodiversity Law, article 22 et seq. and 58; National Parks Service Law, article 3 subsections d and f, in relation to the Organic Law of MINAE and its Regulation; Wildlife Conservation Law, article 82, subsection a); <b>2)</b> <b>Other forests and forest lands within inalienable areas, from properties registered in its name and those belonging to Municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other bodies of the Public Administration,</b> which have an immediate legal designation (afectación legal inmediata), except for those properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets (article 13 first paragraph of the Forestry Law). It should be emphasized that both the Wild Protected Areas and the other forested areas and lands suitable for forestry (terrenos de aptitud forestal) comprised within the maritime-terrestrial zone, are excluded from the scope of regulation of Law No. 6043 and therefore, from the competence of the Municipalities, as will be elaborated upon later. </i></span><i><span lang=EN style='color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>These zones are subject to their own legislation (Forestry Law), which implies that their administration falls to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, through the National System of Conservation Areas (see in this sense judgment number 2008-16975 handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at fourteen hours fifty-three minutes on November 12, two thousand eight). Now, as part of the duties incumbent upon MINAET and SINAC for the conservation and protection of the Natural Heritage of the State, are: <b>1)</b> the exercise of the recovery action for the PNE, which is imprescriptible (article 14); <b>2)</b> demarcating on the ground the boundaries that make up the Natural Heritage of the State (article 16); <b>3)</b> coordinating with the National Registry the establishment of a forest cadastre, the objective of which shall be to regulate the areas comprised within the PNE and those voluntarily submitted to the forest regime (article 17); <b>4)</b> The Public Administration cannot exchange, assign, alienate in any way, hand over, or lease rural lands owned or administered by it, without them having first been classified by MINAET; therefore, if they are covered by forest, they would automatically become incorporated into the Natural Heritage of the State (article 15). Based on all the foregoing, this Court reaches the following conclusions relevant to this specific case. <b>First.</b> As the environment is constituted as the Common Heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation, the Natural Heritage of the State constitutes a species of that genus (articles 50 second paragraph, 89, 121 subsection 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution; 2 subsection a) of the Organic Law of the Environment; 1 of the Biodiversity Law; and 13 of the Forestry Law). <b>Second.</b> There exists an immediate legal designation to the Natural Heritage of the State of all those lands included in wild protected areas, in areas declared inalienable –such as the maritime-terrestrial zone (article 73 of Law 6043)–, in lands suitable for forestry, and in properties registered in the name of the State, the Municipalities, Autonomous Institutions, and other entities of the Decentralized Public Administration. <b>Third.</b> The Natural Heritage of the State does not require an express declaration, given that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law, as well as what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in judgments 1992-03789 and 1997-04587, forested areas, lands suitable for forestry, mangroves, and wetlands comprised within inalienable areas, such as the maritime-terrestrial zone, are immediately designated to this Heritage, without the concurrence of the Administration. <b>Fourth.</b> Consequently, the demarcation of the boundaries of the areas that make up the Natural Heritage of the State, in accordance with the provisions of article 16 of the Forestry Law, constitutes a power that MINAET, through SINAC, must exercise ex officio and not only at the request of a party.

This is so not only in application of the duty imposed upon it by Articles 21, 50 paragraphs two and three, and 89 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee, preserve, and conserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also because the law does not indicate that the delimitation must be carried out only at the request of a party. It is not justified, in the opinion of this body, that the State can validly allege a lack of resources for such purpose, as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held (see, among others, judgments 1995-00915 at sixteen hours six minutes on February fifteen, nineteen ninety-five; 1996-000695 at fifteen hours forty-two minutes on February seven, nineteen ninety-six) **Fifth.** Consequently, the classification made by the National System of Conservation Areas, regarding the type of ecosystem existing on the properties comprised within the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), constitutes a mere categorization of those, according to the classification criteria set forth in Article 13 paragraph one of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) and Executive Decree Number 34295-MINAE, namely: forests (bosques), lands suitable for forestry (terrenos de aptitud forestal), wetlands (humedales), mangroves (manglares), among others. **Sixth.** It is evident that the State has the duty—both at a constitutional and legal level—to guarantee, defend, and protect the forested zones, lands suitable for forestry, mangroves, wetlands, among others, comprised in the inalienable areas—as in this case, the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Zona Marítimo Terrestre)—which, by the mere fact of having that character, were directly and automatically attached to the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). Therefore, the result of the classification of the type of ecosystem existing in said areas—which must be carried out ex officio and not only at the request of a party, in order to take the necessary measures to achieve their effective protection and conservation—is not what determines their incorporation or not into the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), because by law they had already been attached to it, by virtue of being inalienable zones." (See in the same vein, resolution No. 1842-2009, issued by the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal at 7:30 on August 31, 2009).

From the cited judgments, it is necessary to highlight some aspects that are of vital importance in resolving the specific case. Without a doubt, the State has a constitutional and legal obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to give all persons the instruments to defend this fundamental right. To that extent, the use of technical and scientific mechanisms is indispensable in decision-making that involves environmental matters. Now then, the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is part of the public domain, by virtue not only of the constitutional attachment as has been explained, but also by express provision of the legislator in various laws, currently in the Forest Law (Ley Forestal). Thus, the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is protected by the special regime applicable to public domain assets (bienes demaniales) according to which, by their vocation and destination, they are outside the commerce of human beings, are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unattachable (Article 262 of the Civil Code). As a consequence of this, their ownership or possession is not possible, neither gratuitously nor for consideration; they cannot be lost by prescription, nor can they be gained by usucapion. From this perspective, their possession by private individuals will not create any right in their favor. They are assets that are subject to police power, regarding their exploitation and use, since they are conditioned on the granting of the respective licenses and permits and on control and oversight by the Administration. Finally, the State has a series of procedural instruments for the recovery of this type of asset, when they have illegitimately left the public domain. On the other hand, the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) is constituted, among others, by properties located in areas declared inalienable, as is the case of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) (see Articles 13 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal); 1 and 73 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre)). In these cases, the lands located in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) may not be the object of possessory informations (informaciones posesorias) and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by this or any other means (see Articles 7 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 7 and 11 of the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias)).

**Vo.- BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MARITIME TERRESTRIAL ZONE.** Some considerations regarding the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre), related to the following aspects, are also relevant for the resolution of this matter. **Concept.** Article 9 of the Law of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) defines this zone as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific littorals of the Republic, whatever its nature may be, measured horizontally from the lines of the ordinary high tide and the lands and rocks left uncovered by the sea at low tide. It comprises the islands, islets, and maritime rocks as well as all land with natural formation that protrudes above the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Excepted is Cocos Island (Isla del Coco) which will be under the direct dominion and possession of the State and those other islands whose dominion or administration are determined in said law or in special laws. **Zones that make up the Maritime Terrestrial Zone.** In accordance with numeral 10 of the same Law, it can be indicated that the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) is composed of two sections: **1) The public zone (zona pública)**, which is the strip of fifty meters wide counting from the ordinary high tide and the areas that are uncovered during low tide, as well as the islets, rocks, and other small areas and natural formations that protrude from the sea. Likewise, according to canon 11 of the cited Law, the area occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular littorals and estuaries of the national territory constitutes a public zone (zona pública), whatever its extension may be. **2)** **The restricted zone (zona restringida)**, constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters or by the other lands in the case of islands, and over which, as will be seen, concessions may be granted. As indicated in Article 1 of the mentioned Law, the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) constitutes part of the National Heritage (Patrimonio Nacional), belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. This has allowed a very precise affirmation of the public domain character of said zone and as a consequence of this, its imprescriptibility, inalienability, and that it is outside the commerce of persons. It is by that character as a public domain asset (bien demanial) that the lands located in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) may not be the object of possessory informations (informaciones posesorias) and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by this or any other means *(see Articles 7 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 7 and 11 of the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias))*. Now then, the fact that it is a public domain asset does not mean that private individuals, in a situation of special subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the contrary: as will be expanded upon later, by means of a concession (in the restricted zone (zona restringida)) private individuals can make use of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre). It is important to emphasize that, in accordance with Article 12 of the Law in question, in the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítimo terrestre) it is prohibited, without due legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna; to demarcate with fences, rails, or in any other form; to erect buildings or installations; to cut trees; to extract products; or to carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. **Administration and protection of the Maritime Terrestrial Zone:** As already indicated, the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (zona marítima terrestre) belongs to the State. However, it is clear that, in accordance with the already cited Law 6043, the competences of various organs and entities converge over this zone. In that sense, it is possible to distinguish jurisdictional spheres that involve, insofar as this proceeding concerns, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Turismo), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), Municipalities, and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República). At this point, it is worth highlighting that in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Law on the Maritime Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre), the maritime terrestrial zones, included as in this case, in national parks and equivalent reserves, shall be governed by the respective legislation, therefore, they will be administered by the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Telecommunications, according to the provisions of Articles 32 of the Organic Law of the Environment and 13 paragraph two of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal).

**VIo.- SOME GENERALITIES ON POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY BY USUCAPION.** In judgment number 1997-04587 at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on August five, nineteen ninety-seven, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, considered regarding the general regime of usucapion, regulated in the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), the following:

“…GENERAL REGIME OF USUCAPION: In principle, it should be indicated that the possessory information (información posesoria) proceedings regulated in the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) No.139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, are a non-contentious judicial procedure by means of which a property title for real estate is formalized, registerable in the Public Registry. **In general, this procedure is intended for possessors who lack a registerable title in the Public Registry to obtain one. Article 1 of that Law provides that for the possessor of real estate to request the granting of the title based on the possessory information (información posesoria) procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years with the conditions indicated in Article 856 of the Civil Code, namely: as owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing requirements of time and condition characterize the possession necessary to usucapt.** To obtain ownership of real estate by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, Article 853 of the Civil Code indicates as requirements: the translative title of dominion and good faith. From the foregoing and from the provisions of Article 8 of the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), which characterizes the possessory information (información posesoria) procedure as a non-contentious judicial process—in which the emergence of a claim or opposition by any person or the State causes the matter to be suspended and referred to the declaratory route for its discussion and solution, or causes the case file to be archived, thereby exhausting the administrative route, respectively—it is inferred that the titling of the real estate has the acquisition of ownership as a requirement. **That is, a distinction is made between the moment of acquiring ownership by usucapion and the moment in which that situation is asserted in the possessory information (información posesoria) procedure to obtain a title registerable in the Public Registry. Hence, usucapion is considered as a mode of acquiring ownership and other possessable real rights, and titling as the procedure by which, once the requirements of usucapion are verified, the registerable property title is conferred.** Usucapion is an original mode of acquiring a possessable real right by the passage of time with the legal requirements. The acquisitive legal effect of usucapion is produced automatically with the passage of time coupled with a skilled possession that meets the conditions fixed for possession ad usucapionem, and the other requirements established in the law. In general terms, the Civil Code establishes as requirements for positive prescription: the translative title of dominion, good faith, and possession under specific conditions.

**Regarding the skilled title for usucapion,** the doctrine has said that what is required is a juridical business of acquisition of the possessed right. The title is the fact that serves as the cause of the possession and, consequently, of the acquisition of ownership. It is the juridical foundation, the determining reason for the acquisition. Usucapion supposes, at its origin, an act or a series of acts by which a person acquires over a thing a possession that normally should be accompanied by a right over the asset, but that does not happen, so the title for usucapion coincides with the act of possessory acquisition. The title must be just, which obliges its validity and conformity with the juridical order (licit). The jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (see resolutions numbers 92 at 10:00 on June 21, 1991, and 68 at 14:55 on August 17, 1994) indicates in this regard that for usucapion, Article 853 of the Civil Code demands translative title of dominion, possession, and good faith, but in numeral 854 it clarifies that just title is required, which characterizes it not as a document but as a cause of acquisition; that Article 854 excludes proof of just title in three hypotheses: movable goods, easements (servidumbres), and the right of possession; that in these cases the fact of possession presumes the title; that in the case of the right of possession, the title is not necessary because possession is worth as title; that a title should not be asked of someone who acquires originally as a product of taking possession in which there is no transferor and in which their cause of acquisition finds protection in the legal order; that for the previous case the title is conflated with possession, the title is possession; that **the character of justness of the title lies in the fact that it is licit, and for the case ad usucapionem, it means that the possession must meet the requirements of being public, peaceful, continuous, and as the true title holder; that when the Civil Code demands a translative title of dominion or the Law of Possessory Informations (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) obliges its presentation together with other documents necessary for processing the case file, they refer exclusively to the case in which the usucaptor has not been the original possessor but has acquired from another possessor;** that in that case it is required to documentarily prove the title; that Article 101 of the Law of Lands and Colonization No.2825 of October 14, 1961, and its amendments, indicates that when usucapion is involved, the translative title of dominion required by the Civil Code is not necessary.

**Regarding the requirement of good faith,** jurisprudence (see resolutions of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice numbers 230 at 16:00 on July 20, 1990, and 68 at 14:55 on August 17, 1994) has indicated that according to Article 853 of the Civil Code, good faith is a requirement of usucapion that must be present for it to exist; that if the presumptions of good and bad faith are found in Article 285 of the Civil Code, the rule for declaring bad faith is its full demonstration by whoever alleges its existence, because Article 286 of the same Code takes on a prevalent character with respect to 285, by establishing the principle of presumption of good faith; that good faith pertains to the personal conviction of the subject about their legitimacy; that one should speak of a belief generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith in possession fulfills the objective of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor—acquisition of fruits, payment of improvements, right of retention, and non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing—; that **for general good faith—a requirement of possession—ignorance or error regarding the existence of a defect that invalidates the title or mode of acquisition is necessary; that regarding the good faith necessary for usucapion, which encompasses the general, the belief that the transferor of the title is the owner of the thing transferred or has the power to carry out that transfer is required.** Now then, as the **last requirement contemplated in Article 853 for positive prescription is possession. The essence of the institute of usucapion is linked to the discipline of possession.** To the exercise of possession for a determined period and under special conditions—public, peaceful, continuous, and as title holder of the right held—are added the requirements that the order establishes for usucapion: just title and good faith. Possession as a real right implies the relationship between a person and the thing. It constitutes one of the separate elements that form dominion (Article 264 Civil Code). The right of possession can be acquired independently of full dominion under certain circumstances that the Civil Code regulates in Article 279—by consent of the owner, by the fact of keeping possession for more than a year, and because the law authorizes the creditor to retain the thing of their debtor or orders that all or some of their assets pass to a depositary—. **The right of possession in general is composed of two elements: the corpus and the animus. The first, specifically referred to the material fact of having subjected the thing to the power—action—and will of a person, and the second, related to an internal aspect that guides the possessor. To these elements must be added other special circumstances that the law requires for the possession to be useful for usucapion. In that sense, possession ad usucapionem is a more rigorous or qualified form of possession that differs from the generic.** The requirements that the law demands for possession to be suitable for positive prescription are regulated in Article 856 of the Civil Code. Jurisprudence, integrating doctrinal concepts, has developed the content of these requirements. In that sense, in relation to possession as owner (calidad de propietario), it has been indicated that what the Civil Code means is possession as title holder of the right held, since ownership is not the only right that can be acquired by positive prescription, so this requirement attends to the title or determining cause of the possession and to its subsequent mode of exercise; that what matters is the behavior of the possessor as title holder—the materialization of conduct as title holder—, which excludes every possessor with a non-usucaptable cause such as a lessee, administrator, depositary, or servant of possession; that, based on this requirement, acts executed by virtue of a license and merely tolerated acts are also excluded, because they cannot lead to the constitution or acquisition of possession, much less of usucapion, given that they are produced by the liberality of the true title holder and not of the one appearing as such; that the quality of exercising possession as title holder of the right being usucapted is understood insofar as it qualifies the suitable subject and discards the unsuitable one; that this qualification, in line with maxims, coincides with the title, so that condition can be carried to identify the juridical cause itself with the possession. Regarding the requirement of continuity of possession, it is understood that the possessory acts must be uninterrupted, that is, they should not be carried out in an isolated or accidental manner; that this situation must be maintained during all the time necessary for usucapion; that the defect occurs when any of the causes of interruption of possession arise, because in those cases all the elapsed time becomes useless; that interruption being a defect, continuity is presumed—Article 283 of the Civil Code—, and the one alleging the existence of the defect must prove it. In relation to peaceful possession, it is said that it implies not acquiring or maintaining it by force (means of physical or moral coercion); that possession obtained by violence becomes peaceful when the cause that generated the new title holding ceases, and becomes useful for usucapion—Article 857 of the Civil Code—; that violent possession is not present when the possessor defends possession—prevents it from being taken away—, but that does not protect the violent action of the dispossessed person from resorting to self-help to recover their possession, even if it legally corresponds to them, because while another opposes, they must resort to judicial authority—Articles 305 and 317 of the Civil Code—. Regarding the last requirement of possession ad usucapionem, that is, publicity, the doctrine indicates that public possession is the normal use of the thing according to its nature and destination. Jurisprudence, for its part, has indicated that possession must be exercised before everyone, without hiding or concealing the acts performed on the thing; that it is also important not to hide the condition of title holder of the right with which one possesses; that the defect counterposed to publicity is clandestinity; that possession that was initially hidden can become suitable for usucapion if it becomes public. (…)

**Regarding the concept of the object of possession, what is important for the purposes of resolving this action of unconstitutionality is to specify that things that are within commerce are susceptible to possession—and to the special ad usucapionem. It is said that commerce is equivalent to what is known as juridical traffic, so things are within commerce when they are in the legal possibility of being the object of a patrimonial juridical business.** Article 262 of the Civil Code establishes that public things are outside patrimonial traffic. For its part, Article 261 ibidem defines public things as those that by law are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can take advantage of by being given over to public use. The public domain is currently understood as an intense intervention of public power justified by the need to ensure the effective fulfillment, by the things, of a public purpose desired by law. In that understanding, the public thing is conceived as a juridical relationship constituted by the order that consists of a duty of the Administration to establish and maintain a public function whose realization requires a thing (in the private juridical sense), which by its connection with the public purpose, is removed from the private order and becomes subject to the regime that regulates the specific public function. In that sense, public domain assets (bienes de dominio público) have a special regime, not because of their nature, but because of their attachment to the public statute. The destination of an asset to a public use or service is produced by law. Since the subjection occurs with respect to assets that are in private juridical traffic, it supposes an encumbrance that harms the private domain and implies—in most cases—the need to modify the ownership of the assets so that the private individual is not forced to bear a radical change of statute. Currently, the doctrine indicates that the servitude of the assets to a public purpose can be produced without sacrificing their situation in private juridical traffic, because a juridical-public delimitation of the content of real rights and their limitation is sufficient.

After setting out the general panorama of the regime of usucapion, it is necessary to point out that due to the incorporation of doctrinal criteria into jurisprudence (judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No.68 at 14:55 on August 17, 1994), the requirements that characterize this juridical institute have been affected when related to the concepts of agrarian, forest, and ecological property. In that sense, it is important to synthesize the basic elements that are handled at the doctrinal and jurisprudential level in relation to those themes, and that oblige the judge—in relation to the impugned norm—to determine in each case the specific type of possessory act that has been exercised on the parcel—which becomes part of the protected wilderness area—that is intended to be titled. The foregoing is so that the judge may have a broader criterion—not limited to the date of entry into force of the law or executive decree that defines the limits of a determined wilderness area—to establish with greater precision the moment in which said assets became inalienable and imprescriptible, for the purpose of determining whether possession ad usucapionem was exercised over them for ten years prior to their acquiring that condition.

This broader perspective, which favors the protection of the Nation's environmental heritage, means that when attempting to title—through the possessory information (informaciones posesorias) procedure—a piece of land located within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), the discussion should not be reduced to the simple calculation of the time a person has been on a property in relation to the date on which the declaration of the protected wilderness area was made, since—on one hand—the elements contemplated by each specific type of possession must be considered for the purpose of proving possession ad usucapionem during the period established in Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), and—on the other hand—the possible existence of rules that formerly declared those lands inalienable, even before their specific allocation to the public domain…” Now then, the procedure contained in the Possessory Information Law requires publicity, through the publication of an edict in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), and provides that the adjoining landowners of the person seeking to title the land, the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República), and the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), if it is a rural property, be cited as parties, so that they may oppose and defend their rights (Article 5). For this purpose, they shall have one month from notification to oppose the proceedings, and their failure to appear or act shall not hinder the procedure in any case. Once the summons period indicated in Article 5 has expired, ex officio or at the request of a party, the Judge shall convene a hearing to be held at the property to be registered, if it is rural and its size exceeds thirty hectares, and may commission another judicial authority for this purpose. This proceeding shall not be necessary when the property is rural and does not exceed thirty hectares, or is urban (Article 9). Once the information is concluded, the Judge shall grant a hearing on the results thereof, for a period of eight days, to the Office of the Attorney General, through its representative in the respective judicial circuit. Once that period has elapsed without a response, or if a satisfactory response is submitted and there is no timely opposition, or if such opposition is declared unfounded by a final order, the judge shall approve the information by an order (auto) containing the description of the property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Property Registry (Registro Público de la Propiedad), without prejudice to any third party with a superior right, by means of the corresponding certification of the order, once it is final (Article 10). The property acquired under this law is definitively consolidated for third parties after three years, which shall be counted from the date of registration of the respective title in the Public Registry, as the negative prescription of the action by third parties who may be affected is limited to that period (Article 16). At any time and before the three-year consolidation period has elapsed, if it is demonstrated that the possessory title was issued against the laws in force, the Judge may decree, in the original file, the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding order so that that Office cancels the entry. Once the three-year term from the registration of the title has elapsed, every action must be decided in an ordinary declaratory proceeding (Article 17). Consequently, by fulfilling a series of requirements (Article 1), among which the demonstration of ten-year possession (posesión decenal) as owner in a quiet, public, uninterrupted, and good-faith manner over unregistered land stands out, the possessor can acquire the title required so that the ownership of the property they have possessed under those conditions produces all legal effects, provided that it is not verified that an attempt is being made to improperly title national vacant lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves (reservas forestales), national parks (parques nacionales), or biological reserves (reservas biológicas) (Article 11). Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the property referred to in the information is included within a protected wilderness area, regardless of its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they are the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area (Articles 7 and 11). Based on all the foregoing, we shall proceed to analyze the challenged acts.

**VIIo.- ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CONDUCT.** This Tribunal considers that the acts challenged by the State's representation—namely: cadastral map (plano catastrado) number G-256640-1995; deed (escritura) number 108 of volume four of the protocol of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste registry section (partido), real folio registration number 155180-000, and the mortgage guarantees (garantías hipotecarias) constituted on said property during the legal validation period—are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons: **1) The property subject to the proceeding is a public domain asset (bien demanial) that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and of the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado).** In accordance with the technical studies issued by the Cadastre and Registry Regularization Program (Programa de Regularización de Catastro y Registro), the Cadastral Division (División Catastral) of the Subdirectorate of the Real Estate Registry, and the Regional Directorate of the Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Tempisque) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), this Tribunal has deemed it proven that the land registered in the name of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. under registration 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry section, with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, is not only located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, but also forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) (see folios 17, 53 to 55, 57 to 62 of the judicial file for the interim measure (medida cautelar)). It should be noted that this circumstance was evident since January nineteen ninety-five, the date on which Associated Surveyor (Topógrafo Asociado) number 2694 drafted the cadastral map of that land in the name of Juan Luis Zúñiga Zúñiga for the purposes of a use permit, not only because the diagram shows that the property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (see folio 15 front of the judicial file for the interim measure), but also because the approval issued by the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) on the back of said cadastral map clearly indicates that *“…Based on the location shown on this map in the name of MIRENEM Juan Zúñiga Zúñiga, the property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. 22551-MIRENEM of 10-08-93. It is also reported that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information procedures and MIRENEM shall be responsible for granting the respective use permit. The registration of this map is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see folio 15 back of the judicial file for the interim measure).* Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), this Tribunal considers that the property registered under registration 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry section, with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, constitutes a public domain asset and, therefore, is unseizable (inembargable), imprescriptible, and inalienable, forming part not only of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz, province of Guanacaste, but also of the State's Natural Heritage. **2) Regarding the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge and the provisions of Articles 7 of the Possessory Information Law; 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.** While it is true that Article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information establishes that when the property referred to in the information proceedings is comprised within a protected wilderness area, regardless of its management category, the applicant must demonstrate that they are the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area; it is also true that this provision is not applicable to the specific case, for the reasons set forth below. By means of Transitory Provision I of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) **(number 6919 of November 7, 1973)**, the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created, which originally comprised the area of the two hundred meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone, extending from the right bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta India. Subsequently, by means of Article 1 of **Executive Decree number 16531** of July 18, 1985, the area of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was expanded as follows: *“The Ostional National Wildlife Refuge is expanded by the area of 200 meters, counted from the ordinary high tide line (pleamar ordinaria), comprised from the left bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta Guiones”*, a decree that **was published in La Gaceta number 183 of September twenty-sixth, nineteen eighty-five, and which came into effect upon its publication.** Finally, by Executive Decree number 22551 of September 14, 1993, the area comprising the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge was expanded again, *“...so that henceforth it shall comprise the area delimited by the following boundaries, according to cartographic sheets Cerro Brujo; 3046-11 and Garza- 3045-1, scale 1:50,000: Starting from Punta India, at coordinates 222550 N and 346750 E (Sheet Cerro Brujo), follow southwest along the line of markers that demarcate the public zone, in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, to Punta Guiones .v coordinates 210400 N and 353150 E (Sheet Garza); continue due West, 3 nautical miles to the point at coordinates 210400 N and 347594.45 E; then follow in a northwest direction along a line parallel to the coast and 3 nautical miles distant from it, to the point at coordinates 218621.63 N and 342821.63 E; and from this point continue at a bearing of N° 45° E to Punta India, the origin of this delimitation (...) In order to regulate the protection and use of natural resources, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge shall consist of the following sectors: a) The Marine Sector comprising the territorial waters according to the above delimitation, b) The Ostional Sector, comprising the main nesting site of the olive ridley turtle (tortuga lora) on Ostional Beach, c) The Estuarine Wetland Sector comprising the mangrove areas, and d) The Guiones Sector, comprising Pelada Beach and Guiones Beach...”;* **said decree was published in La Gaceta number 193 of October eighth, nineteen ninety-three, and came into effect upon its publication.** Now then, from the certified copy of judicial file number 06-00595-0388-CI, it is clear that the defendant company acquired from Floribeth Martínez Méndez the right of possession over the unregistered property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, by means of a deed (escritura) granted on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six (folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file), and that it filed the possessory information proceedings before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz (Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz) on November third, two thousand six (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file). For this reason, and taking into consideration that the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was created by Law number 6919 of November 7, 1973, and its two expansions came into effect on September twenty-sixth, nineteen eighty-five, and October eighth, nineteen ninety-three, it was necessary, for the purposes of applying the provisions of Article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information, for the defendant company to demonstrate that it was the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession of the property in dispute, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area; **a requirement that is not possible to fulfill in this case, since the possession rights were transferred to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six**. In addition to the foregoing, it should be noted that by means of Law number 6043—which came into effect on March sixteenth, nineteen seventy-seven—it was declared that the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the national heritage, which belongs to the State; that it is inalienable and imprescriptible; and that the lands located there may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings, and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by this or any other means (Articles 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone). For this reason, the competent jurisdictional body shall reject the possessory information proceedings if it verifies that an attempt is being made to improperly title national vacant lands or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves (Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law). **In this case, it has been proven that the property with cadastral map number G-256640-95, registered under registration 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry section, is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz** (see folios 15, 17, 53 to 55 of the judicial file for the interim measure), **which is why, and in accordance with the aforementioned rules, it was also not possible for the defendant company to title said land through the possessory information proceedings**, as was noted in the approval on cadastral map number G-256640-1995. For all the reasons stated, this Tribunal considers that the property with cadastral map G-256640-1995 could not be subject to titling through the possessory information proceedings, not only because it does not meet the exception requirements set forth in Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law, but also because it forms part of both the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the State's Natural Heritage, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 261, 262, 277, 284 of the Civil Code. **3) Regarding the non-existence of a final order (resolución) in the possessory information proceedings processed in file 06-00595-0388-CI and the impossibility of registering the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 in the Public Registry.** From the certification issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, it is clear that although it is true that the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings on the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 on November third, two thousand six (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file), it is also true that by an order issued at nine fifty-two on November twenty-first, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz warned the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that—among other requirements—it had to provide without exception *“… the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the responsible entity, which shall attest whether the property sought to be titled is located inside or outside protected wilderness areas…”,* all under warning that until it complied with everything ordered, its future requests would not be addressed. Notwithstanding the fact that said order was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. at nine forty-four on November twenty-third, two thousand six, via fax (see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file), the defendant failed to comply with said warning, as is evident from the order issued at two-eleven in the afternoon of January thirteenth, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz ordered: *“…according to the detailed study of the case file, this matter, it can be noted that it has a warning which is set forth at folio 9, the same having been issued by this office at nine fifty-two on November twenty-first, two thousand six, and to date it has not been possible to dispel it. Therefore, the request made in the aforementioned memorial is left without effect and it is ordered to be added to the record without further pronouncement…” (see folio 45 of the judicial file).* Consequently, the procedure established in Articles 5, 9, and 10 of the Possessory Information Law was not fulfilled in this case—so much so, that the edict was neither published in the Judicial Bulletin, nor was the existence of these possessory information proceedings communicated to the interested parties, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Institute of Agrarian Development—, since the defendant company did not even comply with the warning issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which constituted a sine qua non requirement to continue with the possessory information proceedings for the property subject to the proceeding. For this reason, it is improper that the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 was registered in the Real Estate Property Registry in the name of the defendant company, **not only because it is a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the State's natural heritage, but also because said registration was based on deed number 108 issued by Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez on January nineteenth, two thousand seven (see folios 23 to 25 of the judicial file), by which two orders allegedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz were incorporated into a public instrument**, namely: **i)** At nine o'clock on October ninth, two thousand ten, in which said jurisdictional body supposedly approved the possessory information proceedings initiated by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. over the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995; **ii)** At eight o'clock on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz allegedly informs the Director of the Registry that they must proceed with the registration in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. of the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, by virtue of having approved the possessory information proceedings. In this regard, it should be noted that in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of the Possessory Information Law, if the judge approves the possessory information, they shall issue an order containing the description of the property and shall order the requested registration to be carried out in the Public Property Registry, without prejudice to any third party with a superior right, **by means of the corresponding certification of the order, once it is final.** Consequently, the registration of a property through the possessory information procedure is carried out by means of the final certified copy of the judgment that approves those proceedings, and not by means of notarial incorporation into a public instrument of said order, as occurred in this case, which is contrary to the provisions of Articles 10 of the Possessory Information Law, 450 and 456 of the Civil Code. In addition to the foregoing, **the data contained in deed 108 of protocol volume four of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez do not correspond to what was ordered by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in file number 06-00595-0388-CI**—which, according to the certification issued by that Office, is the only possessory information file processed there in favor of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. (see folios 30, 31, and 49 of the judicial file)—, not only because the dates of the orders allegedly issued by that jurisdictional body that were incorporated into the public instrument by said deed are prior to November third, two thousand six—the date on which the proceedings were filed by the defendant (see folio 38 of the judicial file)—and to November twenty-first of that same year—the date on which the warning was issued that the defendant company did not comply with (see folios 41 to 42 of the judicial file)—; but also because there is an inconsistency in the dates of the two orders incorporated, since the order in which the Registry is ostensibly commanded to register the property—of eight o'clock on July twenty-seventh, 2006 (folio 23 of the judicial file)—is prior to the order in which the Court approves the possessory information proceedings, which—according to the notary's statement—was issued at nine o'clock on October ninth, 2006 (see folio 23 of the judicial file). It is necessary to highlight that deed 108, which served as the basis for the registration in the registry, also records another piece of information that does not correspond to reality, as said document indicates that *“…the edict was published in the Judicial Bulletin, file number forty-two, of November third, two thousand six…” (see folio 25 of the judicial file),* however, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that this did not happen, not only because the possessory information proceedings processed before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz did not reach that phase of the procedure (see folios 30 to 50 of the judicial file), but also because by means of official letter number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office (Imprenta Nacional) states that: *“…1) In the Judicial Bulletin dated November 3, 2006, there is no publication emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Olman Rodríguez Mena. 2) The information system records only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005…” (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file).* Finally, it should be noted that from certification number DAN-3223, issued by the Head of the Notarial Archive (Archivo Notarial) at eight forty-two on September eleventh, two thousand nine, it is clear that on folio 70 back to 73 front of volume 4 of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deeds number 106, 101, and 108—respectively—are recorded, and that the content of the latter does not correspond to the one presented to the Registry Log Book (Diario del Registro) at one-forty in the afternoon of February fifteenth, two thousand seven, and recorded in volume 570, entry 45185 (see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file). Consequently, **this Tribunal considers that there exists a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private individual, which is substantially contrary to the legal system,** not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also because the possessory information proceedings that served as its basis—processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz—were never approved, since the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the warning notified to it on November twenty-third, two thousand six. For the foregoing reason, this Tribunal considers that cadastral map number G-256640-1995; deed 108 of volume four of the protocol of Notary Public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; and the act of registering the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 under real folio registration 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry section, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are substantially inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Law of Public Administration; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Possessory Information Law; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law for the Registration of Documents in the Public Registry; and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. **4) Regarding the constitution of mortgages (hipotecas) on the property subject to the proceeding during the validation period.** It should be remembered that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 261 of the Civil Code and 170 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the assets of public ownership destined for common use and enjoyment shall not be seizable, nor shall those directly linked to the provision of essential public services, or those that are indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of public purposes or services. For this reason, and given that the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, registered under real folio registration 155180-000 of the Guanacaste Registry Section, constitutes a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and of the State's Natural Heritage, **it is contrary to law that in the period between April nineteenth, two thousand seven, and March twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, six mortgages from first to sixth rank were registered, guaranteed by the aforementioned property, which are already due,** based on the following citations: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Marta Chinchilla Arias; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias (see folios 70 to 98 of the judicial file; 11 to 13 of the judicial file for the interim measure). It should also be highlighted that **said mortgages were registered during the three-year validation period of the supposed possessory information on that asset,** which began on February twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, and expired on February twenty-sixth, two thousand ten (see folio 11 of the judicial file for the interim measure), as established in Article 16 of the Possessory Information Law.

In that regard, and given that this Court declared the nullity of the titles that gave rise to the registration of the property upon which those mortgage guarantees (garantías hipotecarias) were constituted, consequently the absolute nullity is also declared of the mortgages constituted upon the property registered under real folio system (folio real) registration number 155180-000 of the Partido de San José, with cadastral plan (plano catastrado) number G-266640-1995, granted by public deeds (escrituras) number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by the notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez, identity card number 2-283-859, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock in the morning on September fourth, two thousand seven, by the notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-388-047, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve-thirty in the afternoon on November second, two thousand seven, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Marta Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-608-687, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven-thirty in the morning on January tenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-388-047, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-550-543, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three-forty in the afternoon on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of José Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-750-583, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. This is because they are substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Terrestrial Maritime Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad); 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias); 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry (Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público) and 34, 43 and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry (Reglamento del Registro Público). By reason of the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions of Articles 456 and 472 subsection 2) of the Civil Code, the cancellation is ordered of the following mortgage encumbrance notations (citas de gravamen hipotecario): 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Marta Chinchilla Arias; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, preserving the rights of mortgage creditors in good faith to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages that may be caused to them, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code. 5) Certification of excerpts (Testimonio de piezas) to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público). This Court has considered it accredited that there exists a titling of a public domain (dominio público) asset in favor of a private party, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out by means of a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also because the possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) that served as its basis — processed under case file (expediente) number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz — were never approved, by reason that the Court did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the prevention that was notified to them on November twenty-third, two thousand six. While it is true that, by writing dated January seventh, two thousand ten, addressed to the Deputy Procurator (Procuradora Adjunta) Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., indicated: “…It is only with the declaratory proceeding filed by your client that I have knowledge of all (sic) the illicit acts and falsehoods with which the property registered in favor of my client was registered, for although I bought the possession of the property; the seller and her husband were the ones who took charge of the pertinent procedures in order to successfully complete the possessory information (…), it is also true that said statements do not prevent this Court from certifying excerpts to the Public Prosecutor's Office, given the seriousness of the facts that are the subject of this lawsuit, and the potential criminal liability that they may generate against the different subjects who participated in the granting of deed 108 of protocol volume four of the notary public Brenes Álvarez and in the registration of both the property with cadastral plan number G-256640-1995 under real folio system registration number 155180-000 of the Partido de Guanacaste, and of the six mortgages constituted upon said land, under notations 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Marta Chinchilla Arias; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias. By reason of the foregoing, it is ordered that excerpts be certified to the Public Prosecutor's Office, for what may be its responsibility. 6) On the nullity of the challenged acts. For all the foregoing, this Court considers that the challenged acts — namely: cadastral plan number G-256640-1995; public deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the farm (finca) of the Partido de Guanacaste, real folio system registration number 155180-000 and the mortgage guarantees constituted upon said property during the legal validation period (plazo legal de convalidación) — suffer from an absolute nullity defect (vicio de nulidad absoluta), for being substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Act; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Terrestrial Maritime Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Possessory Information Law; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43 and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. Consequently: a) It is declared that the property with cadastral plan number G-254460-1995, registered under real folio system registration 155180-000 of the Partido de Guanacaste, constitutes a public domain asset which is unseizable (inembargable), imprescriptible (imprescriptible), inalienable (inalienable) and is outside the commerce of men, that is comprised within the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional (Ostional National Wildlife Refuge) and forms part of the terrestrial maritime zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). b) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral plan number G.256640-1995, surveyed in January of nineteen ninety-five, by the Associated Topographer (Topógrafo Asociado) number 2694, in the name of Juan Luis Zúñiga Zúñiga, identity card number 9-044-378, for purposes of a use permit (permiso de uso) over the property located in Ostional, Cuajiniquil district, Santa Cruz canton, Guanacaste province; c) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol volume four granted before the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine-fifteen in the morning on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, insofar as it protocolized the alleged resolutions issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, at eight o'clock in the morning on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, and at nine o'clock in the morning on October ninth, two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., in order to title the property with cadastral plan number 256640-1995, located in District 06 Cuajiniquil, Canton 3 Santa Cruz, Guanacaste province. The nullifications of the referred notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive (Archivo Nacional) and to the National Registry (Registro Nacional), for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the certified copies (testimonios) that may have been presented to the National Registry. d) It is declared that the farm registered under the Real Folio System registration number 00155180-000 was registered technically and juridically in an improper manner in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number (cédula jurídica) 3-101-426129. e) The registry entries (asientos registrales) for the inscription of the farm registered under the Real Folio System registration No. 00155180-000, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. f) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted upon the property registered under real folio system registration number 155180-000 of the Partido de San José, with cadastral plan number G-266640-1995, granted by public deeds number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by the notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez, identity card number 2-283-859, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock in the morning on September fourth, two thousand seven, by the notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-388-047, and whose term of validity expired on September fourth, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve-thirty in the afternoon on November second, two thousand seven, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Marta Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-608-687, and whose term of validity expired on November second, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven-thirty in the morning on January tenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-388-047, and whose term of validity expired on January tenth, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-550-543, whose term of validity expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three-forty in the afternoon on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of José Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-750-583, and whose term of validity expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine. The nullifications of the referred notarial instruments must be communicated to the National Archive and to the National Registry, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been presented to the National Registry. g) The cancellation is ordered of the following mortgage encumbrance notations: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Marta Chinchilla Arias; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, preserving the rights of mortgage creditors in good faith to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages that may be caused to them, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code; h) It is ordered that excerpts be certified to the Public Prosecutor's Office for what may be its responsibility.

VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS (PRESUPUESTOS DE FONDO). This Court reaches the conclusion that the State has sufficient standing to sue (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding pursuant to Article 10 subsection a) of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), since it is the owner of the public domain asset that is the subject of this proceeding, and to whom it corresponds to exercise the actions tending to reivindicate, supervise and protect the assets that form part of the terrestrial maritime zone and the Natural Heritage of the State, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 of the Political Constitution, 1 and 4 of the Law on the Terrestrial Maritime Zone, 14 of the Forestry Law, 32 and 38 of the Organic Law of the Environment, 5 and 10 of the Possessory Information Law; 3.i of the Organic Law of the Office of the Procurator General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República). Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., just as provided in Article 12 subsection 3) of the cited Code, given that the property subject to the proceeding was illegitimately titled in favor of said legal entity, who in turn constituted six mortgages on said land in favor of Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez, identity card number 2-283-859, María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-388-047, Marta Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-608-687; Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-550-543, José Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, identity card number 1-750-583. On the other hand, the interest remains current, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to produce effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it, given that, being a matter of recovery and protection of public domain assets, no periods of prescription (prescripción) or lapse (caducidad) run, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of assets. This is expressly established by Articles 1 of the Law on the Terrestrial Maritime Zone, 14 of the Forestry Law, and Article 34 subsection 2 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right (falta de derecho) and consequently, the lawsuit filed by the State against Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., and as interested third parties Maximiliano Alfaro Jiménez, María Cecilia Chinchilla Arias, Marta Chinchilla Arias, Carlos Manuel Chinchilla Arias, José Rodolfo Chinchilla Arias, is declared with merit in all its extremes, since in accordance with all the matters set forth in the recitals (considerandos) IV, V, VI and VII of this judgment, this Court concludes that the challenged acts — namely: cadastral plan number G-256640-1995; public deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the farm of the Partido de Guanacaste, real folio system registration number 155180-000 and the mortgage guarantees constituted upon said property during the legal validation period — suffer from an absolute nullity defect, for being substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Act; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Terrestrial Maritime Zone; 13 and 14 of the Forestry Law; 32 and 40 of the Organic Law of the Environment; 58 of the Biodiversity Law; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Possessory Information Law; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43 and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry.” Goicoechea, at ten o'clock on the twenty-first of July two thousand ten.- Knowledge proceeding declared a matter of pure law, filed by the STATE, represented by Deputy Procurator GLORIA SOLANO MARTÍNEZ, of legal age, attorney, resident of Heredia, identity card number CED571, against the company GANADERA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597, represented by Nombre141932, in his capacity as President with powers of General Attorney-in-Fact without limit of sum for that company; and as interested third parties Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598; Nombre122580, identity card CED111599; Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600; Nombre141935, identity card CED111601; Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602.

WHEREAS:

1.- The claims of the plaintiff –which were maintained during the preliminary hearing held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June two thousand ten– are for the judgment to “…1) Declare that the property of the Guanacaste registry number 155180, which corresponds to the real estate described in cadastral plan G-256640-1995, is located entirely within the maritime-terrestrial zone of Ostional Beach. A public domain asset that also forms part of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge. 2) Declare that deed number 108 found in volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez is absolutely null and void for lacking any legal basis and for recording false facts and non-existent resolutions of the Civil Court of Santa Cruz. 3) Establish that since that deed is null and void, the registration entry of the property of the Guanacaste registry number 155180 is also null and void, and therefore, that the National Registry be ordered to cancel it. 4) Because it incorporates lands belonging to the public domain, cadastral plan G-256640-1995 is also null and void, therefore I request that the National Cadastre Directorate be ordered to cancel it. 5) Order that the mortgage guarantees constituted over it during the legal validation period are also null and void, and consequently, that the National Registry be ordered to cancel the registration entries of the following mortgages: a. Entry 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933. b. Entry 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934, c. Entry 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580. d. Entry 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934. e. Entry 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935. f. Entry 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936. 6) Furthermore, that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this proceeding, as well as the interest generated until their effective payment”.

2.- That by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally at ten hours fifty-seven minutes on the third of November two thousand nine, the Case Management Judge resolved: “The provisional measures issued by this office in resolution No. 1468-2009 are maintained, consisting of the following: 1. The annotation of this proceeding in the National Registry on the margin of the registration entry of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry. 2. The registration freeze of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry. 3. The owner company of the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the real estate. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to conduct an inspection every fifteen days on the asset in question, for the concrete verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within the three days following the completion of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Administrative Litigation Court. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are granted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over property Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry, likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the real estate registry number Placa27729 until the main proceeding is resolved.” 3.- That by resolution at fourteen hours forty minutes on the nineteenth of November two thousand nine (folios 99 and 100 of the judicial file), the Case Management Judge granted transfer of the complaint. Said order was notified to Nombre122580, at eight o'clock on the eleventh of December two thousand nine; to Nombre141933, Nombre141935, and Nombre141934, at eleven o'clock on the tenth of December two thousand nine; to Ganadería Campo Bonito, at eleven o'clock on the fifteenth of December two thousand nine and, to Nombre141936, at ten hours thirty minutes on the seventh of January two thousand ten (folios 102 to 107 of the judicial file).

4.- That by resolution at eleven hours twenty-five minutes on the eighth of February two thousand ten (folio 108 of the judicial file), the Case Management Judge resolved: a) To not consider the complaint answered within the period granted for that purpose by the order of fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on the nineteenth of November two thousand nine; b) In accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, declared the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936, and Nombre141933 in default, and considered the complaint affirmatively answered regarding the facts, without prejudice that they could appear at any stage of the proceeding, taking it in the state in which it finds itself; c) The conciliation hearing was dispensed with, given that the State representative expressed in advance her waiver to conciliate in this matter, therefore, the parties were summoned to a preliminary hearing, scheduled for thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June two thousand ten.

5.- That the preliminary hearing was held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June two thousand ten, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is attached to the file in a special bundle. That during this hearing the Case Management Judge recorded the non-appearance of the representative of the defendant company and of the interested third parties; maintained the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first whereas clause of this judgment; considered all facts to be true by reason of the declaration of default of the defendant; admitted the pertinent documentary evidence. Consequently, as there was no testimonial or expert evidence to be taken and in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.2 of the same Code, declared this matter one of pure law and the plaintiff rendered its conclusions orally (see folio 111 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing).

6.- That this matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of the Sixth Section of the Administrative Litigation Court, on the twenty-third of June two thousand ten (folio 111 verso of the judicial file). In the proceedings before this Court no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that generate defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the period established in Article 98 subsection 2) of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, in relation to subsection 4) of Article 82 of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction.- Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judges Garita Navarro and González Vílchez; and,

CONSIDERING:

Io.- ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE COURT TO ANALYZE THE LAW AND THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS, DESPITE THE DECLARATION OF DEFAULT OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANY. It is important, prior to the substantive analysis of this resolution, to establish that this Court, as the jurisdictional body it is, has the obligation to review, analyze, and determine whether the law and the claims alleged by the plaintiff have legal support, as well as to resolve the substantive requirements, even if there exists, as in the present case, a declaration of default for the non-answering of the complaint by the representatives of the company Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936, and Nombre141933 (folio 108 of the judicial file), even more so in this case, in which the representatives of the defendant company and of the interested third parties also did not appear at the preliminary hearing held at thirteen hours thirty minutes on the eighth of June two thousand ten (see folio 111 of the judicial file and audiovisual record of the preliminary hearing). The foregoing is supported by the following grounds: 1) The case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has indicated, despite that line of case law having been presented in the context of the former Regulatory Law of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction and the Civil Procedure Code, but which continues to have application to the current administrative litigation procedural legislation, that the declaration of default does not vitiate the power of the jurisdictional body to gather evidence and verify the factual framework, among other relevant aspects, as is clearly evident from the following resolution of that Chamber:

“IX.- On the non-answering of the complaint: Certainly the non-answering of the complaint leads to default and to having the facts considered affirmatively answered, but it does not vitiate the judge's power to gather evidence and verify the factual framework. But furthermore, the defaulting party may appear at any time in the proceeding and offer new evidence (arts. 293 and 310 C.P.C.), which, if pertinent for the clarification of the facts, the judge may admit for a better resolution. Consequently, default is not by itself sufficient for the definitive accreditation of the facts; it only reaches this value if other evidence of the same nature does not contradict the ficta contestation. Therefore, default must be valued together with the rest of the evidentiary elements presented in the proceeding.” (Voto 801-F-02 of 11 hours 10 minutes on October 18, 2002). Thus, the contestation in default would not be sufficient to uphold the petitions of the counterclaim, if other elements of judgment entail, under the application of the rules of sound criticism, the verification that the necessary legal prerequisites to uphold the claimed petitions do not exist." (First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, resolution number 991-F-2004 of fifteen hours twenty minutes on the seventeenth of November two thousand four).

From what is stated in this resolution, it can be extracted that the jurisdictional body can and must make its resolution based on the evidentiary elements contained in the file and not consider a factual framework and the plaintiff's claims as proven by the simple declaration of default. 2) The plaintiff, in accordance with Articles 58, 82, 85, and 120 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code and Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application in this matter as permitted by Article 220 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, has the burden of proving its right and claims, regardless of whether the defendant has or has not answered the complaint; the simple fact of a declaration of default does not vitiate the plaintiff's obligation to prove its right. 3) In the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, there is an obligation of the judges, established in Article 49 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and any other public law entity, which shows that in this matter, more than in others, the judges are obligated to review the conduct of the Public Administration to determine whether it has or has not conformed to the legal system. 4) In accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, the defendant who does not answer within the summons period shall be declared in default ex officio and the complaint shall be considered affirmatively answered regarding the facts, without prejudice that they may appear at any time, taking the proceeding in the state in which it finds itself. Now, although in accordance with Article 93 subsection 1 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, evidence shall not be admitted when there is conformity regarding the facts, the rule provides an exception, which occurs precisely when said conformity with the facts has arisen from the declaration of default of the defendant. Consequently, the judge cannot assume there is no controversy and dispense with the evidence, as they must seek the real truth in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code and due to the legality review that is the object of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Article 49 of the Political Constitution and Article 1 of the procedural Code), therefore, default is not assimilated to the figure of acquiescence.

For all the foregoing, it is the criterion of this Court that, for the reasons set forth previously in this case, this collegiate body must proceed to analyze the substantive presumptions, the facts, and the claims of the complaint, in order to determine whether or not they have legal support, despite the fact that in this matter the representative of the defendant company and the interested third parties did not answer the complaint and were declared in a state of default (rebeldía), which, as indicated above, does not negate the possibility of this court to review, analyze, and determine whether the complaint filed by the Representative of the State is or is not in accordance with law.

**II.- PROVEN FACTS:** The following facts, which are relevant to this proceeding, are deemed duly accredited: **1)** That in January nineteen ninety-five, the Associated Surveyor number 2694, issued a cadastral map (plano catastrado) in the name of Nombre141937, identification card number CED111603, for the purposes of a use permit on the property located in Ostional, Cuajiniquil district, Santa Cruz canton, Guanacaste province *(see folio 15 front of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **2)** That on May twenty-fourth, nineteen ninety-five, the Department of Forest Reserves, Protected Zones, and Hydrographic Basins of the General Forestry Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, certified on the back of said cadastral map, that with *“…based on the location shown on this map in the name of Nombre141938 the property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 10-08-93. It is also reported that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information proceedings and it will be up to Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this map is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see folios 15 back of the judicial file for the precautionary measure and 17 of the judicial file)*; **3)** That on May thirtieth, nineteen ninety-five, the cadastral map in the name of Nombre141937, identification card number CED111603, was registered in the National Cadastre under number G-256640-95, for the purposes of a use permit on the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194, Guanacaste province *(see folio 15 front of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **4)** That at nine o'clock on July twenty-seventh, two thousand six, the notary public Henry Miguel Vega Cruz, granted deed number 86, volume four of his protocol, whereby Nombre141940, identification card CED111604, sold to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597, a right of possession (derecho de posesión) over an unregistered piece of land, located in Ostional, Cuajiniquil district, Santa Cruz canton, Guanacaste province, which borders to the north with Nombre141937, to the south with the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, to the east and west with MIRENEM, with cadastral map number G-256640-95 *(see folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file)*; **5)** That on November third, two thousand six, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., filed before the Civil and Labor Court of Santa Cruz, possessory information proceedings (diligencias de información posesoria) concerning the property located in Ostional, Dirección17195, Guanacaste province, which borders to the north with Nombre141937, to the south with the public zone of the Pacific Ocean, to the east and west with MIRENEM, with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, so that the judgment would declare the right of possession and issue the respective order for its registration in the Real Property Registry, in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. That said possessory information proceedings were processed under case file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz *(see folios 30, 31, 38 to 40 of the judicial file)*; **6)** That by order issued at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, cautioned the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that –among other requirements– it had to provide without any exception *“… the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the entity in charge, which will attest to whether the property intended to be titled is located inside or outside of protected wildlife areas…”*, all under warning that until it complied with everything ordered, its future petitions would not be addressed. That said resolution was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at nine hours forty-four minutes on November twenty-third, two thousand six, via the fax system *(see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file)*; **7)** That on February fifteenth, two thousand seven, the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, presented before the Daily Entry Department of the Real Property Registry, deed number 108, folio 70 back, volume 4 of his protocol, granted at nine hours fifteen minutes on January nineteenth, two thousand seven, whereby the resolution purportedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, at nine o'clock on October ninth, two thousand six, was protocolized, in which the Possessory Information Proceedings promoted by the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. were supposedly approved. That in said deed it was also recorded that the respective edict had been published in the *“…Judicial Bulletin, case file number 42, of November third, two thousand six…” (see folios 22 to 31 of the judicial file)*; **8)** That the document protocolizing what was supposedly resolved by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, occupying volume 570, entry 45185 of the Daily Registry of Real Property, originated on February twenty-sixth, two thousand seven, the registration of the property under registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number Placa27730, described as land dedicated to cultivation, located in Dirección17196, Guanacaste province, which borders to the north with Nombre141937, to the south with a public road with 50 meters of frontage, to the east and west with MIRENEM. That the validation (convalidación) period provided for in the Possessory Information Law began on February twenty-sixth, two thousand six and concluded on February twenty-sixth, two thousand ten *(see folios 22 to 28, 60 to 64 of the judicial file; 10 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **9)** That on March first, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on February twenty-eighth, two thousand seven, by the notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identification card number CED111598, a first-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered on April nineteenth, two thousand seven in volume 570, entry 60946, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on February twenty-eighth, two thousand eight *(see folios 70 to 74 of the judicial file and 11 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **10)** That on September twentieth, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock on September fourth, two thousand seven, by the notary public David González Saborío, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identification card number CED111600, a second-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 570, entry 85988, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on September fourth, two thousand eight *(see folios 76 to 79 of the judicial file and 11 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **11)** That on November second, two thousand seven, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on November second, two thousand seven, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identification card number CED111599, a third-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on November second, two thousand eight *(see folios 81 to 83 of the judicial file and 12 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **12)** That on January fifteenth, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on January tenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identification card number CED111600, a fourth-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number Placa27731, which was registered on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, in volume 574, entry 36041, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on January tenth, two thousand nine *(see folios 85 to 88 of the judicial file and 12 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **13)** That on January twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three o'clock in the afternoon on January twenty-first, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identification card number CED111601, a fifth-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number Placa27731, which was registered in volume 574, entry 49696, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on January twenty-first, two thousand nine *(see folios 90 to 93 of the judicial file and 12 to 13 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **14)** That on March twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, there was presented to the Daily Registry of the Real Property Registry, deed number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at three forty in the afternoon on March thirteenth, two thousand eight, by the notary public María González Campos, whereby the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identification card number CED111602, a sixth-degree mortgage on the property with registration number Placa27728 of the Guanacaste registry section, cadastral map number G-256640-95, which was registered in volume 573, entry 64067, consecutive 01, and whose validity period expired on March fifteenth, two thousand nine *(see folios 95 to 98 of the judicial file and 13 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **15)** That by resolution issued at fourteen hours eleven minutes on January thirteenth, two thousand nine, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz resolved *“…according to the detailed study of the records, in the present matter, it can be noted that there is a cautionary order which is set forth at folio 9, which was issued by this office at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six and to date it has not been possible to resolve it. That being the case, the request made in the above-cited motion is left without effect and it is ordered to be added to its antecedents without further pronouncement…” (see folio 45 of the judicial file)*; **16)** That by official note number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-ninth, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office, indicates that: *“…1) In the Judicial Bulletin dated November 3, 2006, there is no publication from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system only records one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005…” (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file)*; **17)** That by official note number DRIM-CT-401-2009 of August sixth, two thousand nine, the Acting Deputy Director of the Real Property Registry, Cadastral Division, indicated that map G-256640-1995 is located -based on geographic location-, *“…within the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge and within the maritime terrestrial zone, within the 150 m of the restricted zone…” (see folios 53 to 55 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **18)** That by official note number ACT-OR-DR-983 of August eleventh, two thousand nine, the Acting Regional Director of the Tempisque Conservation Area of the National System of Conservation Areas, indicated that: *“…the property with cadastre number Placa27731 in the name of Nombre141937, is located within the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (…) This property is located in the northern sector of the Refuge, which is used by leatherback and black turtles for nesting, possibly due to the fact that there are few buildings and thus a lower incidence of lights and noise (…) According to the review of the file, the Conservation Area has no application or permit in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141932 or Nombre141937…”.* On said property there is a dwelling house built with concrete block, fiber cement panels, and zinc roof, and the house lot is enclosed with wooden boards; there are pasture areas delimited with barbed wire fences, wooden posts, and bordering the public zone with piñuela fences, in which there are cattle and horses *(see folios 57 to 62 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure)*; **19)** That by order issued at fourteen hours two minutes on August twenty-fifth, two thousand nine, the Higher Civil Court of Santa Cruz, resolved: *“…The state representative is hereby informed that the undersigned verified the Judicial Management Computer System that this office keeps for this purpose in order to verify if there are case files for possessory information in the name of Ganadería Campos Bonito ORM SA, however, it appears from it that only this present matter exists. Consequently, said body is informed that the resolutions of eight o'clock on June twenty-seventh, two thousand six and of nine o'clock on October ninth, two thousand six do not exist. By means of certification, proceed to remit a certified copy of the present matter…”*. That said resolution was notified to the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at twelve hours fifty-one minutes on August thirty-first, two thousand nine, via the fax system *(see folios 30 to 31, 49 to 50 of the judicial file)*; **20)** That at eight hours forty-two minutes on September eleventh, two thousand nine, the Head of the Notarial Archive issued certification number DAN-3223, whereby it is certified that from folio 70 back to 73 front of volume 4 of the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deeds number 106, 101 and 108 –respectively– appear *(see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file)*; **21)** That by writ of January seventh, two thousand ten, addressed to the Assistant Attorney General Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., indicated: *“…It is only, with the ordinary proceeding filed by your represented entity, that I have knowledge of all the illegalities and falsehoods with which the real property inscribed in favor of my represented entity was registered, because although I bought the possession of the property; the seller and her husband were the ones who handled the pertinent procedures in order to complete the possessory information (…) and for this reason, even though this results in serious economic harm for this representation, I am completely in agreement, whether it be to transfer, return, or request the cancellation of the registry entry that gave origin to the property that is the object of this proceeding (…) That for the foregoing, I only require and therefore request, a reasonable period of time, of at least 6 months, in order to duly cancel the mortgage credits recorded in the Registry, and which are known to your institution, as all the creditors listed therein, were in good faith…” (see folios 112 and 113 of the judicial file).* **III.- OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING.** The **plaintiff** considers that the following acts must be annulled: the cadastral map number Placa27732; deed number 108 which is found in volume four of the protocol of the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste registry section, real folio registration number Placa27729 and the mortgage guarantees (garantías hipotecarias) constituted on said property during the legal validation period, for the following reasons: **1)** While it is true, the defendant company filed before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz possessory information proceedings, concerning the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, which were processed in case file number 06-000595-0388-CI, it is also true that they were not even admitted for processing, since the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., never complied with the cautionary order made by the jurisdictional body through the order issued at nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first, two thousand six; **2)** That as a result of the foregoing, there could not have been a protocolized judgment, nor a publication in the Judicial Bulletin, nor the resolutions of eight o'clock on June twenty-seventh and nine o'clock on October ninth, both of two thousand six, since these are prior not only to the date of filing the possessory information proceedings –namely: November third, two thousand six–, but also, to the order of nine hours fifty-two minutes on November twenty-first of the same year, whereby the respective caution was made to the defendant company; **3)** Consequently, in the absence of the prior possessory information proceeding before the competent jurisdictional body, the information contained in deed number 108 which is found in volume four of the protocol of the notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, is not only false, but furthermore, could not serve as a basis for the act of registering the property with cadastral map number Placa27732, under real folio registration Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry section, for which reason said registration must also be annulled; **4)** It must be taken into consideration that the property is public domain.

Not only because it is located in the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), but also because it forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional), reason for which, given the characteristics of unseizability, imprescriptibility, and inalienability, it was impossible for said property to be registered in the name of a third party and for mortgage guarantees to be constituted over it; 5) While it is true that there was a period in which a property located in the maritime-terrestrial zone could be titled, it is also true that this is not applicable to the specific case, since the possessory information proceedings were not filed until November 3, 2006; 6) In that sense, even if the plaintiff company had continued with the processing of the possessory information proceedings, it was impossible for the Civil Court of Santa Cruz to proceed with the titling of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, not only because it is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone, but also because said land forms part of the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), since it was incorporated into the Ostional Wildlife Refuge.

IV.- THE NATURAL HERITAGE OF THE STATE AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT, RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. This collegiate body considers that, prior to the examination of the legality of the administrative conducts whose annulment is claimed, it is necessary to refer, in a general manner, to the Natural Heritage of the State, as a demanial asset. In that sense, it must be noted that through resolution No. 0063-2009, issued by this Section, at 16:00 hours on January 19, 2009, the following was indicated in what is relevant for the issuance of this judgment: "....Constitutional recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In Costa Rica, the recognition and protection in Constitutional Law of the cited fundamental right does not have as its starting point the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution, ordered by Law number 7412 of June 3, 1994. The foregoing is because, since the promulgation of the constitutional text in 1949, the will of the Constituent was clear in establishing in article 89, that: ‘Among the cultural purposes of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress’; which is complemented by the categorical declaration contained in article 21, to the effect that in our country, ‘Human life is inviolable’. The integration of the provisions of both articles implies that the need to preserve the environment –even though in that era the Constituent used the term natural beauties– transcends a merely cultural purpose, to become a vital need for every human being, since it constitutes an essential prerequisite to make effective other fundamental rights such as: life, health, and development. (see in that sense, rulings number 1993-03705 of fifteen hours on July 30, 1993; 1993-06240 of fourteen hours on November 26, 1993; 1993-04423 of twelve hours on December 7, 1993, 1994-02485 of nine hours eighteen minutes on May 27, 1994, all from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). In that sense, it is worth recalling that Constitutional Law is composed not only of the constitutional text, but also of the values and principles that inform and permeate its content, as well as by Public Treaties, International Conventions, and Concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly, and also by International Instruments on Human Rights applicable in the Republic (see articles 1, 7, 21, 50 of the Political Constitution; 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). Added to this, the written and unwritten norms that make up Constitutional Law are characterized by being of direct and immediate application, therefore, their recipients not only have the right to make them effective through administrative and jurisdictional channels, if they believe that by action or omission they have been impaired, but also, this implies that legal operators have the duty to apply them directly and immediately in their decision-making process, in order to fulfill constitutional requirements (see what was considered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in ruling number 1999-00644 of eleven hours twenty-four minutes on January 29, 1999). If we take as a basis the provisions of articles 7, 48 of the Political Constitution and 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, we can affirm that even if the constitutional text had not contained norms relative to the recognition and protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, that correlative right and duty not only already existed in Costa Rican domestic law, but also their effective protection was enforceable both at the domestic and international levels. This by virtue of the fact that the Costa Rican State had signed a series of Conventions, Treaties, and International Instruments related to this matter, before article 50 of the Political Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412 of June 3, 1994, instruments among which the following stand out: the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (articles 2.1, 12.1, and 12.2.c); the ‘Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (article 11); the ‘Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’, signed in Paris on November 23, 1972, and approved by Law number 5980 of October 23, 1976; the ‘Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere’, adopted in Washington on March 3, 1973, and approved by Law number 3763 of October 19, 1976; the ‘Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat’, signed in Ramsar on February 2, 1971, and approved by Law number 7224 of 1991; the ‘Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer’, adopted in Vienna on March 22, 1985, and approved by Law number 7228 of April 22, 1991, and its ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer’, signed in Montreal on September 16, 1987, and approved by Law number 7223 of April 2, 1991; the ‘UN Convention on the Law of the Sea’, signed in Montego Bay on December 10, 1982, and approved by Law number 7291 published on July 15, 1992, among others. All these international norms were integrated into Costa Rican domestic law in accordance with the provisions of articles 7 and 48 of the Political Constitution and 1 and 3 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, therefore, ‘...all these international instruments are of obligatory compliance and enjoy full enforceability insofar as their norms require no further legislative development and therefore must be respected (...) since the normative rank of those is superior...’ (Ruling number 1993-06240 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at fourteen hours on November 26, 1993). Infraconstitutional Development of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Without doubt, the recognition and protection of the cited fundamental right provoked its infraconstitutional development, through the issuance of legal or regulatory norms regulating diverse manifestations thereof, which were issued long before the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution. As an example of this we have: the Water Law (Ley de Aguas) (No. 276 of August 27, 1942; the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) (No. 4240 of November 15, 1978), the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) (No. 4465 of November 25, 1979, now repealed); the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law (Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre) (No. 6043 of March 2, 1977); the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) (No. 5395 of October 30, 1973); the Law for the Creation of the National Parks Service (No. 6084 of August 24, 1977); the Animal Health Law (No. 6243 of May 2, 1978); the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) (No. 27733 of October 21, 1992), among others. The foregoing implies that before the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution, the fundamental right to which we have referred was not only recognized and protected in Constitutional Law, but had also been developed –although in a sectoral manner and not with a comprehensive vision– at the legal and regulatory level. By virtue of what has been explained so far, this Tribunal considers that the reform to article 50 of the Political Constitution did nothing but recognize in an express and clearly individualized manner, a fundamental right that was already enshrined and guaranteed by Constitutional Law; declare expressly the scope of the pre-existing obligation of the State, to guarantee, defend, and preserve the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and grant individuals full standing to defend it, through a citizen action (acción popular) (see rulings number 1994-01394 of fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March 16, 1994, and 1994-05527 of ten hours forty-five minutes on September 23, 1994, both from the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). Consequences of the recognition of the guarantee of article 50 of the Constitution in the terms explained. Said recognition entails two aspects relevant to the resolution of this proceeding. First. The imposition of a duty, both for the State –understood as Central and Decentralized Administration– and for private law subjects themselves, to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Second. The establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels. Regarding the first of these aspects, it is worth indicating that ‘The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State, and congruently of the municipalities (bear in mind article 169 of the Constitution), finds its first reason for being in that by definition rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State in its role as guarantor thereof and, secondly, because the activity of the State is directed towards the satisfaction of the interests of the community. The Political Constitution establishes that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. Prima facie, to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and prevent all activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at safeguarding the right in advance from potential dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on the one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of issuing measures that allow it to comply with constitutional requirements...’ (ruling No. 1999-00644 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 11:24 hours on January 29, 1999). In that sense, ‘...The action that the Political Constitution imposes on the State in the face of sources of environmental contamination is multidirectional and definitively active, absolutely intolerant towards situations that threaten or affect the optimal environmental conditions that are guaranteed by it to the inhabitants. From this perspective, public authorities are not permitted to make concessions or grant extensions for the environment to continue being affected, even when this is done with a view to bringing economic benefits to a specific geographic area...’ (ruling No. 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at 16:15 hours on July 28, 1999). This constitutional duty of the State to oversee the protection, defense, and preservation of the environment, is developed and manifested, among others, in the following norms: articles 1, 2.a, 2.c, 2 last paragraph, 3, 12, 28, 32, 34, 37, 56, 59, 78, 83, 103 to 112 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente); articles 1, 2, 9.4, 12, 22 to 30, 45, 49, 54, 86, 88 of the Biodiversity Law; 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 34, 122 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 37, 54 of the Forestry Law; 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 29 to 33, 37 of the Law on Use, Management, and Soil Conservation; 13.a, 13.o of the Municipal Code; 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; 1, 2 of the General Health Law; 1, 2, 17, 175, 176 of the Water Law; 15, 18, 19, 51, 56, 58.5, Transitorio II of the Urban Planning Law. Now then, this duty is not only circumscribed to the State as a whole, but also to private law subjects, who have the right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also, to guarantee, preserve, and defend it, as is inferred, among others, from articles 1 first paragraph, 2.a, 6, 22, 23, 99, of the Organic Environmental Law; 10.2, 10.13, 11.4, 88, 95, 101, 105 of the Biodiversity Law; 15, 28 to 30, 36 to 38, 51, 53, 62 to 64, 83, 88 to 121 of the Wildlife Conservation Law; 57 to 66 of the Forestry Law; 37, 40, 41 to 45, 51 to 53 of the Law on Use, Management, and Soil Conservation; 14 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law; as also, from rulings number 1999-02219 of fifteen hours eighteen minutes on March 24, 1999; 1999-05906 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on July 28, 1999, among others. Regarding the second aspect, related to the establishment of a series of technical-legal mechanisms to achieve effective protection of that right, both at the administrative and jurisdictional levels, this Tribunal considers that such means of protection can be classified into two large groups: procedural and material. It is necessary to clarify that, while it is true that reference will be made to specific examples related to each of the classification criteria indicated above, the intention of this Tribunal is not to establish a list of numerus clausus, but only to highlight, through said examples, aspects that have an impact on the subject matter of this proceeding. In that sense, within the group of procedural protection mechanisms, it is worth highlighting three examples: 1) The broad standing (legitimación amplia) that the second paragraph of article 50 of the Political Constitution and article 105 of the Biodiversity Law grant to every person, to denounce both through administrative and jurisdictional channels, the conducts that infringe the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and to claim the damages caused. It is worth highlighting that in principle, standing in environmental matters would originate in a simple normative authorization without there being an individual, collective, or diffuse right or interest at stake; however, this Tribunal considers that in essence, what each person will seek to protect is a right that forms part of their vital sphere and upon whose effective guarantee, defense, and preservation depends their ability to develop and live in accordance with the principle of human dignity (see article 2.a of the Organic Environmental Law, to the effect that the environment is the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation). 2) A system of unnamed precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) and, if necessary, of an anticipatory nature (articles 108 of the Biodiversity Law, 42 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, and 19 to 30 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code). 3) The application of the guiding principles in environmental matters, namely: in dubio pro natura, preventive, and precautionary, as means to guarantee the effective protection of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and therefore, to prevent its existence from being restricted to the semantic plane of legal reality (see articles 4.c, 17 and 34 of the Organic Environmental Law, 11 subsections 1 and 2, 92 of the Biodiversity Law, principle 15 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration and, among others, ruling number 1999-01250 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at eleven hours twenty-four minutes on February 19, 1999). In that sense, the legal operator must always take into consideration that ‘...when there is a danger of serious and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing the adoption of effective measures in terms of cost to prevent the degradation of the environment...’. On the other hand, in the group of material protection mechanisms, the following two manifestations are very representative: 1) The environmental impact assessment (evaluación del Impacto Ambiental) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), as a sine qua non requirement to initiate activities, works, or projects that may alter or destroy elements of the environment or biodiversity, or generate waste, toxic, or hazardous materials. Said requirement has been in force since November 13, 1995, the date on which the Organic Environmental Law was published. It is also regulated in articles 92 to 97 of the Biodiversity Law; article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Annexes I and II; principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration; article 18 of the Forestry Law; General Regulation on Environmental Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluación Ambiental) (Decreto Ejecutivo number 31849- MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC), among others. In this regard, constitutional jurisprudence has ordered that ‘...the fact that both the right to health and the right to enjoy an ecologically balanced environment are recognized as fundamental rights, obliges this Chamber to specify that the solution to the problem cannot be based on quick solutions; that, to adopt a decision in this field, the technical studies must be available ensuring that the proposed solution, in each specific case, will not be the origin of a public health problem or of undue alteration to the environment...’ (Among others, ruling No. 1995-02671 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 16:45 minutes on May 24, 1995). In that sense, ‘...it is not possible for the State to execute or authorize the execution of projects about which there is doubt regarding the negative impact they may generate on the environment. Consequently, the omission of conducting a prior environmental impact study translates into a violation of article 50 of the Constitution...’ (ruling No. 1999-02219 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 15:18 hours on March 24, 1999). 2) The existence of assets belonging to the Nation (bienes propios de la Nación) –as the constitutional text calls them–, which forming part of the public domain, are characterized by being inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable, therefore, their removal from the public domain (desafectación) or application to public uses is reserved to the Law, in accordance with the provisions of article 121 subsection 14 first paragraph of the Political Constitution. Within these assets whose conservation constitutes a matter of environmental public interest (article 11 of the Biodiversity Law), are found: the environment defined in article 2.a) of the Organic Environmental Law, as the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation; the maritime-terrestrial zone (articles 1 and 73 of the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone Law); the Natural Heritage of the State (articles 13 to 18 of the Forestry Law); the Wild Fauna and Flora (articles 3 and 4 of the Wildlife Conservation Law); the Waters according to the breakdown contained in article 1 of the Water Law. On the Natural Heritage of the State.

In accordance with the purpose of the process before us, this Tribunal will focus its analysis on the State Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado, PNE). Given the terms of the recognition of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as already explained, it is necessary to emphasize that the previously cited Forest Law (Ley Forestal) No. 4465 (which was repealed by Forest Law No. 7575 of February 5, 1996), not only contained “...as an essential function and priority of the State, to ensure the protection, conservation, use, industrialization, administration, and promotion of the country's forest resources, in accordance with the principle of rational use of renewable natural resources...” (Article 1), but also the concepts of Forest (Article 6) and State Forest Heritage (Patrimonio Forestal del Estado) (Article 32, first paragraph). Regarding the State Forest Heritage, Law No. 4465 established its characteristics (Article 33); the competent bodies to administer and oversee the State Forest Heritage, which under that regulation were the General Forestry Directorate and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Article 32, second paragraph), as well as the powers conferred upon these bodies for the purpose of protecting and conserving the State Forest Heritage. Among the latter, it is worth highlighting the following: 1) Replevin actions for those properties (Article 33), 2) The constitution within the State Natural Heritage of forest reserves (reservas forestales), protective zones (zonas protectoras), national parks (parques nacionales), national wildlife refuges (refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), and biological reserves (reservas biológicas) (Articles 35 to 37); 3) The demarcation (deslinde) of lands in the areas that make up the State Forest Heritage (Article 38). On the other hand, in the currently effective Forest Law No. 7575, this concept is taken up again but with a variation in name, as it is now called State Natural Heritage. This term is broader as it encompasses the protection and preservation of the forest ecosystem (Article 3, subsection c of the Forest Law). The State Natural Heritage is of public domain, for which reason the lands and forests comprised within it are unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable. Likewise, its conservation and administration are entrusted by law to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications (MINAET), through the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), as provided by Articles 6.a, 13 second paragraph, and 14 of the cited Forest Law and numeral 32, second paragraph of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente). The PNE is made up of two important components: 1) Protected Wild Areas (Áreas Silvestres Protegidas), whatever their management category and whether declared by Law or by Executive Decree, namely: forest reserves (reservas forestales), protective zones (zonas protectoras), national parks (parques nacionales), biological reserves (reservas biológicas), national wildlife refuges (refugios nacionales de vida silvestre), wetlands (humedales), and natural monuments (monumentos naturales) (Law No. 7575, Article 1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd subsection i; Organic Environmental Law, Article 32; Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), Article 22 et seq. and 58; National Parks Service Law, Article 3, subsections d and f, in relation to the Organic Law of MINAE and its Regulations; Wildlife Conservation Law, Article 82, subsection a); 2) The other forests and forest lands of the inalienable areas, of the properties registered in its name, and of those belonging to Municipalities, autonomous institutions, and other Public Administration bodies, which have an immediate legal affectation, except for those properties that guarantee credit operations with the National Banking System and become part of its assets (Article 13, first paragraph of the Forest Law). It should be noted that both the Protected Wild Areas and the rest of the forested areas and lands with forest aptitude (terrenos de aptitud forestal) comprised within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre), are excluded from the regulatory scope of Law No. 6043 and therefore, from the competence of the Municipalities, as will be expanded upon later. These zones are subject to their own legislation (Forest Law), which implies that their administration falls to the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, through the National System of Conservation Areas (see in this regard judgment number 2008-16975 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at fourteen hours fifty-three minutes on November twelfth, two thousand eight). Now, as part of the duties incumbent upon MINAET and SINAC for the conservation and protection of the State National Heritage, are: 1) the exercise of the replevin action for the PNE, which is imprescriptible (Article 14); 2) to demarcate on the ground, the boundaries (linderos) that make up the State Natural Heritage (Article 16); 3) to coordinate with the National Registry, the establishment of a forest cadastre, whose objective will be to regulate the areas comprised within the PNE and those voluntarily submitted to the forest regime (Article 17); 4) The Public Administration may not exchange, cede, dispose of in any way, hand over, or lease rural lands owned by it or under its administration, without them having first been classified by MINAET, so that, if they were covered with forest, they would automatically become incorporated into the State Natural Heritage (Article 15). Based on all the foregoing, this Tribunal reaches the following relevant conclusions in the specific case. First: By virtue of the environment being constituted as the Common Heritage of all the inhabitants of the Nation, the State Natural Heritage constitutes a species of that genus (Article 50, second paragraph; Articles 89, 121, subsection 14, first paragraph of the Political Constitution; Article 2, subsection a) of the Organic Environmental Law; Article 1 of the Biodiversity Law; and Article 13 of the Forest Law). Second: There is an immediate legal affectation to the State Natural Heritage, of all those lands comprised in the protected wild areas, in the areas declared inalienable –such as the maritime-terrestrial zone (Article 73 of Law 6043)–, in the lands with forest aptitude, and in the properties registered in the name of the State, Municipalities, Autonomous Institutions, and other entities of the Decentralized Public Administration. Third: The State Natural Heritage does not require an express declaration given that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Forest Law, as well as that resolved by the Constitutional Chamber in judgments 1992-03789 and 1997-04587, the forested zones, the lands with forest aptitude, the mangroves (manglares), and the wetlands comprised within the inalienable areas, such as the maritime-terrestrial zone, are immediately affected to this Heritage, without the concurrence of the Administration. Fourth: Consequently, the delimitation of the boundaries of the areas that make up the State Natural Heritage, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Forest Law, constitutes a power that MINAET, through SINAC, must exercise ex officio and not only at the request of a party. This is so not only in application of the duty imposed by Articles 21, 50 second and third paragraphs, and 89 of the Political Constitution, to guarantee, preserve, and conserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, but also because the law does not indicate that the delimitation must be carried out only at the request of a party. It is not justified, in the opinion of this body, that the State may validly allege a lack of resources for this purpose, as constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly held (see among others, judgments 1995-00915 at sixteen hours six minutes on February fifteenth, nineteen ninety-five; 1996-000695 at fifteen hours forty-two minutes on February seventh, nineteen ninety-six). Fifth: Consequently, the classification carried out by the National System of Conservation Areas, regarding the type of ecosystem existing on the properties comprised within the State Natural Heritage, constitutes a mere categorization of those, in accordance with the classification criteria established in Article 13, first paragraph of the Forest Law and Executive Decree number 34295-MINAE, namely: forests, lands with forest aptitude, wetlands, mangroves, among others. Sixth: It is evident that the State has the duty –both at the constitutional and legal level– to guarantee, defend, and protect the forested zones, the lands with forest aptitude, the mangroves, the wetlands, among others, comprised in the inalienable areas –such as, in this case, the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone– which, by the simple fact of having that character, were directly and automatically affected to the State Natural Heritage. Therefore, the result of the classification of the type of ecosystem existing in said areas –which must be carried out ex officio and not only at the request of a party, in order to take the necessary measures to achieve their effective protection and conservation– is not what determines their incorporation or not into the State Natural Heritage, since by law they had already been affected to the latter, by virtue of being inalienable zones." (See in the same sense, resolution No. 1842-2009, issued by the Sixth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal at 7 hours 30 minutes on August 31, 2009).

From the cited judgments, it is necessary to highlight some aspects that are of vital importance in resolving the specific case. Without a doubt, the State has a constitutional and legal obligation to guarantee, defend, and preserve the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and to give all persons the instruments to defend this fundamental right. In that regard, the use of technical and scientific mechanisms in decision-making involving environmental matters is indispensable. Now then, the State Natural Heritage is part of the public domain, by virtue not only of the constitutional affectation as has been explained, but also by express provision of the legislator in various laws, currently in the Forest Law. Thus, the State Natural Heritage is protected by the special regime applicable to public domain assets, according to which, by their vocation and destination, they are outside human commerce, are inalienable, imprescriptible, and unseizable (Article 262 of the Civil Code). As a consequence thereof, their ownership or possession, whether gratuitous or onerous, is not possible; they cannot be lost by prescription, nor can they be gained by adverse possession (usucapión). From this perspective, their possession by private individuals will not create any right in their favor. They are assets that are subject to police power, in relation to their exploitation and use, since they are conditioned upon the granting of the respective licenses and permits and upon the control and oversight by the Administration. Finally, the State has a series of procedural instruments for the recovery of this type of assets, when they have illegitimately left the public domain.

On the other hand, the State Natural Heritage is constituted, among others, by properties that are located in areas declared inalienable, as is the case of the maritime-terrestrial zone (see Articles 13 of the Forest Law; 1 and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone). In these scenarios, the lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings (informaciones posesorias) and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means (see Articles 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 7 and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias)).

**VI.- BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS ON THE MARITIME-TERRESTRIAL ZONE.** Some considerations regarding the maritime-terrestrial zone are also relevant for the resolution of this matter, related to the following aspects. **Concept.** Article 9 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone defines this zone as the strip of two hundred meters wide along the entire length of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Republic, whatever its nature, measured horizontally from the lines of the ordinary high tide and the lands and rocks that the sea leaves uncovered at low tide. It comprises the maritime islands, islets, and rocky outcrops as well as any land with natural formation that protrudes from the ocean level within the territorial sea of the Republic. Cocos Island is excepted, which will be under the direct domain and possession of the State, and those other islands whose domain or administration is determined in said law or in special laws. **Zones that make up the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone.** Pursuant to numeral 10 of the same Law, it can be indicated that the maritime-terrestrial zone is composed of two sections: 1) The public zone (zona pública), which is the strip of fifty meters wide counting from the ordinary high tide and the areas left uncovered during low tide, as well as the islets, rocky outcrops, and other small areas and natural formations that protrude from the sea. Likewise, according to section 11 of the cited Law, the zone occupied by all the mangroves of the continental and insular littorals and estuaries of the national territory constitutes the public zone, whatever its extension. 2) The restricted zone (zona restringida), constituted by the strip of the remaining one hundred fifty meters or by the other lands in cases of islands, and over which, as will be seen, concessions can be granted. As indicated in Article 1 of the aforementioned Law, the maritime-terrestrial zone constitutes part of the National Heritage, belongs to the State, and is inalienable and imprescriptible. This has allowed the affirmation with all precision of the public domain character of said zone and, as a consequence thereof, its imprescriptibility, inalienability, inalienability, as well as that it is outside human commerce. It is by virtue of this character as a public domain asset, that the lands located in the maritime-terrestrial zone may not be the subject of possessory information proceedings and private individuals may not appropriate them or legalize them in their name, by that or any other means (see Articles 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone; 7 and 11 of the Law on Possessory Information). Now then, the fact that it concerns a public domain asset does not mean that private individuals, in a situation of special subjection, cannot make use of it; quite the contrary: as will be expanded upon later, by means of a concession (in the restricted zone), private individuals can exploit the maritime-terrestrial zone. It is important to highlight that, pursuant to Article 12 of the Law in question, in the maritime-terrestrial zone it is prohibited, without due legal authorization, to exploit the existing flora and fauna, to demarcate with fences, tracks, or in any other form, to erect buildings or installations, to cut trees, extract products, or carry out any other type of development, activity, or occupation. **Administration and guardianship of the maritime-terrestrial zone:** As already indicated, the maritime-terrestrial zone belongs to the State. However, it is clear that pursuant to the already cited Law 6043, the competencies of various bodies and entities converge upon this zone. In this sense, it is possible to distinguish jurisdictional areas that involve, as far as this process concerns, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), Municipalities, and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. On this point, it should be emphasized that in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, the maritime-terrestrial zones, included as in this case, within national parks and equivalent reserves, will be governed by the respective legislation, so they will be administered by the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 32 of the Organic Environmental Law and 13, second paragraph of the Forest Law.

**VII.- SOME GENERALITIES ON POSSESSORY INFORMATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE REQUIREMENTS TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.** In judgment number 1997-04587 at fifteen hours forty-five minutes on August fifth, nineteen ninety-seven, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, considered regarding the general regime of adverse possession, regulated in the Law on Possessory Information, the following:

“…GENERAL REGIME OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: In principle, it must be indicated that the possessory information proceedings regulated in the Law on Possessory Information No. 139 of July 14, 1941, and its amendments, are a non-contentious judicial procedure through which a title of ownership of real property, registrable in the Public Registry, is formalized. In general, with this procedure, it is intended that possessors who lack a registrable title in the Public Registry, obtain one. Article 1 of that Law provides that for the possessor of real estate to request the granting of the title based on the possessory information procedure, they must demonstrate possession for more than ten years under the conditions indicated in Article 856 of the Civil Code, namely, in the capacity of owner, continuous, public, and peaceful. The foregoing requirements of time and condition characterize the possession necessary for adverse possession. To obtain ownership of real property by positive prescription, in addition to possession under the indicated conditions, Article 853 of the Civil Code indicates as requirements: the translative title of domain and good faith. From the foregoing and from the provisions of Article 8 of the Law on Possessory Information, which characterizes the possessory information procedure as a non-contentious judicial process –in which the filing of a claim or opposition by any person or the State causes the matter to be suspended and referred to the declarative proceeding for its discussion and resolution, or that the file be archived and the administrative route be deemed exhausted, respectively–, it follows that the titling of the real property has as a requirement the acquisition of ownership. That is, a distinction is made between the moment of acquisition of ownership by adverse possession and the moment when that situation is asserted in the possessory information procedure to obtain a registrable title in the Public Registry. Hence, adverse possession is considered as a mode of acquisition of ownership and of other possessable real rights, and titling as the procedure through which, having verified the requirements of adverse possession, the registrable title of ownership is conferred.

Adverse possession is an original mode of acquiring a possessable real right through the passage of time with the legal requirements. The acquisitive legal effect of adverse possession occurs automatically with the passage of time combined with a capable possession that meets the conditions set for possession ad usucapionem, and the other requirements established in the law. In general terms, the Civil Code establishes as requirements for positive prescription: the translative title of domain, good faith, and possession under specific conditions.

Regarding the capable title for adverse possession, doctrine has stated that what is required is a legal transaction for the acquisition of the right possessed. The title is the fact that serves as the cause of the possession and, consequently, of the acquisition of ownership. It is the legal foundation, the determining reason for the acquisition. Adverse possession presupposes, in its origin, an act or a series of acts by which a person acquires possession over a thing that should normally be accompanied by a right over the asset, but that does not happen, such that the title of adverse possession coincides with the act of possessory acquisition. The title must be just, which obliges its validity and conformity with the legal order (licit). The jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (see resolutions numbers 92 at 10:00 hours on June 21, 1991, and 68 at 14:55 hours on August 17, 1994) points out in this regard that for adverse possession, Article 853 of the Civil Code requires a translative title of domain, possession, and good faith, but in numeral 854 it clarifies that a just title is required, which characterizes it not as a document but as a cause of acquisition; that Article 854 excludes proof of just title in three hypotheses: movable assets, easements, and the right of possession; that in these cases the fact of possession presumes the title; that in the case of the right of possession, the title is not necessary because possession is valid as title; that a title should not be requested from someone who acquires originally as a product of a taking of possession in which they have no transferor and in which their cause of acquisition finds protection in the legal order; that for the previous case, the title merges with possession, the title is possession; that the just character of the title lies in the fact that it is licit, and for the case ad usucapionem, it means that the possession must meet the requirements of public, peaceful, continuous, and in the capacity of true holder; that when the Civil Code requires a translative title of domain or the Law on Possessory Information obliges its presentation together with other documents necessary for the processing of the file, they refer exclusively to the case in which the adverse possessor has not been the original possessor, but has acquired from another possessor; that in that case, demonstrating the title documentarily is required; that Article 101 of the Land and Colonization Law No. 2825 of October 14, 1961, and its amendments indicates that when adverse possession mediates, the translative title of domain required by the Civil Code is not necessary.

***Regarding the requirement of good faith,*** *case law (see resolutions of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, numbers 230 of 16:00 hours of July 20, 1990, and 68 of 14:55 hours of August 17, 1994) has indicated that according to Article 853 of the Civil Code, good faith is a requirement of adverse possession (usucapión) that must be present for it to exist; that if the assumptions of good and bad faith are found in Article 285 of the Civil Code, the rule for declaring bad faith is its full demonstration by the party alleging its existence, since Article 286 of the same Code acquires a prevalent character over Article 285, by establishing the principle of the presumption of good faith; that good faith concerns the personal conviction of the subject regarding his legitimacy; that one must speak of a belief generated by virtue of ignorance or error; good faith fulfills the objective in possession of guaranteeing certain rights to the possessor—acquisition of fruits, payment of improvements, right of retention, and non-liability for the loss or deterioration of the thing; that* ***for general good faith—a requirement of possession—ignorance or error regarding the existence of a defect that invalidates the title or mode of acquisition is necessary; that regarding the good faith necessary for adverse possession (usucapión), which encompasses general good faith, the belief is required that the transferor of the title is the owner of the thing transferred or has the power to carry out that transfer.*** *Now, as a* ***final requirement contemplated in Article 853 for positive prescription, there is possession. The essence of the institution of adverse possession (usucapión) is linked to the discipline of possession.*** *The exercise of possession for a determined period and under special conditions—public, peaceful, continuous, and in the capacity of holder of the claimed right—is added to the requirements that the legal system establishes for adverse possession (usucapión): just title and good faith. Possession as a real right implies the relationship between a person and the thing. It constitutes one of the separate elements that form ownership (Article 264 Civil Code). The right of possession can be acquired independently of full ownership under certain circumstances that the Civil Code regulates in Article 279—by consent of the owner, by the fact of retaining possession for more than one year, and because the law authorizes the creditor to retain the thing of his debtor or orders that all or some of his assets pass to a depositary—.* ***The right of possession in general is composed of two elements: the corpus and the animus. The first refers specifically to the material fact of having the thing subject to the power—action—and will of a person, and the second is related to an internal aspect that guides the possessor. To these elements must be added other special circumstances that the law requires for possession to be useful for adverse possession (usucapión). In that sense, possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem) is a more rigorous or qualified form of possession that differs from generic possession.*** *The requirements that the law demands for possession to be suitable for positive prescription are regulated in Article 856 of the Civil Code. Case law, integrating doctrinal concepts, has developed the content of these requirements. In that sense,* ***regarding possession in the capacity of owner, it has been noted that what the Civil Code means is possession in the capacity of holder of the claimed right, since ownership is not the only right that can be acquired by positive prescription, so this requirement attends to the title or determining cause of the possession and its subsequent mode of exercise; that what matters is the behavior of the possessor as holder—the materialization of conduct as holder—which excludes any possessor with a non-adverse-possession cause such as the lessee, administrator, depositary, or servant of the possession;*** *that, based on that requirement, acts executed by virtue of a license and those merely tolerated are also excluded, because they cannot lead to the constitution or acquisition of possession, and even less of adverse possession (usucapión), given that they are produced by the liberality of the true holder and not of the one who appears as such; that the quality of exercising possession in the capacity of holder of the right being acquired through adverse possession (usucapión) is understood insofar as it qualifies the suitable subject and rejects the unsuitable one; that this qualification, in principle, coincides with the title, so that condition can be identified with the juridical cause itself with possession. Regarding the requirement of continuity of possession, it is understood that possessory acts must be uninterrupted, that is, they must not be carried out in an isolated or accidental manner; that this situation must be maintained during all the time necessary for adverse possession (usucapión); that the defect occurs when there is any of the causes of interruption of possession, because in those cases all elapsed time is rendered useless; that since interruption is a defect, continuity is presumed—Article 283 of the Civil Code—and the party alleging the existence of the defect must prove it. In relation to peaceful possession, it is said to imply not acquiring or maintaining it by force (means of physical or moral coercion); that possession obtained with violence becomes peaceful when the cause that generated the new holding ceases, and becomes useful for adverse possession (usucapión)—Article 857 of the Civil Code; that one is not in the presence of violent possession when the possessor defends the possession—prevents it from being taken away—but that does not protect the violent action of the dispossessed person resorting to self-help to recover his possession, even if legally it corresponds to him, because as long as another opposes, he must resort to the judicial authority—Articles 305 and 317 of the Civil Code. Regarding the last requirement of possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem), that is, publicity, doctrine indicates that public possession is the normal use of the thing according to its nature and purpose. Case law, for its part, has indicated that possession must be exercised in front of all, without hiding or concealing the acts performed on the thing; that it is also important not to hide the condition of holder of the right with which one possesses; that the defect that opposes publicity is clandestinity; that possession that initially was hidden can become suitable for adverse possession (usucapión) if it becomes public. (…)* ***Regarding the concept of the object of possession, what is important for the purposes of resolving this action of unconstitutionality is to specify that things that are within commerce are susceptible to possession—and to the special possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem). It is said that commerce is equivalent to what is known as legal traffic, therefore things are within commerce when they are in legal possibility of being the object of a patrimonial legal transaction.*** *Article 262 of the Civil Code establishes that public things are outside patrimonial traffic. For its part, Article 261 ibidem defines public things as those that by law are permanently destined for any service of general utility, and those that everyone can take advantage of because they are delivered to public use. Public domain is currently understood as an intense intervention of public power justified by the need to ensure the effective fulfillment, on the part of the things, of a public purpose desired by law. In that understanding, the public thing is conceived as a legal relationship constituted by the legal system consisting of a duty of the Administration to establish and maintain a public function whose realization requires a thing (in a private legal sense), which, due to its connection with the public purpose, is removed from private law and subjected to the regime that regulates the specific public function. In that sense, public domain assets have a special regime, not because of their nature, but because of their allocation (afectación) to the public statute. The allocation (destinación) of an asset to a public use or service is produced by law. Since the subjection occurs regarding assets that are in private legal traffic, it supposes an incidence that injures private domain and implies—in most cases—the need to modify the ownership of the assets so that the individual is not forced to bear a radical change of statute. Currently, doctrine indicates that the serviceability of assets for a public purpose can be produced without sacrificing their situation in private legal traffic, because a public-law delimitation of the content of real rights and their limitation is sufficient.* *After setting out the general overview of the adverse possession (usucapión) regime, it is necessary to point out that due to the incorporation of doctrinal criteria into case law (judgment of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 68 of 14:55 hours of August 17, 1994), the requirements that characterize that legal institution have been affected when related to the concepts of agrarian, forest, and ecological property. In that sense, it is important to synthesize the basic elements that, at the doctrinal and case law level, are handled in relation to those themes, and that oblige the judge—in relation to the contested norm—to determine in each case the specific type of possessory act that has been exercised on the rural property—which becomes part of the protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida)—that is sought to be titled. The foregoing so that the judge has a broader criterion—which is not limited to the date of entry into force of the law or executive decree that defines the limits of a given wilderness area (área silvestre)—to establish with greater precision the moment in which said assets became inalienable and imprescriptible, for the purposes of determining whether possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem) was exercised over them for ten years prior to their acquiring that condition. This broader perspective that favors the protection of the environmental patrimony (patrimonio ambiental) of the Nation, determines that when one seeks to title—through the possessory information procedure (procedimiento de informaciones posesorias)—a piece of land located within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), the discussion is not reduced to the simple calculation of the time a person has been on an immovable property in relation to the date on which the declaration of the protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida) was made, since—on one hand—in order to accredit possession for adverse possession (posesión ad usucapionem) during the period established in Article 7 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias), the elements that each specific type of possession contemplates must be considered, and—on the other hand—the possible existence of norms that long ago declared those lands inalienable, even before their specific allocation (afectación) to the public domain…”* Now then, the procedure contained in the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) requires publicity, **through the publication of an edict in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial),** and provides that the adjoining owners of the person seeking to title the land be summoned as parties, as well as the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), if it is a rural property, whereby they may oppose and defend their rights *(Article 5).* For this purpose, they will have one month from notification to oppose the proceedings and their failure to appear or act shall not hinder the procedure in any case. Once the summons indicated in Article 5 has expired, ex officio or at the request of a party, the Judge shall convene a hearing to be held on the rural property to be registered, if it is rural and its size exceeds thirty hectares, and may commission another judicial authority for this purpose. This proceeding shall not be necessary when the rural property does not exceed thirty hectares, or is urban *(Article 9).* **Once the information process is concluded, the Judge shall grant a hearing on its result, for a term of eight days, to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República),** through its representative in the respective judicial circuit. Once that period has elapsed without a response or once a response has been submitted, if it is satisfactory and there is no timely opposition or if it is declared unfounded by final resolution, **the judge shall approve the information by an order containing the description of the immovable property and shall order that the requested registration be carried out in the Public Registry of Property (Registro Público de la Propiedad),** without prejudice to a third party with a better right, by means of the corresponding certification of the resolution, once it is final *(Article 10).* **The ownership acquired under this law is definitively consolidated for third parties after three years,** counted from the day of the registration of the respective title in the Public Registry (Registro Público), since the negative prescription of the action of third parties who may be affected is limited to that period *(Article 16).* At any time and before the three-year consolidation period has elapsed, if it is demonstrated that the possessory title was raised against the laws in force, the Judge may decree in the original file the absolute nullity of the title and its respective registration in the Registry, and shall issue the corresponding execution order for that Office to cancel the entry. Once the three-year term from the registration of the title has elapsed, any action must be decided in an ordinary declaratory proceeding *(Article 17).* Consequently, by fulfilling a series of requirements *(Article 1),* among which the demonstration of ten-year possession as owner in a quiet, public, uninterrupted, and good faith manner over unregistered land stands out, the possessor can acquire the title required so that the ownership over the immovable property he has possessed under those conditions produces all legal effects, provided that it is not verified that one seeks to improperly title national vacant lands or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves *(Article 11).* Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the immovable property to which the information refers is comprised within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area (área silvestre) *(Articles 7 and 11).* Based on all the foregoing, the analysis of the contested acts shall be carried out.

**VIIo.- ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTESTED CONDUCT.** This Tribunal considers that the acts contested by the representation of the State—namely: cadastral plan number Placa27732; deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registry inscription of the property of the Guanacaste district, real estate folio registration number Placa27729 and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said immovable property during the legal validation period—are substantially contrary to the legal system, for the following reasons: **1) The immovable property subject to the process is a demanial asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) and of the Natural Patrimony of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado).** In accordance with the technical studies issued by the Cadastral and Registry Regularization Program (Programa de Regularización de Catastro y Registro), the Cadastral Division of the Sub-directorate of the Real Estate Registry (Registro Inmobiliario) and the Regional Directorate of the Tempisque Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Tempisque) of the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación), this Tribunal has held it as accredited that the land registered in the name of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. under registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral plan number Placa27732, <span style="text-decoration:underline;">is not only located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the canton of Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, but also forms part of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostiona</span>l *(see folios 17, 53 to 55, 57 to 62 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure).* It is worth highlighting that this circumstance was evident since January nineteen ninety-five, the date on which Associated Surveyor number 2694 drew up, in the name of Nombre141937 for the purposes of a use permit, the cadastral plan of that land, not only because the diagram shows that the immovable property is located within the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) *(see front of folio 15 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure),* but also because the approval (visado) issued by the General Forestry Directorate (Dirección General Forestal) that appears on the back of said cadastral plan clearly indicates that *“…Based on the location appearing on this plan in the name of Nombre141938 <span style="text-decoration:underline;">the immovable property is located within the OSTIONAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 7317 of 10-19-92 and Executive Decree No. Nombre141939 of 10-08-93.</span> It is also reported that this approval does not grant any authorization for possessory information procedures and it will correspond to Nombre141938 to grant the respective use permit. The registration of this plan is authorized for cadastral purposes…” (see back of folio 15 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure).* Consequently, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); 13 and 14 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal); 32 and 40 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and 58 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), this Tribunal considers that the immovable property registered under registration number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste district, with cadastral plan number Placa27732, constitutes a public domain asset and therefore, unseizable, imprescriptible, and inalienable, which forms part not only of the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the canton of Santa Cruz, province of Guanacaste, but also of the Natural Patrimony of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). **2) Regarding the creation of the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) and the provisions of Articles 7 of the Possessory Information Law (Ley de Informaciones Posesorias); 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre).** Although it is true that Article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information (Ley sobre Informaciones Posesorias) establishes that when the immovable property to which the information proceedings refer is comprised within a protected wilderness area (área silvestre protegida), whatever its management category, the title applicant must demonstrate being the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area (área silvestre); it is also true that this provision is not applicable to the specific case, for the reasons set forth below. By means of Transitory I of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) **(number 6919 of November 7, 1973)**, the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional) was created, which originally comprised the area of the two hundred meters of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo-terrestre), extending from the right bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta India. Subsequently, through Article 1 of **Executive Decree number 16531** of July 18, 1985, the area of the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Ostional) was expanded as follows: *“ The Ostional National Wildlife Refuge is expanded with the area of 200 meters, counted from the ordinary high tide, comprised from its left bank of the mouth of the Nosara River to Punta Guiones ”*, decree that **was published in La Gaceta number 183 of September twenty-six, nineteen eighty-five, and which came into effect upon its publication.** Finally, by Executive Decree number 22551 of September 14, 1993, the area comprising the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) was expanded again, *"…in such a way that henceforth it will comprise the area delimited by the following boundaries, according to the cartographic sheets Cerro Brujo; 3046-11 and Garza-3045-1, scale 1:50,000: Starting from Punta India, at coordinate 222550 N NIE121 (Sheet Cerro Brujo), follow southwest along the demarcation line of the public zone, in the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone, to Punta Guiones .v coordinates 210400 N NIE122 (Sheet Garza); continue due West, 3 nautical miles to the point of coordinates 210400 N and 347594.45 E; then follow in a northwest direction along a line parallel to the coast and distant from it 3 nautical miles, to the point of coordinates 218621.63 N and 342821.63 E; and from this point continue in a N 45° E direction to Punta India, origin of this delimitation (...) In order to organize the protection and use of natural resources, the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge shall be constituted by the following sectors: a) The Marine Sector comprising the territorial waters according to the previous delimitation, b) <span style="text-decoration:underline;">The Ostional Sector, comprising the main nesting site of the olive ridley turtle on Ostional Beach,</span> c) The Estuarine Wetland Sector comprising the mangrove areas and d) The Guiones Sector, comprising Playa Pelada and Playa Guiones…"*; **said decree was published in La Gaceta number 193 of Dirección8322 , and which came into effect upon its publication.** Now then, from the certified copy of judicial file number 06-00595-0388-CI, it is clear that the defendant company acquired from Nombre141940 , the right of possession over the unregistered immovable property with cadastral plan number Placa27732, by deed executed on July twenty-seven, two thousand six *(folios 36 and 37 of the judicial file)* and that it filed the possessory information proceedings before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz on November third, two thousand six *(folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file).* By reason of the foregoing, <span style="text-decoration:underline;">and taking into consideration that the Ostional Wildlife Refuge (Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional) was created by Law number 6919 of November 7, 1973, and its two expansions came into effect on September twenty-six, nineteen eighty-five, and October eighth, nineteen ninety-three,</span> it was necessary for the purposes of applying the provisions of Article 7 of the Law on Possessory Information (Ley sobre Informaciones Posesorias) that the defendant company demonstrate that it was the holder of the legal rights over the ten-year possession of the immovable property in dispute, exercised at least ten years prior to the effective date of the law or decree that created that wilderness area (área silvestre); **a requirement that is not possible to fulfill in this case, since the possession rights were transferred to Nombre141941 . S.A., on July twenty-seven, two thousand six.** Added to the foregoing, it is worth highlighting that by means of Law number 6043—which came into effect on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-seven—it was declared that the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) constitutes part of the national patrimony (patrimonio nacional), belongs to the State; is inalienable and imprescriptible and that the lands located there cannot be the object of possessory information procedures and individuals may not appropriate them nor legalize them in their name, by this or any other means (Articles 1 and 7 of the Law on the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone).

In view of the foregoing, the competent jurisdictional body shall reject the possessory information proceedings if it should verify that an attempt is being made to improperly title national vacant lands (baldíos nacionales) or lands belonging to any State institution, as well as forest reserves, national parks, or biological reserves (article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). In this case, it has been proven that the property with cadastral map number Placa27731, registered under title number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry, is located in the restricted area of the maritime-terrestrial zone (zona marítimo terrestre) of the canton of Santa Cruz (see folios 15, 17, 53 to 55 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure), which is why, and in accordance with the rules indicated above, it was also not possible for the defendant company to title said land through the possessory information proceedings, as was noted in the approval of cadastral map number G-256640-1995. For all the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal considers that the property with cadastral map G-256640-1995 could not be subject to titling through the possessory information proceedings, not only because it does not meet the exception requirements set forth in article 7 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, but also because it forms part of both the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the Natural Heritage of the State (Patrimonio Natural del Estado), pursuant to the provisions of articles 1, 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 261, 262, 277, 284 of the Civil Code.

• 3)Regarding the non-existence of a final ruling in the possessory information proceedings processed in file 06-00595-0388-CI and the impossibility of registering the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 in the Public Registry. From the certification issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, it is clear that although the defendant company filed possessory information proceedings on the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 on November three, two thousand six (folios 38 to 40 of the judicial file), it is also true that by ruling of nine fifty-two on November twenty-one, two thousand six, the Civil Court of Santa Cruz instructed the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. that —among other requirements— it had to provide, without any exception, "... the cadastral map CERTIFIED by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, through the responsible entity, which shall attest to whether the property to be titled is inside or outside protected wild areas...", all under warning that until it complied with everything ordered, its future petitions would not be addressed. That notwithstanding, said ruling was notified to Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., at nine forty-four on November twenty-three, two thousand six, via the fax system (see folios 41 to 43 of the judicial file), the defendant did not proceed to comply with said instruction, as is evident from the order of fourteen eleven on January thirteen, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz resolved: "...according to a detailed study of the proceedings, the present matter, it can be noted that there is an instruction which is set forth at folio 9, the same issued by this office at nine fifty-two on November twenty-one, two thousand six, and to date it has not been possible to resolve it. Thus, the request made in the aforementioned brief is left without effect and it is ordered to be added to the record without further pronouncement…" (see folio 45 of the judicial file). Consequently, the procedure set forth in articles 5, 9, and 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias was not fulfilled in this case —so much so, that neither was the edict published in the Judicial Gazette, nor were the interested parties, the Attorney General's Office, or the Institute of Agrarian Development notified of the existence of these possessory information proceedings—, inasmuch as the defendant company did not even comply with the instruction made by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz, which constituted a sine qua non requirement to continue with the possessory information proceedings for the property subject to the process. Due to the foregoing, it is improper that the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 should have been registered in the Property Registry in the name of the defendant company, not only because it is a public domain asset (bien demanial) that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone and the natural heritage of the State, but because said registration was based on deed number 108 issued by notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, on January nineteen, two thousand seven (see folios 23 to 25 of the judicial file), by which two rulings allegedly issued by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz were protocolized, namely: i) At nine o'clock on October nine, two thousand ten, in which said jurisdictional body supposedly approved the possessory information proceedings promoted by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., over the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995; ii) At eight o'clock on July twenty-seven, two thousand six, by which the Civil Court of Santa Cruz allegedly informs the Director of the Registry that it must proceed with the registration in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., of the land with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, by virtue of having approved the possessory information proceedings. In that regard, it should be noted that according to the provisions of article 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, if the judge approves the possessory information, a ruling shall be issued containing the description of the property and shall order that the requested registration be made in the Public Property Registry, without prejudice to third parties with a better right, by means of the corresponding certification of the ruling, once it is final. Consequently, the registration of a property through the possessory information procedure is carried out by means of the enforceable judgment (ejecutoria) that approves said proceedings and not through notarial protocolization of that ruling, as happened in this case, which is contrary to the provisions of articles 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 450, and 456 of the Civil Code. In addition to the above, the data contained in deed 108 of the fourth protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez do not correspond to what was resolved by the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in file number 06-00595-0388-CI —which, according to the certification issued by that Office, is the only possessory information file that has been processed there in favor of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. (see folios 30, 31, and 49 of the judicial file)—, not only because the dates of the rulings allegedly issued by that jurisdictional body that were protocolized in said deed are prior to November three, two thousand six —the date on which the proceedings were filed by the defendant (see folio 38 of the judicial file)— and to November twenty-one of that same year —the date on which the instruction that the defendant company did not comply with was issued (see folios 41 to 42 of the judicial file)—; but also because there is an inconsistency in the dates of the two protocolized rulings, given that the order in which the Registry is supposedly ordered to register the property —of eight o'clock on July twenty-seven, 2006 (folio 23 of the judicial file)—, is prior to the ruling in which the Court approves the possessory information proceedings, which —according to the notary's statement— was issued at nine o'clock on October nine, 2006 (see folio 23 of the judicial file). It is necessary to highlight that deed 108 that served as the basis for registration in the registry also records another piece of information that does not correspond to reality, as said document indicates that "...the edict was published in the Judicial Gazette, file number forty-two, of November three, two thousand six…" (see folio 25 of the judicial file), however, this Tribunal has deemed it proven that this did not happen, not only because the possessory information proceedings processed before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz did not reach that phase of the procedure (see folios 30 to 50 of the judicial file), but also because, through official letter number PUB-225-09 of July twenty-nine, two thousand nine, the Head of the Publications Department of the National Printing Office, states that: "...1) In the Judicial Gazette dated November 3, 2006, there is no publication emanating from the Civil Court of Santa Cruz in relation to possessory proceedings in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., or in the name of Mr. Nombre141932. 2) The information system registers only one publication in the name of Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., which refers to a deed published on December 15, 2005…" (see folios 66 to 68 of the judicial file). Finally, it should be noted that from certification number DAN-3223, issued by the Head of the Notarial Archive at eight forty-two on September eleven, two thousand nine, it is clear that from folio 70 verso to 73 recto of volume 4 of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, deeds number 106, 101, and 108 are recorded —respectively— and that the content of the latter does not correspond to the one presented to the Daily Registry, at thirteen forty on February fifteen, two thousand seven, and recorded in volume 570, entry 45185 (see folios 53 to 58 of the judicial file). Consequently, this Tribunal considers that there is a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private party, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also, because the possessory information proceedings that served as its support —processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz— were never approved, due to the fact that the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the instruction that was notified to them on November twenty-three, two thousand six. Due to the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the cadastral map number Placa27732; deed 108 of the fourth volume of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; and the act of registration of the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995 under real folio title number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are substantially non-conforming with the provisions of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Law; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry.
• 4)Regarding the constitution of mortgages on the property subject to the process during the validation period. It should be recalled that according to the provisions of articles 261 of the Civil Code and 170 of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code, assets of public ownership destined for common use and enjoyment shall not be subject to seizure, nor those directly linked to the provision of essential public services, or those that are indispensable or irreplaceable for the fulfillment of public purposes or services. Due to the foregoing and given that the property with cadastral map number G-256640-1995, registered under real folio title number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste Registry, constitutes a public domain asset that forms part of the maritime-terrestrial zone of the canton of Santa Cruz and the Natural Heritage of the State, it is contrary to law that in the period between April nineteen, two thousand seven, and March twenty-four, two thousand eight, six mortgages from first to sixth degree were registered, having as guarantee the property described above, which are already due, in view of the following entries: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; Placa27734 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936 (see folios 70 to 98 of the judicial file; 11 to 13 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure). It should also be noted that said mortgages were registered during the three-year validation period of the supposed possessory information over that asset, which began on February twenty-six, two thousand seven, and expired on February twenty-six, two thousand ten (see folio 11 of the judicial file of the precautionary measure), established by article 16 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. In that regard and given that this Tribunal declared the nullity of the titles that originated the registration of the property on which said mortgage guarantees were constituted, consequently the absolute nullity is also declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under real folio title number Placa27729 of the San José Registry, with cadastral map number Placa27735, granted by deeds number 205-74, volume 74 of the protocol, granted at fifteen o'clock on February twenty-eight, two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, by which a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, and whose term expired on September four, two thousand eight; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, granted at eleven o'clock on September four, two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, by which a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term expired on September four, two thousand eight; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at twelve thirty on November two, two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, by which a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, and whose term expired on November two, two thousand eight; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at eleven thirty on January ten, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, by which a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number Placa27736, and whose term expired on January ten, two thousand nine; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen o'clock on January twenty-one, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, by which a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, whose term expired on January twenty-one, two thousand nine; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, granted at fifteen forty on March thirteen, two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, by which a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, and whose term expired on March fifteen, two thousand nine. This is because they are substantially contrary to the provisions of articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the General Public Administration Law; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856, and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Law on Registration of Documents in the Public Registry and 34, 43, and 55 of the Regulations of the Public Registry. Due to the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions of articles 456 and 472 subsection 2) of the Civil Code, the cancellation of the following mortgage lien entries is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936, without prejudice to the rights of the good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of these guarantees the damages and losses that may be caused to them, all pursuant to the provisions of articles 1034, 1035, 1037, and 1038 of the Civil Code.
• 5)Referral of certified copies to the Public Prosecutor's Office. This Tribunal has deemed it proven that there is a titling of a public domain asset in favor of a private party, which is substantially contrary to the legal system, not only because it was carried out through a public deed in which the responsible notary attested to false information; but also, because the possessory information proceedings that served as its support —processed in file number 06-000595-0388-CI before the Civil Court of Santa Cruz— were never approved, due to the fact that the Office did not admit them for processing until the promoting company complied with the instruction that was notified to them on November twenty-three, two thousand six. While it is true that, in a brief dated January seven, two thousand ten, addressed to Deputy Attorney General Gloria Solano Martínez, the legal representative of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., stated: "...It is only through the legal proceeding filed by your represented party, that I become aware of all the illegal acts and falsehoods with which the real property registered in favor of my represented party was inscribed, for although I purchased the possession of the property; the seller and her husband were the ones who handled the pertinent procedures in order to bring about the possessory information…", it is also true that said statements do not prevent this Tribunal from referring certified copies to the Public Prosecutor's Office, given the seriousness of the facts subject to this lawsuit, and the possible criminal liability they may generate against the different subjects who participated in the granting of deed 108 of protocol four of notary public Brenes Álvarez and in the registration of both the property with cadastral map number Placa27732 under real folio title number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry, and the six mortgages constituted on said land, under entries Placa27737 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936.

By reason of the foregoing, certified copies of the record are ordered to be sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, for whatever it may deem appropriate. 6) On the nullity of the challenged acts. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court considers that the challenged acts —namely: the cadastral plan number Placa27732; public deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registration entry of the property of the district of Guanacaste, under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729; and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the statutory validation period— suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, being substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público and 34, 43 and 55 of the Reglamento del Registro Público. Consequently: a) It is declared that the property with cadastral plan number G-254460-1995, registered under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729 of the District of Guanacaste, constitutes a public domain asset that is unseizable, imprescriptible, inalienable and outside the realm of commerce, which is encompassed within the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional and forms part of the zona marítimo terrestre (maritime-terrestrial zone) and the Patrimonio Natural del Estado (State Natural Heritage). b) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral plan number G.256640-1995, surveyed in January of nineteen ninety-five, by Topógrafo Asociado number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937, identity card number CED111603, for the purposes of a use permit over the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194, province of Guanacaste; c) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol volume four granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine hours fifteen minutes on the nineteenth of January of two thousand seven, insofar as it protocolized the purported resolutions issued by the Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, at eight hours on the twenty-seventh of July of two thousand six, and at nine hours on the ninth of October of two thousand six, in the possessory information (información posesoria) proceedings brought by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., for the purpose of titling the property with cadastral plan number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197. The National Archive and the National Registry shall be notified of the annulments of the referenced notarial instruments, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been filed with the National Registry. d) It is declared that the property registered under the Real Folio System registration number Placa27728 was technically and juridically registered improperly in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597. e) The registration entries for the property registered under the Real Folio System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. f) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729 of the District of San José, with cadastral plan number Placa27735, granted by the following deeds: number 205-74, protocol volume 74, granted at fifteen hours on the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand seven, by notary public José A. Solórzano Solórzano, whereby a first-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on the fourth of September of two thousand eight; number 208, protocol volume 85, granted at eleven hours on the fourth of September of two thousand seven, by notary public David González Saborío, whereby a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on the fourth of September of two thousand eight; number 49, protocol volume 24, granted at twelve hours thirty minutes on the second of November of two thousand seven, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on the second of November of two thousand eight; number 80, protocol volume 24, granted at eleven hours thirty minutes on the tenth of January of two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on the tenth of January of two thousand nine; number 92, protocol volume 24, granted at fifteen hours on the twenty-first of January of two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on the twenty-first of January of two thousand nine; number 133, protocol volume 24, granted at fifteen hours forty minutes on the thirteenth of March of two thousand eight, by notary public María González Campos, whereby a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on the fifteenth of March of two thousand nine. The National Archive and the National Registry shall be notified of the annulments of the referenced notarial instruments, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been filed with the National Registry. g) The cancellation of the following mortgage lien citations is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936, preserving the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of said guarantees the damages and losses they may suffer, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 1034, 1035, 1037 and 1038 of the Civil Code; h) Certified copies of the record are ordered to be sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for whatever it may deem appropriate.

VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE PREREQUISITES. This Court reaches the conclusion that the State has sufficient active standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, given that it is the owner of the public domain asset that is the subject of this proceeding, and it is the one responsible for bringing the actions aimed at recovering, supervising and protecting the assets that form part of the zona marítimo terrestre and the Patrimonio Natural del Estado, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 50 of the Political Constitution, 1 and 4 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 of the Ley Forestal, 32 and 38 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 5 and 10 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 3.i of the Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., as provided for in Article 12, subsection 3) of the cited Code, given that the property subject to the proceeding was illegitimately titled in favor of said legal entity, which in turn constituted six mortgages on said land in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599; Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602. Moreover, the interest remains current, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution to settle it, given that, being a matter of recovery and protection of public domain assets, no statutes of limitations or expiration periods apply, as the actions available to the State for their effective recovery are imprescriptible. This is so due to the particular characteristics of this type of asset. This is expressly established in Articles 1 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 of the Ley Forestal, and Article 34, subsection 2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Finally, this collegiate body finds that there is no lack of right (falta de derecho) and consequently, the lawsuit filed by the State against Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., and with interested third parties Nombre141933, Nombre141934, Nombre122580, Nombre141935, Nombre141936, is granted in all its terms, since in accordance with everything set forth in Considerandos IV, V, VI and VII of this judgment, this Court concludes that the challenged acts —namely: the cadastral plan number Placa27732; public deed number 108 of volume four of the protocol of notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; the registration entry of the property of the district of Guanacaste, under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729; and the mortgage guarantees constituted on said property during the statutory validation period— suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, being substantially contrary to the provisions of Articles 11 and 50 of the Political Constitution; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, and 73 of the Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 and 14 of the Ley Forestal; 32 and 40 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 of the Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 and 860 of the Civil Code; 27 of the Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público and 34, 43 and 55 of the Reglamento del Registro Público.

IX.- ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE ORDERED IN ORAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2433-2010 OF 03-11-2009. While it is true that, by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on the third of November of two thousand nine, the Processing Judge resolved to maintain the provisional measures ordered by this office in resolution number 1468-2009 and additionally, "... the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days to the property in question, for the specific verification of the third point of the precautionary measure (medida cautelar), with the obligation to submit a report within the three days following the execution of said inspection, to the enforcing judge of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are accepted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative proceeding aimed at granting any right over property Placa27729 of the district of Guanacaste; likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property with registration number Placa27729 until the main proceeding is resolved.” (see folios 75 and 76 of the judicial file for the precautionary measure); it is also true that, applying the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 23 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and with the purpose of protecting the subject matter of this proceeding while this favorable resolution becomes final (adquiera firmeza), it is ordered that the precautionary measures ordered by the Processing Judge of this Court, by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on the third of November of two thousand nine, be maintained. These consist of: "... 1. The annotation of the present proceeding with the National Registry in the margin of the registration entry for property number 155180-000 of the district of Guanacaste. 2. The registry immobilization of property number 155180-000 of the district of Guanacaste. 3. The company owning the asset is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that implies the alteration of the current conditions of the property. Additionally, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days to the property in question, for the specific verification of the third point of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to submit a report within the three days following the execution of said inspection, to the enforcing judge of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are accepted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative proceeding aimed at granting any right over property Placa27729 of the district of Guanacaste; likewise, the Municipality of Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the property with registration number Placa27729...", modifying them solely with respect to the term of validity, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final.

X.- ON COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the very fact of losing. Dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate or when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth in the applicable regulations and break the principle of condemning the losing party. Therefore, both costs are imposed on the losing defendant party, as well as their respective interest, counted from the date this judgment becomes final until its effective payment, amounts which shall be settled in the enforcement of the judgment (ejecución de sentencia).

POR TANTO.

The lawsuit filed by the State against the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. is granted, in the following terms, being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted. Consequently: 1) It is declared that the property with cadastral plan number G-254460-1995, registered under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729 of the District of Guanacaste, constitutes a public domain asset that is unseizable, imprescriptible, inalienable and outside the realm of commerce, which is encompassed within the Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional and forms part of the zona marítimo terrestre and the Patrimonio Natural del Estado. 2) The absolute nullity is declared of cadastral plan number G.256640-1995, surveyed in January of nineteen ninety-five, by Topógrafo Asociado number 2694, in the name of Nombre141937, identity card number CED111603, for the purposes of a use permit over the property located in Ostional, Dirección17194, province of Guanacaste; 3) The absolute nullity is declared of public deed No. 108 of protocol volume four granted before notary public Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, at nine hours fifteen minutes on the nineteenth of January of two thousand seven, insofar as it protocolized the purported resolutions issued by the Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, at eight hours on the twenty-seventh of July of two thousand six, and at nine hours on the ninth of October of two thousand six, in the possessory information proceedings brought by Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., for the purpose of titling the property with cadastral plan number Placa27738, located in Dirección17197. The National Archive and the National Registry shall be notified of the annulments of the referenced notarial instruments, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the certified copies that may have been filed with the National Registry. 4) It is declared that the property registered under the Real Folio System registration number Placa27728 was technically and juridically registered improperly in favor of the company Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., legal identification number CED111597. 5) The registration entries for the property registered under the Real Folio System registration No. Placa27728, issued by the National Registry, are annulled. 6) The absolute nullity is declared of the mortgages constituted on the property registered under Real Folio System registration number Placa27729 of the District of San José, with cadastral plan number G-266640-1995, granted by deeds number 205-74, protocol volume 74, granted at fifteen hours on the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand seven, by notary public José A.

Solórzano Solórzano, by which a first-degree mortgage (hipoteca de primer grado) was constituted in favor of Nombre141933, identity card number CED111598, and whose term of validity expired on September 4, 2008; number 208, volume 85 of the protocol, executed at eleven o'clock on September 4, 2007, by notary public David González Saborío, by which a second-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on September 4, 2008; number 49, volume 24 of the protocol, executed at twelve thirty on November 2, 2007, by notary public María González Campos, by which a third-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre122580, identity card number CED111599, and whose term of validity expired on November 2, 2008; number 80, volume 24 of the protocol, executed at eleven thirty on January 10, 2008, by notary public María González Campos, by which a fourth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141934, identity card number CED111600, and whose term of validity expired on January 10, 2009; number 92, volume 24 of the protocol, executed at fifteen o'clock on January 21, 2008, by notary public María González Campos, by which a fifth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141935, identity card number CED111601, whose term of validity expired on January 21, 2009; number 133, volume 24 of the protocol, executed at fifteen forty on March 13, 2008, by notary public María González Campos, by which a sixth-degree mortgage was constituted in favor of Nombre141936, identity card number CED111602, and whose term of validity expired on March 15, 2009. The annulments of the referenced notarial instruments shall be communicated to the Archivo Nacional and the Registro Nacional, for the purposes of marginal annotations in the matrix of the respective protocols and the testimonials that may have been submitted to the Registro Nacional. 7) The cancellation of the following mortgage lien entries is ordered: 570-60946-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141933; 572-85988-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 573-64067-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre122580; 574-36041-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141934; 574-49696-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141935; 575-20496-01-0001-001 in the name of Nombre141936, preserving the rights of good-faith mortgage creditors to claim from the grantor of those guarantees the damages that may be caused to them, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1034, 1035, 1037, and 1038 of the Civil Code (Código Civil); 8) It is ordered to certify pieces to the Ministerio Público for their purview; 9) It is ordered to maintain the precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) ordered by the Processing Judge of this Court, by resolution number 2433-2009 issued orally on November 3, 2009, which consist of: "... 1. The annotation in the Registro Nacional of the present proceeding at the margin of the registration entry of property number Placa27729 of the Guanacaste registry. 2. The registration immobilization of property number 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry. 3. The company that owns the property is ordered to refrain from building, demarcating with fences or lanes, and carrying out any type of activity that involves the alteration of the current conditions of the real estate. Additionally, the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz is ordered to carry out an inspection every fifteen days of the property in question, for the specific verification of point three of the precautionary measure, with the obligation to present a report within the three days following the completion of said inspection, to the executing judge of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Furthermore, the requests made by the State are accepted and consequently MINAE is ordered to suspend any administrative procedure tending to grant any right over property 155180-000 of the Guanacaste registry; likewise, the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz is ordered not to grant construction permits on the real estate with registration number Placa27729 ...", modifying them only with regard to the term of validity, which shall be extended until this judgment becomes final; 10) The defendant company is ordered to pay both sets of costs, as well as their respective interest, running from the finality of this judgment until their effective payment, items that shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment.

José Roberto Garita Navarro Otto González Vílchez PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: EL ESTADO DEMANDADOS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A.

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 ________________________________________________________________________ PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: EL ESTADO DEMANDADOS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A.

Nº 2642 -2010 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEXTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Dirección144 . Goicoechea, a las diez horas del veintiuno de julio de dos mil diez.- Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho, interpuesto por el ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Adjunta GLORIA SOLANO MARTÍNEZ, mayor, abogada, vecina de Heredia, cédula de identidad número CED571, contra la empresa GANADERA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A. , cédula jurídica número CED111597, representada por Nombre141932 , en su carácter de Presidente con facultades de Apoderado Generalísimo sin límite de suma de esa empresa; y como terceros interesados a Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598; Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad CED111599; Nombre141934 , cédula número CED111600; Nombre141935 , cédula CED111601; Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Las pretensiones de la parte actora –que se mantuvieron durante la audiencia preliminar que se realizó a las trece horas treinta minutos del ocho de junio del dos mil diez-, son para que en sentencia “…1) Se declare que la finca del partido de Guanacaste número 155180, la cual corresponde al inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado G-256640-1995, se encuentra por completo dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre de Playa Ostional. Bien de dominio público que además forma parte del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional. 2) Se declare que la escritura número 108 que se encuentra en el tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez es absolutamente nula por carecer de todo fundamento jurídico y por hacer constar datos falsos y resoluciones del Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz inexistentes. 3) Se establezca que siendo nula esa escritura, lo es también la inscripción registral de la finca del partido de Guanacaste número 155180, y por lo tanto, que se ordene al Registro Nacional su cancelación. 4) Por incorporar terrenos pertenecientes al dominio público, es nulo también el plano catastrado G-256640-1995, por lo que pido que se ordene a la Dirección de Catastro Nacional cancelarlo. 5) Se disponga que son nulas también las garantías hipotecarias constituidas sobre él durante el plazo legal de convalidación, y por ende, se ordene al Registro Nacional cancelar los asientos de inscripción de las siguientes hipotecas: a. Cita 570-60946-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141933 . b. Cita 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 , c. Cita 573-64067-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre122580 . d. Cita 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 . e. Cita 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 . f. Cita 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 . 6) Además que se condene a la parte demandada al pago de ambas costas de este proceso, así como a los intereses generados hasta su efectivo pago”.

2.- Que por resolución número 2433-2009 dictada de manera oral a las diez horas cincuenta y siete minutos del tres de noviembre del dos mil nueve, el Juez Tramitador resolvió: “Se mantienen las medidas provisionales dictada s por este despacho en la resolución No. 1468-2009 que consisten en lo siguiente: 1. La anotación en el Registro Nacional del presente proceso al margen del asiento de inscripción de la finca número 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste. 2. La inmovilización registral de la finca número 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste. 3. Se le ordena a la empresa propietaria del bien, abstenerse de construir, deslindar con cercas o carriles y realizar cualquier tipo de actividad que implique la alteración de las condiciones actuales del inmueble. Adicionalmente, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz la realización de una inspección cada quince días al b ien en cuestión, para la verificación en concreto del punto tercero de la medida cautelar, con la obligación de presentar un informe dentro de los tres días siguientes a la realización de dicha inspección, a la jueza ejecutora del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Además se acogen las solicitudes formuladas por el Estado y en consecuencia se ordena al MINAE la suspensión de cualquier trámite administrativo tendiente a otorgar algún derecho sobre la finca Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, asimismo, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz no otorgar permisos de construcción en el inmueble matrícula Placa27729 hasta tanto no se resuelva el proceso principal.” 3.- Que por resolución de las catorce horas cuarenta minutos el diecinueve de noviembre del dos mil nueve (folios 99 y 100 del expediente judicial), el Juez Tramitador dio traslado a la demanda. Dicho auto fue notificado a Nombre122580 , a las ocho horas del once de diciembre del dos mil nueve; a Nombre141933 , Nombre141935 y Nombre141934 , a las once horas del diez de diciembre del dos mil nueve; a Ganadería Campo Bonito, a las once horas del quince de diciembre del dos mil nueve y, a Nombre141936 , a las diez horas treinta minutos del siete de enero del dos mil diez (folios 102 a 107 del expediente judicial).

4.- Que por resolución de las once horas veinticinco minutos del ocho de febrero del dos mil diez (folio 108 del expediente judicial), el Juez Tramitador resolvió: a) No tener por contestada la demanda dentro del plazo concedido al efecto por auto de las catorce horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del diecinueve de noviembre del dos mil nueve; b) De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 65 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, declaró en rebeldía a la empresa Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 y Nombre141933 , y tuvo por contestada afirmativamente la demanda en cuanto a los hechos, sin perjuicio de que pudieran comparecer en cualquier estado del proceso, tomándolo en el estado en que se encuentre; c) Se prescindió de la audiencia de conciliación, dado que la representante del Estado expresó con antelación su renuncia a conciliar en este asunto, por lo que, se convocó a las partes a audiencia preliminar, fijada para las trece horas treinta minutos del ocho de junio del dos mil diez.

5.- Que la audiencia preliminar se celebró a las trece horas treinta minutos del ocho de junio del dos mil diez, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y corre agregada al expediente en un legajo especial. Que durante esta audiencia el Juez Tramitador dejó constancia de la inasistencia del representante de la empresa demandada y de los terceros interesados; mantuvo las pretensiones planteadas por la parte actora, en los términos indicados en el resultado primero de esta sentencia; tuvo por ciertos todos los hechos en razón de la declaratoria en rebeldía de la parte demandada; admitió la prueba documental pertinente. En consecuencia, como no había prueba testimonial ni pericial por evacuar y conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 98.2 del mismo Código, declaró este asunto de puro derecho y la parte actora rindió en forma oral sus conclusiones (ver folios 111 del expediente judicial y respaldo audiovisual de la audiencia preliminar).

6.- Que este asunto fue remitido a la Jueza Ponente de la Sección Sexta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, el veintitrés de junio del dos mil diez (folio 111 vuelto del expediente judicial). En los procedimientos ante este Tribunal no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión y la sentencia se dicta dentro del plazo establecido en los artículos 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en relación con el inciso 4) del artículo 82 del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción.- Redacta la jueza Álvarez Molina, con el voto afirmativo de los jueces Garita Navarro y González Vílchez; y, C O N S I DE R A N D O:

Io.- SOBRE LA OBLIGACIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL DE ANALIZAR EL DERECHO Y LA PRETENSIÓN DE LA ACTORA, ASÍ COMO LOS PRESUPUESTOS DE FONDO, PESE A LA DECLARATORIA DE REBELDÍA DE LA EMPRESA DEMANDADA. Es importante, de previo al análisis de fondo de la presente resolución, establecer que este Tribunal, como órgano jurisdiccional qué es, tiene la obligación de revisar, analizar y de determinar si el derecho y las pretensiones alegadas por la parte actora tienen sustento jurídico, así como resolver los presupuestos de fondo, aunque exista, como en el presente caso, una declaratoria de rebeldía por la no contestación de la demanda por parte de los representantes de la empresa Ganadería Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 y Nombre141933 (folio 108 del expediente judicial), más aún en este caso, en que los representantes de la empresa demandada y de los terceros interesados tampoco comparecieron a la audiencia preliminar que se celebró a las trece horas treinta minutos del ocho de junio del dos mil diez (ver folio 111 del expediente judicial y respaldo audiovisual de la audiencia preliminar). Lo indicado se sustenta en los siguientes fundamentos: 1) La jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, ha indicado, pese a que se presentó esa línea jurisprudencial, en el contexto de la vigencia de la antigua Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa y del Código Procesal Civil, pero que no deja de tener aplicación a la legislación procesal contenciosa administrativa vigente, que la declaratoria de rebeldía no enerva la potestad del órgano jurisdiccional de recabar prueba y verificar el cuadro fáctico, entre otros aspectos relevantes, tal y como claramente se desprende de la siguiente resolución de esa Sala:

“IX.- Sobre la no contestación de la demanda: Ciertamente la no contestación de la demanda conduce a la rebeldía y a tener por contestados afirmativamente los hechos, pero no enerva la potestad del juez de recabar prueba y verificar el cuadro fáctico. Pero además, el rebelde puede apersonarse en cualquier tiempo al proceso y ofrecer nuevas pruebas (arts. 293 y 310 C.P.C.), que si son pertinentes para el esclarecimiento de los hechos puede el juez admitirlas para mejor resolver. Por consiguiente la rebeldía no es por si sola suficiente para la acreditación definitiva de los hechos, solo alcanza este valor si otras pruebas de igual linaje no contradicen la contestación ficta. Por eso la rebeldía debe ser valorada con el resto de elementos probatorios obrantes en el proceso”.(Voto 801-F-02 de las 11 horas 10 minutos del 18 de octubre del 2002). Así las cosas, no bastaría con la contestación en rebeldía para acoger los pedimentos de la reconvención, si otros elementos de juicio conllevan, bajo la aplicación de las reglas de la sana crítica, a constatar que no existen los presupuestos legales necesarios para acoger las pretensiones rogadas." (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, resolución número 991-F-2004 de las quince horas veinte minutos del diecisiete de noviembre del año dos mil cuatro).

De lo dicho en esta resolución, se puede extraer que el órgano jurisdiccional, puede y debe tomar su resolución con base en los elementos probatorios que consten en el expediente y no tener por probado un cuadro fáctico y las pretensiones del actor, por la simple declaratoria de rebeldía. 2) La actora, de conformidad con los artículos 58, 82, 85 y 120 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y el 317 del Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria en esta materia por permitirlo el artículo 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, tiene la carga de probar su derecho y pretensiones, independientemente de si la parte demandada haya o no contestado la demanda, el simple hecho de existir una declaratoria de rebeldía no enerva la obligación del actora de probar su derecho. 3) En la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, existe una obligación de los jueces, establecida en el artículo 49 de la Constitución Política, de garantizar la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado, de sus instituciones y de toda otra entidad de derecho público, que evidencia que en esta materia, más que en otras, los jueces están obligados a revisar la conducta de la Administración Pública, para determinar si se ha ajustado o no al ordenamiento jurídico. 4) De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 65 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el demandado que no conteste dentro del emplazamiento, de oficio se le declarará rebelde y se tendrá por contestada afirmativamente la demanda en cuanto a los hechos, sin perjuicio de pueda apersonarse, en cualquier tiempo, tomando el proceso en el estado en que se encuentre. Ahora bien, aunque de conformidad con el artículo 93 inciso 1 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, no se admitirá prueba cuando exista conformidad acerca de los hechos, la norma prevé una excepción y se da cuando precisamente dicha conformidad con los hechos se haya dado por la declaratoria en rebeldía del demandado. En consecuencia, el juez no puede asumir que no hay controversia y prescindir de la prueba, pues debe buscar la verdad real conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 82 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y por el control de legalidad que tiene por objeto la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa (artículo 49 de la Constitución Política y 1 del Código de rito), por ende, la rebeldía no se asimila a la figura del allanamiento. Por todo lo expuesto, es criterio de este Tribunal, que por las razones expuestas anteriormente en este caso, este órgano colegido debe proceder a analizar los presupuestos de fondo, los hechos y las pretensiones de la demanda, a efectos de determinar si tienen o no sustento jurídico, pese a que en este asunto el representante de la empresa demandada y los terceros interesados no contestaron la demanda y se les declaró en estado de rebeldía, que como se ha indicado líneas atrás, no enerva la posibilidad de este tribunal de revisar, analizar y determinar si la demanda presentada por el Representante del Estado se encuentra o no ajustada a derecho.

IIo.- HECHOS PROBADOS: Se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos que resultan relevantes para este proceso: 1) Que en enero de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, el Topógrafo Asociado número 2694, emitió un plano catastrado a nombre de Nombre141937 , cédula de identidad número CED111603, para efectos de un permiso de uso sobre el inmueble situado en Ostional, distrito Cuajiniquil, cantón Santa Cruz, provincia Guanacaste (ver folio 15 frente del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 2) Que el veinticuatro de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, el Departamento de Reservas Forestales, Zonas Protectoras y Cuencas Hidrográficas de la Dirección General Forestal de Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, hizo constar en el dorso de dicho plano catastrado, que con “…base en la ubicación que aparece en este plano a nombre de Nombre141938 el inmueble se ubica dentro del REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 7317 del 19-10-92 y el Decreto Ejecutivo No. Nombre141939 de 08-10-93. Asimismo se informa que este visado no da autorización alguna para trámites de informaciones posesorias y corresponderá al Nombre141938 otorgar el respectivo permiso de uso. Se autoriza para efectos catastrales la inscripción de este plano…” (ver folios 15 vuelto del expediente judicial de medida cautelar y 17 del expediente judicial); 3) Que el treinta de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, se registró en el Catastro Nacional bajo número G-256640-95, el plano catastrado a nombre de Nombre141937 , cédula de identidad número CED111603, para efectos de un permiso de uso sobre el inmueble situado en Ostional, Dirección17194 , , provincia Guanacaste (ver folio 15 frente del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 4) Que a las nueve horas del veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis, el notario público Henry Miguel Vega Cruz, otorgó la escritura número 86, tomo cuarto del protocolo, mediante la cual, Nombre141940 , cédula de identidad CED111604, vendió a la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., cédula jurídica número CED111597, un derecho de posesión sobre un terreno sin inscribir en el Registro, situado en Ostional, distrito Cuajiniquil, cantón Santa Cruz, provincia Guanacaste, que linda al norte con Nombre141937 , al sur con zona pública del Océano Pacífico, al este y al oeste con el MIRENEM, con plano catastrado número G-256640-95 (ver folios 36 y 37 del expediente judicial); 5) Que el tres de noviembre del dos mil seis, el representante legal de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., planteó ante el Juzgado Civil y de Trabajo de Santa Cruz, diligencias de información posesoria sobre el inmueble situado en Ostional, Dirección17195 , , provincia Guanacaste, que linda al norte con Nombre141937 , al sur con zona pública del Océano Pacífico, al este y al oeste con el MIRENEM, con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, a fin de que en sentencia se declarara el derecho de posesión y se emita el m andamiento respectivo para su inscripción en el Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. Que dichas diligencias de información posesoria, fueron tramitadas bajo expediente número 06-000595-0388-CI ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz (ver folios 30, 31, 38 a 40 del expediente judicial); 6) Que por auto de las nueve horas cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis, el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, le previno a la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. que –entre otros requisitos- debía aportar sin excepción alguna “… el plano catastrado CERTIFICADO por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, por medio del ente encargado, el cual dará fe de si el inmueble que se pretende titular se encuentra dentro o fuera de áreas silvestres protegidas…”, todo bajo apercibimiento de que hasta que no cumpliera todo lo ordenado, no se atenderían sus gestiones futuras. Que dicha resolución fue notificada a la Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., a las nueve horas cuarenta y cuatro minutos del veintitrés de noviembre del dos mil seis, mediante el sistema de fax (ver folios 41 a 43 del expediente judicial); 7) Que el quince de febrero del dos mil siete, el notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, presentó ante el Departamento del Diario del Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, la escritura número 108, folio 70 vuelto, tomo 4 de su protocolo, otorgada a las nueve horas quince minutos del diecinueve de enero del dos mil siete, mediante la cual, se protocolizó la resolución presuntamente dictada por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, a las nueve horas del nueve de octubre del dos mil seis, en la cual, supuestamente se aprobaban las Diligencias de Información Posesoria promovidas por la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. Que en dicha escritura también se consignó, que el edicto respectivo se había publicado en el “…Boletín Judicial, expediente número 42, del tres de noviembre del dos mil seis…” (ver folios 22 a 31 del expediente judicial); 8) Que el documento de protocolización de lo presuntamente resuelto por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, que ocupa el tomo 570, asiento 45185 del Diario de Registro de Bienes Inmuebles, originó el veintiséis de febrero del dos mil siete, la inscripción del inmueble bajo matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número Placa27730, descrito como terreno dedicado a cultivo, ubicado en el Dirección17196 , , provincia Guanacaste, que linda al norte con Nombre141937 , al sur con calle pública con 50 metros de frente, al este y al oeste con el MIRENEM. Que el plazo de convalidación previsto en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, iniciaba el veintiséis de febrero del dos mil seis y concluía el veintiséis de febrero del dos mil diez (ver folios 22 a 28, 60 a 64 del expediente judicial; 10 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 9) Que el primero de marzo del dos mil siete, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 205-74, tomo 74 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil siete, por el notario público José A. Solórzano Solórzano, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598, hipoteca de primer grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número G-256640-95, que fue inscrita el diecinueve de abril del dos mil siete al tomo 570, asiento 60946, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el veintiocho de febrero del dos mil ocho (ver folios 70 a 74 del expediente judicial y 11 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 10) Que el veinte de setiembre del dos mil siete, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 208, tomo 85 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas del cuatro de setiembre del dos mil siete, por el notario público David González Saborío, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600, hipoteca de segundo grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número G-256640-95, que fue inscrita al tomo 570, asiento 85988, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho (ver folios 76 a 79 del expediente judicial y 11 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 11) Que el dos de noviembre del dos mil siete, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 49, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las doce horas treinta minutos del dos de noviembre del dos mil siete, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad número CED111599, hipoteca de tercer grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número G-256640-95, que fue inscrita al tomo 573, asiento 64067, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el dos de noviembre del dos mil ocho (ver folios 81 a 83 del expediente judicial y 12 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 12) Que el quince de enero del dos mil ocho, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 80, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas treinta minutos del diez de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600, hipoteca de cuarto grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número Placa27731, que fue inscrita el trece de marzo del dos mil ocho, al tomo 574, asiento 36041, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el diez de enero del dos mil nueve (ver folios 85 a 88 del expediente judicial y 12 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 13) Que el veinticuatro de enero del dos mil ocho, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 92, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiuno de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre141935 , cédula de identidad número CED111601, hipoteca de quinto grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número Placa27731, que fue inscrita al tomo 574, asiento 49696, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el veintiuno de enero del dos mil nueve (ver folios 90 a 93 del expediente judicial y 12 a 13 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 14) Que el veinticuatro de marzo del dos mil ocho, se presentó al Diario del Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, la escritura número 133, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas cuarenta minutos del trece de marzo del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., constituyó a favor de Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602, hipoteca de sexto grado sobre el inmueble matrícula número Placa27728 del partido de Guanacaste, plano catastrado número G-256640-95, que fue inscrita al tomo 573, asiento 64067, consecutivo 01, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el quince de marzo del dos mil nueve (ver folios 95 a 98 del expediente judicial y 13 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 15) Que por resolución de las catorce horas once minutos del trece de enero del dos mil nueve, el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz resolvió “…según el estudio detallado de los autos, el presente asunto, se puede notar que tiene una prevención la cual se ventila a folio 9, misma que se dictó por este despacho a las nueve horas y cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis y a la fecha la misma no se ha podido disipar. Así las cosas, se deja (sic) efecto lo solicitado en el memorial supracitado y se ordena agregar a sus antecedentes sin mayor pronunciamiento…” (ver folio 45 del expediente judicial);16) Que por oficio número PUB-225-09 del veintinueve de julio del dos mil nueve, el Encargado del Departamento de Publicaciones de la Imprenta Nacional, indica que: “…1) En el Boletín Judicial de fecha 3 de noviembre del año 2006, no existe publicación alguna emanada del Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz en relación a procesos posesorios a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., o a nombre del señor Nombre141932 . 2) El sistema de información registra únicamente una publicación a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., la cual se refiere a escritura publicada el día 15 de diciembre del 2005…” (ver folios 66 a 68 del expediente judicial); 17) Que por oficio número DRIM-CT-401-2009 del seis de agosto del dos mil nueve, el Subdirector a.i. del Registro Inmobiliario División Catastral, indicó que el plano G-256640-1995 se encuentra -con base en la ubicación geográfica-, “…dentro del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional y dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre, en los 150 m de zona restringida…” (ver folios 53 a 55 del expediente judicial de la medida cautelar); 18) Que por oficio número ACT-OR-DR-983 del once de agosto del dos mil nueve, el Director Regional a.i. del Área de Conservación Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, indicó que: “…el inmueble número de catastro Placa27731 a nombre de Nombre141937 , se encuentra del Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional (…) Esta propiedad se ubica en el sector norte del Refugio, el cual es utilizado por las tortugas baulas y negras para anidación, posiblemente debido a que se presenta pocas construcciones y con ello menor incidencia de luces y ruido (…) De acuerdo a la revisión del expediente, el Área de Conservación no tiene ninguna solicitud o permiso a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., Nombre141932 o Nombre141937 …”. En dicho inmueble existe una casa de habitación construida con block de concreto, láminas de fibrolit y techo de zinc y el solar de la casa está cerrado con reglas de madera; hay áreas de potreros delimitados con cercas de alambre de púas, postes de madera y colindando con la zona pública cercas de piñuelas, en los cuales existe ganado vacuo y equinos (ver folios 57 a 62 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); 19) Que por auto dictado a las catorce horas dos minutos del veinticinco de agosto del dos mil nueve, el Juzgado Civil de Mayor Cuantía de Santa Cruz, resolvió: “…Se le hace saber a la representante estatal que el suscrito verificó el Sistema Informático de Gestión Judicial que al efecto conlleva (sic) este despacho con el fin de verificar si existen expedientes de información posesoria a nombre de la Ganadería Campos Bonito ORM SA, sin embargo, en el mismo se desprende que solamente existe el presente asunto. Consecuentemente se le hace saber a dicho órgano que las resolución (sic) de las ocho horas del veintisiete de junio del dos mil seis y de las nueve horas del nueve octubre del dos mil seis no existe. Por medio de certificación procédase a remitir copia certificada del presente asunto…”. Que dicha resolución fue notificada a la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., a las doce horas cincuenta y un minutos del treinta y uno de agosto del dos mil nueve, por medio del sistema de fax (ver folios 30 a 31, 49 a 50 del expediente judicial); 20) Que a las ocho horas cuarenta y dos minutos del once de setiembre del dos mil nueve, la Jefa del Archivo Notarial emitió la certificación número DAN-3223, mediante la cual, se certifica que del folio 70 vuelto al 73 frente del tomo 4 del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, constan las escrituras número 106, 101 y 108 –respectivamente- (ver folios 53 a 58 del expediente judicial); 21) Que por escrito del siete de enero del dos mil diez, dirigido a la Procuradora Adjunta Gloria Solano Martínez, el representante legal de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., indicó: “…No es sino, con el proceso de conocimiento planteado por su representada, que tengo conocimiento de todas (sic) los ilícitos y falsedades con las que se inscribió el bien inmueble inscrito a favor de mi representada, p u es si bien compré la posesión del inmueble; la vendedora y su esposo, fueron quienes se encargaron de los trámites pertinentes a fin de dar con lugar la información posesoria (…) y por ello, aunque esto resulte en grave perjuicio económico para esta representación, estoy totalmente de acuerdo, ya sea en traspasar, devolver o solicitar la cancelación del asiento registral que dio nacimiento a la finca objeto de este proceso (…) Que para lo anterior, solo requiero y por tanto solicito, un plazo prudencial de tiempo, de al menos 6 meses, a efecto de cancelar en debida forma los créditos hipotecarios que constan en el Registro, y que son de conocimiento de su institución, pues todos los acreedores allí constantes, lo fueron de buena fe…” (ver folios 112 y 113 del expediente judicial).

IIIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. La parte actora estima que deben anularse los siguientes actos: el plano catastrado número Placa27732; la escritura número 108 que se encuentra en el tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; la inscripción registral de la finca del partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 y las garantías hipotecarias constituidas sobre dicho inmueble durante el plazo legal de convalidación, por las siguientes razones: 1) Si bien es cierto, la empresa demandada planteó ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz diligencias de información posesoria, sobre el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, que se tramitaron en expediente número 06-000595-0388-CI, también lo es, que ni siquiera se admitieron para su trámite, toda vez que la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., nunca cumplió la prevención hecha por el órgano jurisdiccional mediante auto de las nueve horas cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis; 2) Que en razón de lo anterior, no podía existir una sentencia protocolizada, ni tampoco una publicación en el Boletín Judicial, como tampoco las resoluciones de las ocho horas del veintisiete de junio y de las nueve horas del nueve de octubre, ambas del dos mil seis, toda vez que éstas son anteriores no sólo a la fecha de interposición de las diligencias de información posesoria –a saber: tres de noviembre del dos mil seis-, sino también, al auto de las nueve horas cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del mismo año, mediante el cual, se hizo la prevención respectiva a la empresa demandada; 3) En consecuencia, al no existir el trámite previo de información posesoria ante el órgano jurisdiccional competente, la información contenida en la escritura número 108 que se encuentra en el tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, no sólo es falsa, sino que además, no podía servir como fundamento para el acto de inscripción del inmueble con plano catastrado número Placa27732, bajo matrícula de folio real Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, por lo que dicha inscripción también debe anularse; 4) Debe tomarse en consideración que el inmueble es de dominio público. No sólo porque se encuentra ubicado en la zona marítimo terrestre, sino también, porque forma parte del Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional, razón por la cual, era imposible dadas las características de inembargabilidad, imprescriptibilidad e inalienabilidad, que dicho inmueble fuera inscrito a nombre de un tercero y de que se constituyeran garantías hipotecarias sobre el mismo; 5) Si bien es cierto, existió un período en que podía titularse un inmueble ubicado en zona marítimo terrestre, también lo es, que no es aplicable al caso concreto, toda vez que las diligencias de información posesoria fueron interpuestas hasta el tres de noviembre del dos mil seis; 6) En ese sentido, aún y cuando la empresa actora hubiera continuado con el trámite de las diligencias de información posesoria, era imposible que el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz procediera a la titulación del inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, no sólo porque se encuentra en el área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre, sino también, porque dicho terreno forma parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, pues fue incorporado al Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional.

IVo.- EL PATRIMONIO NATURAL DEL ESTADO COMO EXPRESIÓN DEL DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL A UN AMBIENTE SANO Y ECOLÓGICAMENTE EQUILIBRADO, RECONOCIDO Y TUTELADO POR EL DERECHO DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN. Considera este órgano colegiado que, previo al examen de legalidad de las conductas administrativas cuya nulidad se reclama, es necesario referirse, de modo general, al Patrimonio Natural del Estado, como un bien demanial. En ese sentido, debe señalarse que mediante la resolución No. 0063-2009, dictada por esta Sección, a las 16 horas del 19 de enero de 2009, se indicó en lo que interesa para el dictado de esta sentencia, lo siguiente: "....Reconocimiento constitucional del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En Costa Rica, el reconocimiento y tutela en el Derecho de la Constitución del citado derecho fundamental no tiene como punto de partida la reforma al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, dispuesta por Ley número 7412 del tres de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro. Lo anterior toda vez que ya que desde la promulgación del texto constitucional en el año 1949, la voluntad del Constituyente fue clara al establecer en el artículo 89, que: “Entre los fines culturales de la República están: proteger las bellezas naturales, conservar y desarrollar el patrimonio histórico y artístico de la Nación, y apoyar la iniciativa privada para el progreso científico y artístico”; lo cual, se complementa con la tajante declaración contenida en el artículo 21, en el sentido de que en nuestro país, “La vida humana es inviolable”. La integración de lo dispuesto en ambos artículos implica, que la necesidad de preservar el medio ambiente –aunque en esa época el Constituyente utilizara el término de bellezas naturales-, trasciende una finalidad de carácter meramente cultural, para convertirse en una necesidad vital de todo ser humano, pues constituye un presupuesto esencial para hacer efectivos otros derechos fundamentales como lo son: la vida, la salud y el desarrollo. (véanse en ese sentido, las sentencias número 1993-03705 de las quince horas del treinta de julio de mil novecientos noventa y tres; 1993-06240 de las catorce horas del veintiséis de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres; 1993-04423 de las doce horas del siete de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres, 1994-02485 de las nueve horas dieciocho minutos del veintisiete de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, todas de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). En ese sentido, cabe recordar que el Derecho de la Constitución está compuesto no sólo por el texto constitucional, sino también por los valores y principios que informan y permean su contenido, como también por los Tratados Públicos, los Convenios Internacionales y los Concordatos debidamente aprobados por la Asamblea Legislativa, así como también, por los Instrumentos Internacionales sobre Derechos Humanos aplicables en la República (ver artículos 1, 7, 21, 50 de la Constitución Política; 1 y 3 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitución Política). Aunado a ello, las normas escritas y no escritas que conforman el Derecho a la Constitución, se caracterizan por ser de aplicación directa e inmediata, por lo que, sus destinatarios no sólo tienen el derecho de hacerlas efectivas en vía administrativa y jurisdiccional, si estiman que por acción u omisión han sido menoscabadas, sino que además, ello implica que los operadores del derecho tienen el deber de aplicarlas de forma directa e inmediata en su proceso de toma de decisiones, a efecto de cumplir los requerimientos constitucionales (véase lo considerado por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en sentencia número 1999-00644 de las once horas veinticuatro minutos del veintinueve de enero de mil novecientos noventa y nueve). Si se toma como base lo dispuesto en los artículos 7, 48 de la Constitución Política y, 1 y 3 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, podemos afirmar que aún y cuando el texto constitucional no hubiese contenido normas relativas al reconocimiento y tutela del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, ese derecho y deber correlativo no sólo ya existían en el derecho interno costarricense, sino que además su tutela efectiva era exigible tanto a nivel doméstico como internacional. Ello en virtud de que el Estado Costarricense había suscrito una serie de Convenios, Tratados e Instrumentos Internacionales relacionados con esta materia, antes de que por Ley número 7412 del tres de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, se reformara el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, instrumentos entre los que destacan: el “Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales” (artículos 2.1, 12.1 y 12.2.c); el “Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en Materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales” (artículo 11); la “Convención para la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural”, suscrita en París el 23 de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y dos y, aprobada por Ley número 5980 del veintitrés de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y seis; la “Convención para la Protección de la Flora, de la Fauna y de las Bellezas Escénicas Naturales de los Países de América”, adoptada en Washington el tres de marzo de mil novecientos setenta y tres y aprobada por Ley número 3763 del diecinueve de octubre de mil novecientos setenta y seis; la “Convención Relativa a los Humedales de Importancia Internacional Especialmente como Hábitat de Aves Acuáticas”, suscrito en Ramsar el dos de febrero de mil novecientos setenta y uno, y aprobado por Ley número 7224 de mil novecientos noventa y uno; el “Convenio de Viena para la Protección de la Capa de Ozono”, adoptado en Viena el veintidós de marzo de mil novecientos ochenta y cinco, y aprobado por Ley número 7228 de veintidós de abril de mil novecientos noventa y uno, y su “Protocolo de Montreal Relativo a Sustancias Agotadoras de la Capa de Ozono”, suscrito en Montreal el dieciséis de setiembre de mil novecientos ochenta y siete, y aprobado por Ley número 7223 del dos de abril de mil novecientos noventa y uno; la “Convención de la ONU sobre el Derecho del Mar”, suscrita en Montego Bay el diez de diciembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, y aprobada por Ley número 7291 publicada el quince de julio de mil novecientos noventa y dos, entre otras. Todas esas normas internacionales se integraron al derecho interno costarricense de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 y 48 de la Constitución Política y, 1 y 3 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, por lo que, “...todos estos instrumentos internaciones son de obligado acatamiento y gozan de plena ejecutoriedad en tanto sus normas no precisen de mayor desarrollo legislativo y por ende deben ser respetadas (...) en tanto el rango normativo de aquéllas es superior...” (Sentencia número 1993-06240 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia a las catorce horas del veintiséis de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres). Desarrollo Infraconstitucional del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Sin duda, el reconocimiento y tutela del citado derecho fundamental, provocó el desarrollo infraconstitucional de aquel, por medio del dictado de normas legales o reglamentarias en las que se regulan diversas manifestaciones del mismo, las cuales fueron emitidas mucho antes de la reforma al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Como ejemplo de ello tenemos: la Ley de Aguas (No. 276 del 27 de agosto de 1942; Ley de Planificación Urbana (No. 4240 del 15 de noviembre de 1978, la Ley Forestal (No. 4465 del 25 de noviembre de 1979, ya derogada); la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre (No. 6043 del 2 de marzo de 1977); la Ley General de Salud (No. 5395 del 30 de octubre de 1973); la Ley de Creación del Servicio de Parques Nacionales (No. 6084 del 24 de agosto de 1977); la Ley de Salud Animal (No. 6243 del 2 de mayo de 1978); la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (No. Placa27733 del 21 de octubre de 1992), entre otras. Lo anterior implica, que antes de la reforma al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, el derecho fundamental a que hemos hecho referencia no sólo estaba reconocido y tutelado en el Derecho a la Constitución, sino también, se había desarrollado –aunque de manera sectorial y no con visión de conjunto- a nivel legal y reglamentario. En virtud de lo hasta ahora expuesto, este Tribunal estima que la reforma al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, no hizo sino reconocer de manera expresa y claramente individualizada, un derecho fundamental que ya estaba consagrado y garantizado por el Derecho de la Constitución; declarar en forma expresa, los alcances de la ya preexistente obligación del Estado, respecto a garantizar, defender y preservar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y otorgar a las personas plena acción para defenderlo, a través de una acción popular (ver sentencias número 1994-01394 de a las quince horas veintiún minutos del dieciséis de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, y 1994-05527 de las diez horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintitrés de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, ambas de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). Consecuencias del reconocimiento de la garantía del artículo 50 constitucional en los términos explicados. Dicho reconocimiento lleva aparejado dos aspectos relevantes para la resolución del presente proceso. Primero. La imposición de un deber, tanto para el Estado –entendido como Administración Central y Descentralizada- como para los mismos sujetos de derecho privado, de garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho. Segundo. El establecimiento de una serie de mecanismos de carácter técnico jurídico para lograr una tutela efectiva de ese derecho, tanto a nivel administrativo como jurisdiccional. En cuanto al primero de estos aspectos, cabe indicar que “La incidencia que tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado dentro de la actividad del Estado, y congruentemente de las municipalidades (téngase presente el artículo 169 constitucional), encuentra su primera razón de ser en que por definición los derechos no se limitan a la esfera privada de los individuos sino que tienen asimismo trascendencia en la propia estructura del Estado en su papel de garante de los mismos y, en segundo término, porque la actividad del Estado se dirige hacia la satisfacción de los intereses de la colectividad. La Constitución Política establece que el Estado debe garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho. Prima facie garantizar es asegurar y proteger el derecho contra algún riesgo o necesidad, defender es vedar, prohibir e impedir toda actividad que atente contra el derecho, y preservar es una acción dirigida a poner a cubierto anticipadamente el derecho de posibles peligros a efectos de hacerlo perdurar para futuras generaciones. El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales...” (sentencia No. 1999-00644 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las 11:24 horas once horas del 29 de enero de 1999). En ese sentido, “...La acción que la Constitución Política impone al Estado frente a los focos de contaminación ambiental es multidireccional y definitivamente activa, absolutamente intolerante frente a situaciones que amenazan o afectan las condiciones ambientales óptimas que están garantizadas por ella misma a los habitantes. Desde esta perspectiva no es permitido a la autoridades públicas hacer concesiones o conceder prórrogas para que se continúe afectando el medio ambiente, aún y cuando ello se haga con miras a traer beneficios económicos a una zona geográfica determinada...” (sentencia No. 1999-05906 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia a las 16:15 horas del 28 de julio de 1999). Ese deber constitucional del Estado de velar por la protección, defensa y preservación del medio ambiente, se desarrolla y manifiesta, entre otras, en las siguientes normas: artículos 1, 2.a. 2.c, 2 párrafo último, 3, 12, 28, 32, 34, 37, 56, 59, 78, 83, 103 a 112 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; artículos 1, 2, 9.4, 12, 22 a 30, 45, 49, 54, 86, 88 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 34, 122 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre; 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 37, 54 de la Ley Forestal; 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 29 a 33, 37 de la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos; 13.a ,13.o del Código Municipal; 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 1, 2 de la Ley General de Salud; 1, 2, 17, 175, 176 de la Ley de Aguas; 15,18, 19, 51, 56, 58.5, Transitorio II de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Ahora bien, ese deber no sólo se circunscribe al Estado en su conjunto, sino también a los sujetos de derecho privado, quienes tienen el derecho a gozar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, pero también, a garantizarlo, preservarlo y defenderlo, tal y como se desprende, entre otros, de los artículos 1 párrafo primero, 2.a, 6, 22, 23, 99, de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 10.2, 10.13, 11.4, 88 95, 101, 105 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 15, 28 a 30, 36 a 38, 51 53, 62 a 64, 83, 88 a 121 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre; 57 a 66 de la ley Forestal; 37, 40, 41 a 45, 51 a 53 de la Ley de Uso, Manejo y Conservación de Suelos; 14 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; como también, de las sentencias número 1999-02219 de las quince horas dieciocho minutos del veinticuatro de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y nueve; 1999-05906 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia a las dieciséis horas quince minutos del veintiocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, entre otras. En cuanto al segundo aspecto, relacionado con el establecimiento de una serie de mecanismos de carácter técnico jurídico para lograr una tutela efectiva de ese derecho, tanto a nivel administrativo como jurisdiccional, este Tribunal considera que dichos medios de tutela pueden clasificarse en dos grandes grupos: procesales y materiales. Es preciso aclarar, que si bien es cierto, se hará referencia a ejemplos concretos relacionados con cada uno de los criterios de clasificación antes indicados, la intención de este Tribunal no es la de establecer una lista de números clausus, sino únicamente resaltar por medio de dichos ejemplos, aspectos que tienen incidencia en el objeto de este proceso. En ese sentido, dentro del grupo de los mecanismos de tutela de índole procesal, cabe resaltar tres ejemplos: 1) La legitimación amplia que le otorga a toda persona el párrafo segundo del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política y el artículo 105 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, para denunciar tanto en vía administrativa como jurisdiccional, las conductas que infrinjan el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y para reclamar el daño causado. Cabe resaltar que en principio, la legitimación en materia ambiental se originaría en una simple habilitación normativa sin que de por medio exista un derecho o un interés de carácter individual, colectivo o difuso, no obstante, este Tribunal estima que en el fondo lo que cada persona pretenderá tutelar es un derecho que forma parte de su esfera vital y de cuya garantía, defensa y preservación efectiva, depende que pueda desarrollarse y vivir conforme al principio de dignidad humana (ver artículo 2.a de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, en el sentido de que el ambiente es patrimonio común de todos los habitantes de la Nación). 2) Un sistema de medidas cautelares innominado y de ser necesario, de naturaleza anticipada (artículos 108 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, 42 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y 19 a 30 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). 3) La aplicación de los principios rectores en materia ambiental, a saber: in dubio pro natura, preventivo y precautorio, como medios para garantizar la tutela efectiva del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por ende, para evitar que su existencia esté restringida al plano semántico de la realidad jurídica (ver artículos 4.c, 17 y 34 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 11 incisos 1 y 2 , 92 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, principio 15 de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Río y entre otras, la sentencia número 1999-01250 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las once horas veinticuatro minutos del diecinueve de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y nueve). En ese sentido, el operador del derecho siempre deberá tomar en consideración que “...cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente...”. Por otra parte, en el grupo de los mecanismos de tutela de índole material, resultan muy representativas las dos siguientes manifestaciones: 1) La evaluación del Impacto Ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, como requisito sine qua non para iniciar actividades, obras o proyectos, que puedan alterar o destruir elementos del ambiente o de la biodiversidad, o generar residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos. Dicho requisito se encuentra vigente desde el 13 de noviembre de 1995, fecha en que se publicó la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. También se encuentra regulado en los artículos 92 a 97 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; artículo 14 de la Convención sobre la Diversidad y sus Anexos I y II; principio 17 de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, Declaración de Río; artículo 18 de la Ley Forestal; Reglamento General sobre Procedimientos de Evaluación Ambiental (Decreto Ejecutivo número 31849- MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC), entre otros. Al respecto, la jurisprudencia constitucional ha dispuesto que “...el hecho de que se reconozcan tanto el derecho a la salud como el derecho a gozar de un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, como derechos fundamentales, obliga a la Sala a precisar que la solución del problema no puede estar fundamentado en soluciones rápidas; que, para adoptar una decisión en este campo, debe contarse con los estudios técnicos que la solución que se propone, en cada caso concreto, no será el origen de un problema de salud pública o de alteración indebida al ambiente...” (Entre otras, la sentencia No. 1995-02671 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las 16:45 minutos del 24 de mayo de 1995). En ese sentido, “...no es posible que el Estado ejecute o autorice la ejecución de proyectos sobre los cuales existe duda en cuanto al impacto negativo que puedan generar al ambiente. En consecuencia, la omisión de efectuar un estudio de impacto ambiental previo, se traduce en una violación del artículo 50 constitucional...” (sentencia No. 1999-02219 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las 15:18 horas del veinticuatro de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y nueve). 2) La existencia de bienes propios de la Nación –como les denomina el texto constitucional-, los que al formar parte del dominio público, se caracterizan por ser inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables, por lo que, su desafectación o aplicación a usos públicos, está reservada a la Ley, conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 14 párrafo primero de la Constitución Política. Dentro de esos bienes cuya conservación constituye un asunto de interés público ambiental (artículo 11. de la Ley de Biodiversidad), se encuentran: el ambiente definido en el artículo 2.a) de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, como patrimonio común de todos los habitantes de la Nación; la Zona Marítimo Terrestre (artículos 1 y 73 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre); el Patrimonio Natural del Estado (artículos 13 a 18 de la Ley Forestal); la Fauna y la Flora Silvestre (artículos 3 y 4 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre); las Aguas conforme al desglose contenido en el artículo 1 de la Ley de Aguas. Sobre el Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Conforme al objeto del proceso que nos ocupa, este Tribunal centrará su análisis en el Patrimonio Natural del Estado (PNE). Dado los términos del reconocimiento del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, como ya fueron explicados, es menester resaltar que la Ley Forestal No. 4465 ya citada ( y que fuera derogada por la Ley Forestal número 7575 del 5 de febrero de 1996), no sólo contenía “...como función esencial y prioridad del Estado, velar por la protección, conservación, el aprovechamiento, la industrialización, la administración y el fomento de los recursos forestales del país, de acuerdo con el principio de uso racional de los recursos naturales renovables...” (artículo 1), sino también, los conceptos de Bosque (artículo 6) y de Patrimonio Forestal del Estado (artículo 32 párrafo primero). En cuanto al Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, la Ley No. 4465 establecía sus características (artículo 33); los órganos competentes para administrar y fiscalizar el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado, que conforme a esa normativa eran la Dirección General Forestal y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (artículo 32 párrafo segundo), así como las potestades conferidas a estos órganos para efectos de proteger y conservar el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado. Entre estas últimas, conviene destacar las siguientes: 1) Las acciones reinvindicatorias de esos inmuebles (artículo 33), 2) La constitución dentro del Patrimonio Natural del Estado de reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, parques nacionales, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre y reservas biológicas (artículos 35 a 37); 3) El deslinde en los terrenos de las áreas que conforman el Patrimonio Forestal del Estado (artículo 38). Por otra parte, en la Ley Forestal No. 7575 hoy vigente, se retoma ese concepto pero con una variación en el nombre, pues ahora se le denomina Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Dicho término es más amplio toda vez que abarca la protección y preservación del ecosistema boscoso (artículo 3 inciso c de la Ley Forestal). El Patrimonio Natural del Estado es de dominio público, razón por la cual, los terrenos y bosques comprendidos en él son inembargables, imprescriptibles e inalienables. Asimismo, su conservación y administración están confiadas por ley al Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET), a través del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), tal y como lo disponen los artículos 6.a, 13 párrafo segundo y 14 de la citada Ley Forestal y el numeral 32 párrafo segundo de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. El PNE está integrado por dos importantes componentes: 1) Las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo y que se hayan declarado por Ley o por Decreto Ejecutivo, a saber: reservas forestales, zonas protectoras, parques nacionales, reservas biológicas, refugios nacionales de vida silvestre, humedales y monumentos naturales (Ley No. 7575, artículo 1°, párrafo 2°, 3° inciso i; Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, artículo 32; Ley de Biodiversidad, artículo 22 y siguientes y 58; Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, artículo 3° incisos. d y f, en relación con la Ley Orgánica del MINAE y su Reglamento; Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, artículo 82, inciso a); 2) Los demás bosques y terrenos forestales de las áreas inalienables, de las fincas inscritas a su nombre y de las pertenecientes a las Municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y demás organismos de la Administración Pública, que tienen una afectación legal inmediata, excepto aquellos inmuebles que garanticen operaciones crediticias con el Sistema Bancario Nacional e ingresen a formar parte de su patrimonio (artículo 13 párrafo primero de la Ley Forestal). Cabe resaltar que, tanto las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas como el resto de áreas boscosas y terrenos de aptitud forestal comprendidas en la zona marítimo terrestre, están excluidas del ámbito de regulación de la Ley No. 6043 y por ende, de la competencia de la Municipalidades, como se ampliará posteriormente. Se encuentran estas zonas sujetas a su propia legislación (Ley Forestal), lo cual implica, que su administración compete al Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, a través del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (ver en este sentido la sentencia número 2008-16975 dictada por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las catorce horas cincuenta y tres minutos del doce de noviembre del dos mil ocho). Ahora bien, como parte de los deberes que les competen al MINAET y al SINAC para la conservación y protección del Patrimonio Nacional del Estado, están: 1) el ejercicio de la acción reinvindicatoria del PNE, que es imprescriptible (artículo 14); 2) delimitar en el terreno, los linderos que conforman el Patrimonio Natural del Estado (artículo 16); 3) coordinar con el Registro Nacional, el establecimiento de un catastro forestal, cuyo objetivo será regular las áreas comprendidas dentro del PNE y las que se sometan voluntariamente al régimen forestal (artículo 17); 4) La Administración Pública no puede permutar, ceder, enajenar de ninguna manera, entregar o dar en arrendamiento, terrenos rurales de su propiedad o bajo su administración, sin que antes se hayan clasificado por el MINAET, por lo que, si estuvieran cubiertos de bosque, automáticamente quedarían incorporados al Patrimonio Natural del Estado (artículo 15). Con base en todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal llega a las siguientes conclusiones relevantes en el caso concreto. Primero Al constituirse el medio ambiente como Patrimonio Común de todos los habitantes de la Nación, el Patrimonio Natural del Estado constituye una especie de ese género (artículos 50 párrafo segundo, 89, 121 inciso 14 párrafo primero de la Constitución Política, 2 inciso a) de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 1 de la Ley de Biodiversidad y 13 de la Ley Forestal). Segundo. Existe una afectación legal inmediata al Patrimonio Natural del Estado, de todos aquellos terrenos comprendidos en las áreas silvestres protegidas, en las áreas declaradas inalienables –como la zona marítimo terrestre (artículo 73 de la Ley 6043)-, en los terrenos de aptitud forestal y en las fincas inscritas a nombre del Estado, de las Municipalidades, Instituciones Autónomas y demás entidades de la Administración Pública Descentralizada. Tercero. El Patrimonio Natural del Estado no requiere de una declaratoria expresa dado que, conforme a lo establecido en los artículos 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal, así como lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional en sentencias 1992-03789 y 1997-04587, las zonas boscosas, los terrenos con aptitud forestal, los manglares y los humedales comprendidos dentro de las áreas inalienables, como la zona marítimo terrestre, quedan afectadas de forma inmediata a este Patrimonio, sin concurrencia de la Administración. Cuarto. En consecuencia, la delimitación de los linderos de las áreas que conforman el Patrimonio Natural de Estado, conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 16 de la Ley Forestal, constituye una potestad que el MINAET, a través del SINAC, debe ejercer de oficio y no sólo a instancia de parte. Ello no sólo en aplicación del deber que le imponen los artículos 21, 50 párrafo segundo y tercero, y 89 de la Constitución Política, de garantizar, preservar y conservar el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, sino también, porque la ley no indica que la delimitación deba realizarse sólo a instancia de parte. No se justifica, a juicio de este órgano que el Estado pueda alegar válidamente la falta de recursos para tal efecto, como reiteradamente ha sostenido la jurisprudencia constitucional (ver entre otras, las sentencias 1995-00915 de las dieciséis horas seis minutos del quince de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y cinco; 1996-000695 de las quince horas cuarenta y dos minutos del siete de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y seis) Quinto. En consecuencia, la clasificación que realice el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, respecto del tipo de ecosistema existente en los inmuebles comprendidos dentro del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, constituye una mera categorización de aquellos, conforme a los criterios de clasificación dispuesto en el artículo 13 párrafo primero de la Ley Forestal y el Decreto Ejecutivo número 34295-MINAE, a saber: bosques, terrenos de aptitud forestal, humedales, manglares, entre otros. Sexto. Es evidente que el Estado tiene el deber -tanto a nivel constitucional como legal- de garantizar, defender y proteger las zonas boscosas, los terrenos de aptitud forestal, los manglares, los humedales, entre otros, comprendidos en las áreas inalienables -como en este caso, la Zona Marítimo Terrestre- que por el simple hecho de tener ese carácter, quedaron afectadas de manera directa y automática al Patrimonio Natural del Estado. Por lo que, el resultado de la clasificación de la clase de ecosistema existente en dichas áreas -que debe realizarse de oficio y no sólo a instancia de parte, a fin de que tomar las medidas necesarias para lograr su protección y conservación efectivas-, no es el que determina su incorporación o no al Patrimonio Natural del Estado, pues por ley ya habían quedado afectadas a aquel, en virtud de tratarse de zonas inalienables." (Ver en el mismo sentido, la resolución No. 1842-2009, dictada por la Sección Sexta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo a las 7 horas 30 minutos del 31 de agosto de 2009). De las sentencias citadas es menester destacar algunos aspectos que resultan de vital importancia en la resolución del caso concreto. Sin duda, el Estado tiene una obligación constitucional y legal, de garantizar, defender y preservar el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y darle a todas las personas los instrumentos para defender este derecho fundamental. En ese tanto, es indispensable el uso de mecanismos de carácter técnico y científicos en la toma de decisiones que involucren la materia ambiental. Ahora bien, el Patrimonio Natural del Estado es parte del dominio público, en virtud no solo de la afectación constitucional según se ha explicado, sino también por disposición expresa del legislador en distintas leyes, actualmente en la Ley Forestal. Así las cosas, el Patrimonio Natural del Estado se encuentra protegido por el régimen especial aplicable a los bienes demaniales conforme al cual, por su vocación y destino, están fuera del comercio del ser humano, son inalienables, imprescriptibles e inembargables (artículo 262 del Código Civil) . Como consecuencia de ello, no es posible su dominio o posesión, ni a título gratuito ni oneroso; no pueden perderse por prescripción, así como tampoco, ganarse por usucapión. Desde esta perspectiva, su posesión por parte de particulares no causara derecho alguno a su favor. Son bienes que están sujetos al poder de policía, en lo atinente a su aprovechamiento y uso, ya que están condicionados al otorgamiento de las respectivas licencias y permisos y al control y fiscalización por parte de la Administración. Finalmente, cuenta el Estado con una serie de instrumentos procesales para la recuperación de este tipo de bienes, cuando han salido, ilegítimamente, del dominio público. Por otra parte, el Patrimonio Natural del Estado se encuentra constituido, entre otros, por los inmuebles que se encuentren ubicados en áreas declaradas inalienables, como es el caso de la zona marítimo terrestre (ver artículos 13 de la Ley Forestal; 1 y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). En estos supuestos, los terrenos ubicados en la zona marítimo terrestre no podrán ser objeto de informaciones posesorias y los particulares no podrán apropiarse de ellos ni legalizarlos a su nombre, por ese u otro medio (ver artículos 7 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 y 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias) .

Vo.- BREVES CONSIDERACIONES SOBRE LA ZONA MARÍTIMO TERRESTRE. Resulta también relevante para la resolución del presente asunto, algunas consideraciones en cuanto a la zona marítimo terrestre, relacionadas con los siguientes aspectos. Concepto. El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, define esta zona como la franja de 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 las líneas de la pleamar ordinaria y los terrenos y rocas que deje el mar en descubierto en la marea baja. Comprende las islas, islotes y peñascos marítimos así como toda tierra con formación natural que sobresalga del nivel del océano dentro del mar territorial de la República. Se exceptúa la Isla del Coco que estará bajo el dominio y posesión directa del Estado y aquéllas otras islas cuyo dominio o administración se determinen en dicha ley o en leyes especiales. Zonas que integran la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Conforme al numeral 10 de la misma Ley, puede indicarse que la zona marítimo terrestre se compone de dos secciones: 1) La zona pública, que es la fraja de cincuenta metros de ancho a contar de la pleamar ordinaria y las áreas que quedan al descubierto durante la marea baja, así como los islotes, peñascos y demás área pequeñas y formaciones naturales que sobresalgan del mar. Asimismo, según lo indica el canon 11 de la citada Ley, constituye zona pública, sea cual fuere su extensión, la zona ocupada por todos los manglares de los litorales continentales e insulares y esteros del territorio nacional. 2) La zona restringida, constituida por la franja de los ciento cincuenta metros restantes o por los demás terrenos en casos de islas, y sobre la cual, como se verá, pueden otorgarse concesiones. Tal y como lo señala el artículo 1 de la mencionada Ley, la zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del Patrimonio Nacional, pertenece al Estado y es inalienable e imprescriptible. Ello ha permitido afirmar con toda precisión el carácter demanial y público de dicha zona y como consecuencia de ello, su imprescriptibilidad, irrenunciabilidad, inalienabilidad, así como que se encuentre fuera del comercio de l a s personas . Es por ese carácter de bien demanial, que los terrenos ubicados en la zona marítimo terrestre no podrán ser objeto de informaciones posesorias y los particulares no podrán apropiarse de ellos ni legalizarlos a su nombre, por ese u otro medio (ver artículos 7 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 7 y 11 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). Ahora bien, el hecho que se trate de un bien de dominio público no significa que los particulares, en una situación de sujeción especial, no puedan hacer uso de aquélla, más bien todo lo contrario: como se ampliará más adelante, mediante una concesión ( en la zona restringida) los particulares pueden aprovechar la zona marítimo terrestre. Es importante destacar que, conforme al artículo 12 de la Ley de marras, en la zona marítimo terrestre es prohibido sin la debida autorización legal, explotar la flora y la fauna existentes deslindar con cercas, carriles o en cualquier otra forma, levantar edificaciones o instalaciones, cortar árboles extraer productos o realizar cualquier otro tipo de desarrollo, actividad u ocupación. Administración y tutela de la zona marítimo terrestre: Como ya se indicó, la zona marítima terrestre pertenece al Estado. Sin embargo, es claro que conforme a la ya citada Ley 6043, sobre esta zona confluyen competencias de distintos órganos y entes. En sentido, es posible distinguir ámbitos competenciales que involucran, en lo que este proceso atañe, al Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, Municipalidades, Procuraduría General de la República. En este punto, cabe resaltar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, las zonas marítimo terrestres, incluidas como en este caso, en parques nacionales y reservas equivalentes, se regirán por la legislación respectiva, por lo que, serán administradas por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y Telecomunicaciones , de acuerdo a lo previsto en los artículos 32 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y 13 párrafo segundo de la Ley Forestal.

VIo.- ALGUNAS GENERALIDADES SOBRE LAS DILIGENCIAS DE INFORMACIÓN POSESORIA Y LOS REQUISITOS PARA ADQUIRIR POR USUCAPIÓN UN INMUEBLE. En la sentencia número 1997-04587 de las quince horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del cinco de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y siete, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, consideró respecto al régimen general de la usucapión, regulado en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, lo siguiente:

“…RÉGIMEN GENERAL DE LA USUCAPIÓN: En principio, debe indicarse que las diligencias de información posesoria reguladas en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias No.139 de 14 de julio de 1941 y sus reformas, son un procedimiento judicial no contencioso por medio del cual se formaliza un título de propiedad de bienes inmuebles inscribible en el Registro Público. En general, con ese procedimiento se pretende que los poseedores que carecen de título inscribible en el Registro Público, lo obtengan. El artículo 1 de esa Ley dispone que para que el poseedor de bienes raíces solicite el otorgamiento del título con base en el procedimiento de información posesoria, deberá demostrar una posesión por más de diez años con las condiciones que señala el artículo 856 del Código Civil, a saber, en calidad de propietario, continua, pública y pacífica. Los anteriores requisitos de tiempo y condición, caracterizan la posesión necesaria para usucapir. Para obtener la propiedad de los bienes inmuebles por prescripción positiva, además de la posesión en las condiciones indicadas, el artículo 853 del Código Civil señala como requisitos: el título traslativo de dominio y la buena fe. De lo anterior y de lo dispuesto en el artículo 8 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, que caracteriza el procedimiento de información posesoria como un proceso judicial no contencioso -en el que al surgir un reclamo u oposición de alguna persona o del Estado, provoca que el asunto se suspenda y se remita a la vía declarativa para su discusión y solución, o que se archive el expediente y se tenga por agotada la vía administrativa, respectivamente-, se desprende que la titulación del bien inmueble tiene como requisito la adquisición de la propiedad. O sea, que se distingue el momento de adquisición de la propiedad por usucapión del momento en que esa situación se hace valer en el procedimiento de información posesoria para obtener un título inscribible en el Registro Público. De ahí que se considere la usucapión como un modo de adquisición de la propiedad y de otros derechos reales poseíbles, y a la titulación como el procedimiento por medio del cual, comprobados los requisitos de la usucapión, se confiere el título de propiedad inscribible.

La usucapión es un modo originario de adquirir un derecho real poseíble por el transcurso del tiempo con los requisitos de ley. El efecto jurídico adquisitivo de la usucapión se produce de manera automática con el transcurso del tiempo unido a una posesión hábil que reúna las condiciones fijadas para la posesión ad usucapionem, y a los demás requisitos establecidos en la ley. En términos generales, el Código Civil establece como requisitos para la prescripción positiva: el título traslativo de dominio, la buena fe, y la posesión en condiciones específicas.

En cuanto al título hábil para usucapir la doctrina ha dicho que lo que se requiere es un negocio jurídico de adquisición del derecho poseído. El título es el hecho que sirve de causa a la posesión y, en consecuencia, a la adquisición de la propiedad. Es el fundamento jurídico, la razón determinante de la adquisición. La usucapión supone, en su origen, un acto o una serie de actos por los cuales una persona adquiere sobre una cosa una posesión que normalmente debería ir aparejada a un derecho sobre el bien, pero eso no sucede, por lo que el título de la usucapión coincide con el acto de adquisición posesoria. El título debe ser justo, lo que obliga a su validez y conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico (lícito). La jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (véanse resoluciones números 92 de las 10:00 horas del 21 de junio de 1991 y 68 de las 14:55 horas del 17 de agosto de 1994) señala al respecto que para la usucapión, el artículo 853 del Código Civil exige título traslativo de dominio, posesión y buena fe, pero en el numeral 854 aclara que se requiere justo título, lo que lo caracteriza no como documento sino como causa de adquisición; que el artículo 854 excluye la prueba del justo título en tres hipótesis: bienes muebles, servidumbres y derecho de posesión; que en estos casos el hecho de la posesión hace presumir el título; que tratándose del derecho de posesión el título no es necesario porque la posesión vale por título; que no se debe pedir título a quien adquiere originalmente como producto de una toma de posesión en que no tiene ningún transmitente y en que su causa de adquisición encuentra tutela en el ordenamiento; que para el caso anterior el título se confunde con la posesión, el título es la posesión; que el carácter de justo del título radica en el hecho de que sea lícito, y para el caso ad usucapionem, significa que la posesión debe reunir los requisitos de pública, pacífica, continua, y en calidad de verdadero titular; que cuando el Código Civil exige título traslativo de dominio o la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias obliga a su presentación junto con otros documentos necesarios para la tramitación del expediente, se refieren exclusivamente al caso en que el usucapiente no ha sido el poseedor originario, sino que ha adquirido de otro poseedor; que en ese caso si se requiere demostrar documentalmente el título; que el artículo 101 de la Ley de Tierras y Colonización No.2825 de 14 de octubre de 1961 y sus reformas señala que cuando media usucapión no es necesario el título traslativo de dominio exigido por el Código Civil.

En cuanto al requisito de la buena fe, la jurisprudencia (véanse las resoluciones de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia números 230 de las 16:00 horas del 20 de julio de 1990 y 68 de las 14:55 horas del 17 de agosto de 1994) ha señalado que de acuerdo con el artículo 853 del Código Civil, la buena fe es un requisito de la usucapión que debe estar presente para que ésta exista; que si los presupuestos de la buena y mala fe se encuentran en el artículo 285 del Código Civil, la regla para declarar la mala fe es su plena demostración por quien alega su existencia, pues el artículo 286 del mismo Código adquiere carácter prevalente respecto del 285, al establecer el principio de presunción de la buena fe; que la buena fe atañe a la convicción personal del sujeto sobre su legitimidad; que debe hablarse de creencia que se genera en virtud de ignorancia o error; la buena fe cumple en la posesión el objetivo de garantizar ciertos derechos al poseedor -adquisición de frutos, pago de mejoras, derecho de retención, y no responsabilidad por la pérdida o el deterioro de la cosa-; que para la buena fe general -requisito de la posesión- es necesaria la ignorancia o el error en cuanto a la existencia de un vicio que invalida el título o modo de adquirir; que en cuanto a la buena fe necesaria para la usucapión, que comprende a la general, se requiere la creencia de que el transmitente del título es propietario de la cosa transmitida o que tiene el poder de realizar esa transmisión.

Ahora bien, como último requisito contemplado en el artículo 853 para la prescripción positiva se tiene la posesión. La esencia del instituto de la usucapión está ligado con la disciplina de la posesión. Al ejercicio de la posesión durante un plazo determinado y en condiciones especiales -pública, pacífica, continua y en calidad de titular del derecho ostentado-, se suman los requisitos que el ordenamiento establece para la usucapión, justo título y buena fe. La posesión como derecho real implica la relación entre una persona y la cosa. Constituye uno de los elementos separados que forman el dominio (artículo 264 Código Civil). El derecho de posesión puede ser adquirido independientemente del dominio pleno bajo ciertas circunstancias que el Código Civil regula en el artículo 279 -por consentimiento del propietario, por el hecho de conservar la posesión por más de un año y porque la ley autorice al acreedor a retener la cosa de su deudor o mande que todos o algunos de sus bienes pasen a un depositario-. El derecho de posesión en general se integra con dos elementos: el corpus y el animus. El primero, referido específicamente al hecho material de tener sometida la cosa al poder -acción- y la voluntad de una persona, y el segundo, relacionado con un aspecto interno que guía al poseedor. A esos elementos se deben sumar otras circunstancias especiales que la ley exige para que la posesión resulte útil para usucapir. En ese sentido, la posesión ad usucapionem es una forma más rigurosa o calificada de posesión que se diferencia de la genérica. Los requisitos que la ley exige para que la posesión sea apta para la prescripción positiva se regulan en el artículo 856 del Código Civil. La jurisprudencia, integrando conceptos doctrinarios, ha desarrollado el contenido de esos requisitos. En ese sentido, en relación con la posesión en calidad de propietario se ha señalado que lo que el Código Civil quiere decir es posesión en calidad de titular del derecho ostentado, toda vez que la propiedad no es el único derecho que se puede adquirir por prescripción positiva, por lo que este requisito atiende al título o causa determinante de la posesión y a su posterior modo de ejercicio; que lo que interesa es el comportamiento del poseedor como titular -la materialización de una conducta como titular-, que excluye a todo aquel poseedor con causa no usucapible como el arrendatario, administrador, depositario o servidor de la posesión; que, con base en ese requisito, también se excluyen los actos ejecutados en virtud de licencia y los meramente tolerados, porque no pueden conducir a la constitución o adquisición de la posesión, y menos de la usucapión, dado que se producen por la liberalidad del verdadero titular y no del que se muestra como tal; que la cualidad de ejercer la posesión en concepto de titular del derecho que se usucape se comprende en cuanto califica al sujeto apto y desecha al no idóneo; que esa calificación, en línea de máximas, coincide con el título, por lo que esa condición puede ser llevada a identificar la causa jurídica misma con la posesión. En cuanto al requisito de continuidad de la posesión se entiende que los actos posesorios deben ser ininterrumpidos, o sea, que no deben realizarse en forma aislada o accidental; que esa situación se debe mantener durante todo el tiempo necesario para la usucapión; que el vicio se produce cuando se da alguna de las causas de interrupción de la posesión, porque en esos supuestos todo el tiempo corrido se inutiliza; que siendo la interrupción un vicio, la continuidad se presupone -artículo 283 del Código Civil-, y el que alega la existencia del vicio debe probarla. En relación con la posesión pacífica se dice que implica el no adquirirla o mantenerla por la fuerza (medios de coerción física o moral); que la posesión obtenida con violencia se transforma en pacífica cuando cesa la causa generada de la nueva titularidad, y se convierte en útil para usucapir -artículo 857 del Código Civil-; que no se está en presencia de una posesión violenta cuando el poseedor defiende la posesión -evita que se la arrebaten-, pero eso no ampara la acción violenta del despojado de acudir a las vías de hecho para recuperar su posesión, aunque legalmente le corresponda, porque mientras otro se oponga, deberá acudir a la autoridad judicial -artículos 305 y 317 del Código Civil-. En cuanto al último requisito de la posesión ad usucapionem, sea, la publicidad, la doctrina señala que la posesión pública es el uso normal de la cosa con arreglo a su naturaleza y destino. La jurisprudencia, por su parte, ha señalado que la posesión debe ejercerse frente a todos, sin ocultar o esconder los actos realizados sobre la cosa; que además es importante no ocultar la condición de titular del derecho con la que se posee; que el vicio que se contrapone a la publicidad es la clandestinidad; que la posesión que inicialmente ha sido oculta puede llegar a ser idónea para usucapir si se convierte en pública. (…)

En cuanto al concepto del objeto de la posesión, lo importante a los efectos de resolver esta acción de inconstitucionalidad es precisar que son susceptibles de posesión -y de la especial ad usucapionem- las cosas que se encuentran dentro del comercio. Se dice que comercio equivale a lo que se conoce como tráfico jurídico, por lo que las cosas están dentro del comercio cuanto se encuentran en posibilidad legal de ser objeto de un negocio jurídico patrimonial. El artículo 262 del Código Civil establece que las cosas públicas se encuentran fuera del tráfico patrimonial. Por su parte, el artículo 261 ibídem define las cosas públicas como las que por ley están destinadas, de modo permanente, a cualquier servicio de utilidad general, y las que todos pueden aprovechar por estar entregadas al uso público. El dominio público se entiende actualmente como una intervención intensa del poder público justificada por la necesidad de asegurar el efectivo cumplimiento, por parte de las cosas, de un fin público querido por el derecho. En ese entendido, la cosa pública se concibe como una relación jurídica constituida por el ordenamiento que consiste en un deber de la Administración de establecer y mantener una función pública cuya realización requiere de una cosa (en sentido jurídico privado), que por su conexión con el fin público, se sustrae al ordenamiento privado y queda sujeta al régimen que regula la específica función pública. En ese sentido, los bienes de dominio público cuentan con un régimen especial, no por su naturaleza, sino por su afectación al estatuto público. La destinación de un bien a un uso o servicio público se produce por ley. Como la sujeción ocurre respecto de bienes que están en el tráfico jurídico privado, supone una incidencia que lesiona el dominio privado e implica -en la mayoría de los casos- la necesidad de modificar la titularidad sobre los bienes para que el particular no se vea obligado a soportar un cambio radical de estatuto. Actualmente, la doctrina señala que la servicialidad de los bienes a un fin público puede producirse sin sacrificar su situación en el tráfico jurídico privado, porque basta con una delimitación jurídico pública del contenido de los derechos reales y su limitación.

Después de exponer el panorama general del régimen de la usucapión, es necesario señalar que debido a la incorporación de criterios doctrinarios a la jurisprudencia (sentencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia No.68 de las 14:55 horas del 17 de agosto de 1994) los requisitos que caracterizan ese instituto jurídico se han visto afectados al relacionarse con los conceptos de propiedad agraria, forestal y ecológica. En ese sentido, resulta importante sintetizar los elementos básicos que a nivel de doctrina y jurisprudencia se manejan en relación con esos temas, y que obligan al juez -en relación con la norma impugnada- a determinar en cada caso el tipo específico de acto posesorio que se ha ejercido en el fundo -que entra a formar parte del área silvestre protegida- que se pretende titular. Lo anterior con el objeto de que el juez tenga un criterio más amplio -que no se limite a la fecha de entrada en vigencia de la ley o el decreto ejecutivo que defina los límites de un área silvestre determinada- para establecer con mayor precisión el momento en que dichos bienes se convirtieron en inalienables e imprescriptibles, a los efectos de determinar si sobre ellos se ejerció la posesión ad usucapionem durante diez años anteriores a que adquirieran esa condición. Esta perspectiva de mayor amplitud que favorece la protección del patrimonio ambiental de la Nación, determina que cuando se pretenda titular -mediante el procedimiento de informaciones posesorias- un terreno ubicado dentro de un área silvestre protegida, la discusión no se reduzca al simple cálculo del tiempo que tiene una personas de haber ingresado a un inmueble en relación con la fecha en que se haya producido la declaratoria de área silvestre protegida, ya que -por un lado- deberá contemplarse a los efectos de acreditar la posesión ad usucapionem durante el plazo establecido en el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, los elementos que cada tipo específico de posesión contempla, y -por otro lado- la posible existencia de normas que de antaño declaraban inalienables esos terrenos, aún antes de su afectación específica al dominio público…” Ahora bien, el procedimiento contenido en la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, exige publicidad, mediante la publicación de un edicto en el Boletín Judicial, y prevé que se cite como partes a los colindantes de quien pretende titular el terreno, a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, si se trata de un fundo rural, con lo cual éstos pueden oponerse y defender sus derechos (artículo 5). Para tal efecto, éstos dispondrán de un mes a partir de la notificación para oponerse a las diligencias y la falta de apersonamiento o gestión de éstos no estorbará el procedimiento en ningún caso. Vencido el emplazamiento indicado en el artículo 5, de oficio o a solicitud de parte, el Juez convocará a una comparecencia que se efectuará en la finca que se desea inscribir, si ésta fuere rural y su medida excede de treinta hectáreas, pudiendo comisionar al efecto a otra autoridad judicial. No será necesaria esta diligencia cuando la finca fuere rural y no exceda de treinta hectáreas, o fuere urbana (artículo 9). Concluida la información, el Juez dará audiencia sobre el resultado de la misma, por el término de ocho días, a la Procuraduría General de la República, por medio de su representante, en el respectivo circuito judicial. Transcurrido aquél sin que hubiere contestación o presentada ésta, siendo satisfactoria y no habiendo oposición oportuna o en caso de que sea declarada infundada por resolución firme, el juez aprobará la información por auto que contenga la descripción del inmueble y mandará practicar, en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, la inscripción solicitada, sin perjuicio de tercero de mejor derecho, por medio de la correspondiente certificación de la resolución, una vez que esté firme (artículo 10). La propiedad que se adquiera por la presente ley, queda definitivamente consolidada para terceros a los tres años, los cuales se contarán a partir del día de la inscripción del respectivo título en el Registro Público, ya que se limita a ese plazo la prescripción negativa de la acción de terceros a quienes pueda afectar (artículo 16). En cualquier tiempo y antes de que transcurran los tres años del período de consolidación, si se demuestra que el título posesorio se ha levantado contra las leyes vigentes, el Juez podrá decretar en el expediente original, la nulidad absoluta del título y de su respectiva inscripción en el Registro, y librará la ejecutoria correspondiente para que esa Oficina cancele el asiento. Transcurrido el término de tres años de la inscripción del título, toda acción deberá decidirse en juicio declarativo (artículo 17). En consecuencia, mediante el cumplimiento de una serie de requisitos (artículo 1), entre los cuales destaca la demostración de posesión decenal a título de dueño en forma quieta, pública, ininterrumpida y de buena fe sobre un terreno sin inscribir, el poseedor puede adquirir el título requerido para que la propiedad sobre el inmueble que ha poseído en esas condiciones surta todos los efectos legales, siempre y cuando no se llegue a constatar que se pretende titular indebidamente terrenos baldíos nacionales o pertenecientes a cualquier institución del Estado, lo mismo que reservas forestales, parques nacionales o reservas biológicas (artículo 11). No obstante lo anterior, en el supuesto de que el inmueble al que se refiera la información esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser el titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre (artículos 7 y 11). Con base en todo lo expuesto, se procederá a realizar el análisis de los actos impugnados.

VIIo.- SOBRE EL EXAMEN DE VALIDEZ DE LAS CONDUCTAS IMPUGNADAS . Este Tribunal considera que los actos impugnados por la representación del Estado -a saber: el plano catastrado número Placa27732; la escritura número 108 del tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; la inscripción registral de la finca del partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 y las garantías hipotecarias constituidas sobre dicho inmueble durante el plazo legal de convalidación-, resultan sustancialmente contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, por las siguientes razones: 1) El inmueble objeto del proceso es un bien demanial que forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado. De conformidad con los estudios técnicos emitidos por el Programa de Regularización de Catastro y Registro, la División Catastral de la Subdirección del Registro Inmobiliario y la Dirección Regional del Área de Conservación Tempisque del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, este Tribunal ha tenido por acreditado, que el terreno inscrito a nombre de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. bajo matrícula Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, con plano catastrado número Placa27732, no sólo se encuentra ubicado en el área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre del cantón de Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, sino que también, forma parte del Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional (ver folios 17, 53 a 55, 57 a 62 del expediente judicial de la medida cautelar). Cabe resaltar que dicha circunstancia, era patente desde enero de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, fecha en la cual, el Topógrafo Asociado número 2694 levantó a nombre de Nombre141937 para efectos de un permiso de uso, el plano catastrado de ese terreno, no sólo porque el diagrama muestra que el inmueble se ubica dentro de la zona marítimo terrestre (ver folio 15 frente del expediente judicial de medida cautelar), sino también, porque el visado que emitió la Dirección General Forestal que consta al dorso de dicho plano catastrado, claramente indica que “…Con base en la ubicación que aparece en este plano a nombre de Nombre141938 el inmueble se ubica dentro del REFUGIO NACIONAL DE FAUNA SILVESTRE OSTIONAL, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la Ley No. 7317 del 19-10-92 y el Decreto Ejecutivo No. Nombre141939 de 08-10-93. Asimismo se informa que este visado no da autorización alguna para trámites de informaciones posesorias y corresponderá al Nombre141938 otorgar el respectivo permiso de uso. Se autoriza para efectos catastrales la inscripción de este plano…” (ver folios 15 vuelto del expediente judicial de medida cautelar). En consecuencia y de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad, este Tribunal estima que el inmueble inscrito bajo matrícula Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, con plano catastrado número Placa27732, constituye un bien de dominio público y por ende, inembargable, imprescriptible e inalienable, que forma parte no sólo del área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre del cantón de Santa Cruz, provincia de Guanacaste, sino también, del Patrimonio Natural del Estado . 2) Acerca de la creación del Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional y lo dispuesto en los artículos 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 1 y 7 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre. Si bien es cierto, el artículo 7 de la Ley sobre Informaciones Posesorias establece que cuando el inmueble al que se refiera las diligencias de información, esté comprendido dentro de un área silvestre protegida, cualquiera que sea su categoría de manejo, el titulante deberá demostrar ser el titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre; también lo es, que esta disposición no es aplicable al caso concreto, por los motivos que de seguido se exponen. Mediante el Transitorio I de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre (número 6919 del 7 de noviembre de 1973), se creó el Refugio de Vida Silvestre Ostional, el que originalmente comprendía el área de los doscientos metros de la zona marítimo-terrestre, que se extiende desde la margen derecha de la desembocadura del Río Nosara hasta la Punta India. Con posterioridad, mediante el artículo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo número 16531 del 18 de julio de 1985, se amplió el área del Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Ostional de la siguiente manera: “ Amplíase el Refugio Nacional de Fauna Silvestre Ostional con el área de 200 metros, contados a partir de la pleamar ordinaria, comprendida desde su margen izquierda de la desembocadura del río Nosara hasta la Punta Guiones ”, decreto que salió publicado en La Gaceta número 183 del veintiséis de septiembre de mil novecientos ochenta y cinco, y que empezó a regir a partir de su publicación. Finalmente, por Decreto Ejecutivo número 22551 del 14 de setiembre de 1993, se amplió nuevamente el área que comprende el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional, "...manera que en adelante comprenderá el área delimitada por los siguientes linderos, según las hojas cartográficas Cerro Brujo; 3046-11 y Garza- 3045-1, escala 1:50.000: Partiendo de Punta India, en las coordenada 222550 N NIE121 (Hoja Cerro Brujo) se toma el suroeste por la línea de mojone-que demarcan la zona pública, en la Zona Marítima Terrestre, hasta Punta Guiones .v coordenadas 210400 N NIE122 (Hoja Garza); se continúa al oeste Franco, 3 milla.-marítimas hasta el punto de coordenadas 210400 N y 347594.45 E; se sigue luego en dirección noroeste por una línea paralela a la costa y distante de la misma 3 millas marítimas, hasta el punto de coordenadas 218621.63 N y 342821.63 E; y a partir de este punto se continúa en rumbo N° 45° E hasta Punta India, origen de esta delimitación (...) Con el fin de ordenar la protección y aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales, el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Ostional estará constituido por los siguiente-sectores: a) El Sector Marino que comprende las aguas territoriales según la delimitación anterior, b) El Sector Ostional, que comprende el principal sitio de desove de la tortuga lora en la Playa Ostional, c) El Sector Humedal Estuarino que conforman las áreas de manglar y d) El Sector Guiones, que comprende la Playa Pelada y la Playa Guiones..."; dicho decreto salió publicado en La Gaceta número 193 del Dirección8322 , y que empezó a regir a partir de su publicación. Ahora bien, de la copia certificada del expediente judicial número 06-00595-0388-CI, se desprende que la empresa demandada adquirió de Nombre141940 , el derecho de posesión sobre el inmueble sin inscribir con plano catastrado número Placa27732, mediante escritura otorgada el veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis (folios 36 y 37 del expediente judicial) y que interpuso las diligencias de información posesoria ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, el tres de noviembre del dos mil dos mil seis (folios 38 a 40 del expediente judicial). En razón de lo anterior, y tomando en consideración que el Refugio de Vida Silvestre de Ostional, fue creado mediante Ley número 6919 del 7 de noviembre de 1973 y sus dos ampliaciones entraron a regir el veintiséis de setiembre de mil novecientos ochenta y cinco, y el ocho de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y tres, era necesario a efectos de aplicar lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 de la Ley sobre Informaciones Posesorias, que la empresa demandada demostrara que era la titular de los derechos legales sobre la posesión decenal del inmueble objeto de conflicto, ejercida por lo menos con diez años de antelación a la fecha de vigencia de la ley o decreto en que se creó esa área silvestre; requisito que no es posible cumplir en este caso, toda vez que los derechos de posesión le fueron traspasados a Nombre141941 . S.A., el veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis. Aunado a lo anterior, cabe resaltar que mediante la Ley número 6043 -que entró en vigencia el dieciséis de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y siete-, se declaró que la zona marítimo terrestre constituye parte del patrimonio nacional, que pertenece al Estado; que es inalienable e imprescriptible y que los terrenos allí ubicados no pueden ser objeto de informaciones posesorias y los particulares no podrán apropiarse de ellos ni legalizarlos a su nombre, por éste u otro medio (artículos 1 y 7 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre). Que en razón de lo anterior, el órgano jurisdiccional competente rechazará las diligencias de información posesoria si llegara a constatar que se pretende titular indebidamente baldíos nacionales o terrenos pertenecientes a cualquier institución del Estado, lo mismo que reservas forestales, parques nacionales o reservas biológicas (artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias). En este caso, se ha acreditado que el inmueble con plano catastrado número Placa27731, inscrito bajo matrícula Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, se encuentra ubicado en el área restringida de la zona marítimo terrestre del cantón de Santa Cruz (ver folios 15, 17, 53 a 55 del expediente judicial de la medida cautelar), razón por la cual, y de conformidad con las normas antes indicadas, tampoco era posible que la empresa demandada titulara dicho terreno por medio de las diligencias de información posesoria, tal y como se consignó en el visado del plano catastrado número G-256640-1995. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal estima que el inmueble con plano catastrado G-256640-1995, no podía ser objeto de titulación por medio de las diligencias de información posesoria, no sólo porque no cumple los requisitos de excepción previstos en el artículo 7 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, sino además, porque forma parte tanto de la zona marítimo terrestre del cantón de Santa Cruz como del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1, 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 261, 262, 277, 284 del Código Civil. 3) Sobre la inexistencia de una resolución final en las diligencias de información posesoria tramitadas en expediente 06-00595-0388-CI y la imposibilidad de inscribir el terreno con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995 en el Registro Público. De la certificación emitida por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, se desprende que si bien es cierto, la empresa demandada interpuso el tres de noviembre del dos mil seis, diligencias de información posesoria sobre el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995 (folios 38 a 40 del expediente judicial), también lo es, que por resolución de las nueve horas cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis, el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, le previno a la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. que –entre otros requisitos- debía aportar sin excepción alguna “… el plano catastrado CERTIFICADO por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, por medio del ente encargado, el cual dará fe de si el inmueble que se pretende titular se encuentra dentro o fuera de áreas silvestres protegidas…”, todo bajo apercibimiento de que hasta que no cumpliera todo lo ordenado, no se atenderían sus gestiones futuras. Que no obstante, dicha resolución fue notificada a la Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., a las nueve horas cuarenta y cuatro minutos del veintitrés de noviembre del dos mil seis, mediante el sistema de fax (ver folios 41 a 43 del expediente judicial), la demandada no procedió a cumplir dicha prevención, tal y como se desprende del auto de las catorce horas once minutos del trece de enero del dos mil seis, mediante el cual, el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz resolvió: “…según el estudio detallado de los autos, el presente asunto, se puede notar que tiene una prevención la cual se ventila a folio 9, misma que se dictó por este despacho a las nueve horas y cincuenta y dos minutos del veintiuno de noviembre del dos mil seis y a la fecha la misma no se ha podido disipar. Así las cosas, se deja (sic) efecto lo solicitado en el memorial supracitado y se ordena agregar a sus antecedentes sin mayor pronunciamiento…” (ver folio 45 del expediente judicial). En consecuencia, el procedimiento previsto en los artículos 5, 9 y 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, no se cumplió en este caso –tan es así, que ni se publicó el edicto en el Boletín Judicial, ni se comunicó a los interesados, a la Procuraduría General de la República o al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, la existencia de esas diligencias de información posesoria-, toda vez que la empresa demandada ni siquiera cumplió la prevención hecha por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, que constituía un requisito sine qua non para continuar con las diligencias de información posesoria del inmueble objeto del proceso. En razón de lo anterior, resulta improcedente que se haya inscrito en el Registro de la Propiedad Inmueble, a nombre de la empresa demandada, el terreno con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, no sólo porque se trata de un bien demanial que forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del patrimonio natural del Estado, sino porque, dicha inscripción tuvo como base la escritura número 108 emitida por el notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, el diecinueve de enero del dos mil siete (ver folios 23 a 25 el expediente judicial), mediante la cual, se protocolizaron dos resoluciones presuntamente dictadas por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, a saber: i) A las nueve horas del nueve de octubre del dos mil diez, en la que supuestamente dicho órgano jurisdiccional aprobó las diligencias de información posesoria promovidas por la Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., sobre el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995; ii) A las ocho horas del veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis, mediante la cual, el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz presuntamente le informa al Director del Registro que debe proceder con la inscripción a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., del terreno con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, en virtud de haberse aprobado las diligencias de información posesoria. En ese sentido, cabe destacar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, si el juez aprueba la información posesoria, dictará una resolución que contenga la descripción del inmueble y mandará practicar, en el Registro Público de la Propiedad, la inscripción solicitada, sin perjuicio de tercero de mejor derecho, por medio de la correspondiente certificación de la resolución, una vez que esté firme. En consecuencia, la inscripción de un inmueble por el procedimiento de información posesoria, se lleva a cabo por medio de la ejecutoria de la sentencia que apruebas esas diligencias y no por medio de protocolización notarial de dicha resolución, como sucedió en este caso, lo cual resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en los artículos 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias, 450 y 456 del Código Civil. Aunado a lo anterior, los datos contenidos en la escritura 108 del protocolo cuarto del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, no se corresponden a lo resuelto por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz en el expediente número 06-00595-0388-CI –que de conformidad con la certificación extendida por ese Despacho, es el único expediente de información posesoria que allí se ha tramitado a favor de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. (ver folios 30, 31y 49 del expediente judicial)-, no sólo porque las fechas de las resoluciones presuntamente dictadas por ese órgano jurisdiccional que se protocolizaron en dicha escritura, son anteriores al tres de noviembre del dos mil seis –fecha en que se plantearon las diligencias por parte de la demandada (ver folio 38 del expediente judicial)- y al veintiuno de noviembre de ese mismo año –fecha en que se dictó la prevención que no cumplió la empresa demandada (ver folios 41 a 42 del expediente judicial)-; sino también, porque hay una incongruencia en las fechas de las dos resoluciones protocolizadas, toda vez que el auto en que presuntamente se ordena al Registro la inscripción del inmueble –de las ocho horas del veintisiete de julio del 2006 (folio 23 del expediente judicial)-, es anterior a la resolución en que el Juzgado aprueba las diligencias de información posesoria, la que –según el dicho del notario- se dictó a las nueve horas del nueve de octubre del 2006 (ver folio 23 del expediente judicial). Es menester resaltar, que la escritura 108 que sirvió de base para la inscripción en el registro, también consigna otro dato que no se corresponde con la realidad, pues en dicho documento se indica que “…el edicto se publicó en el Boletín Judicial, expediente número cuarenta y dos, del tres de noviembre del dos mil seis…” (ver olio 25 del expediente judicial), no obstante, este Tribunal ha tenido por acreditado que ello no sucedió, no sólo porque las diligencias de información posesoria tramitadas ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, no llegaron a esa fase del procedimiento (ver folios 30 a 50 del expediente judicial), sino también, porque mediante oficio número PUB-225-09 del veintinueve de julio del dos mil nueve, el Encargado del Departamento de Publicaciones de la Imprenta Nacional, indica que: “…1) En el Boletín Judicial de fecha 3 de noviembre del año 2006, no existe publicación alguna emanada del Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz en relación a procesos posesorios a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., o a nombre del señor Nombre141932 . 2) El sistema de información registra únicamente una publicación a nombre de Ganadera Campo Bonito S.A., la cual se refiere a escritura publicada el día 15 de diciembre del 2005…” (ver folios 66 a 68 del expediente judicial). Por último, cabe resaltar que de la certificación número DAN-3223, emitida por la Jefa del Archivo Notarial a las ocho horas cuarenta y dos minutos del once de setiembre del dos mil nueve, se desprende que del folio 70 vuelto al 73 frente del tomo 4 del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, constan las escrituras número 106, 101 y 108 –respectivamente- y que el contenido de ésta última no se corresponde con la presentada al Diario del Registro, a las trece horas cuarenta minutos del quince de febrero del dos mil siete, y que consta al tomo 570, asiento 45185 (ver folios 53 a 58 del expediente judicial). En consecuencia, este Tribunal considera que existe una titulación de un bien de dominio público a favor de un particular, que resulta sustancialmente contraria al ordenamiento jurídico, no sólo porque se realizó mediante una escritura pública en la cual, el notario responsable dio fe de información falsa; sino también, porque las diligencias de información posesoria que le sirvieron de sustento –tramitadas en expediente número 06-000595-0388-CI ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz-, nunca fueron aprobadas, en razón de que el Despacho no las admitió para su curso, hasta tanto la empresa promovente no cumpliera la prevención que les fue notificada desde el veintitrés de noviembre del dos mil seis. En razón de lo anterior , este Tribunal estima que el plano catastrado número Placa27732; la escritura 108 del tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez; y el acto de inscripción de l inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995 bajo matrícula de folio real Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste , adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, por resulta r sustancialmente disconformes con lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 y 1 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 y 860 del Código Civil; 27 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público y 34, 43 y 55 del Reglamento del Registro Público. 4) Respecto a la constitución de hipotecas sobre el inmueble objeto del proceso durante el plazo de convalidación. Cabe recordar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 261 del Código Civil y 170 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, no serán embargables los bienes de titularidad pública destinados al uso y aprovechamiento común, como tampoco aquellos vinculados directamente con la presentación de servicios públicos de naturaleza esencial, o bien, que resulten indispensables o insustituibles para el cumplimiento de fines o servicios públicos. En razón de lo anterior y dado que el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-256640-1995, inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real Placa27729 del Partido de Guanacaste, constituye un bien de dominio público que forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre del cantón de Santa Cruz y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, resulta contrario a derecho que en el período comprendido entre el diecinueve de abril del dos mil siete y el veinticuatro de marzo del dos mil ocho, se hayan inscrito seis hipotecas de primer al sexto grado, que tienen como garantía el inmueble antes descrito, las cuales ya se encuentran vencidas, con vista en las siguientes citas: 570-60946-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; Placa27734 a nombre de Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 (ver folios 70 a 98 del expediente judicial; 11 a 13 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar). Cabe además destacar, que dichas hipotecas fueron inscritas durante el plazo de convalidación de tres años de la supuesta información posesoria sobre ese bien, que iniciaba el veintiséis de febrero del dos mil siete y vencía el veintiséis de febrero del dos mil diez (ver folio 11 del expediente judicial de la medida cautelar), que establece el artículo 16 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias. En ese sentido y dado que este Tribunal declaró la nulidad de los títulos que originaron la inscripción del inmueble sobre el cual se constituyeron dichas garantías hipotecarias, en consecuencia también se declara la nulidad absoluta de las hipotecas constituidas sobre el inmueble inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 del Partido de San José, con plano catastrado número Placa27735, otorgadas por escrituras número 205-74, tomo 74 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil siete, por el notario público José A. Solórzano Solórzano, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de primer grado a favor de Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598 , y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho; número 208, tomo 85 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas del cuatro de setiembre del dos mil siete, por el notario público David González Saborío, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de segundo grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600 y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho ; número 49, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las doce horas treinta minutos del dos de noviembre del dos mil siete, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de tercer grado a favor de Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad número CED111599, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el dos de noviembre del dos mil ocho ; número 80, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas treinta minutos del diez de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de cuarto grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número Placa27736, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el diez de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 92, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiuno de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de quinto grado a favor de Nombre141935 , cédula de identidad número CED111601, cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el veintiuno de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 133, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas cuarenta minutos del trece de marzo del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de sexto grado a favor de Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el quince de marzo del dos mil nueve . Ello por cuanto, resultan sustancialmente contrarias a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 y 1 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 y 860 del Código Civil; 27 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público y 34, 43 y 55 del Reglamento del Registro Público . En razón de lo anterior y conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 456 y 472 inciso 2) del Código Civil, se ordena la cancelación de las siguientes citas de gravamen hipotecario: 570-60946-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 s, dejando a salvo los derechos de los acreedores hipotecarios de buena fe para reclamar al otorgante de esas garantías los daños y perjuicios que les pueda ocasionar, ello conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1034, 1035, 1037 y 1038 del Código Civil. 5) Testimonio de piezas al Ministerio Público. Este Tribunal ha tenido por acreditado, que existe una titulación de un bien de dominio público a favor de un particular, que resulta sustancialmente contraria al ordenamiento jurídico, no sólo porque se realizó mediante una escritura pública en la cual, el notario responsable dio fe de información falsa; sino también, porque las diligencias de información posesoria que le sirvieron de sustento –tramitadas en expediente número 06-000595-0388-CI ante el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz-, nunca fueron aprobadas, en razón de que el Despacho no las admitió para su curso, hasta tanto la empresa promovente no cumpliera la prevención que les fue notificada desde el veintitrés de noviembre del dos mil seis. Si bien es cierto, que por escrito del siete de enero del dos mil diez, dirigido a la Procuradora Adjunta Gloria Solano Martínez, el representante legal de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., indicó: “…No es sino, con el proceso de conocimiento planteado por su representada, que tengo conocimiento de todas (sic) los ilícitos y falsedades con las que se inscribió el bien inmueble inscrito a favor de mi representada, p u es si bien compré la posesión del inmueble; la vendedora y su esposo, fueron quienes se encargaron de los trámites pertinentes a fin de dar con lugar la información posesoria (…) , también lo es que, dichas manifestaciones no obstan para que este Tribunal testimonie piezas al Ministerio Público, dada la gravedad de los hechos objetos de esta demanda, y la posible responsabilidad penal que puedan generar en contra de los diferentes sujetos que participaron en el otorgamiento de la escritura 108 del protocolo cuarto del notario público Brenes Álvarez y en la inscripción tanto del inmueble con plano catastrado número Placa27732 bajo matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, como de las seis hipotecas constituidas sobre dicho terreno, bajo citas Placa27737 a nombre de Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 . En razón de lo anterior, se ordena testimoniar piezas al Ministerio Público, para lo de su cargo. 6) Sobre la nulidad de los actos impugnados. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal considera que los actos impugnados -a saber: el plano catastrado número Placa27732; la escritura número 108 del tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez ; la inscripción registral de la finca del partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 y las garantías hipotecarias constituidas sobre dicho inmueble durante el plazo legal de convalidación-, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, por ser sustancialmente contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 y 1 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 y 860 del Código Civil; 27 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público y 34, 43 y 55 del Reglamento del Registro Público. En consecuencia: a ) Se declara que el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-254460-1995, inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real Placa27729 del Partido de Guanacaste, constituye un bien de dominio público que resulta inembargable, imprescriptible, inalienable y está fuera del comercio de los hombres , que está comprendido en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional y forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado . b ) Se declara la nulidad absoluta del plano catastrado número G.256640-1995, levantado en enero de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, por el Topógrafo Asociado número 2694, a nombre de Nombre141937 , cédula de identidad número CED111603, para efectos de un permiso de uso sobre el inmueble situado en Ostional, Dirección17194 , , provincia Guanacaste ; c) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de la escritura pública No. 108 del protocolo cuarto otorgada ante e l notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, a las nueve horas quince minutos el diecinueve de enero del dos mil siete , en tanto protocolizó las presuntas resoluciones dictadas por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, a las ocho horas del veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis, y de las nueve horas del nueve de octubre del dos mil seis, en las diligencias de información posesoria promovidas por la Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., a fin de titular el inmueble con plano catastrado número Placa27738, ubicado en el Dirección17197 , , . Deberá comunicarse al Archivo Nacional y al Registro Nacional las anulaciones de los instrumentos notariales referidos, a efectos de las anotaciones marginales en la matriz de los protocolos respectivos y los testimonios que se hubieran presentado al Registro Nacional. d ) Se declara que la finca inscrita bajo el Sistema de Folio Real matrícula número Placa27728 fue inscrita técnica y jurídicamente en forma indebida a favor de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., cédula jurídica número CED111597 . e ) Se anulan los asientos registrales de inscripción de la finca inscrita bajo el Sistema de Folio Real matrícula No. Placa27728 , emitido por el Registro Nacional. f) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de las hipotecas constituidas sobre el inmueble inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 del Partido de San José, con plano catastrado número Placa27735, otorgadas por escrituras número 205-74, tomo 74 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil siete, por el notario público José A. Solórzano Solórzano, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de primer grado a favor de Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598 , y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho; número 208, tomo 85 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas del cuatro de setiembre del dos mil siete, por el notario público David González Saborío, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de segundo grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600 y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho ; número 49, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las doce horas treinta minutos del dos de noviembre del dos mil siete, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de tercer grado a favor de Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad número CED111599, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el dos de noviembre del dos mil ocho ; número 80, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas treinta minutos del diez de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de cuarto grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el diez de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 92, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiuno de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de quinto grado a favor de Nombre141935 , cédula de identidad número CED111601, cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el veintiuno de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 133, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas cuarenta minutos del trece de marzo del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de sexto grado a favor de Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el quince de marzo del dos mil nueve . Deberá comunicarse al Archivo Nacional y al Registro Nacional las anulaciones de los instrumentos notariales referidos, a efectos de las anotaciones marginales en la matriz de los protocolos respectivos y los testimonios que se hubieran presentado al Registro Nacional . g) Se ordena la cancelación de las siguientes citas de gravamen hipotecario: 570-60946-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 s, dejando a salvo los derechos de los acreedores hipotecarios de buena fe para reclamar al otorgante de esas garantías los daños y perjuicios que les pueda ocasionar, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1034, 1035, 1037 y 1038 del Código Civil; h) Se ordena testimoniar piezas al Ministerio Público para lo de su cargo.

VIIIo.- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS DE FONDO. Este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que el Estado cuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este proceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que es el titular del bien de dominio público objeto de este proceso, y a quién le corresponde ejercer las acciones tendentes a reinvindicar, fiscalizar y tutelar los bienes que forman parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 50 de la Constitución Política, 1 y 4 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 de la Ley Forestal, 32 y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, 5 y 10 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 3.i de la Ley Orgánica de la Procuraduría General de la República . Además, la acción se dirige correctamente contra la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A. , tal y como lo dispone el artículo 12 inciso 3 ) del citado Código, dado que el inmueble objeto del proceso, fue titulado ilegítimamente a favor de dicha persona jurídica, quién a su vez constituyó seis hipotecas sobre dicho terreno a favor de Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598 , Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600 , Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad número CED111599 ; Nombre141935 , cédula de identidad número CED111601 , Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602 . Por otra parte, el interés, se mantiene actual, en el tanto la conducta impugnada sigue surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica de la demandante y requiere de una resolución jurisdiccional que la resuelva , toda vez que tratándose de recuperación y tutela de bienes de dominio público, no corren plazos de prescripción ni caducidad, siendo que las acciones con las que cuenta el Estado para su efectiva recuperación son imprescriptibles. Ello es así por las características particulares de este tipo de bienes. Así lo establecen expresamente los artículos 1 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre, 14 de la Ley Forestal, y el artículo 34 inciso 2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Finalmente, encuentra este órgano colegiado que no existe falta de derecho y en consecuencia, se declara con lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta por el Estado contra Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., y como terceros interesados Nombre141933 , Nombre141934 , Nombre122580 , Nombre141935 , Nombre141936 , ya que de conformidad con todo lo expuesto en los considerandos IV. V. VI y VII de esta sentencia, este Tribunal concluye los actos impugnados -a saber: el plano catastrado número Placa27732; la escritura número 108 del tomo cuarto del protocolo del notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez ; la inscripción registral de la finca del partido de Guanacaste, matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 y las garantías hipotecarias constituidas sobre dicho inmueble durante el plazo legal de convalidación-, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, por ser sustancialmente contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 11 y 50 de la Constitución Política; 11, 131, 132, 133, 158, y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 7, 9, 11, y 73 de la Ley sobre la Zona Marítimo Terrestre; 13 y 14 de la Ley Forestal; 32 y 40 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente; 58 de la Ley de Biodiversidad; 5, 7, 9, 10 y 1 1 de la Ley de Informaciones Posesorias; 261, 262, 277, 284, 456, 856 y 860 del Código Civil; 27 de la Ley de Inscripción de Documentos en el Registro Público y 34, 43 y 55 del Reglamento del Registro Público.

IXo.- SOBRE EL MANTENIMIENTO DE LA MEDIDA CAUTELAR DISPUESTA EN RESOLUCIÓN ORAL NÚMERO 2433 -2010 DEL 03 - 11 -2009. Si bien es cierto, por resolución número 2433 -20 09 dictada de manera oral el tres de noviembre del dos mil nueve , el Juez Tramitador resolvió mantener las medidas provisionales dictadas por este despacho en resolución número 1468-2009 y adicionalmente, "... se le orden a a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz la realización de una inspección cada quince días al vienen cuestión, para la verificación en concreto del punto tercero de la medida cautelar, con la obligación de presentar un informe dentro de los tres días siguientes a la realización de dicha inspección, a la jueza ejecutora del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Además se acogen las solicitudes formuladas por el Estado y en consecuencia se ordena al MINAE la suspensión de cualquier trámite administrativo tendiente a otorgar algún derecho sobre la finca Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, asimismo, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz no otorgar permisos de construcción en el inmueble matrícula Placa27729 hasta tanto no se resuelva el proceso principal.” (ver folios 75 y 76 del expediente judicial de medida cautelar); también lo es, que en aplicación de lo dispuesto en el inciso 1) del artículo 23 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, y con la finalidad de proteger el objeto de este proceso mientras esta resolución estimatoria adquiere firmeza, se ordena mantener las medidas cautelares ordenadas por el Juez Tramitador de este Tribunal, mediante resolución número 2433 -200 9 dictada de manera oral el tres de noviembre del dos mil nueve , que consisten en: "... 1. La anotación en el Registro Nacional del presente proceso al margen del asiento de inscripción de la finca número 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste. 2. La inmovilización registral de la finca número 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste. 3. Se le ordena a la empresa propietaria del bien, abstenerse de construir, deslindar con cercas o carriles y realizar cualquier tipo de actividad que implique la alteración de las condiciones actuales del inmueble. Adicionalmente, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz la realización de una inspección cada quince días al vienen cuestión, para la verificación en concreto del punto tercero de la medida cautelar, con la obligación de presentar un informe dentro de los tres días siguientes a la realización de dicha inspección, a la jueza ejecutora del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Además se acogen las solicitudes formuladas por el Estado y en consecuencia se ordena al MINAE la suspensión de cualquier trámite administrativo tendiente a otorgar algún derecho sobre la finca Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste, asimismo, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz no otorgar permisos de construcción en el inmueble matrícula Placa27729 ..", modificándolas únicamente en cuanto al plazo de vigencia, el cual, se extenderá hasta tanto esta sentencia no adquiera firmeza.

X o.- SOBRE COSTAS. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encuentra este órgano colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido. Por ende, se imponen ambas costas a la parte demandada vencida, así como sus respectivos intereses, contados a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia y hasta su efectivo pago, extremos que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia.

POR TANTO.

Se declara con lugar la demanda interpuesta por el Estado contra la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo no concedido expresamente. En consecuencia: 1 ) Se declara que el inmueble con plano catastrado número G-254460-1995, inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real Placa27729 del Partido de Guanacaste, constituye un bien de dominio público que resulta inembargable, imprescriptible, inalienable y está fuera del comercio de los hombres , que está comprendido en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Ostional y forma parte de la zona marítimo terrestre y del Patrimonio Natural del Estado . 2 ) Se declara la nulidad absoluta del plano catastrado número G.256640-1995, levantado en enero de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, por el Topógrafo Asociado número 2694, a nombre de Nombre141937 , cédula de identidad número CED111603, para efectos de un permiso de uso sobre el inmueble situado en Ostional, Dirección17194 , , provincia Guanacaste ; 3) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de la escritura pública No. 108 del protocolo cuarto otorgada ante e l notario público Álvaro Jovino Brenes Álvarez, a las nueve horas quince minutos el diecinueve de enero del dos mil siete , en tanto protocolizó las presuntas resoluciones dictadas por el Juzgado Civil de Santa Cruz, a las ocho horas del veintisiete de julio del dos mil seis, y de las nueve horas del nueve de octubre del dos mil seis, en las diligencias de información posesoria promovidas por la Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., a fin de titular el inmueble con plano catastrado número Placa27738, ubicado en el Dirección17197 , , . Deberá comunicarse al Archivo Nacional y al Registro Nacional las anulaciones de los instrumentos notariales referidos, a efectos de las anotaciones marginales en la matriz de los protocolos respectivos y los testimonios que se hubieran presentado al Registro Nacional. 4 ) Se declara que la finca inscrita bajo el Sistema de Folio Real matrícula número Placa27728 fue inscrita técnica y jurídicamente en forma indebida a favor de la empresa Ganadera Campo Bonito O.R.M. S.A., cédula jurídica número CED111597 . 5 ) Se anulan los asientos registrales de inscripción de la finca inscrita bajo el Sistema de Folio Real matrícula No. Placa27728 , emitido por el Registro Nacional. 6) Se declara la nulidad absoluta de las hipotecas constituidas sobre el inmueble inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real número Placa27729 del Partido de San José, con plano catastrado número G-266640-1995, otorgadas por escrituras número 205-74, tomo 74 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil siete, por el notario público José A. Solórzano Solórzano, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de primer grado a favor de Nombre141933 , cédula de identidad número CED111598 , y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho; número 208, tomo 85 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas del cuatro de setiembre del dos mil siete, por el notario público David González Saborío, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de segundo grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600 y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el cuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho ; número 49, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las doce horas treinta minutos del dos de noviembre del dos mil siete, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de tercer grado a favor de Nombre122580 , cédula de identidad número CED111599, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el dos de noviembre del dos mil ocho ; número 80, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las once horas treinta minutos del diez de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de cuarto grado a favor de Nombre141934 , cédula de identidad número CED111600, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el diez de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 92, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas del veintiuno de enero del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de quinto grado a favor de Nombre141935 , cédula de identidad número CED111601, cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el veintiuno de enero del dos mil nueve ; número 133, tomo 24 del protocolo, otorgada a las quince horas cuarenta minutos del trece de marzo del dos mil ocho, por la notaria pública María González Campos, mediante la cual, se constituyó hipoteca de sexto grado a favor de Nombre141936 , cédula de identidad número CED111602, y cuyo plazo de vigencia expiraba el quince de marzo del dos mil nueve . Deberá comunicarse al Archivo Nacional y al Registro Nacional las anulaciones de los instrumentos notariales referidos, a efectos de las anotaciones marginales en la matriz de los protocolos respectivos y los testimonios que se hubieran presentado al Registro Nacional . 7) Se ordena la cancelación de las siguientes citas de gravamen hipotecario: 570-60946-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141933 ; 572-85988-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 573-64067-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre122580 ; 574-36041-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141934 ; 574-49696-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141935 ; 575-20496-01-0001-001 a nombre de Nombre141936 s, dejando a salvo los derechos de los acreedores hipotecarios de buena fe para reclamar al otorgante de esas garantías los daños y perjuicios que les pueda ocasionar, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 1034, 1035, 1037 y 1038 del Código Civil; 8) Se ordena testimoniar piezas al Ministerio Público para lo de su cargo; 9) S e ordena mantener las medidas cautelares ordenadas por el Juez Tramitador de este Tribunal, mediante resolución número 2433 -200 9 dictada de manera oral el tres de noviembre del dos mil nueve , que consisten en: "... 1. La anotación en el Registro Nacional del presente proceso al margen del asiento de inscripción de la finca número Placa27729 del partido de Guanacaste. 2. La inmovilización registral de la finca número 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste. 3. Se le ordena a la empresa propietaria del bien, abstenerse de construir, deslindar con cercas o carriles y realizar cualquier tipo de actividad que implique la alteración de las condiciones actuales del inmueble. Adicionalmente, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz la realización de una inspección cada quince días al vienen cuestión, para la verificación en concreto del punto tercero de la medida cautelar, con la obligación de presentar un informe dentro de los tres días siguientes a la realización de dicha inspección, a la jueza ejecutora del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Además se acogen las solicitudes formuladas por el Estado y en consecuencia se ordena al MINAE la suspensión de cualquier trámite administrativo tendiente a otorgar algún derecho sobre la finca 155180-000 del partido de Guanacaste, asimismo, se le ordena a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz no otorgar permisos de construcción en el inmueble matrícula Placa27729 ..", modificándolas únicamente en cuanto al plazo de vigencia, el cual, se extenderá hasta tanto esta sentencia no adquiera firmeza ; 10) Se condena a la empresa demandada, al pago de ambas costas, así como sus respectivos intereses, contados a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia y hasta su efectivo pago, extremos que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia.

Nombre102152 José Roberto Garita Navarro Otto González Vílchez PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTOR: EL ESTADO DEMANDADOS: GANADERÍA CAMPO BONITO O.R.M. S.A.